Higher Education, Technology, and A Growing Social Anxiety

The Era We Are In

We are living in a neoliberal/libertarian era filled with technological change, emotional and behavioral change, and social change. An era resulting in alienation (disconnection/isolation) for the working class and anomie (lawlessness) among elites and those who serve them. We are simultaneously moving forward with technology and backward with human values and principles. Elites are reestablishing a more brutal world, hearkening back to previous centuries--a world the Higher Education Inquirer has been observing and documenting since 2016. No wonder folks of the working class and middle class are anxious. 

Manufactured College Mania

For years, authorities such as the New York Federal Reserve expressed the notion (or perhaps myth) that higher education was an imperative for young folks. They said that the wealth premium for college graduates was a million dollars over the course of a lifetime--ignoring the fact that a large percentage of people who started college never graduated--and that tens of millions of consumers and their families were drowning in student loan debt. 

2U, Guild Education, and a number of online robocolleges reflected the neoliberal promise of higher education and online technology to improve social mobility.  The mainstream media were largely complicit with these higher ed schemes. 

2U brought advanced degrees and certificates to the masses, using brand names such as Harvard, MIT, Yale, USC, University of North Carolina, and the University of Texas to promote the expensive credentials that did not work for many consumers. 

Guild Education brought educational opportunities to folks at Walmart, Target, Macy's and other Fortune 500 companies who would be replacing their workers with robotics, AI, and other technologies. But the educational opportunities were for credentials from subprime online schools like Purdue University Global. Few workers took the bait. 

As 2U files for bankruptcy, it leaves a number of debt holders holding the bag, including more than $500M to Wilmington Trust, and $30M to other vendors and clients, including Guild Education, and a number of elite universities. Guild Education is still alive, but like 2U, has had to fire a quarter of its workers, even downsizing its name to Guild, as investor money dries up. It continues to spend money on its image, as a Team USA sponsor.    

The online robocolleges (including Liberty University, Grand Canyon University, University of Phoenix, Purdue University Global, and University of Arizona Global)  brought adult education and hope to the masses, especially those who were underemployed. In many cases, it was false hope, as they also brought insurmountable student debt to American consumers. Billions and billions in debt that cannot be repaid, now considered toxic assets to the US government. 

Along the way there have been important detractors in popular culture, especially on the right. Conservative radio celebrity Dave Ramsey, railed against irresponsible folks carrying lots of debt, including student loan debt. He was not wrong, but he did not implicate those who preyed on student consumers. On the left, the Debt Collective also railed against student loan debt, long before the right, but they were often ignored or marginalized. 

Adapting to a Brutal System

The system  works for elites and some of those who serve them, but not for others, even some of the middle class. Good jobs once at the end of the education pipeline have been replaced by 12-hour shifts, 60 hour work weeks, bullsh*t jobs, and gig work. 

Working-class Americans are living shorter lives, lives in some cases made worse not so much by lack of education, but by the destruction of union jobs, and by social media, and other intended and unintended consequences of technology and neoliberalism. Millions of folks, working class and some middle class, who have invested in higher education and have overwhelming debt and fading job prospects, feel like they have been lied to.

We also have lives made more sedentary and solitary by technology. Lives made more hectic and less tolerable. Inequality making lives too easy for those with privilege and lives too difficult for the working class to manage. Lives managed by having fewer relationships and fewer children. Many smartly choosing not to bring children into this new world. All of this manufactured by technology and human greed.  

The College Dream is Over...for the Working Class

There are two competing messages about higher education: the first that college brings opportunity and wealth and the second, that higher education may bring debt and misery. The truth is, these different messages are meant for two groups: pushing brand name schools and student loans for the most ambitious middle class/working class and a lesser form of education for the struggling working class. 

In 2020, Gary Roth said that the college dream was over. Yet the socially manufactured college mania continues, flooding the internet with ads for college and college loans, as social realities point to a future with fewer good and meaningful jobs even for those with degrees. Higher education will continue to work for some, but should every consumer, especially among the struggling working class, believe the message is for them? 

Related links:

More than half of college grads are stuck in jobs that don't require degrees (msn.com)

AI-ROBOT CAPITALISTS WILL DESTROY THE HUMAN ECONOMY (Randall Collins)

Edtech Meltdown 

Guild Education: Enablers of Anti-Union Corporations and Subprime College Programs

2U Declares Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Will Anyone Else Name All The Elite Universities That Were Complicit?

College Mania!: An Open Letter to the NY Fed (2019)

"Let's all pretend we couldn't see it coming": The US Working-Class Depression (2020)

The College Dream is Over (Gary Roth, 2020)

What caused 70 US universities to arrest protesting students while many more did not?

Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that about 3100 people had been arrested at pro-Palestinian campus protests across the US, noting that 70 schools had arrested or detained people. In addition to arrests, a varying degree of force has been used, including the use of targeted police surveillance, tear gas, and batons. 

After those arrests, some schools expelled those protesting students, banned them from campuses, and denied them degrees. Schools also established more onerous policies to stop occupations and other forms of peaceful protest. A few listened to the demands of their students, which included the divestment of funds related to Israel's violent occupation of Palestine. 

What can students, teachers, and other university workers learn from these administrative policies and crackdowns? The first thing is to find out what data are out there, and then what information is missing, and perhaps deliberately withheld.

Documenting Campus Crackdowns and Use of Force

The NY Times noted mass arrests/detentions at UCLA (271), Columbia (217), City College of New York (173), University of Texas, Austin (136), UMass Amherst (133), SUNY New Paltz (132), UC Santa Cruz (124), Emerson College (118), Washington University in Saint Louis (100), Northeastern (98), University of Southern California (93), Dartmouth College (89), Virginia Tech (82), Arizona State University (72), SUNY Purchase (68), Art Institute of Chicago (68), UC San Diego (64), Cal Poly Humboldt (60), Indiana University (57), Yale University (52), Fashion Institute of Technology (50), New School (43), Auraria Campus in Denver (40), Ohio State University (38), NYU (37), Portland State University (37), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, (36), University of Pennsylvania (33), George Washington University (33), Stony Brook University (39), Emory University (28), University of Virginia (27), Tulane University (26), and University of New Mexico (16). In many cases, court charges were dropped but many students faced being barred from campuses or having their diplomas withheld.

The Crowd Counting Consortium at Harvard University's Kennedy School has also been keeping data on US protests and their outcomes from social media, noting that "protest participants have been injured by police or counter-protesters — sometimes severely — about as often as protesters have caused property damage, much of which has been limited to graffiti." Their interactive dashboard is here.  

According to a Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) database, out of 258 US universities that held protests, only 60 schools resorted to arrests.* Why did these schools, many name-brand schools, use arrests (and other forms of threats and coercion) as a tactic while others did not? A number of states reported no arrests, particularly in the US North, South, and West.

Analyzing the Data For Good Reasons

There appear to be few obvious answers (and measurable variables) to accurately explain this multi-layered phenomenon, something the media have largely ignored. But that does not mean that this cannot be explained to a better extent than the US media have explained it.

It's tempting to look at a few interesting data points (e.g. according to FIRE, Cornell University and Harvard did not have arrests, and neither did Baylor, Liberty University, and Hillsdale College. Six University of California schools had arrests but three did not. And all of the schools that came before the US House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee examining antisemitism (Harvard, Penn, MIT) had arrests after their appearances. The Arizona House had similar hearings in 2023 and 2024 regarding antisemitism and their two biggest schools, Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, had arrests.

Missing Data and Analysis

What else can we notice in this pattern about the administrations involved, the trustees, major donors, or the student body? How much pressure was there from major donors and trustees and can this be quantified? Anecdotally, there were a few public reports from wealthy donors who were unhappy with the protests. Who were those 3100 or so students and teachers who were arrested and what if any affiliations did they have? How many of the students who were arrested Jewish, and what side were they on? How many of these schools with arrests had chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Students Supporting Israel? How many schools with these student interest groups did not resort to arrests?

How much communication and coordination was there within schools and among schools, both by administrations and student interest groups? What other possible differences were there between the arrest group and the non-arrest group and are they measurable?

What other dependent variables besides arrests could be or should be be measured (e.g. convictions, fines and sentences, students expelled or banned from campus)? What will become of those who were arrested? Will they be part of a threat database? Will this interfere with their futures beyond higher education? Is it possible to come up with a path analysis or networking models of these events, to include what preceded the arrests and what followed? And what becomes of the few universities that operate more like fortresses today than ivory towers? How soon will they return to normal?


Arrest Group (Source: FIRE)*

4 Arizona State University Yes
8 Barnard College Yes
41 Columbia University Yes
46 Dartmouth College Yes
57 Emory University Yes
59 Florida State University Yes
60 Fordham University Yes
64 George Washington University Yes
78 Indiana University Yes
94 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yes
105 New Mexico State University Yes
106 New York University Yes
110 Northeastern University Yes
111 Northern Arizona University Yes
112 Northwestern University Yes
115 Ohio State University Yes
123 Portland State University Yes
124 Princeton University Yes
140 Stanford University Yes
142 Stony Brook University Yes
155 Tulane University Yes
156 University at Buffalo Yes
161 University of Arizona Yes
163 University of California, Berkeley Yes
165 University of California, Irvine Yes
166 University of California, Los Angeles Yes
169 University of California, San Diego Yes
170 University of California, Santa Barbara Yes
171 University of California, Santa Cruz Yes
176 University of Colorado, Denver Yes
177 University of Connecticut Yes
181 University of Florida Yes
182 University of Georgia Yes
184 University of Houston Yes
187 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Yes
189 University of Kansas Yes
194 University of Massachusetts Yes
197 University of Michigan Yes
198 University of Minnesota Yes
206 University of New Hampshire Yes
207 University of New Mexico Yes
208 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Yes
209 University of North Carolina, Charlotte Yes
212 University of Notre Dame Yes
215 University of Pennsylvania Yes
216 University of Pittsburgh Yes
220 University of South Carolina Yes
221 University of South Florida Yes
222 University of Southern California Yes
225 University of Texas, Austin Yes
226 University of Texas, Dallas Yes
231 University of Utah Yes
233 University of Virginia Yes
236 University of Wisconsin, Madison Yes
242 Virginia Commonwealth University Yes
243 Virginia Tech University Yes
247 Washington University in St Louis Yes
248 Wayne State University Yes
257 Yale University Yes

Non-arrest Group (Source: FIRE)*

1 American University No
2 Amherst College No
3 Appalachian State University No
5 Arkansas State University No
6 Auburn University No
7 Bard College No
9 Bates College No
10 Baylor University No
11 Berea College No
12 Binghamton University No
13 Boise State University No
14 Boston College No
15 Boston University No
16 Bowdoin College No
17 Bowling Green State University No
18 Brandeis University No
19 Brigham Young University No
20 Brown University No*
21 Bucknell University No
22 California Institute of Technology No
23 California Polytechnic State University No
24 California State University, Fresno No
25 California State University, Los Angeles No
26 Carleton College No
27 Carnegie Mellon University No
28 Case Western Reserve University No
29 Central Michigan University No
30 Chapman University No
31 Claremont McKenna College No
32 Clark University No
33 Clarkson University No
34 Clemson University No
35 Colby College No
36 Colgate University No
37 College of Charleston No
38 Colorado College No
39 Colorado School of Mines No
40 Colorado State University No
42 Connecticut College No
43 Cornell University No
44 Creighton University No
45 Dakota State University No
47 Davidson College No
48 Denison University No
49 DePaul University No
50 DePauw University No
51 Drexel University No
52 Duke University No
53 Duquesne University No
54 East Carolina University No
55 Eastern Kentucky University No
56 Eastern Michigan University No
58 Florida International University No
61 Franklin and Marshall College No
62 Furman University No
63 George Mason University No
65 Georgetown University No
66 Georgia Institute of Technology No
67 Georgia State University No
68 Gettysburg College No
69 Grinnell College No
70 Hamilton College No
71 Harvard University No*
72 Harvey Mudd College No
73 Haverford College No
74 Hillsdale College No
75 Howard University No
76 Illinois Institute of Technology No
77 Illinois State University No
79 Indiana University Purdue University No
80 Iowa State University No
81 James Madison University No
82 Johns Hopkins University No
83 Kansas State University No
84 Kent State University No
85 Kenyon College No
86 Knox College No
87 Lafayette College No
88 Lehigh University No
89 Liberty University No
90 Louisiana State University No
91 Loyola University, Chicago No
92 Macalester College No
93 Marquette University No
95 Miami University No
96 Michigan State University No
97 Michigan Technological University No
98 Middlebury College No
99 Mississippi State University No
100 Missouri State University No
101 Montana State University No
102 Montclair State University No
103 Mount Holyoke College No
104 New Jersey Institute of Technology No
107 North Carolina State University No
108 North Dakota State University No
109 Northeastern Illinois University No
113 Oberlin College No
114 Occidental College No
116 Ohio University No
117 Oklahoma State University No
118 Oregon State University No
119 Pennsylvania State University No
120 Pepperdine University No
121 Pitzer College No
122 Pomona College No
125 Purdue University No
126 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute No
127 Rice University No
128 Rowan University No
129 Rutgers University No
130 Saint Louis University No
131 San Diego State University No
132 San Jose State University No
133 Santa Clara University No
134 Scripps College No
135 Skidmore College No
136 Smith College No
137 Southern Illinois University, Carbondale No
138 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville No
139 Southern Methodist University No
141 Stevens Institute of Technology No
143 SUNY at Albany No
144 SUNY College at Geneseo No
145 Swarthmore College No
146 Syracuse University No
147 Temple University No
148 Texas A&M University No
149 Texas State University No
150 Texas Tech University No
151 The College of William and Mary No
152 Towson University No
153 Trinity College No
154 Tufts University No
157 University of Alabama, Birmingham No
158 University of Alabama, Huntsville No
159 University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa No
160 University of Alaska No
162 University of Arkansas No
164 University of California, Davis No
167 University of California, Merced No
168 University of California, Riverside No
172 University of Central Florida No
173 University of Chicago No
174 University of Cincinnati No
175 University of Colorado, Boulder No
178 University of Dayton No
179 University of Delaware No
180 University of Denver No
183 University of Hawaii No
185 University of Idaho No
186 University of Illinois, Chicago No
188 University of Iowa No
190 University of Kentucky No
191 University of Louisville No
192 University of Maine No
193 University of Maryland No
195 University of Memphis No
196 University of Miami No
199 University of Mississippi No
200 University of Missouri, Columbia No
201 University of Missouri, Kansas City No
202 University of Missouri, St Louis No
203 University of Nebraska No
204 University of Nevada, Las Vegas No
205 University of Nevada, Reno No
210 University of North Carolina, Greensboro No
211 University of North Texas No
213 University of Oklahoma No
214 University of Oregon No
217 University of Rhode Island No
218 University of Rochester No
219 University of San Francisco No
223 University of Tennessee No
224 University of Texas, Arlington No
227 University of Texas, El Paso No
228 University of Texas, San Antonio No
229 University of Toledo No
230 University of Tulsa No
232 University of Vermont No
234 University of Washington No
235 University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire No
237 University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee No
238 University of Wyoming No
239 Utah State University No
240 Vanderbilt University No
241 Vassar College No
244 Wake Forest University No
245 Washington and Lee University No
246 Washington State University No
249 Wellesley College No
250 Wesleyan University No
251 West Virginia University No
252 Western Michigan University No
253 Wheaton College No
254 Williams College No
255 Worcester Polytechnic Institute No
256 Wright State University No 

*Media sources indicate that in 2023, 2 graduate students were arrested at Harvard, and more than 40 people were arrested at Brown University. 

Related links:

Campus Protests, Campus Safety, and the Student Imagination 

Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)

Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance

Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses

Dangerous Spaces: Sexual Assault and Other Forms of Violence On and Off Campus

One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education

A People's History of Higher Education in the US?

Letter to an incoming freshman

Ambow's HybriU. Is any of this real?

Ambow Education is at it again, pumping up its stock with another edtech business deal. This time, they sent out a press release that a Singapore company called Inspiring Futures has reached a $1.3M deal for licensing Ambow's 3D learning platform HybriU. Shares of AMBO soared more than 200 percent on the news. In April, Ambow appeared at the ASU+GSV conference to pitch its latest technology. 

 

The Ambow Sales Pitch for HybriU 

"HybriU is currently the only available 5-in-1 total solution. It seamlessly integrates AI—empowering five key domains: teaching, learning, connectivity, recording, and management—along with lecture capture, immersive technology, and a comprehensive management platform designed specifically for the education sector. HybriU delivers a unified learning experience that transcends the boundaries of both online and offline education, bridges language and regional divides, and connects academia with industry."

"HybriU's cutting-edge 3D solution includes 3D signal capture, recording, transformation, and remote display capabilities. It supports broadcasting life-sized 3D projections of professors in remote classrooms via a 3D LED wall, enabling a highly immersive learning experience. Learners can engage in their native language while interacting with the 3D content, making the platform accessible and effective across diverse linguistic and regional boundaries."

But is any of this technology real? We know of no schools currently using HybriU.  And there are no video presentations available online. We have reached out to experts in edtech to evaluate Ambow's claims for the technology and will provide a follow up when we learn more. 

Inspiring Futures? 

Inspiring Futures, the Singapore company that made the deal with Ambow for licensing HibriU, was created four months ago and employs three people. Its headquarters is in an outlet mall. 

Ambow also operates out of a small space in Cupertino, California, after its move from the People's Republic of China. Ambow still owns and operates NewSchool, a real college in San Diego, California, that has been declining in enrollment.    

Deceived by DeVry

Subprime DeVry University Continues to Deceive Consumers
In 2019, DeVry University continues to deceive consumers through its DeVry website and online recruiting. As a subsidiary of Cogswell Education and Palm Ventures, a shoe-string operation in comparison to its previous parent company, matters could get worse. This briefing illustrates some of Devry’s current deceptive practices.

Lack of Transparency Used For Location Bait and Switch 
As a selling tool, DeVry University claims to have more than 45 convenient locations. However, it has closed about 50 campuses and learning sites between 2011 and 2019. Closures have occurred in cities throughout the U.S., including Pittsburgh, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Portland (OR), Seattle, St. Louis, and Tampa. DeVry’s campus closing determinations have been far from transparent, even to employees
In January 2018, several DeVry schools we believed were planned for closure remained on the “Find a Location Nearest You” map. These locations included Anaheim, Bakersfield, Cherry Hill, Colorado Springs, Dayton, Oakland, Oklahoma City, and Palmdale. By July 2018, all of of these learning locations were reported to the US Department of Education as closed schools. While these locations have been removed from DeVry’s map, prospective students had been led to believe that the locations existed.
Typically, the school closing process, known as “teach out,” takes 12-18 months. But in the case of DeVry’s closings, teach outs have occurred with less warning, leaving students and teachers little time to react to their campus closings. This lack of transparency has also allowed DeVry to sell its convenient locations even as it plans to close campuses that may be closest to prospective students. With a recent history of campus closings and the sale of DeVry to Cogswell Education, we anticipate several additional closings of “convenient” but unprofitable learning locations that may already be slated for closure.

Financial Aid Bait and Switch
DeVry has advertised a variety of loan options, including Federal Direct Loans, Federal PLUS Loans, Perkins Loans, and private student loans.
Although DeVry provides a list of potential lenders for private student loans, interest rate information does not appear to be readily available from the site.
When consumers use the Department of Education's College Navigator to get the net price for DeVry, they are redirected to a DeVry lead generator.
Pricing inconsistencies exist. One anonymous DeVry insider said this about the pricing:
There are three completely different total program costs potentially given to prospective students and differing lengths of the programs."
"DeVry’s admissions advisor’s cost calculator used to sell DVU on the phone, shows one amount. The website’s tuition chart lists something totally different, and finally the academic catalogue lists a third completely different figure with students."
"Also most admissions advisors are telling prospective students it is possible to complete a bachelor’s degree in 2 years 8 months! Then Student Finance tells students the truth that its 4 years at best due to lack of course availability and practicality (not taking 20 credit semesters). The catalogue info backs up Student Finance."
"I can’t understand how DOE or someone hasn’t caught that yet. You could call an advisor today go through their admissions planning and get cost 1, then look in the website tuition chart for 2, then look in the catalogue for a 3rd totally different cost and time est. your advisor just told you."
Former DeVry students owe more than $12 billion in student loan debt. The 5-year student loan default rate at DeVry is 43 percent. 

TechPath and Other Claims about Cutting Edge Technology
DeVry leads its potential customers to believe they will be learning innovative skills using cutting edge technology. DeVry advertises its TechPath program, a “distinctive learning approach that grew out of the understanding that students need a different kind of education to prepare them for a world that’s tech-intent, constantly changing and connected as never been through the digital mesh.”
DeVry insiders, however, have reported that campuses have not kept up with technology. And online teaching may be counterproductive for many students.
Brookings Institution Research indicates that the average DeVry University student takes two-thirds of his or her courses online with negative effects on course GPAs and persistence.

Decline in Educational Quality
Teaching staff have reported that educational quality has declined significantly as online class sizes increased. One former instructor stated:

“And, with the cap removed, faculty were teaching 40 or more students in online classes in a cultural contest that promoted the student to customer, obviating any faculty authority to establish rules and at times, even basic human decency. The ax, ever ready to fall on our necks, had us all rather desperately seeking other employment, while doing all we could to "persist" (pass) students with the highest possible grades, futilely hoping to preserve our ECE (student evaluation) scores. Students who lacked skill, who couldn't even submit work, their backs to the wall, often lashed out verbally and in the evaluation process. A student caught plagiarizing could get pay back at evaluation time, and they did….”

A former instructional designer who worked at DeVry more than five years added that "You will not have a voice...DeVry "used to be innovative and desired to push the edges of online education courses with creative solutions to interactivity...but leadership changed and bean counters began shaving copper at the downfall of the student learning experience...such a sad demise from the glory days."

DeVry Claims to be Military Friendly 

DeVry enrollment representatives claim that DeVry is military friendly, and the website states “[f]rom training Army Air Corps instructors on electronic devices in the 1940’s to being one of the first schools approved to accept the original G.I. Bill following WWII, we’ve been education and supporting America’s military personnel and the veteran community for decades.”

However, VA’s GI Bill Comparison Tool reveals more than 200 student complaints, as well as a caution warning related to the recent Federal Trade Commission settlement and how the school is operating under Heightened Cash Monitoring.

While DeVry campuses claim to offer various veterans programs, including VetSuccess on Campus, 8 Keys to Veteran Success, and a Student Veteran Group, one DeVry employee stated that "Students are tossed around by an organization that doesn't care nor have a clue of what it's doing. Disabled Veterans ADA Accommodations are not properly managed or enforced."

In 2018, DeVry University was featured in the documentary Fail State. Murray Hastie, an Iraq War veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder, told his story about how he ended up $50,000 in debt after his experience at DeVry.

Rehumanization in Higher Education: An Alternative to Maximizing Panic and Profit

It's questionable whether the Earth's tech bros (e.g. Gates, Musk, Bezos, Thiel, Zuckerberg) really believe in democracy, but they do believe in enriching themselves, like the robber barons of the 19th century, or going back even further, to myths of flawed rulers and gods of ancient times. A few of these bros, believing mostly in themselves, have suggested that democracy is incompatible with progress. There are probably more of these elites (and their backers) who agree, but on the back stage. 

Today, there are apps for just about everything, and there are some good ones. But there are few signs that the most recent technological innovations have improved the overall existence of humans, the planet we live on, or the many other species with share the planet with. Life is great for some, good for many, and not as happy for many more. Folks feel anxious, alienated, and dehumanized and for good reason.

Rehumanization: An Alternative to Maximizing Panic and Profit 

Despite all this new technology, climate change is an existential threat and its consequences are looming. Wars and conflicts are raging around the world and there are threats of more war. Stock prices have risen, but American Quality of Life (QOL) has not improved significantly. Information for the masses is laced with toxic propaganda. Mental illness is rising. US life expectancy has plateaued. Debt is a normal part of middle class life. People are more sedentary and obese. 

For many in this new tech world, sh*t jobs are plentiful and good jobs are hard to find. Bitcoin is an alternative (and speculative) currency used for illegal and predatory activity. Online teachers and content creators are throwaway items. You can have prepared food, of varying quality, delivered to your door. Pornography is omnipresent. Mass surveillance is accepted and normalized. Brutality and genocide can be watched like entertainment, to be played over and over or swept away at the touch of a finger. Online robocollege education is available 24/7/365 and cheating is rampant, but for many a degree is just a ticket to be punched in a world of hypercredentialism.   

Some of us are half-conscious of the algorithms of oppression and those who dictate the code, but we have enough faith in technology and the tech bros that it will be ok if we accept certain social realities--and don't fight it or challenge it. If we just go along. However sick, pathological, or evil it is, no matter how greedy these tech bros and their enablers are, "it is what it is." 

How is this progress? And does it have to be this way? We don't think so. There are even models to bring light into the approaching darkness.

That's why we want to highlight the bright spots in higher education in a series called the Rehumanization of Higher Ed. Stay tuned. 

The Future of Publicly-Funded University Hospitals (Dahn Shaulis and Glen McGhee)

There are more than 200 active university medical centers (UMCs) and 1,700 teaching hospitals in the United States. These institutions, tied to America's major universities, employ large numbers of medical professionals, administrators, and laborers. While UMCs have grown in size, dominating areas in major cities, locating facilities that are financially well, well-staffed, and adequately resourced has become more difficult. 

Also known as academic medical centers or AMCs, UMCs feel the financial strain of a number of social issues: a growing elderly population, drug overdoses, mental health problems, gunshot wounds, victims of car crashes, children with severe illnesses, and numerous medical problems related to poverty.  Some UMCs are trying to grow out of their financial problems by expanding their networks and buying up other facilities that may provide more profitability.  

Private equity is also taking over hundreds of hospitals and clinics across the US, finding value where they can, however they can. Private for-profit hospitals, for example, will steer their most vulnerable patients to UMCs. And they will cut out programs they cannot profit from. Publicly funded university hospitals often cannot turn people away or dump patients if they cannot pay their medical bills--or if they are not covered by premium insurance.  

While nurses and other medical laborers may be overworked and short-staffed, CEO pay is often $1M-$3M a year at larger institutions. And many medical centers, both public and private, are run with administrators focused more on cost containment rather than patient care and preventive care. 

 

Simply adding money to these institutions without transparency, accountability, and reform not only makes the situation no better, it means less money for other areas of need, such as public health, K-12 education, safe and affordable housing, clean air and water, public transportation, and infrastructure.

Critical Condition   

While the covid epidemic was horrifying for hospitals, the underlying conditions for many UMC's are a slow-motion disaster. University medical centers are facing financial challenges due to several key factors:

1. Rising costs outpacing revenue growth: Operating expenses, particularly for staff, facilities, and technology investments, are increasing faster than patient care revenue. 

2. Reduced government funding: State support for academic health centers has been shrinking since the early 1990s. Federal and state funding for medical research and education has also stagnated or declined.

3. Lower reimbursement rates: UMCs are facing low reimbursement rates from Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial insurance. Cost-control measures introduced by the Affordable Care Act have also impacted revenues.

4. Legacy pension costs: Some UMCs are burdened with high fringe benefit costs inherited from state systems.

5. Increased competition: Many UMCs are too small to compete effectively in the current healthcare market against monopolies like HCA and Keiser. Their lack of scale gives them little leverage in negotiations for services and supplies.

6. Balancing multiple missions: UMCs must juggle patient care, research, and education. This can lead to inefficiencies, as physician time spent on research and teaching is less profitable than pure clinical care.

7. Infrastructure investments: UMCs need to make large investments in infrastructure and technology to maintain top-tier diagnostic and research capabilities

The main problem seems to be that the traditional financial model for academic medical centers is no longer sustainable in the current healthcare environment. Their operating costs are rising faster than their revenue sources can keep up, and they are struggling to maintain financial viability while fulfilling their multiple missions of patient care, research, and education.

Saving Lives is Unprofitable 

 

Burn Units: Treating burn victims requires specialized staff and facilities, leading to high costs, while insurance reimbursements may not fully cover them.

Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs): While essential, NICU care for premature or critically ill newborns is expensive due to the high level of support needed.

Trauma Centers: Trauma care often involves a high volume of resources and unpredictable patient conditions, making it difficult to predict or control costs.

Mental Health Services: Mental healthcare reimbursement rates tend to be lower compared to other specialties, making these programs less profitable.

The Bigger (Unhealthy) Picture 

This strain at UMCs is under-girded by a dysfunctional and expensive healthcare system serving a population that is violent and unequal, and increasingly sedentary, unhealthy, disabled, elderly, and under psychological strain.

 

Around 40% of US hospitals are operating at a loss according to Kaufman Hall. And about half of all rural hospitals are running in the red. Obstetrics and delivery services are big money losers in these hospitals. Hundreds of these units, and their hospitals, are at risk of closing, leaving folks with longer travel times to get medical care. 

 

In 2022, U.S. healthcare spending reached $4.5 trillion, or $13,493 per person. The cost of healthcare per person in other wealthy countries is less than half as much. Despite this enormous spending, US life expectancy is 3 to 4 years less than other OECD nations. For those with means, though, the US offers some of the best medical care in the world. 

Zooming In

Financial problems and/understaffing and safety issues have been noted at:

University of Vermont Health Network (VM)

Nassau University Medical Center (NY)

CarePoint Health and Hoboken University Medical Center (NJ)
Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (NJ)

George Washington University Hospital (DC)

Penn Medicine-University of Pennsylvania (PA)
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (PA)

University Hospitals-Case Western Reserve (OH)
West Virginia University Medicine (WV)
University of Miami Health System (FL)

University Medical Center-LSU and Tulane (LA)
Detroit Medical Center-Wayne State University (MI)
Marquette University Health Care (WI)
Cook County Health-Rush University (IL)
University of Chicago Medical Center (IL)
Oregon Health & Science University (OR)

University of New Mexico Hospital (NM)
UCLA Health (CA)

University of California, including UC Davis (CA)

We expect to see more headlines about the declining finances at some university hospitals--and the downsizing that will follow. Fierce Healthcare has created a layoff tracker to monitor these events.

Related links:

Baby Boomers Turning 80: The Flip Side of the 2026 Enrollment Cliff

State Universities and the College Meltdown

American Hospital Association (AHA) Report: New AHA Report Finds Financial Challenges Mount for Hospitals & Health Systems Putting Access to Care at Risk (April 2023)

McKinsey & Company: Ensuring the financial sustainability of academic medical centers (July 2023)

 

PESP Private Equity Hospital Tracker 

“Intellectual Hick”: Sorting Out Our Complex Identities (Robert Jensen)

I am from rural America, sort of. I’m an intellectual, sort of. I’m certainly on the political left, but some comrades believe I’ve turned conservative.

Like many people, I don’t fit easily into conventional labels used in today’s polarized political debates. To understand me—and anyone else—takes some sorting out. Here’s how I sort myself out.

I was born in North Dakota and grew up mostly in the big city of Fargo (well, it’s the largest city in the state). I never lived in a rural area, but I was a part of a larger rural culture, in which most everyone had some connection to the countryside through family, friends, or business. After living in several big cities during my professional life, I now live in northern New Mexico outside the small town of Taos, in a county with a smaller population than the university where I used to teach. Recent imports like me live alongside farmers and ranchers, interacting regularly through the acequia irrigation system.

I’m not rural, but I like to think I understand rural.

I started my professional life as a newspaper journalist before earning a PhD and becoming a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. But once I secured the guaranteed employment that comes with tenure, I walked away from the scholarly world of academic journals and conferences. I continued to teach but wrote for a general audience, immersing myself in a variety of community organizing projects.

I was an intellectual by profession, but I never really wanted to be part of formal intellectual life.

I’ve met intellectuals who assume rural life is bereft of intellectual activity. And I’ve met rural people who assume that intellectuals are condescending and annoying. There’s a kernel of truth in both assumptions. Since moving to a rural area, I have fewer opportunities for certain kinds of intellectual engagement; I don’t go to as many scholarly lectures as I did in Austin. At the same time, I don’t find myself wishing I was back in a faculty meeting and dealing with academic status-seeking. But I’ve met too many smart rural people and too many wonderful professors to fall back on stereotypes.

As I explain in It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics, perhaps most important to my identity is that I’m a radical. My politics are based on a critique of systems and structures of power that create impediments to meaningful social justice and real ecological sustainability: patriarchy, white supremacy, capitalism, First-World domination, and the worship of high-energy/high-technology gadgets in an industrial worldview. But how I apply these analyses make me both a part of the left and alienated from the left.

Let’s start with patriarchy. I was first politicized by the radical feminist movement to challenge the sexual-exploitation industries (pornography, prostitution, stripping—the ways men buy and sell objectified female bodies for sexual pleasure). That form of radical politics goes to the heart of systems and structures of male power. I also embraced what is typically called a radical analysis of racism, economic inequality, and imperialism. I thought that this kind of consistent critique—going to the root of problems by focusing on systems of power—was what it meant to be on the left, but over time I realized that most of my left comrades didn’t much care for radical feminism. Over time, more and more leftists not only rejected the critique of the sexual-exploitation industries but celebrated “sex work,” sometimes even portraying it as liberating.

When I started offering a critique of the ideology of the transgender movement, an analysis rooted in that radical feminism, I found myself not only disagreeing with left comrades but effectively being banished from left organizing groups. I learned quickly, starting in 2014, that a radical feminist critique of trans politics was unacceptable, even seen as a sign of closet conservativism.

But that shunning didn’t mean I wanted to find a home on the right. Conservatives weren’t much interested in a feminist critique of male domination—many on the right see patriarchy as the “natural” state of human societies. Conservatives might share a concern about the sexual-exploitation industries and transgender ideology, but for very different reasons than feminists.

Meanwhile, my focus on ecology and a deepening critique of technological fundamentalism—the belief that more technology can solve all ecological problems, including those created by previous technologies—has put me at odds with both right and left. Those who believe in the miracle of the market usually dismiss any talk of ecological collapse because free enterprise will save us. My left friends take environmental degradation and climate change more seriously but routinely argue that a more participatory democracy in a more socialist economy will save us.

Across the political spectrum, it’s hard to find anyone who agrees that a sustainable human future requires us to put dramatic limits on our consumption of energy and material resources, while we also dramatically reduce the human population. Conservatives often believe that is what leftists are secretly planning for, but I meet very few leftists who advocate those goals. The majority of left environmentalists I meet believe that renewable energy, combined with amazing yet-to-be-invented inventions, will allow us to dodge collapse.

I think I am making consistent and coherent arguments. But many of my left friends think I have abandoned left politics, even though we still agree on many issues. Conservatives will accept my political positions that seem in line with their own, though typically they aren’t interested in the radical analysis behind those positions.

I have changed my mind about specific policy proposals over the past four decades—as new information and insights emerge, reasonable people should adapt. But my analytical framework remains unchanged. I focus not merely on individual choices but on how systems work, and I don’t ignore the data that suggests collapse is all but inevitable on our current trajectory.

This leaves me largely in agreement with left comrades, but dealing with uncomfortable tensions when we disagree. Meanwhile, I’m at odds with right opponents most of the time, and when there is apparent agreement on policy there is an uncomfortable tension underneath.

How do I sort out all these political tensions, and sort out myself? To friends, I have started describing myself as an “intellectual hick.” I have no problem defending my intellectual contributions but also am happy to be living at a healthy distance from official intellectual spaces. Even with neighbors who don’t agree with my politics, our shared interest in caring for the land and water creates deep bonds.

How I label myself is less important than realizing that we all would benefit from sorting out ourselves. Once we critically self-reflect about our identities and ideas, it’s a lot easier talking with others about how they have sorted themselves out.

This article first appeared in Dissident Voice.  

Robert Jensen, an Emeritus Professor in the School of Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin, is the author of It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics from Olive Branch Press. His previous book, co-written with Wes Jackson, was An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity. To subscribe to his mailing list, go to http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/jensenupdates-info.html.

Credential Inflation Makes College Degree Not Worth The Cost (Randall Collins)

[Editor's note: This article first appeared in Randall Collins' blog The Sociological Eye.]

Belief in the value of college education was sacrosanct throughout most of the 20th century. In the early 2000s, the question began to be raised whether the payoff in terms of a better-paying job was worth the cost. For several generations, almost a taboo topic--but once out in the open, an increasing percentage of the US population has concluded a college degree is not worth it.

The first big hit was the 2008 recession, when graduates found it hard to get jobs. But even as the economy recovered and grew, faith in college degrees has steadily declined.

In 2013, 53% of the population—a slim majority, agreed that a 4-year degree gives “a better chance to get a good job and earn more income over their lifetime.” In 2023, education-believers had fallen to 42%, while 56% said it was not worth the cost. Both women and men had turned negative in the latest survey—even though women had overtaken men in college enrollments in previous decades. The youngest generation was the most negative, 60% of those aged 18-34. Not surprisingly; they are the ones who had to apply to dozens of schools, a rat-race of test scores, scrambling for grades, and amassing extra-curricular activities; most not getting into their school of choice, while paying constantly rising tuition and fees, and burdened with student-loan debt into middle age. Not to mention the near-impossibility of buying a house at hugely inflated prices, many still living with their parents; while all generations now agree that the younger will not enjoy the standard of living of their parents.

The only demographic that still thinks college has career value are men with a college degree or higher, who earn over $100,000 a year. They are the only winners in the tournament. Every level of education—high school, junior college, 4-year college, M.B.A. or PhD or professional credential in law, medicine, etc.—has value as an entry ticket to the next level of competition for credentials. The financial payoff comes when you get to the big time, the Final Four so to speak; striving through the lower levels is motivated by a combination of American cultural habits and wishful thinking.

The boom-or-bust pattern of rising education makes more sense in long-term perspective. For 100 years, the USA has led the world in the proportion of the population in schools at all levels. In 1900, 6% of the youth cohort finished high school, and less than 2% had a college degree. High school started taking off in the 1920s, and after a big push in the 1950s to keep kids in school, reached 77% in 1970. Like passing the baton, as high school became commonplace, college attendance rocketed, jumping to 53% at the end of the 1960s—there was a reason for all those student protests of the Sixties: they were suddenly a big slice of the American population. By 2017, 30% over age 24 had a college degree; another 27% had some years of college. It has been a long-time pattern that only about half of all college students finish their degree—dropping out of college has always been prevalent, and still is.

The growing number of students at all levels has been a process of credential inflation. The value of any particular diploma—high school, college, M.A., PhD—is not constant; it depends on the labor market at the time, the amount of competition from others who have the same degree. In the 1930s, only 12% of employers required a college degree for managers; by the late 1960s, it was up to 40%. By the 1990s, an M.B.A. was the preferred degree for managerial employment; and even police departments were hiring college-educated cops. In other words, as college attendance has become almost as common as high school, it no longer conveys much social status. To get ahead in the elite labor market, one needs advanced and specialized degrees. In the medical professions, the process of credential-seeking goes on past age 30; for scientists, a PhD needs to be supplemented by a couple of years in a post-doctoral fellowship, doing grunt-work in somebody else’s laboratory. In principle, credential inflation has no end in sight.

An educational diploma is like money: a piece of paper whose value depends inversely on how much of it is in circulation. In the monetary world, printing more money reduces its purchasing power. The same thing happens with turning out more educational credentials—with one important difference. Printing money is relatively cheap (and so is the equivalent process of changing banking policies so that more credit is issued). But minting a college degree is expensive: someone has to pay for the teachers, the administrators, the buildings, and whatever entertainments and luxuries (such as sports and student activities) the school offers—and which make up a big part of its attraction for American students. And all this degree-printing apparatus has been becoming more expensive over the decades, far outpacing the amount of monetary inflation since the 1980s. Colleges and universities (as well as high schools and elementary schools) keep increasing the proportion of administrators and staff. At the top end of the college market, the professors who give the school its reputation by their research command top salaries.

Credential-minting institutions have been able to charge whatever they can get away with, because of the high level of competition among students for admission. Not all families can afford it; but enough of them can so that schools can charge many multiples of what they charged (in constant dollars) even 30 years ago. The result has been a huge expansion in student debt: averaging $38,000 among 45 million borrowers; and including 70% of all holders of B.A. degrees. Total student debt tripled between 2007 and 2022.

These three different kinds of inflation reinforce each other: inflation in the amount of credential currency chasing jobs in the job market; inflation in the cost of getting a degree; inflation in student debt. We could add grade inflation as a fourth part of the spiral: intensifying pressure to get into college and if possible beyond, has motivated students to put pressure on their teachers to grade more easily; in public schools, to pass them along to the next grade no matter their performance (retardation in grade, which in the 1900s was common, has virtually disappeared); in college, GPA-striving has a similar effect. Grades are higher than ever but the measured value of the contents of education, ranging from writing skills to how long the course material is remembered after the course is over is low (Arum and Roksa 2011, 2014). College degrees are not only inflated as to job-purchasing power; they are also inflated as a measure of what skills they actually represent.

The remedies suggested for some of these problems--- such as canceling student debt by government action—would temporarily relieve some ex-students of the burden of paying for not-so-valuable degrees. But canceling student debt would not solve the underlying dynamic of credential inflation, but exacerbate it. If college education became free (either by government directly picking up the tab; or by canceling student debts), we can expect even more students to seek higher degrees. If 100% of the population has a college degree, its advantage on the labor market is exactly zero; you would have to get some further degree to get a competitive edge.

Scandals in college admissions are just one more sign of the pressures corroding the value of education. College employees collude with wealthy parents to create fake athletic skills, in a time when students apply to dozens of schools, and even top grades don’t guarantee admission. Since athletics are a big part of schools’ prestige, and are considered a legitimate pathway to admission outside the grade-inflation tournament, it is hardly surprising that some try that side-door entry. There is not only grade inflation, but inflation in competition over the pseudo-credentials of extracurricular activites and community service. Efforts at increasing race and class equity in admissions increase the pressure among the affluent and the non-minority populations. Since sociological evidence shows that tests and grades favour children of the higher classes (whose families provide them with what Bourdieu called cultural capital), there are moves to eliminate test scores and/or grades as criteria of admission. What is left may be letters of recommendation and self-extolling essays--- what we might call “rhetorical inflation”, plus skin color or other demographic markers; but the result will do nothing to reduce the inflation of credentials. The underlying hope is that giving everybody a college degree will somehow bring about social equality. In reality, it will just add another chapter to the history of credential inflation.

Except for the small percentage of really good students who will take the tournament all the way to the most advanced degrees and become well-paid scientists and professionals, the growing disillusionment with the value of college degrees will result in more and more people looking for alternative routes to making a living. The big fortunes of the last 40 years--- the age of information technology—have been made by entrepreneurs who dropped out to pursue opportunities just opening up, instead of waiting to finish a degree. The path to fame and fortune is not monopolized by the education tournament. For the rest of us, finding more immediate ways of making a living (or living off someone else) will become more important.

P.S. The advent of Artificial Intelligence to write students’ papers, and other AI to grade them (not to mention to write their application essays and read them for admission) will do nothing to raise the honesty and status of the educational credential chase.

References

“More Say Colleges Aren’t Worth the Cost.” Wall Street Journal April 1, 2023 (NORC-Wall St. Journal survey)

Average Student Loan Debt (BestColleges.com) 

U.S. Bureau of the Census

Randall Collins. 2019. The Credential Society. 2nd edition. Columbia Univ. Press.

Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa. 2011. Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa. 2014. Aspiring Adults Adrift: Tentative Transitions of College Graduates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

How College Broke the Labor Market (PolyMatter)

Related links:

The College Dream is Over (Gary Roth)

Credential Inflation Makes College Degree Not Worth the Cost (Randall Collins)

College Meltdown 3.0 Could Start Earlier (And End Worse) Than Planned 

Higher Education, Technology, and A Growing Social Anxiety

The Student Loan Mess Updated: Debt as a Form of Social Control and Political Action

Student Loans and a Brutal Lifetime of Debt

A People's History of Higher Education in the US

"Let's all pretend we couldn't see it coming" (The US Working-Class Depression)

How is the working-class Depression of 2020 similar to the other 47 financial downturns in US history? 

Downturns are frequently precipitated by poor economic and cultural practices and preceded by lots of signals: over-speculation, overuse of resources, oversupplies of goods, and exploitation of labor. What I see are many poor practices brought on by corruption--with overconsumption, climate change, growing inequality, and moral degeneration at the root.

The "disrupters" (21st century robber barons) have enabled an alienating and anomic system that is highly dysfunctional for most of the planet, using "algorithms of oppression." And this cannot be solved with data alchemy, marketing, and other forms of sophistry.

Put down your iPhone for a minute and ponder these rhetorical questions:

• How did people not know that another economic crisis was around the corner?
• Doesn't anyone have a sense of US economic history?
• Doesn't anybody read? Even a little?
• Wasn't it only a dozen years ago that we faced a similar crisis?  
  

Warm Koolaid (2016) signified corporate America's use of myths and distractions to sedate the masses. 

How long have we known about all of this dysfunction? Academics have known about the effects of global climate change and growing US inequality since at least the 1980s. The Panic of 2020 should be a lesson so that we don't have a larger economic, social and environmental collapse in the future.

Who will hear the warnings and do something constructive for our future? Or is this Covid crisis another opportunity for the rich to cash in on the tragedy?

The answer lies, in part, to an ignorance of history and science, and oversupply of low-grade information, poor critical thinking skills, and lots of distractions. That's in addition to the massive greed and ill will by the rich and powerful.

US downturns are baked into this oppressive system. And crises are used to further exploit working families. With climate change and a half century of increasing inequality, these situations are likely to worsen.

"An economy based on mass deception, exploitation, degradation and oppression, violence, war, and massive environmental destruction...is unsustainable."

Workers will resist and fight oppression; they always do, but will they have a voice as the US faces another self-induced crisis, as trillions are doled out to those who already have trillions?

Here are the dates of the largest economic downturns.

1797-1800

1807–1814

1819–1824

1837–1843

1857–1860

1873–1879 (The Long Depression)

1893–1896 (The Long Depression)

1907–1908

1918–1921 (World War I, Spanish Flu, Panic of 1920-21)

1929–1933 (Stock Market Crash, Great Depression)

1937–1938 (Great Depression)

Feb-Oct 1945

Nov 1948–Oct 1949

July 1953–May 1954

Aug 1957–April 1958

April 1960–Feb 1961

Dec 1969–Nov 1970

Nov. 1973– March 1975

Jan-July 1980

July 1981–Nov 1982

July 1990–March 1991

Mar-Nov 2001

December 2007 – June 2009 (The Great Recession)

March 2020-

We live in an economic system that is unsustainable, unjust, and exploitative. While many of us in academia and the thought industry have known this for decades, those with greater wisdom have known for centuries. Techies and disrupters think it can all be solved with technology, not with profound wisdom. The ultimate in hubris and reductionism. We have to change the system politically, socially, and culturally. We have to be wiser.

How do we do that, radically change society, when our economic system has driven us in the wrong direction for so long? Some of these lessons can be learned from working class history, but they have to be applied with wisdom.

Why the Higher Education Inquirer Continues to Gain Popularity

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) continues to grow, with no revenues, no advertising, and no SEO help. And for good reason. HEI fills a niche for student/consumers and workers and their allies. It provides valuable information about how the US higher education system works and what folks can do to navigate that system. 

We cover layoffs and union organizing and strikes in higher education, and we expose predators with some degree of risk-risk that other outlets often won't take. We take a stand on holding big business accountable and we side with struggling student debtors and their families. We question and interrogate higher ducation technology and credentials.  And we dispel myths, disinformation, and hype. 

We research documents of all sorts, including information from the US Department of Education, Securities and Exchange Commission, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of Labor, and Federal Election Commission. 

The Higher Education Inquirer provides trustworthy information and expert opinions and analysis. Our list of authors is diverse and impressive, for many reasons. HEI treats our readers with respect. It gives students and workers a voice, accepting information and evidence from whistleblowers. And it allows for comments (including anonymous comments), comments that we value. 

When others do accept our research, we appreciate it. HEI has been a background source for the NY Times, Bloomberg, Chronicle of Higher Education, ProPublica, Forbes, Military Times, the American Prospect, and several other outlets. We strive to be ahead of the learned herd.