Why the Higher Education Inquirer Continues to Gain Popularity

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

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

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

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

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

Seven of Higher Education's Biggest Myths (Glen McGhee)

Several cultural myths and assumptions are deeply embedded in discussions about higher education and colleges as social institutions:

The Myth of Meritocracy
This pervasive myth assumes that higher education is a level playing field where students succeed purely based on their individual merit and hard work. However, this overlooks how socioeconomic background, cultural capital, and systemic inequalities significantly impact educational outcomes.

The Access Myth
This is the belief that simply increasing access to higher education will solve social inequality and lack of economic mobility. While education can create opportunities, it is not a silver bullet for addressing broader structural issues of poverty and labor conditions. Access for the rich is absolutely there, through legacy admissions.  The Varsity Blues (aka College Admissions Scandal) also showed how people could get into elite colleges if they were willing to pay for it.

The Myth of Neutral Education
There's an assumption that education can be politically and ideologically neutral. However, all educational systems reflect certain values, power structures and cultural assumptions. The idea of a purely objective curriculum is itself a myth.

The Myth of Free Speech and Assembly

Universities are not bastions of free speech, and student protesters this year learned that the hard way, being detained, arrested, and expelled for their efforts. Universities like UCLA have done even more to constrain protests, limiting assembly to tiny free speech zones. Presidents are afraid to challenge trustees, and with some notable exceptions, teachers and staff are unwilling to speak truth to power. Students, too, are afraid that their grades may be affected if they challenge their professors.   

The Myth of the University as a Benevolent University

Often, universities are portrayed as benevolent institutions solely focused on the betterment of society.  In reality, higher education institutions are deeply embedded in and influenced by broader societal forces and economic pressures, including pressure from university trustees and major donors. Also, elite universities have for centuries used their power and resources to take land from those with less power.  

 

 

The Myth of the Rational Student: The assumption that students are rational actors who make informed decisions about their education often ignores the impact of social, economic, and cultural factors. In addition to marketing and advertising, many students are influenced by family expectations, peer pressure, and societal norms, which can shape their choices.

The Economic Imperative Myth

This is the belief that the sole purpose of higher education is to prepare students for the job market and increase their earning potential.  This myth is understandable given the vast number of underemployed college graduates.  

This myth prioritizes economic outcomes over other valuable benefits of a college education, such as personal growth, critical thinking skills, and civic engagement.And it can lead to a decline in the quality of education, as colleges prioritize marketable programs, even if they don't align with students' skills, abilities, or interests.

 

Overemphasizing economic outcomes can exacerbate existing inequalities. Students from low-income backgrounds may feel pressured to choose majors perceived to be financially lucrative, even if they are not their first choice. This can limit their educational and career opportunities in the long run. 

 

Advocates for a broader view of higher education argue that colleges should prioritize a well-rounded education that prepares students for a variety of life paths. This includes developing critical thinking skills, fostering creativity, and promoting social justice.

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

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

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

Rehumanization: An Alternative to Maximizing Panic and Profit 

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

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

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

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

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

Ahead of the Learned Herd: Why the Higher Education Inquirer Grows During the Endless College Meltdown (Dahn Shaulis and Glen McGhee)

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) continues to grow without financial support and without paying for advertising or SEO help. The reason is that HEI continues to provide useful information for folks who follow US higher education. We do it in the spirit of Upton Sinclair and others pejoratively known as the muckrakers. And we gladly take the label. 

For years, the higher ed herd dismissed warnings of looming financial crises, but HEI accurately foresaw the revenue declines and unsustainable models forcing college closures, and the downside of the online pivot (including online program managers and robocolleges). We also saw a decade of enrollment declines with no end in sight. 

HEI has published a number of articles that provide value to higher ed workers (including adjuncts), future, present, and former students (including the tens of millions of student loan debtors), and other folks affiliated with the higher ed industry (including workers at edtech and financial companies). We called it the College Meltdown. 

 

We have examined a number of groupings in the industry (from community colleges and for-profit schools to elite universities and everything in between) and issues (to include student and worker protests, student loan debt, and violence on campus).  We highlight those who are trying to good, like David Halperin (Republic Report), Gary Stocker (College Viability), Mark Salisbury (TuitionFit), Helena Worthen (Power Despite Precarity), Theresa Sweet and Tarah Gramza (Sweet v Cardona), and Ann Bowers (Debt Collective). 

HEI has also had the good fortune of getting outstanding contributions from Randall Collins, Bryan Alexander, Robert Kelchen, Phil Hill, Gary Roth, Bill Harrington, and others. Bryan Alexander's contributions have been extremely important in highlighting the existential threat of global climate change and the civil strife that accompanies it.

While honest reporting is important to us, we do take sides, just as other outlets do (most others take the side of big business and government). We are for the People, and we hunt for corruption that undermines democracy. We have examined companies (like Guild, Maximus, and EducationDynamics) that few others will bother to examine. We continue to follow subprime for-profit colleges that have morphed into subprime state universities (like Purdue Global and University of Arizona Global) and other bad actors in higher ed (like 2U and the University of Phoenix). 

We value history, the real unvarnished history, not the tales, myths and lies that have been repeated to children for generations and used as indoctrination at all levels of society. And we value those who look honestly at the present and the future, those not trying to sell themselves or their hidden agendas. 

As Howard Zinn proclaimed, you can't be neutral on a moving train. And US higher education, we fear, is a train moving away from America's hopes and dreams of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice, towards a less utopian, more dangerous, place.