Chegg: A Critical History of a Disruptor Turned Controversy Machine

Chegg, once hailed as a Silicon Valley disruptor democratizing access to education, has undergone a profound and troubling transformation since its founding in 2005. What began as a textbook rental company evolved into a billion-dollar homework help empire—an empire that, critics argue, has done more to undermine academic integrity than to foster genuine learning. Its business model capitalized on the structural weaknesses of American higher education and, in the process, normalized a shadow system of paid cheating.

Origins: Textbooks, Student Debt, and Disruption

Chegg was born at the intersection of inflated textbook costs and the neoliberal university. Founders Osman Rashid and Aayush Phumbhra sought to bring the efficiencies of the sharing economy to the campus bookstore. In its early years, Chegg attracted investor attention by promising cheaper textbook rentals—a modest but important service in an era of spiraling student debt.

But as textbook rentals became commodified, Chegg pivoted. By the early 2010s, it was building a suite of digital services: step-by-step solutions, tutoring, and subscription-based homework help under its Chegg Study brand. When Chegg went public in 2013, it promoted itself not just as a tech company, but as a partner in “student success.” In reality, it had found a way to turn student desperation into a profitable SaaS model.

Homework Help or Cheating-as-a-Service?

Chegg’s transformation into a homework help platform would eventually earn it a darker moniker: “Cheating-as-a-Service.”

Nowhere is this critique more powerfully detailed than in education journalist Derek Newton’s Cheat Sheet, a Substack project dedicated to exposing the industrial-scale cheating facilitated by platforms like Chegg, Course Hero, and Studypool. Newton, who has tracked the issue since 2019, documented case after case in which students used Chegg not to learn—but to submit answers for graded assignments and exams. Faculty across disciplines and institutions began reporting widespread cheating enabled by Chegg, especially during the remote learning surge triggered by COVID-19.

In one issue of Cheat Sheet, Newton wrote:

“Chegg isn’t an education company. It’s a cheating company. It monetizes academic dishonesty, obfuscates accountability, and deflects responsibility while raking in millions in subscription revenue.”

According to Newton, Chegg’s "ask an expert" function—where students submit specific questions and receive solutions within minutes—became a tool of choice for real-time cheating during online exams. Despite university honor codes, many students saw Chegg as a normalized part of academic life. Meanwhile, Chegg’s refusal to proactively block cheating or cooperate fully with universities left institutions scrambling.

Pandemic Profits and Ethical Collapse

During the COVID-19 pandemic, as universities shifted online, Chegg’s subscriber base soared. Students confined to Zoom classrooms flocked to digital platforms for support—or shortcuts. By 2021, Chegg had nearly 7 million subscribers and posted annual revenues of $776 million. Its stock price peaked above $100 in February 2021.

But that growth came with growing backlash. Professors and academic integrity officers called for investigations. Some universities demanded IP logs and timestamps from Chegg in academic misconduct cases. In response, Chegg adopted a policy of releasing user data only under subpoena—shifting the burden to faculty and administrators.

Chegg, for its part, insisted it was simply offering "study support" and denied facilitating cheating. But the evidence presented in Newton’s Cheat Sheet and other academic publications told a different story.

Collapse, AI Disruption, and Image Repair

In 2023, a new threat emerged: OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Free, flexible, and fast, ChatGPT began to supplant Chegg for the same user base. In a rare moment of corporate honesty, Chegg CEO Dan Rosensweig told investors that ChatGPT was impacting the company’s subscriber growth. Wall Street panicked. Chegg’s stock plummeted, its valuation shrank, and the company began rounds of layoffs—first 4% of its workforce, then 23% in 2024.

Desperate to stay relevant, Chegg pivoted again—this time toward “CheggMate,” its proprietary AI chatbot built in partnership with OpenAI. Yet the damage to its brand, and its future, was already apparent.

By 2025, Chegg was struggling to define its purpose in a rapidly changing education tech landscape. Its subscription model had been undermined by free AI. Its name remained tainted by years of academic dishonesty. And efforts to shift into AI tutoring raised further concerns about data privacy, surveillance, and automation in learning.

A Mirror of Higher Education’s Failures

Chegg’s rise and fall cannot be understood in isolation. It thrived in a system where students are overburdened, instructors are underpaid, and administrators look the other way as long as graduation rates and tuition dollars remain stable. Its gig-based backend—where underpaid "experts" supply answers for a global audience—mirrors the adjunctification of academic labor itself.

Derek Newton’s Cheat Sheet and other critical reporting have exposed how edtech platforms exploit the credibility crisis in higher education. The real scandal isn’t just that Chegg exists—it’s that the ecosystem made it necessary.

Conclusion

Chegg’s legacy may one day be viewed not as a revolution in learning, but as a symptom of higher education’s marketized decline. Like diploma mills and for-profit colleges before it, Chegg served the needs of students abandoned by the system—but did so at the cost of academic trust and intellectual growth.

As the AI era unfolds, and companies like Chegg scramble to reposition themselves, the Higher Education Inquirer will continue to ask: who profits, who pays, and who is left behind?

---

Sources

• Derek Newton, Cheat Sheet newsletter: https://cheatsheet.substack.com

• Chegg Inc. 10-K and Investor Calls (2015–2025)

• The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Is Chegg Helping or Hurting?”

• Inside Higher Ed, “Chegg, ChatGPT, and the New Arms Race in EdTech”

• Bloomberg, “Chegg Warns of ChatGPT Threat”

• Reddit threads: r/Professors, r/College, r/AcademicIntegrity

• The Markup, “Chegg’s Gig-Economy Model and Academic Labor”

• The Atlantic, “The Cheating Economy”

• Higher Education Inquirer Archives on EdTech and Academic Integrity

EdTech on Reddit: A View from the Ground Floor

On the surface, the education technology sector still markets itself as innovative, exciting, and essential. But a closer look at one of the most active online forums for education technology professionals—Reddit’s r/edtech—reveals something more conflicted. Beneath the surface hype, professionals, educators, and developers are wrestling with deep questions about impact, sustainability, and purpose. 

One particularly candid thread titled “EdTech is booming, but are we actually solving real problems?” captures the contradictions at the heart of the industry. The discussion, which you can find here, begins with a deceptively simple question that cuts to the core of the field’s current identity crisis.

The post's author reflects on the fast-paced expansion of edtech platforms and tools, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic. They point to the increasing ease of starting a company, accessing AI tools, and attracting seed funding, while simultaneously questioning whether these efforts are genuinely improving learning or merely adding noise to an already crowded ecosystem. They ask whether these tools are addressing core issues or simply automating what doesn’t need to be automated.

The responses are both candid and sobering. One veteran of the industry responded bluntly: “Edtech is not booming and has never really been about the ‘real problems.’ It's always been about money and profits over learning outcomes.” That comment received widespread agreement and set the tone for a critical conversation. Others pointed out the industry’s cyclical nature. “Edtech got very drunk on COVID,” said one user. “It drove a huge surge in valuations, but edtech seems committed to these boom/bust cycles every 7–12 years.” The market hype rarely aligns with long-term adoption, and the collapse of post-pandemic funding has only exacerbated this disconnect.

Some posters argued that edtech remains a “vitamin” instead of a “painkiller”—in other words, a nice-to-have rather than a must-have. Others expressed frustration that edtech often duplicates traditional classroom experiences without improving them. One user described much of the industry as “PowerPoint with lipstick.”

Another major theme is the shift in purchasing power and institutional demand. While startups chase direct-to-consumer models or try to sell to companies, the bulk of the market remains in K–12 and higher education institutions. These institutions are now facing budget cuts and reduced federal COVID-era funding. One teacher noted that “schools have less funding and are becoming more risk averse,” making it even harder for edtech startups to gain traction unless they solve very specific problems.

Some edtech insiders also weighed in. A sales representative commented that tools not tied to curriculum—particularly safety and administration tools—are the only ones gaining momentum. In other words, districts may still buy technology, but they’re buying it for infrastructure, not pedagogy. In a parallel conversation, another Redditor emphasized that much of the money is still on the hardware side: Chromebooks, security systems, and basic connectivity tools.

Meanwhile, generative AI remains a wild card. Several posters, including a college professor, described increased interest in AI-powered learning tools, but they also cautioned that few institutions have coherent strategies for integrating them into teaching. Hype continues to outpace effectiveness.

Other users expressed concern about how edtech firms are shaped by investor expectations. One pointed out that venture capital is trying to insert industrial design (ID) approaches into traditional education, often with harmful results. They argued that these approaches not only fail to improve outcomes but also deepen inequality and erode trust in public education.

If r/edtech is a canary in the coal mine, it’s one with a lot of sharp observations and few illusions. The subreddit is a space where industry insiders, educators, and skeptics hash out what’s working, what isn’t, and what’s broken. The consensus seems clear: most edtech products are not solving fundamental problems. The collapse of funding from the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds has dried up easy wins. Products that do succeed tend to solve practical administrative problems, not pedagogical ones. Teachers, meanwhile, are being asked to adopt new tools without evidence that they help students learn or reduce their workload.

The Reddit forum serves as an unscripted, unfiltered pulse check on the edtech world. Unlike polished press releases or self-congratulatory conferences, r/edtech offers raw and sometimes painful truths. For researchers, journalists, and education leaders, the subreddit offers a vital look at what the field is thinking when no one is watching. In that sense, it may be one of the most honest barometers of education technology today.

---

Source:
“EdTech is booming, but are we actually solving real problems?” Reddit, June 2025.
https://www.reddit.com/r/edtech/comments/1lu23y5/edtech_is_booming_but_are_we_actually_solving/

Future Scenarios: A Post-College America (Glen McGhee)

By 2035, the traditional American college system may be a relic of the past. A variety of forces—economic, technological, demographic, and cultural—are converging to transform the landscape of higher learning. Grounded in Papenhausen's cyclical model of institutional change, current data and trends suggest a plausible future in which college campuses no longer serve as the central hubs of postsecondary education. Instead, a more fragmented, skills-based, and economically integrated system may rise in its place.

Since 2010, college enrollment in the U.S. has declined by 8.5%, with more than a million fewer students than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Over 80 colleges have closed or merged since 2020, and many experts forecast a sharp acceleration in closures, especially as the so-called “demographic cliff” reduces the pool of traditional-age college students. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia projects a potential 142% increase in annual college closures by the end of the decade.

This institutional unraveling is not solely demographic. Federal disinvestment in research and financial aid, rising tuition (up more than 1,500% since the late 1970s), and increasing underemployment among recent graduates are undermining the perceived and actual value of a college degree. Emerging technologies, particularly AI, are rapidly changing the ways people learn and the skills employers seek. Meanwhile, the proliferation of fake degrees and credential fraud further erodes trust in conventional academic institutions.

In response to these destabilizing trends, four future scenarios offer possible replacements for the traditional college system. Each reflects different combinations of technological advancement, labor market shifts, and institutional evolution.

The Corporate Academy Landscape envisions a future in which large companies like Google, Amazon, and IBM take the lead in educating the workforce. Building on existing certificate programs, these corporations establish their own academies, offering industry-aligned training and credentials. Apprenticeships and on-the-job learning become the primary paths to employment, with digital badges and blockchain-secured micro-credentials replacing degrees. Corporate campuses cluster in major urban centers, while rural areas develop niche training programs related to local industries such as agriculture and renewable energy.

In The Distributed Learning Networks scenario, education becomes fully decentralized. Instead of enrolling in a single institution, learners access personalized instruction through AI-powered platforms, community-based workshops, and online mentorships. Local libraries, maker spaces, and co-working hubs evolve into core educational environments. Learning is assessed through portfolios and real-world projects rather than grades or standardized exams. Regional expertise clusters develop organically, especially in smaller cities and towns with existing community infrastructure.

The Guild Renaissance looks to the past to shape the future. Modeled on pre-industrial apprenticeship systems, professional guilds re-emerge as gatekeepers of career development. These organizations handle training, credentialing, and job placement in sectors such as healthcare, construction, technology, and the arts. Hierarchical systems guide individuals from novice to expert, and regional economies specialize around guild-supported industries. Employment becomes tightly integrated with ongoing learning, minimizing the traditional gap between school and work.

Finally, The Hybrid Workplace University scenario grows out of the shift to remote and hybrid work. With more than one-third of workers expected to remain partially remote, workplaces themselves become learning environments. Education is embedded in professional workflows through VR training, modular courses, and flexible scheduling. As access to learning becomes geographically unrestricted, rural and underpopulated areas may see renewed vitality as remote workers seek lower-cost, higher-quality living environments.

Despite their differences, these scenarios share several transformational themes. Economically, resources formerly directed toward campus infrastructure are redirected toward skills training, research hubs, and community development. Culturally, the notion of lifelong learning becomes normalized, and credentials become more transparent, practical, and verifiable. Socially, traditional notions of campus life give way to professional and civic identity tied to industry specialization or community engagement.

The evolution of quality assurance is also noteworthy. Traditional accreditation may give way to employer-driven standards, market-based performance indicators, and digital verification technologies. Blockchain and competency-based evaluations offer more direct and trustworthy assessments of ability and readiness for employment.

Geographically, these changes will reshape communities in different ways. Former college towns must navigate economic transitions, potentially reinventing themselves as hubs for innovation or remote work. Urban areas may thrive as centers of corporate education and research. Rural regions may find new purpose through specialized training programs aligned with local resources and culture.

If these trends continue, the benefits could be substantial: reduced student debt, more direct paths to employment, faster innovation, and greater regional economic diversity. But challenges remain. The loss of traditional university research infrastructure may hinder long-term scientific progress. Access to elite training may increasingly depend on corporate affiliation, potentially limiting social mobility and excluding those without early access to professional networks. The liberal arts and humanities—once central to American higher education—may struggle to find footing in this new paradigm.

In the broad view, these emerging models reflect a shift away from institutional prestige and toward demonstrable competence. The change is not only educational but societal, redefining what it means to learn, to work, and to belong. Whether this transformation leads to a more inclusive and efficient system or deepens existing inequities will depend on how these new models are regulated, supported, and adapted to public needs.

By 2035, the American educational system may no longer be anchored to age-segregated campuses and debt-financed degrees. Instead, it may revolve around pragmatic, lifelong pathways—deeply integrated with the labor market, shaped by regional strengths, and responsive to continuous technological change.

Sources:

1. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center

2. U.S. Department of Education

3. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia
   4–5. National Center for Education Statistics
   6–9. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index
   10–11. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
   12–13. McKinsey & Co., World Economic Forum
   14–16. U.S. Department of Justice, Accrediting Agencies
   17–19. Company Reports (Google, IBM, Amazon, Apple)
   20–21. U.S. Department of Labor
   22–24. Credential Engine, World Bank, Blockchain in Education Conference

4. Burning Glass Institute
   26–29. EdTech Reports, OECD, Pew Research Center
   30–31. National Apprenticeship Survey
   32–34. Gallup, Stanford Remote Work Project

5. UNESCO Blockchain for Education Report

A House Divided...

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Abraham Lincoln’s immortal words—delivered at a time of profound crisis—speak volumes to the United States of 2025. We are again a nation splintering at its foundations. Not only is the Trump administration’s 2025 spending bill a cruel redistribution of wealth and opportunity, but it is also a calculated assault on national cohesion. By pitting group against group, and widening already-existing chasms, this legislation weakens the country from within.

It worsens every major divide in American life:

Young and Old
This bill undermines the future of young people by defunding public education, freezing Pell Grant expansion, and dismantling student loan protections. Meanwhile, it offers little to nothing to the aging population—cutting health and housing programs while privatizing services they depend on. Instead of investing in generational cooperation, the bill fuels resentment: older voters blamed for electing regressive leaders, younger generations accused of entitlement. Both groups suffer—but separately.

Rich and Poor
At its core, the bill is a brutal act of class warfare. It strips federal protections and benefits from working-class families while expanding tax loopholes for the wealthy and funding corporate subsidies. The working poor lose access to healthcare, clean air and water, education, and social safety nets. The rich get richer—and more powerful. The wealth gap, already obscene, becomes insurmountable. Billionaires buy colleges, elections, and media narratives while everyday Americans lose homes, degrees, and dignity.

Men and Women
By slashing childcare funding, defunding reproductive healthcare, and threatening Title IX protections, the spending bill deepens the economic and social vulnerabilities of women, especially single mothers and women of color. Meanwhile, men, too, are left in precarious labor markets with fewer public supports and more pressure to conform to toxic models of masculinity peddled by reactionary forces. The bill ignores gender inequality while encouraging cultural backlashes, deepening mistrust between the sexes.

White, Black, and Brown
The racial fault lines of American life are carved even deeper by this legislation. Black and Brown communities, long targets of systemic disinvestment, will face cuts in education, public health, housing, and environmental protections. Latinx families lose protections for immigrant students and face heightened surveillance. Native American communities see treaty responsibilities ignored yet again. White working-class families, while nominally courted by nationalist rhetoric, are left materially worse off—offered culture war instead of clean water and decent jobs.

The Trump budget does not unite Americans; it divides them more efficiently. It weaponizes identity and scarcity—turning natural allies into enemies and stoking civil conflict not with guns but with spreadsheets.

This is not accidental. In a 2022 interview, we warned about the growing possibility of colleges being drawn into “both sides of a Second U.S. Civil War between Christian Fundamentalists and neoliberals.” In such a conflict, we said, “working families will take the largest hit.” That warning now feels prophetic. Colleges are already caught in the ideological crossfire, serving either the nationalist right or the neoliberal consulting class—while student debt and academic labor exploitation grow on both sides.

This bill isn't just a financial document. It's a manifesto for a new Gilded Age, where working people are left to fight one another over crumbs while billionaires hoard the pie.

Higher education, which once promised upward mobility and civic understanding, has been transformed into a marketplace of credentials, surveillance, and extraction. The 2025 Trump bill accelerates this, cutting off pathways to opportunity while protecting the interests of robocolleges, shady lenders, and digital monopolies.

The house is burning. And if we do not find a way to build solidarity across these divisions—young and old, rich and poor, Black and white, men and women—we will fall, not as tribes, but as a nation.

Sources:

• Interview with Dahn Shaulis, College Viability (2022)

• Congressional Budget Office, Trump 2025 Budget Analysis

• National Student Legal Defense Network

• American Council on Education, Pell Grant and Loan Data

• U.S. Department of Education: Title IX and regulatory changes

• Clean Energy for America Coalition

• U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Education and Tribal Funding Reports

• Higher Education Inquirer investigations on robocolleges, edtech profiteering, and student debt

How the 940-Page Senate Bill Accelerates the College Meltdown

In the midst of economic uncertainty, demographic decline, and ballooning student debt, the U.S. Senate has introduced a 940-page spending and tax reconciliation bill—dubbed by some lawmakers as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” But behind the political branding lies a sweeping blueprint for disinvestment in working-class Americans, especially in higher education. If passed, the bill would not only accelerate the ongoing College Meltdown—it would codify it.

Slashing the Ladder: Pell Grant Restrictions

At the heart of the bill is a deceptively simple change: redefining full-time college attendance from 12 credits per semester to 15 credits. This shift may sound technical, but its consequences are enormous.

According to the Congressional Budget Office and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), this new definition would result in more than 4.4 million Pell Grant recipients receiving either reduced aid or losing eligibility entirely. An estimated 1.4 million students—mostly community college attendees, part-time students, older learners, and single parents—could lose access to Pell Grants altogether.

In a nation already grappling with declining college enrollments and rising student attrition, these changes will likely push thousands more out of the system and close the door for many before they ever step into a classroom.

Medicaid, SNAP, and the Vanishing Safety Net

Higher education does not exist in a vacuum. The Senate bill proposes more than $930 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade. These cuts come alongside the imposition of work requirements and cost-sharing mandates that will affect millions of low-income Americans—including a significant share of college students.

Many students depend on Medicaid for mental health support, primary care, and prescriptions. Others rely on SNAP to eat. Under the proposed legislation, these essential supports would be stripped from the very students who need them to persist in school.

A 2023 GAO report found that over 30 percent of U.S. college students experience food or housing insecurity. This bill doesn’t just ignore that crisis—it actively worsens it.

Starving Public Colleges

The federal Medicaid cuts would ripple through state budgets, forcing legislatures to make difficult decisions. In many cases, that will mean diverting funds away from public higher education systems.

Already under strain from declining enrollment and years of austerity, public colleges—especially regional universities and community colleges—would face even deeper cuts. The likely result: tuition increases, faculty layoffs, program closures, and the elimination of student services.

In effect, the bill shifts the cost burden of public education from the collective public to individual students and families, reinforcing a model of privatized risk and public abandonment.

Loans Over Grants, Profits Over People

In parallel with Pell Grant restrictions, the bill unwinds critical student loan protections put in place over the last five years. It reverses enhancements to Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans and proposes the elimination of Biden-era loan forgiveness programs.

These changes benefit the student loan servicing industry, which stands to profit from lengthened repayment timelines and reduced cancellation pathways. Meanwhile, borrowers—especially those from low-income backgrounds—are pushed deeper into long-term debt peonage.

For a generation already saddled with debt and entering a labor market rife with instability, the Senate bill amounts to a massive wealth transfer upward—from struggling students to banks and servicers.

Enabling the Rise of Robocolleges

The weakening of financial aid and public support creates fertile ground for low-cost, low-quality alternatives: online diploma mills, edtech credential vendors, and "robocolleges" that replace faculty with algorithms.

Without adequate Pell funding or public college access, desperate students will be more likely to fall into the traps of for-profit institutions and unaccredited providers that promise quick credentials—but often deliver worthless degrees and predatory loans.

This shift doesn’t just hurt students. It undermines the quality of the U.S. workforce, degrades academic labor, and cedes the future of education to automation and private equity.

A Future for the Few

Ultimately, the “One Big Beautiful Bill” cements a two-tiered higher education system: elite universities insulated by billion-dollar endowments, and a gutted public sector limping along under austerity, privatization, and surveillance.

It is no coincidence that these policies are being introduced as the population ages, racial and economic inequality deepens, and faith in democratic institutions erodes. Higher education, once framed as a ladder of mobility, is becoming a narrow gangplank—offering escape only to the few who can afford it.

Meltdown Legislation 

The College Meltdown is no longer a slow decline. It’s being legislated into crisis.

If passed, the Senate’s 940-page bill would mark a turning point: a systemic dismantling of the supports that make higher education possible for working-class Americans. From financial aid to public health, from state colleges to community safety nets, the tools of educational access are being hollowed out by design.

And while elite donors and legislators continue to fund their own children's paths to Princeton and Stanford, millions of other Americans will be left out—again.

---

Sources:

• NASFAA: Pell Grant Aid Analysis

• Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Medicaid Cut Estimates

• Inside Higher Ed: “Community Colleges Fear Pell Changes”

• GAO Report: “Food and Housing Insecurity Among College Students”

• Brookings Institution: “Cuts to the Social Safety Net and the Future of Higher Education”

Murky Waters 2: Ambow Education, Chinese Influence, and US Edtech, 2013-2025

In Chinese culture, there’s an old proverb: “混水摸鱼” — “In murky waters, it is easier to catch fish.” The lesson is clear: confusion and opacity benefit those looking to manipulate outcomes for personal gain. In politics, finance, and international affairs, it is a warning. In the case of Ambow Education Holding Ltd., it may be a roadmap.

On June 26, 2025, Ambow announced a partnership with the tiny University of the West (UWest), a Buddhist college in Rosemead, California, enrolling just 153 students. The deal will implement Ambow’s HybriU platform—a so-called “phygital” learning solution combining digital and physical education delivery—positioning the technology as a tool for expanding U.S. academic access to international students. But a closer look reveals a story less about educational innovation than about power, soft influence, and the financialization of struggling institutions.

Ambow, a Cayman Islands–registered and formerly Beijing-based EdTech firm, has quietly entrenched itself in U.S. higher education. While other sectors of the U.S. economy—especially semiconductors and AI—have become more cautious of Chinese-linked investment due to national security concerns, American higher education remains notably exposed. The Ambow-UWest partnership exemplifies that vulnerability.

This is not Ambow’s first foray into U.S. academia. In 2013, the company was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and liquidated after accusations of accounting irregularities. Rebranded and restructured offshore, Ambow re-entered the market, acquiring distressed for-profit colleges. In 2017, it bought Bay State College in Boston. Three years later, Massachusetts fined the school $1.1 million for fraudulent advertising, inflated placement rates, and illegal telemarketing. The school shuttered in 2023 after eliminating key services, including its library, and squandering pandemic-era federal aid.

In 2020, Ambow acquired the NewSchool of Architecture and Design in San Diego. Since then, NewSchool has appeared on the U.S. Department of Education’s Heightened Cash Monitoring 2 list, signifying severe financial instability. Lawsuits followed, including one for unpaid rent and another over compensation disputes involving the school’s former president.

Still, Ambow continues to market itself as a leader in “AI-driven” phygital innovation. HybriU, its flagship platform, has been promoted at edtech and investor conferences like CES and ASU-GSV, with lofty promises about immersive education and intelligent classrooms. But the evidence is thin. The platform’s website contains vague marketing language, no peer-reviewed validation, no public client list, and stock images masquerading as real users. Its core technology, OOOK (One-on-One Knowledge), was piloted in China in 2021 but shows no signs of adoption by credible U.S. institutions.

Why, then, would a college like University of the West—or potentially a major public institution like Colorado State University (CSU), reportedly exploring a partnership with Ambow—risk associating with such an entity?

To understand the stakes, we must follow the money and the power behind the brand.

Ambow’s largest shareholder bloc is controlled by Jian-Yue Pan (aka Pan Jianyue), a Chinese executive with deep ties to the country’s tech and investment elite. Pan is general partner of CEIHL Partners I and II, two Cayman Islands entities that control roughly 26.7 percent of Ambow’s publicly floated Class A shares. He also chairs Uphill Investment Co., which is active in the semiconductor and electronics sectors, and holds board positions in tech firms with connections to Tsinghua University—one of China’s premier talent pipelines for its national strategic industries.

Pan’s voting control over Ambow gives him sweeping influence over its corporate decisions, executive appointments, and strategic direction. His role raises critical concerns about the use of U.S. higher education infrastructure as a potential channel for data access, market expansion, and soft geopolitical influence.

To further legitimize its U.S. operations, Ambow recently appointed James Bartholomew as company president. Bartholomew’s resume includes controversial stints at DeVry University and Adtalem Global Education. While at DeVry, the institution was fined $100 million by the FTC for deceptive marketing. At Adtalem, he oversaw operations criticized for offshore medical schools and active resistance to gainful employment regulations.

Even Ambow’s financial underpinnings are suspect. Its R&D spending hovers around $100,000 per quarter—trivial for a firm purporting to lead in AI and immersive tech. Its audits are performed by Prouden CPA, a virtually unknown Chinese firm, not one of the major global accounting networks. These red flags suggest not a dynamic tech company, but a shell operation kept afloat by hype, misdirection, and strategic ambiguity.

That makes its ambitions in U.S. public education all the more dangerous.

Reports that Colorado State University—a land-grant institution managing sensitive federal research—may be considering a partnership with Ambow should prompt urgent scrutiny. Has CSU conducted a full cybersecurity and national security risk assessment? Have university stakeholders—faculty, students, and the public—been involved in the review process? Or is the university racing blindly into an agreement driven by budget pressures and buzzwords?

American higher education has long been susceptible to bad actors promising solutions to enrollment declines and funding shortfalls. But in recent years, the cost of these decisions has grown. With campuses increasingly dependent on international student tuition and digital platforms, the door has opened to exploitative operators and geopolitical influence.

Ambow has already shuttered one U.S. college. Its remaining campus is on shaky footing. Its technology lacks serious vetting. Its leadership is tethered to past scandals. And its largest shareholder has interests far beyond education.

This is not just about Ambow. It is about the structural vulnerabilities in American higher education—an industry ripe for manipulation by financial speculators, tech opportunists, and foreign actors operating with impunity. The murky waters of privatized, digitized education reward those who operate without transparency.

Public universities must remember who they serve: students, faculty, and the public—not offshore shareholders or unproven platforms.

If Colorado State or any other institution moves forward with Ambow, they owe the public clear answers: What protections are in place? What risks are being considered? Who really controls the platforms delivering instruction? And most importantly, why are public institutions turning to unstable, opaque companies for core educational delivery?

As the proverb reminds us, murky waters are fertile ground for hidden agendas. But education, above all, demands clarity, integrity, and public accountability.

---

Sources:

• SEC filings and 20-F reports: sec.gov

• Massachusetts Attorney General settlement with Bay State College, March 2020

• Federal Trade Commission settlement with DeVry University, December 2016

• U.S. Department of Education Heightened Cash Monitoring List

• NYSE delisting notices, 2013

• CES and ASU-GSV conference archives, 2023–2024

• Corporate data from MarketScreener and CEIHL Partners

• Ambow’s 2023 Annual Report and quarterly 6-K filings

Ambow Education's Latest Move Raises Red Flags—A Second Warning to Colorado State University

On June 11, Ambow Education Holding Ltd. (NYSE American: AMBO) announced the appointment of James Bartholomew as its new president, emphasizing his leadership experience at DeVry University and Adtalem Global Education. While this move is being framed as part of a bold pivot toward global expansion through its hybrid learning platform, HybriU, the deeper reality of Ambow’s operations suggests that institutions like Colorado State University (CSU) should proceed with extreme caution.

Ambow Education is no stranger to controversy. In May 2022, The Higher Education Inquirer began investigating the company after credible tips about its mismanagement of Bay State College in Boston. The Massachusetts Attorney General had already fined the school in 2020 for misleading students. By August 2023, Bay State College closed abruptly, leaving behind a mess for students and staff. Throughout this time, Ambow operated with an alarming level of opacity, raising concerns among journalists, regulators, and public officials—including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Ayanna Pressley.

Ambow’s financial practices and leadership structure have remained elusive, with lingering ties to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The company sold its PRC-based assets in 2022 and relocated to a small office in Cupertino, California, but its auditor remains based in China, and it has expressed interest in projects in Morocco and Tunisia involving Chinese-affiliated partners. The proverb about fishing in murky waters aptly describes how Ambow has operated in both Chinese and American markets.

Now, Ambow is promoting HybriU, a “phygital” platform it claims is revolutionizing education and corporate communication. Marketed heavily at events like CES and ASU-GSV, HybriU has been linked to a $1.3 million contract with a small firm in Singapore, but no major U.S. clients have been named. Visuals from the company’s website include stock images, and there’s no publicly available evidence that HybriU is delivering measurable results in any real-world education setting. The platform’s “OOOK” (One-on-One Knowledge) technology was first introduced in China in 2021, but it has yet to prove itself in American classrooms.

James Bartholomew’s appointment appears to be aimed at lending credibility to the HybriU initiative. However, his background warrants a closer look. DeVry University, where Bartholomew previously served as CEO, was embroiled in a long list of scandals, including a $100 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission in 2016 for deceptive advertising practices. These included inflated job placement claims and misleading earnings expectations for graduates. The Department of Education also scrutinized DeVry for poor student loan repayment metrics and aggressive recruiting tactics.

At Adtalem Global Education—DeVry’s former parent company—similar concerns persisted. Offshore medical schools under Adtalem’s umbrella, such as Ross University and American University of the Caribbean, were criticized for high tuition, student debt, and low U.S. residency placement rates. The company spent years lobbying against federal gainful employment regulations that were designed to protect students from predatory institutions. While Bartholomew may not have initiated these practices, he held leadership roles during a time when the institutions were navigating declining trust, financial turbulence, and increasing regulatory scrutiny.

Against this backdrop, reports have emerged that Colorado State University is considering a partnership with Ambow to implement the HybriU platform. On the surface, this might seem like a step toward innovation and flexibility in digital learning. But such a partnership could expose CSU to national security and data privacy risks, regulatory backlash, reputational damage, and questionable academic outcomes.

Given Ambow’s historical ties to the PRC, questions have been raised about the possibility of exposing sensitive university data to foreign surveillance or influence. CSU is a major research university with partnerships across science, defense, and technology. Even the perception that its digital infrastructure could be compromised could undermine public trust and jeopardize government grants and contracts.

The regulatory landscape is also increasingly cautious when it comes to foreign influence, particularly from China, in American higher education. Federal agencies have warned about the risks of partnerships that could compromise institutional independence or data integrity. Entering into a relationship with a firm like Ambow could place CSU under increased scrutiny or spark political backlash.

From a pedagogical perspective, HybriU is unproven. It has yet to demonstrate any significant results in U.S. education settings, and its claims are not substantiated by independent data. Adopting a platform without a strong record could endanger CSU’s teaching mission and student learning experiences at a time when the credibility of online education remains fragile.

Historically, investors and institutions have backed away from Ambow. The company was delisted from the NYSE in 2014 following accounting fraud allegations and shareholder lawsuits. It has struggled to maintain financial health and transparency. Its last remaining U.S. college, NewSchool of Architecture and Design in San Diego, has just 280 students and is currently under Heightened Cash Monitoring (HCM2) by the U.S. Department of Education. Lawsuits in San Diego allege non-payment of rent and unpaid compensation to the school’s former president. 

Meanwhile, Ambow has commissioned favorable research reports—like one from Argus Research—even though its spending on research and development remains remarkably low, at only $100,000 per quarter. Its current auditor, Prouden CPA, is new to the company’s books and based in China. Whether Ambow’s next annual report will bring clarity or further confusion remains to be seen.

For these reasons, The Higher Education Inquirer urges the leadership of Colorado State University to approach Ambow with skepticism and perform exhaustive due diligence. The CSU community deserves full transparency regarding Ambow’s ownership, financial practices, and data handling policies. Decisions should be made in consultation with cybersecurity experts, faculty, IT professionals, and government advisors. Alternative domestic edtech providers should be considered—especially those that are accountable, proven, and aligned with CSU’s mission.

At a time when public trust in higher education is strained and geopolitical tensions are high, it is not enough to adopt flashy technology for the sake of appearance. Colorado State University—and the taxpayers who support it—deserve better than an experiment based on unproven claims and a troubling history. CSU should reconsider any move forward with Ambow, before it finds itself entangled in another education debacle disguised as innovation.

A Warning to Colorado State University: Proceed with Caution on Ambow’s HybriU Platform

Colorado State University (CSU), a respected public institution with a strong reputation in research and innovation, is reportedly considering a contract with Ambow Education Holding Ltd. to implement its “HybriU” platform, a hybrid learning technology promising to blend in-person and online education. On the surface, such a partnership might appear to align with CSU’s goals of expanding digital learning and staying competitive in the evolving higher education landscape. But a deeper look reveals serious concerns that warrant public scrutiny and administrative caution.

Ambow’s Controversial Background

Ambow Education, though now marketing itself as a U.S.-based edtech company, has deep and lingering connections to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Founded in China and once listed on the New York Stock Exchange before being delisted in 2014 due to accounting irregularities and shareholder lawsuits, Ambow has struggled to shake off its past. Despite reincorporating in the Cayman Islands and operating out of a U.S. office, Ambow continues to raise red flags for investors and watchdogs alike.

According to public filings and investigative reports, key members of Ambow’s leadership maintain ties to Chinese state-affiliated organizations. Moreover, questions have emerged around data security, educational quality, and transparency in the firm’s current operations—especially through its HybriU platform.

Potential Risks to CSU and Its Stakeholders

1. National Security and Data Privacy: Given Ambow’s ties to China and the ongoing concerns about intellectual property theft and surveillance, CSU may be exposing sensitive institutional and student data to foreign actors. Universities are high-value targets for cyber-espionage, particularly those with defense-related research contracts. Even the perception of a compromised platform could damage CSU’s credibility and funding.

2. Regulatory and Reputational Risk: The U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies have heightened scrutiny of foreign influence in American higher education, especially from China. Entering into a formal relationship with a company like Ambow could place CSU in the crosshairs of federal investigators, jeopardizing federal grants and inviting political backlash.

3. Academic Integrity and Pedagogical Standards: The HybriU platform has yet to demonstrate proven results at scale in U.S. higher education. Partnering with a firm that has not established a strong record of academic excellence or technological reliability could compromise the learning experience for CSU students, particularly in a time when online education still faces skepticism.

4. Precedents and Red Flags: Other universities and investors have backed away from Ambow in the past. Its prior delisting, financial opacity, and ownership structure should be viewed as warning signs. If CSU moves forward with this partnership, it may find itself entangled in legal or financial complications that were avoidable with proper due diligence.

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

The Higher Education Inquirer urges CSU’s Board of Governors, faculty leadership, and the broader CSU community to fully vet Ambow before committing to any partnership. This includes:

• Demanding full disclosure of Ambow’s ownership, governance, and data-handling practices.

• Consulting with cybersecurity experts and federal authorities about the risks of foreign influence.

• Engaging students, faculty, and IT professionals in a transparent evaluation process.

• Exploring domestic, more secure edtech alternatives that align with CSU’s values and strategic vision.

Public Warning

At a time when public trust in higher education is under strain and geopolitical tensions continue to rise, it is imperative for public institutions like Colorado State University to make decisions that are not only cost-effective but ethically and strategically sound. Partnering with a company like Ambow, without thorough investigation and community input, could pose unacceptable risks.

The CSU community—and the taxpayers of Colorado—deserve better than a gamble on a platform with questionable affiliations. We urge CSU to reconsider.

HEI Investigation: Is Former Chinese Edtech Ambow Education a Threat to US Security?

The Higher Education Inquirer continues to investigate Ambow Education, the parent company of NewSchool of Architecture & Design (NSAD) and HybriU.  HEI has followed Ambow for almost three years, as one of its two US colleges, Bay State College, closed and a second one, NSAD in San Diego has faced financial peril and now faces legal problems, including a possible eviction. We also have watched several questionable events happen with shares of Ambow (AMBO) trading on the  New York Stock Exchange. But our greatest concern is that Ambow still has strong ties to the People's Republic of China, and that its proximity to the Pacific Fleet and its expertise in educational surveillance could pose as a potential threat to US security. As the company fails we believe it could become even more vulnerable to PRC interests. We urge any potential customers or strategic partners to do their due diligence before engaging in business with Ambow Education, NSAD, or HybriU.