Can the newly formed PA Board of Higher Education do much for the People?

In 2024, Pennsylvania has formed a state Board of Higher Education. Can the organization create value for all its citizens and improve the Quality of Life for Pennsylvanians, or is it just another layer of bureaucracy whose major role is to maintain the status quo? 

The Pennsylvania Board of Higher Education is composed of 21 members, representing postsecondary education, government, business, labor and students. Some schools like Penn State, Pitt, and Temple each have a representative. Other institutions, like the state's 15 community colleges and 10 PASSHE schools are represented by one person.

The University of Pennsylvania ($20.9 billion endowment and 1,085 acres of urban property), Carnegie-Mellon University ($2.7 billion and 157 acres of urban property), and other elite private schools are not represented and stand apart from the oversight.

What's the Mission?

There is no mention about how this new Board can make a difference. No progressive ideas or policies have been introduced other than that the organization seeks to ensure that there is no undue competition among the schools. 

Wealth and Want in PA Higher Education 

Pennsylvania has more than 150 colleges, universities, and technical schools. They are all connected by a harsh economic system that promotes increasing wealth and want. Pennsylvania's immense wealth is illustrated in a handful of elite and brand name colleges and universities primarily in and around its two major urban areas: Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. And wealth is demonstrated in their endowments and real estate holdings. 

University of Pennsylvania: $20.9 billion and 1,085 acres of urban property

Pennsylvania State University: $4.44 billion and 22,484 acres of property statewide

Carnegie-Mellon: $2.7 billion and 157 acres of urban property

Thomas Jefferson University: $2.3 billion and 100 acres of urban property

Swarthmore: $2.2 billion and 425 acres of suburban property

Lehigh University: $1.8 billion and 2350 acres of suburban property

Bryn Mawr College: $1.6 billion and 135 acres of suburban property

Villanova University $1.5 billion and 408 acres of suburban property

University of Pittsburgh: $1.1 billion and 132 acres of suburban property

Drexel University: $1.1 billion and 96 acres of urban property

Lafayette College: $1 billion and 340 acres of suburban property

Bucknell: $1 billion and 450 acres of suburban property

Duquesne University: $1 billion and 50 acres of urban property

Temple University: $750 million and 115 acres of urban property

Haverford University: $643 million and 216 acres of suburban property. 

Washington and Jefferson: $380 million and 60 acres of small-town property

Widener University: $90 million and 216 acres of urban property

The differences between life outside of Penn, Temple, and Drexel and other parts of Philadelphia (North and West Philly) are stark.  And the Philadelphia suburbs that include some of the elite schools are reflective of wealth, power, and prestige. Scenes of wealth and want are also apparent in and around Pittsburgh. 

State universities outside of these urban and suburban areas, aside from College Park, have been declining for more than a decade. The Community College of Philadelphia, a career lifeline for the working class, has one of the lowest graduation rates in the US. The same goes for Harrisburg Area Community College. Pennsylvania also has Lincoln University and Cheyney University of Pennsylvania: two Historically Black Colleges and Universities that have been historically underfunded and serve as lasting symbols of resistance against white supremacy, an ideology still deeply embedded in Pennsylvania's society and economy.

PA Economy: Growing Inequality and Rural Decline 

Pennsylvania's economy is diverse yet unsustainable. It consists of traditional industries such as manufacturing and agriculture as well as healthcare, energy, technology, and education. Healthcare (reactive medicine) and energy (fossil fuels), in particular, are expensive for the state and expensive the planet. 

The problems in Pennsylvania's higher education system extend beyond the schools represented in the new Board. These economic and social problems are persistent and worsening for the working class. Pennsylvania's population is stagnant, increasing slightly in urban areas and declining in rural areas. 

There is also a demographic cliff with Baby Boomers reaching their 80s (and greater disability) and fewer children being born in the Commonwealth. Children living with Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed (ALICE) families is 41 percent.  

Savage Inequalities in K-12 Education

Pennsylvania has some of the widest education gaps in the country. A national study found Pennsylvania at the bottom of all states in school funding fairness. Among the 50 states, Pennsylvania ranked 49th in the Black-white opportunity gap, 50th in the Hispanic-white opportunity gap, and 49th in the gap between students from low-income families and their wealthier peers. 

Unequal Wealth Distribution 

Pennsylvania is one of the most unequal states in the country, with the top 1% of earners making 21.7 times more than the bottom 99%. 

The richest people in Pennsylvania are Jeff Yass ($29B), Michael Rubin ($11.5B), Victoria Mars ($9.7B), Arthur Dantchik ($7.3B), Thomas Hagen ($5.2B), Jeff Lurie ($4.9B), Maggie Hardy ($4.1B), Mary Alice Dorrance Malone ($3.7B), John Middleton ($3.7B), and Thomas Tull ($2.9B). 

The average income of the top 1% is $1,100,962, compared to $50,830 for the rest of the state. Income inequality in Pennsylvania has been worsening since the 1970s. The richest 5% of households have incomes that are 11.7 times larger than the bottom 20%. 

Over half of Pennsylvania's wealth is concentrated in six counties: Montgomery, Allegheny, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Philadelphia. The wealthiest county is Chester, with a median household income of $104,161 in 2020. 

Regressive Tax Structure 

Pennsylvania has a flat tax rate of 3 percent, and its corporate tax rate is a flat 8.49 percent and falling. The combined state personal income tax and local earned income tax led to Pennsylvania having the 18th highest income tax burden. Pennsylvania ranked 25th for its total per capita property tax burden. New Jersey, New York, and Maryland had a higher tax burden in both comparisons.  

Mass Incarceration for Social Control, Deaths of Despair

Pennsylvania has the highest incarceration rate in the Northeast and the second highest rate in the country when including people on probation or parole. And its correctional system spends nearly $3 billion annually. Black adults make up 46% of Pennsylvania's prison population, even though they only make up 11% of the state's population. The flip side of the coin, deaths of despair (suicide, drug overdoses) are common among the working class in rural and urban areas.  

Related links:

"20-20": Many US States Have Seen Enrollment Drops of More Than 20 Percent 

College Meltdown: NY, IL, MI, PA, VA hardest hit

Wealth and Want Part 1: Multi-Billion Dollar Endowments

US higher education reflects and reinforces a world of increasing inequality, injustice, and inhumanity. This system (or some would call it an industry) should function as a conduit between good K-12 education, good jobs, and the wellness of all its citizens, whether they attend or not. But increasingly, it does not. 

The first installments of the Wealth and Want series examine the concentration of wealth in the US higher education system.  And this article focuses on loosely regulated university endowments. While many American schools struggle to provide basic amenities and academic resources, elite universities boast endowments that rival the GDPs of small nations. And they pay little in taxes. 

The Endowment Elite and Ill-Gotten Gains

At the pinnacle of higher education wealth are Harvard ($49B), The University of Texas System ($44B), Yale ($40B), Stanford ($36B), and Princeton ($34B). These institutions have amassed endowments that provide a steady stream of income for investments, scholarships, and research initiatives. How their money is invested is rarely known.  

Endowment managers at elite schools typically make more than a million dollars a year. The most elite schools pay their managers $5M-$10M a year, with compensation largely based on returns. But those managers still get hefty salaries even when they lose money.

There are more than 120 schools with endowments greater than a billion dollars. But the 20 richest university endowments together hold more wealth than the other 5000 or so other higher education institutions combined. 

Elite endowments are often the result of centuries of fundraising, donations, and strategic (sometimes shady) investments. For many of the most prestigious schools, it began with land theft and generations of forced labor. 

For other wealthy schools, it was the result of philanthropic robber barons like Johns Hopkins (who also held captives), Andrew Carnegie, Leland Stanford, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and James Buchanan Duke who made their wealth through mass exploitation of people and the planet. 

For wealthy flagship state universities, it also came from land theft. In the case of the University of Texas, its wealth largely came from, and to some degree still comes from the exploitation of fossil fuels that jeopardize the planet.

Historical Context and Structural Inequality

• Land Theft and the Founding of Institutions: The establishment of many American universities, including Ivy League institutions and those founded under the Morrill Act, was often intertwined with land theft from Native American tribes. This practice, often referred to as "land dispossession" or "Indian removal," was a key component of Manifest Destiny and the expansion of European settlement across the continent.
• Ivy League Universities: Institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Columbia were granted land by colonial governments, which often acquired these lands through treaties that were coerced or violated. They also used enslaved labor to build and maintain their wealth.  
• Funding Models: The funding models for public higher education often favor larger, research-intensive universities. This can lead to underfunding for smaller, less prestigious institutions, particularly those serving marginalized communities.
• Endowment Inequality and Profits Over People and Planet: Endowments are a powerful tool for wealth accumulation and institutional advantage. The concentration of endowments in a few elite universities can exacerbate existing inequalities and create a self-perpetuating cycle of privilege.  These endowments have also engaged in shady investments that perpetuated worker oppression, genocide, and environmental destruction. 

Related links:

Pay and Chief Investment Officers: Good Money while It Lasts

Tax Wealthy Private Universities Now (Paul Prescod, Jacobin)

Wealth and Want Part 2: Continued University Expansion and Displacement of Others

In Wealth and Want Part 1 we briefly mentioned the origins of university wealth, including generations of land theft and the use of forced labor. The origins of elite universities and large flagship universities in the 17th through 19th centuries came largely from the exploitation of others and of the environment. This exploitation continues today, not just through their endowments, but in the real estate that universities continue to take for their advantage, often at the expense of their neighbors.

Harvard University: The expansion of Harvard University in the 19th century led to the displacement of African American residents from the neighborhood of Roxbury.

Columbia University: In the 19th century, Columbia University's expansion contributed to the displacement of residents from Morningside Heights.

University of Chicago: The University of Chicago's expansion in the late 19th century led to the displacement of residents from the Hyde Park neighborhood. 

Stanford University: Stanford's expansion in the late 19th century led to the displacement of Native American Ohlone people from the Palo Alto area.

University of Michigan: In the late 19th century, the University of Michigan's expansion contributed to the displacement of residents from Ann Arbor's Old West Side neighborhood.

University of Texas at Austin: The university's expansion in the early 20th century led to the displacement of residents from the East Austin neighborhood.

University of California, Berkeley: The university's expansion in the 20th century contributed to the displacement of African American residents from the West Berkeley neighborhood.


Elite universities during the Great Depression were generally able to weather the storm better than many other institutions. However, they were not entirely immune to the economic hardships of the time. Here's a breakdown of how they fared.

Endowment Funds: Many elite universities had substantial endowment funds, which provided a crucial financial cushion during the Depression. These funds allowed them to maintain their operations and continue offering high-quality education.

Reduced Enrollment: Despite their financial advantages, most elite universities experienced a decline in enrollment as families struggled to afford tuition. This decrease in revenue put pressure on their budgets.

Faculty Salaries: Some universities had to reduce faculty salaries or even lay off staff to cut costs. However, many institutions were able to maintain their core faculty and avoid significant cuts.

Government Support: In some cases, elite universities received government support, such as grants or contracts, to help them weather the economic downturn.

Alumni Donations: Alumni donations played a vital role in supporting elite universities during the Depression. Many alumni felt a strong sense of loyalty to their institutions and were willing to contribute financially to help them through difficult times.


The expansion of elite universities has continued.  Here are some examples.

University of Virginia: In the 1960s and 70s, the University of Virginia's expansion led to the displacement of residents from the Vinegar Hill neighborhood, a predominantly Black community.

Old Dominion University: In Virginia, Old Dominion University's expansion has displaced Black families in the Lambert's Point neighborhood.

New York University: NYU's expansion in New York City has contributed to rising rents and gentrification, pushing many longtime residents out of their neighborhoods.

University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA): UCLA's expansion has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in surrounding neighborhoods, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents of color.

University of Southern California (USC): USC's expansion has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in surrounding neighborhoods, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents of color.

University of Michigan: The University of Michigan's expansion in Ann Arbor has led to rising housing costs and gentrification, displacing many long-time residents, including people of color.

University of Texas at Austin: The university's expansion has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in Austin, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents, including people of color.

University of Pennsylvania: The expansion of Penn has contributed to increased demand for housing and commercial space, driving up prices. This has made it difficult for many long-time residents to remain in the neighborhood.

Temple: Temple's expansion has also played a role in gentrification, as the university has attracted more students and faculty, leading to increased demand for housing and services.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: The expansion of UNC-Chapel Hill led to the displacement of residents from the segregated Black neighborhood of Black Hill.

University of Georgia: The expansion of the University of Georgia contributed to the displacement of residents from the African American neighborhood of Athens Terrace.

Louisiana State University: LSU's expansion in Baton Rouge has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification, leading to the displacement of many low-income residents of color.

Johns Hopkins: The expansion of Johns Hopkins in Baltimore has contributed to rising housing costs and gentrification in the surrounding neighborhoods. This has made it difficult for many long-time residents to remain in the area.

Vanderbilt: In Nashville, Vanderbilt's expansion has also contributed to gentrification. The university's growth has attracted more students, faculty, and staff, leading to increased demand for housing and services, which has driven up prices.

Georgetown University: Georgetown's expansion has contributed to the gentrification of the Georgetown neighborhood, leading to rising housing costs and the displacement of many long-time residents.

George Washington University: GWU's expansion has also played a role in gentrification, particularly in the Foggy Bottom and West End neighborhoods.

American University: AU's growth has contributed to rising housing costs in the Tenleytown neighborhood.

Wealth and Want Part 3: Dispossession, Inequality, Underfunding, and Debt

In stark contrast to the well-endowed universities that serve the desires of the global elite, a significant portion of American higher education struggles with chronic underfunding. Tribal Colleges and Universities (49), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (107), Minority-Serving Institutions (about 700), and community colleges (about 1100) – all serving diverse student populations – face a constant uphill battle. This article briefly examines the historical and systemic reasons behind this disparity, its impact on students and communities, and the connection to wider issues in US education.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Landscape of Inequality

The funding gap between these institutions and their wealthier counterparts is substantial. Minority Servning Institutions (MSIs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and community colleges often receive significantly less funding per student, leading to limited resources and infrastructure. This disparity stems from several factors:

• Historical Disadvantage: The legacy of slavery, colonialism, and systemic racism has disproportionately impacted these institutions. They have historically received less funding and support, hindering their development.
• Funding Models: The current funding model for public higher education often favors larger research universities, leaving smaller, less prestigious institutions serving marginalized communities behind.
• Endowment Inequality: Wealthy universities boast large endowments that generate significant revenue. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of privilege, further widening the gap.

A Legacy of Dispossession

Digging deeper, we find historical context playing a crucial role. The very land on which many elite universities stand was often acquired through the dispossession of Native American tribes. This legacy of land theft continues to shape the resources available to tribal colleges. Additionally, HBCUs were established in response to the denial of education for Black Americans, and this fight for access continues in the form of funding disparities.

The Price of "Savage Inequalities"

The underfunding of these institutions has a profound impact:

• Limited Student Outcomes: Students face inadequate advising, limited course offerings, and insufficient support services. This can lead to lower graduation rates and hinder their academic success.
• Faculty and Staff Strain: Underfunding leads to lower salaries, fewer opportunities for professional development, and increased workload for faculty and staff. This can make it difficult to attract and retain qualified personnel.
• Community Impact: MSIs, TCUs, and community colleges play a vital role in their communities, providing education, training, and cultural preservation. Underfunding can limit their ability to fulfill these crucial functions.

The K-12 Connection: A Pipeline of Disadvantage

The underfunding of higher education for marginalized groups often begins much earlier in the educational system. The concept of "savage inequalities" highlights the vast disparities in funding and resources between schools in different communities. Students from underfunded K-12 schools often arrive unprepared for college due to:

• Unequal Preparation: Schools in disadvantaged communities may lack resources, experienced teachers, and challenging coursework, leaving students ill-equipped for higher education.
• Limited College Counseling: Students may not have access to adequate college counseling, hindering their ability to navigate the application process and secure financial aid.
• Persistent Achievement Gaps: The achievement gaps that develop in K-12 education can persist into higher education, creating further obstacles for students from underfunded schools.

The Heavy Burden of Student Debt

Student loan debt and underemployment are additional challenges faced by many young people, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds. Students attending underfunded institutions are more likely to borrow heavily due to limited resources and higher tuition costs. Additionally, these institutions may offer fewer career pathways, making it difficult for graduates to find well-paying jobs and repay their loans.

Breaking the Cycle: A Call to Action

To create a more equitable and inclusive higher education system, we need a multi-pronged approach:

• Increased Funding: Increased public funding for MSIs, TCUs, HBCUs, and community colleges is essential to ensure they have the resources they need to thrive.
• Endowment Building: Strategies to build endowments for these institutions, such as targeted fundraising campaigns and matching grants, can help narrow the gap.
• Policy Reforms: Policy changes that promote equitable funding models and increased federal support for higher education are crucial.
• Community Partnerships: Building strong partnerships with the communities these institutions serve can generate further support and resources.
• K-12 Investment: Increased investment in K-12 education, coupled with policies that promote equity in funding and resources, is essential to ensure all students are prepared for college success.
• Student Loan Reform: Reforming student loan policies to make them more affordable and accessible can help alleviate the burden of debt.

 

A Fight for Equity

The disparity between wealthy universities and underfunded institutions is a symptom of a larger systemic issue. By acknowledging the historical and ongoing factors at play, we can work towards a future where all students, regardless of background, have access to quality education and the opportunity to succeed. While the focus of this article has been on MSIs, TCUs, HBCUs, and community colleges, it is important to acknowledge that the funding gap also affects poor white working-class students. These students may face similar challenges in accessing affordable higher education and may benefit from increased funding for community colleges and other accessible institutions.

What happens to the American Dream during the College Meltdown?

American cultural outlets are slowly recognizing just how unequal society has become.  Traditional images of the American Dream and the values of meritocracy are being challenged by more critical discussions about a dangerously unequal society, including the increasingly corrupt and caste-like nature of  higher education.  The following quotes highlight this slow change in consciousness:

"...Public universities and colleges no longer offer the same degree of opportunity they provided to low and moderate income Americans as recently as a generation ago (Dr. Suzanne Mettler in "Degrees of Inequality").

"...Mergers are a hot topic for all kinds of schools, regardless of race and mission. They are presented by legislators as a way to save taxpayer money, strengthen research and educational opportunities, and to increase visibility in a hyper-competitive rush for student enrollment. But beneath the surface, it is part of a far more dangerous plan to divide the haves and have nots..." (Jarret L. Carter, HBCU Digest).

36% of colleges with endowments under $25 million are spending more than 5% per year from their endowment. It's unsustainable. (Dr. Robert Kelchen, Seton Hall University)

"If current trends continue over the next few decades, most state university systems would soon lose all funding from their states....In 2025 Colorado would become the first state to allocate zero funding to higher ed; Iowa would follow in 2029, then Michigan (2030), then Arizona (2032).  Most states wouldn't appropriate any university funding by 2050." (Alia Wong, The Atlantic)   

"You just have to walk through the Yale campus to see what money will buy you, which is a country club, right?...But we have to look at this in the big picture: There are tons and tons of other students at other colleges who are carrying enormous debt loads through their 20s and even into their 30s because school has gotten so expensive." (Malcolm Gladwell, NPR's Weekend Edition)

"...with the higher education industry growing faster than nearly any other industry in the world, we can probably expect its corruption and cronyism to grow just as fast." (Jesse Nickles, College Times)

There is also a growing body of literature critical of US higher education and specifically its institutional financing, service delivery (including the exploitation of adjuncts), student access, student outcomes, and accreditation.

The US college meltdown is deeper than most critics know.   How many people are examining Student Loan Asset-Backed Securities (SLABS) and higher education construction bonds?   

How many citizens really know how their local university and college endowments are getting consistent double digit returns?  Has your school received a valid stress test (NACUBO, 2015)?   

Powerful critics such as Bain Capital (Denneen & Dretler, 2012) and the New America Fund (Selingo, et al, 2013) argue that colleges are spending beyond their means, using outmoded teaching methods, becoming less accessible to students and their families, and refusing to be accountable for student graduation and default rates and “gainful employment” numbers.

Other sources have called the US higher education system's ancillary student loan businesses and accrediting agencies as either criminal or immoral.   For decades now, the student loan industry has been a racket: a scheme between corporations and government resulting in debt peonage for millions of working Americans.   

These harsh judgments are coming at at time of increasing government austerity towards higher education and college tuition costs that are out of reach for many students and their families.

While some may invite the US college crash as a form of “creative destruction” (Johnson, 2014, Economist, 2014), working families are discovering that higher education is an expensive if not risky proposition, sewing “seeds of discontent” among students as well as teachers (Frey, 2013, Chomsky, 2014, Mettler 2014, Lawler, 2015).

Knowing the perils that colleges, students, and families face, this briefing is a starting point to

• Identify whether your school is “at risk” (stress testing)
• Identify where changes can be made, and
• Discuss the importance of being personally and socially involved in making changes

Truthfully, most major "elite" schools are growing in power in wealth.  But this is education for the few.  My purpose here is to educate and agitate people about the college meltdown which is now underway at for-profit colleges, community colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), tribal colleges, schools with endowments below $50 million, and academic programs, such as law schools, at public colleges and universities facing state budget issues.

"For decades, bad actors in this (for-profit) industry have engaged in awful abuses, and for five years we’ve seen steady revelations of such misdeeds, including blatant deceptions by for-profit colleges to students and government overseers." (David Halperin)

"After reviewing the data compiled by several researchers...community colleges are pretty much a mess.  They get far too few of their students on the road to good jobs or four-year college degrees.   Many of their classes are poorly taught.  many of their programs are poorly organized.  Even their best effort are poorly funded."  (Jay Matthews, Washington Post)

"The problem (with community colleges) isn't tuition.  It's guidance and teaching.  Students are turned off not by the cost of community college but the frustrating entrance standards and classes that do not take them in the directions they want to go.  They are given little assistance in navigating the confusing requirements." (Jay Matthews) 

According to Johnny C. Taylor, president & CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, 50 to 60 percent of HBCUs don’t have a long-term optimistic outlook and about 10 percent are in imminent trouble.

"HBCU dorms have fallen into serious disrepair. Classrooms are in need of updating, and academic programs have suffered. Some schools have had to reduce faculty and staff. To be blunt, it’s the result of years and years of financial neglect. Some of these schools are in need of a major infusion of cash." (Lynette Holloway in The Root).

"These (tribal) colleges not only have high costs per graduate, but also weak educational results. The reasons are complex, but they start with the fact that many reservations are places of despair with levels of alcoholism, drug use, suicide, out-of-wedlock childbearing, violence, and unemployment that would shock the average American. Despondency rules."  (Tom Burnett)

"Law schools face real business challenges. Demand has declined every year since 2010—not just a little but by nearly 40 percent. The same number of law schools have 33,000 fewer prospective customers than they had five years ago."

Those who are sufficiently concerned need to read more about this issue and must follow up with their own homework and social action.

Elite private schools and State Flagship Universities that possess multi-billion dollar endowments, perpetual tax breaks, and renewing government grants promise to get wealthier and more powerful, leaving hundreds of poorer schools in peril.

 Institutions at Risk (“Stress Test”)

If higher education administrators, accrediting agencies, and teachers union officials refuse to be transparent and accountable to students and former students, alumni, adjuncts, and communities, the US college meltdown promises to be more cataclysmic.

Denneen and Dretler (2012) identify at least 13 metrics to identify whether your school is in financial trouble. If your school is not an elite private or public university with a large endowment, you might be at risk if your school is experiencing:

1. Falling admissions
2. Median salaries of graduates are flat
3. Reductions in funding
4. Taking on more debt
5. Tuition increases
6. Reducing faculty head count
7. Cut backs on financial aid

Best and Best (2014) argue that public universities that rely on out-of-state and international students may also be taking on risk that is not readily apparent.

Where to Make Changes
Daneen and Dretler (2012) outline four major areas to make changes.

1. Developing a clear strategy focused on the core of the institution (places that clearly add value)
2. Reducing support and administrative costs (fragmentation, redundancy, unneeded hierarchy, need to outsource some functions—caution reducing instruction costs)
3. Freeing up capital in non-core assets (real estate, physical assets, intellectual property)
4. Strategically investing on innovative models (flexibility for students)

Selingo, et al (2013) mention similar strategies and add several more options in reforming colleges, including:

• Stronger partnerships with community colleges
• Online offerings, hybrid courses
• Data driven student advising system
• More flexible and effective learning systems (online tutorials more effective than lecturing, personalized systems)
• Targeted financial aid
• Peer tutors and supplemental instruction
• Forging partnerships with business and government
• Make transferability more accessible
• Performance based funding

Exemplars of Innovation
No one can tell a community and its colleges what they must do to save resources and generate long-term resources. But there are exemplars of schools doing the right thing for their communities and their student bodies.

Coops are innovative partnerships that allow students to gain work experience before graduating. While coops have been an integral part of wealthy schools such as Drexel University, they can also be used to provide people with needed skills to serve a community. In another briefing, I highlight the growth and success of training at Working Class Accupuncture.

In Rockville, Maryland, nine public colleges and universities are housed in one campus--called the Universities at Shady Grove.  The program began 16 years ago  to "produce an educated workforce and encourage college completion among populations that traditionally struggle to get their ­degrees."

Innovative projects may require some pain, but may lead to even stronger and more mindful and sustainable programs.

Spelman College, for example, saved money by removing interscholastic sports, but replaced them with wellness programs that are an incubator for a "wellness revolution."

Social Involvement
Getting institutions to cut administrative fat, reduce cronyism and “dead wood”, and become more innovative will often result in resistance, even as other schools become more innovatative (Lederman, 2013). According to Daneen and Drettler (2012), in order for change to occur, an institution must

• Bring in key stakeholders to make needed change
• Acknowledge that change is necessary throughout the institution
• Address not only cost cutting, but adding value (e.g. consolidation can improve efficiency)
• Be clear about roles and accountability (functional accountability)

Conclusions
People in the US are living in times of increasing government austerity and declining percentages of traditional college-age students. These are political and social realities that are not going away soon. These realities make it vital that students, families, teachers, educational support staff, administrators, business people, taxpayers, alumni, and community members be actively involved in making colleges accessible, accountable, and responsive to society.

Strategic plans require informed input from an array of stakeholders who must be willing to sacrifice and to innovate. Without this, communities should be prepared for their schools to fail financially. Colleges should pay attention to their core missions, be wary of fads, and be able to adapt as their communities and their economies change. I hope that some of the ideas have prompted readers to think about what they can do to promote change in their colleges.

If you are not a member of an elite institution, how will your local school or alma mater listen and respond? Will they keep their heads buried in the sand, or will all stakeholders work together to be more socially responsive and responsible? If administrators and political leaders are unwilling to offer substantive changes, will students, teachers, and communities take a much larger and more active role in governing institutions, as they appear to be starting to do?

Epilogue: A Sincere Effort from Everyone
There is no shortage of knowledge about what works in US higher education. However, politics and power often get in the way of change (Habley, Bloom & Robbins, 2012, Mettler, 2014).

Those in power hoping to keep critics at bay by offering stakeholders a voice--but not actually considering any of their substantive or "radical" ideas--put themselves and their institutions and communities in peril (Hogan, 2003). It may give breathing room for those on the way out, but it doesn't ensure that the institution can survive for the longer run.

Let's get real. Political officials, regents, board members, and administrators know about lucrative and shady business deals, crony administrative positions, and high-priced pet projects. Teachers and teachers unions know about boring, uncaring, and unprofessional teachers who should be fired. Students know about ill-prepared disinterested peers and those who are cheating their way through school. Citizens know about the lack of access for particular people in their neighborhood and the maldistribution of resources. But it takes courage (and outstanding organization) to get everyone working, and struggling together, before a college fails in its mission.

While those with power may argue that others are at fault, they cannot disregard their own duties to facilitate the education and betterment of their communities.

[First edition posted as "The US College Meltdown," April 13, 2015.]

     

Wealth and Want Part 4: Robocolleges and Roboworkers

The rise of online-only education has been a double-edged sword. While it has expanded access to higher education, it has also introduced a new breed of institutions (robocolleges), students (robostudents), and workers (roboworkers). These accredited online universities are for-profit, non-profit, secular, and Christian, but the all share similar characteristics. 

Robocolleges prioritize profit over pedagogy, churning out ambitious and busy working-class professionals in fields like education, medicine, and business--and hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt. These schools include Southern New Hampshire University, Grand Canyon University, Liberty University Online, University of Maryland Global, University of Phoenix, Purdue University Global, University of Arizona Global Campus, Walden University, Capella University, and Colorado Tech.  A list of America's largest robocolleges is here.

The Robocollege Model

Robocolleges are characterized by their reliance on technology to deliver education at scale. They often employ automated systems for course content delivery, student assessment, and even faculty interaction. While this can reduce costs, it can also lead to a dehumanized and impersonal learning experience.

• Aggressive Marketing and Recruitment: Robocolleges often employ aggressive marketing tactics to attract students, including misleading advertisements and high-pressure sales techniques. These tactics can lead students to make hasty decisions without fully considering the financial implications of their enrollment.
• High Tuition Costs: Robocolleges typically charge significantly higher tuition rates compared to public and nonprofit institutions. This is often justified by claims of providing a superior education or specialized programs, but the quality of education may not always align with the cost.
• Lack of Faculty Interaction: Many robocolleges rely heavily on pre-recorded lectures and automated feedback systems. This can deprive students of the valuable mentorship and guidance that comes from interacting with experienced faculty.
• Shallow Curriculum: To maximize enrollment and revenue, robocolleges may offer overly broad or superficial curricula. This can result in graduates who lack the depth of knowledge and critical thinking skills required for professional success.
• Focus on Quantity Over Quality: Robocolleges often prioritize churning out graduates rather than ensuring their academic excellence. This can lead to a decline in standards and a dilution of the value of their degrees.
• Limited Academic Support: Robocolleges may have fewer resources and support services compared to traditional institutions, which can make it difficult for students to succeed academically. This can result in increased dropout rates and prolonged time to graduation, leading to higher overall costs.
• Poor Job Placement Rates: Graduates of robocolleges may struggle to find employment in their chosen fields or secure jobs that pay enough to justify the high cost of their education. This can make it challenging to repay student loans, especially if the loans are based on the expected earning potential of the degree.

The Impact on Professional Fields

• Education: Substandard educators can harm students' learning outcomes and contribute to a cycle of educational inequality.
• Medicine: Substandard medical professionals can pose a serious risk to patient safety and health. 
• Business: Graduates from robocolleges may lack the practical skills and business acumen needed to succeed in the competitive job market. 
• Government: Graduates may lack essential interpersonal skills like communication, negotiation, conflict resolution, and team building.  
  
  

 

Consequences of Student Debt on Roboworkers:

• Delayed Major Life Milestones: Student debt can delay major life milestones such as buying a home, starting a family, or pursuing further education.
• Financial Stress and Anxiety: The burden of student debt can lead to significant financial stress and anxiety, impacting overall well-being.
• Limited Economic Mobility: High levels of student debt can limit economic mobility, making it difficult for individuals to achieve their financial goals and improve their standard of living.
  

Addressing the Problem

To address the issue of substandard professionals produced by robocolleges, several measures can be taken:

• Increased Oversight: Regulatory bodies should strengthen oversight of online institutions to ensure they meet minimum quality standards.
• Transparency: Robocolleges should be required to disclose their faculty qualifications, course delivery methods, and student outcomes.
• Accreditation Reform: Accreditation standards should be updated to reflect the unique challenges and opportunities of online education.
• Consumer Awareness: Students should be made aware of the potential risks of enrolling in robocolleges and encouraged to research institutions carefully.

While online education can be a valuable tool, it is essential to hold institutions accountable for the quality of education they provide. By addressing the shortcomings of robocolleges, we can ensure that online learning continues to be a force for positive change in higher education.

Related links:

Robocollege Update (2024)

Robocolleges, Artificial Intelligence, and the Dehumanization of Higher Education (2023)

AI-ROBOT CAPITALISTS WILL DESTROY THE HUMAN ECONOMY (Randall Collins, 2023)

Guild Education: Enablers of Anti-Union Corporations and Subprime College Programs (2021)

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents" (2019)

The Higher Education Assembly Line (2019)

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

[Editor's note: The FY 2023 FSA Annual Report is here.] 

In 2014, the father-son team of Joel Best and Eric Best published The Student Loan Mess: How Good Intentions Created a Trillion Dollar Problem. Their argument was that rising student loan debt posed a major social and economic problem in the United States, exceeding $1 trillion at the time of publication (predicted to reach $2 trillion by 2020). This "mess" resulted from a series of well-intentioned but flawed policies that focused on different aspects of the issue in isolation, ultimately creating unintended consequences.

Key Points of the 2014 book:

History of Federal Involvement: The book explored the evolution of federal student loan programs, highlighting how each policy change created new problems while attempting to address the previous ones.

Cost of College: Rising tuition fees along with readily available loans fueled the debt crisis, as students borrowed more to cope with increasing costs.

Repayment Challenges: The authors delved into the difficulties graduates face repaying their loans, including high interest rates, complex repayment plans, and limited income mobility.

Societal Impacts: The book examined the broader societal consequences of student loan debt, such as delayed homeownership, reduced entrepreneurship, and increased economic inequality.

Beyond the Mess: While acknowledging the complexity of the issue, the authors discussed potential solutions, including loan forgiveness programs, income-based repayment plans, and increased government regulation of for-profit colleges.

Overall, "The Student Loan Mess" provided a critical historical analysis of the factors contributing to the crisis and suggested pathways towards a more sustainable system of higher education financing.

Expansion of Federal Loan Programs (1960s-1990s):

The creation of federal loan programs initially aimed to increase access to higher education.

This led to rising tuition costs as universities saw guaranteed funding, with less pressure to remain affordable.

Loan eligibility expanded, encouraging more borrowing even without clear career prospects for graduates.

Cost Explosion and Predatory Lending (1990s-2000s):

College costs skyrocketed due to various factors, including decreased state funding and increased administrative spending.

Loan limits were raised, further fueling the debt increase.

Private lenders entered the market, offering aggressive marketing and deceptive practices, targeting vulnerable students.

Recession and Repayment Struggles (2008-present):

The Great Recession exacerbated loan burdens as graduates faced limited job opportunities and stagnant wages.

Complex repayment plans and high interest rates created a challenging landscape for borrowers.

The rise of for-profit colleges further complicated the issue, often saddling students with debt for degrees with low earning potential.

Growing Awareness, Advocacy, and Reform (2010s-present):

Public awareness of the student loan crisis grew, leading to increased advocacy and demands for reform.

Issues like predatory lending, debt forgiveness, and income-based repayment gained traction.

In 2010, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act made a significant change to the federal student loan system. Previously, the government guaranteed private loans, meaning it reimbursed lenders if borrowers defaulted. In turn, lenders received subsidies for participating. The Act ended these subsidies for private lenders, resulting in over $60 billion saved that could be reinvested in student aid programs.

Debates on the role of government and private lenders in financing higher education continued.


Next Chapters?

Since 2014, almost ten years after the Student Loan Mess was published, several major developments have unfolded concerning student loan debt:

Growth and Persistence:

Debt continues to climb: While the growth rate has slowed somewhat, outstanding student loan debt has surpassed $1.7 trillion and remains a significant burden for millions of borrowers.



 

Racial and socioeconomic disparities persist: African American and Latinx borrowers disproportionately hold a higher amount of debt compared to white borrowers, exacerbating economic inequalities.

Policy Changes: 

https://x.com/The Biden-Harris administration has provided $136.6 billion in debt relief. 

Expansion of income-driven repayment plans: Options like Income-Based Repayment (IBR) and Pay As You Earn (PAYE) have been expanded, allowing borrowers to adjust their monthly payments based on income.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) challenges: Legal uncertainties and administrative backlogs have plagued PSLF, leaving many public servants struggling to qualify for loan forgiveness.

Temporary pandemic relief: During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal student loan payments were paused and interest rates set to 0%. Payments resumed in 2023.

Debt cancellation debates: Proposals for broad-based student loan forgiveness have gained traction, with several Democratic lawmakers pushing for different cancellation amounts. However, these proposals have faced legal and political hurdles. In 2023, the 9th Circuit Court ruled in favor of mass cancellation of loans from predatory for-profit colleges (Sweet v Cardona). A few months later, the US Supreme Court struck down President Biden's plan for debt relief to more than 30 million Americans.

Increased attention to for-profit colleges and online program managers: Scrutiny of predatory practices and low graduate outcomes at for-profit institutions has intensified. Gainful employment rules have been reestablished, but whether they will be enforced is in question.  


Looking forward:

The future of student loan debt remains uncertain. Key questions include:

Will broad-based loan forgiveness materialize?

Can income-driven repayment plans be made more effective?

How will future administrations address affordability and access to higher education?

What role will the private sector play in financing higher education?

How will declining enrollment numbers and skepticism about the value of higher education affect student loan debt and debt relief?  

Will higher ed institutions be held accountable for the debt of their former students and alumni?

Can higher education reduce consumer costs and provide value to consumers and communities at the same time?  

How will student loan debt affect disability, retirement, and life expectancy among long-term debtors?     

Policy Drivers:

Economic factors: A strong economy could increase government revenue, potentially enabling broader debt forgiveness or increased funding for higher education access initiatives. Conversely, an economic downturn could make policy interventions more challenging.

Elections and political pressure: Public opinion and the results of future elections will influence the political will for reform. Continued activism and pressure from advocacy groups could sway policy decisions.

Legal challenges and court rulings: Lawsuits over debt cancellation programs and loan servicer practices could impact the legal landscape and shape future policy options.

Private sector involvement: Developments in the private student loan market and potential regulations of lending practices could affect access to credit and repayment options.

Consumer Decisions:

Debt burden and economic outlook: The level of outstanding debt and future job prospects will significantly influence borrower behavior. Increased debt loads could incentivize riskier repayment strategies or delaying major life decisions like homeownership.

Awareness and financial literacy: Improved understanding of loan terms, repayment options, and alternative financing methods could empower borrowers to make informed decisions.

Government programs and incentives: Changes to income-driven repayment plans, loan forgiveness programs, and other government initiatives will directly impact consumer choices about managing their debt.

Emerging Trends:

Alternative financing models: Innovations like income-share agreements and skills-based financing could disrupt traditional loan structures and offer new options for students.

Technology and automation: Increased use of technology to streamline loan management and repayment could improve efficiency and transparency.

Focus on affordability and value: As concerns about the value proposition of higher education grow, there might be a shift towards emphasizing affordable options and skills-based learning.


How does student loan debt affect the lives of Americans?

Student loan debt has a profound impact on the lives of millions of Americans in various ways, affecting not just their finances but also their major life decisions and overall well-being. Here's a breakdown of some key areas:

Financial Impact:

Burden of debt: The average graduate has over $40,000 in student loan debt, significantly impacting their monthly budget and disposable income. This can limit savings for retirement, emergencies, and major purchases like a house.

Lower credit scores: Missed payments or delinquencies can negatively affect credit scores, hindering access to future loans and increasing interest rates on other forms of credit.

Delayed milestones: High debt burdens may cause individuals to delay major life milestones like buying a home, getting married, starting a family, or pursuing further education due to financial constraints.

Career Choices:

Job dissatisfaction: To make loan payments, some graduates might feel pressured to stay in high-paying but unfulfilling jobs, sacrificing career satisfaction for financial stability.

Entrepreneurial risk: The fear of financial failure due to debt may discourage individuals from pursuing entrepreneurial ventures, hindering innovation and economic growth.

Limited career mobility: Debt may lock individuals into specific career paths based on earning potential, restricting their ability to pursue desired career changes.

Mental and Emotional Wellbeing:

Stress and anxiety: The constant pressure of debt repayment can lead to significant stress and anxiety, impacting mental and emotional well-being.

Lower self-esteem: Feelings of financial instability and hopelessness can negatively impact self-esteem and overall life satisfaction.

Stigma and discrimination: Some individuals may face social stigma associated with student loan debt, further exacerbating the emotional burden.

Societal Impact:

Economic inequality: Student loan debt disproportionately affects certain groups, like minorities and low-income students, perpetuating and widening economic inequality.

Lower homeownership rates: High debt burdens can hinder homeownership, negatively impacting the housing market and contributing to wealth disparities.

Reduced consumer spending: Debt-burdened individuals have less disposable income, limiting their purchasing power and affecting the overall economy.


Social Class and Student Loan Debt

There's a well-documented and intricate relationship between social class and student loan debt, characterized by significant inequalities and disparities. Here's a breakdown of some key points:

Higher burden on lower classes:

Borrowing rates: Individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to borrow student loans due to limited family resources and higher college costs compared to their income.

Debt amounts: Borrowers from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often take on larger debt loads due to higher tuition fees and living expenses, often exceeding their earning potential after graduation.

Repayment challenges: They face greater difficulty repaying loans due to lower-paying jobs, making them more susceptible to delinquency and default. This hinders wealth accumulation and upward mobility.

Contributing factors:

Limited financial support: Lack of parental financial support or savings forces students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to rely heavily on loans for college expenses.

Limited college options: Limited access to affordable, high-quality educational institutions often steers individuals towards for-profit colleges with deceptive practices and low graduation rates, leading to high debt with limited job prospects.

Ongoing Debate

There is ongoing debate on solutions to address the student loan crisis, with proposals ranging from broad-based loan forgiveness to reforms in higher education financing and income-driven repayment plans. The future of student loan debt and its impact on Americans remains uncertain and depends on various factors, including policy decisions, economic trends, and individual financial choices.

The Student Loan Debt Movement

There has been an organized effort for student loan debt relief since the 2010s. This movement, using direct action, lawsuits, and lobbying has had some gains, putting pressure for accountability for schools that use predatory practices--and getting debt relief for hundreds of thousands of debtors.  The most notable organization has been the Debt Collective.  

Image of Ann Bowers, courtesy of the Debt Collective

There have been legal allies too, such as the Harvard Project on Predatory Student Lending (PPSL) and the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC).    

Named plaintiffs Theresa Sweet (L) and Alicia Davis (R) outside the federal district court in San Francisco on November 6, 2022, three days before the final approval hearing in Sweet v Cardona (Image credit: Ashley Pizzuti) 

Resistance to Debt Relief

The reasons why some people might not support student loan forgiveness. Some conservatives believe that it is unfair to forgive the debts of those who willingly took out loans, while others believe that it would be a waste of taxpayer money. Additionally, some believe that student loan forgiveness would not address the root causes of the problem, such as the high cost of tuition.

It is important to note that not all conservatives oppose student loan forgiveness. Some support income-based repayment plans or public service loan forgiveness. Additionally, some believe the government should focus on making college more affordable, rather than simply forgiving existing debt.

According to a 2019 poll by the Pew Research Center, 54% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents opposed forgiving all student loan debt, while 37% supported it.

Student Loan Debt Power Analysis: Who Benefits from Inaction?

There are elites and elite organizations who are (at least on the backstage) against student loan debt relief: student loan servicers (e.g. Maximus, Nelnet, Navient, and Sallie Mae), big banks, large corporations, and the US military. For them, debt serves as a way to get others to do their bidding. Debt is essential as a leverage tool to recruit and retain workers. Debt relief could also create more competition for better, more meaningful jobs, which some elites may not want for their children. States may be unwilling or unable to further subsidize higher education if elites are unwilling to pay. This situation is likely to worsen as Medicaid budgets are used for a growing number of elderly and increasingly disabled Baby Boomers.  

Related links:

Borrower Defense Claims Surpass 750,000. Consumers Empowered. Subprime Colleges and Programs Threatened.

 

People's Rally for Student Debt Cancellation to be held outside Supreme Court, February 28, 2023  

 

Department of Education: Over half of federal student loan borrowers were not paying before Pandemic (Alan Collinge)

Student Loans and a Brutal Lifetime of Debt (Dahn Shaulis and Glen McGhee)

Maximus, Student Loan Debt, and the Poverty Industrial Complex

SLABS: The Soylent Green of US Higher Education

I Went on Strike to Cancel My Student Debt and Won. Every Debtor Deserves the Same. (Ann Bowers)

An Email of Concern to the People of Arkansas about the University of Phoenix (Tarah Gramza)

Higher Education FOIA Requests to US Department of Education

Paying the Poorly Educated (Jack Metzger)

Joe Biden was right to propose free Pre-K education for 3- and 4-year-olds and free community college in his initial legislative package, rather than pushing for free public university education and the cancellation of college debt. All four progressive education initiatives would serve the public good by making education more available to millions. However, policies that promote university education do little to help the working class. They also feed into the false and damaging narrative that college is the right path to upward mobility for most people.

While free public universities could be transformative in the very long term, most of the benefits of this policy would go to higher-income families. They are more likely to live in areas with high-quality K-12 schools, and their children also are more likely to have the kinds of social and cultural capital that are especially advantageous for getting into and succeeding in college.

Similarly, while forgiving all or some portion of existing student loan debt would likely benefit low- and middle-income young people, who are more likely to have higher levels of debt than their more affluent contemporaries, this too has limited benefit for the working class, because it only helps those who have gone to college. That’s a large group, but forgiving their debts does nothing for the many others who aren’t in debt because they didn’t go to college at all or for very long.

Free public Pre-K and free community college, on the other hand, disproportionately benefit working-class children and adults. Free Pre-K will not only improve the educational prospects of children, but it also saves families money. For those currently using the cheapest day care, this would save some $10,000 to $15,000 a year – a significant increase in spending power for all income classes, but transformative for low- and middle-income family budgets. What’s more, for low-income parents who currently can’t afford day care and thus can’t work full time or at all, free Pre-K would allow them to work and earn more in the paid workforce.

Likewise, free community college would disproportionately benefit low-income adults and young people who cannot go to college full time because they need to work. Community college education includes apprenticeships and other pre-training that is needed for entry into many middle-wage jobs, including in the soon-to-be-expanding building trades. Free public university would mostly benefit those young people who have more time to take the long road, while free community college is more valuable for working adults who already have work and family responsibilities.

The class-skewed benefits of these initiatives are relatively complicated, but we should also pay attention to the messages they reinforce. Prioritizing free college and student debt forgiveness plays into a toxic narrative that has deep roots in our public discourse: that college-educated people are more valuable, more worthy of public subsidy, than the so-called “poorly educated.” This narrative accepts that college graduates deserve to be paid more, but it also offers a false promise: that the primary way to increase wages and living standards – or more grandly, to restore the American Dream of upward mobility — is for more and more people to get college degrees. Both these messages are false. The first reflects a nearly impregnable professional-middle-class prejudice, but the second is an intellectual error that, if corrected, could burst a professional-class bubble.

College education cannot be a path for widespread upward mobility because a large majority of jobs in our economy do not require a college education or anything like it. 61% require high school or less and another 11% require an associate’s degree, some college, or other postsecondary education – but not a bachelor’s degree. Only 28% of jobs in 2020 required a bachelor’s, a far lower percentage than the nearly 40% of workers over 25 who had that degree.

That is why we find so many men and women with bachelor’s degrees as fast food workers; retail salespersons or cashiers; waiters, waitresses or cooks; freight, stock and material movers; janitors and cleaners; and home health care or child care workers. These occupations are among those with the largest annual job openings , and all of them have median annual wages ranging from $22,740 to $29,510 (that is, less than $15 an hour).

This is a tragedy for college graduates who were told that becoming part of the exam-passing classes would lead to better lives. But for most people doing those jobs, it probably never crossed their minds that they could go to college. Still, that work needs to be done, no matter the educational attainment of the people who do it. The work they do is socially valuable, some of it even “essential,” and those jobs need to be paid a living wage. To be told that the only way to improve your life conditions is through more (and more) education is demoralizing and, especially for those who work alongside college graduates doing the same work, palpably false.

Higher education is a circuitous route to improving one’s economic prospects, a route that will not work for at least a third of those who can afford to take it, and a route that is not realistically available for the majority of our population. If we want to improve wages and conditions, we need to improve them directly, not by producing more college grads.

President Biden’s initial transformative legislative package that got whittled down to Build Back Better (BBB) embodied the understanding that education was neither the answer nor even an important part of the answer for achieving upward mobility. That initial package included a $15-an-hour minimum wage and the union-empowering Pro-Act that were quickly jettisoned because they could not avoid a Republican filibuster the way budget bills can. But, equally or even more important, many elements of Build Back Better provided for a series of enhanced social wages that together would have dramatically improved life prospects across the board – none more important than the package of child care subsidies that included universal free Pre-K.

Social wages explicitly recognize that even with better minimum wages and stronger unions, most wages will not come close to reflecting the collective social value workers provide. Nor are wages going to be sufficient to provide decent incomes for most people most of the time. Reducing the cost of health care, housing, transportation, and child care (all of which BBB would have addressed) increases the real incomes of all workers, and it has the most dramatic effect on low-wage workers.

By prioritizing those workers, most of whom do not have college degrees, the Biden package had the potential to pierce the professional-class prejudice that has dominated public policy. Both Presidents Bush and Obama proclaimed that more and better education was the only way to address our savage inequalities of income, wealth, and opportunity. Biden, by contrast, is the first president in memory to actually brag about creating well-paying jobs that do not require any college.

Alas, Build Back Better – let alone the initial, larger version of itself – is dead for now, and the possibility of a truly transformational package becoming law is probably gone for the immediate future. But a healthy majority of the public and more than 90% of Congressional Democrats supported the core idea of increasing taxes on corporations and the rich in order to transfer money to workers and citizens in ways that could dramatically increase working-class people’s chances for creating better lives. Hopefully, that support shows a shift away from the idea that education is the only path to improved life prospects. A public consensus may be developing that even the poorly educated deserve to earn a good living.

Jack Metzgar

Jack Metzgar is author of the recent Cornell ILR Press book, Bridging the Divide: Working-Class Culture in a Middle-Class Society.

*This article first appeared in Working Class Perspectives.

Related link: The College Dream is Over (Gary Roth)

Related link: The Power of Recognizing Higher Ed Faculty as Working-Class (Helena Worthen)