The Failure of DOD Tuition Assistance

In a world where military service members are promised educational opportunities as part of their service, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) operates a Tuition Assistance (TA) program that offers financial support to active duty and reserve servicemembers seeking to further their education. The program, overseen by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education and Training (ODASD FE&T), offers veterans a pathway to enhance their skills and prepare for life beyond the military. However, findings from the DoD Voluntary Education (VolEd) program show that the very institutions that are meant to support servicemembers may be failing them instead.

As part of their oversight, the DoD requires educational institutions to sign a Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to participate in the Tuition Assistance program. By signing this agreement, institutions commit to adhering to strict guidelines designed to protect service members from deceptive practices. These guidelines cover a wide range of areas, including avoiding aggressive recruitment, ensuring transparent pricing information, and providing access to essential services such as academic counseling and job search support. However, compliance with these policies has been under scrutiny, as the Department of Defense’s compliance monitoring team reveals troubling trends.

The Problem with Accreditation Misrepresentation

One of the most alarming trends identified by the DoD VolEd MOU Partnership Institutional Compliance Program (ICP) was the misrepresentation of institutional accreditation. Institutions often displayed accreditation information, but a significant number had accreditation agencies listed that were no longer recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). In some cases, institutions completely omitted this important information from their websites, a serious oversight that can mislead prospective students into spending valuable time and money on degrees that fail to meet industry standards or qualify for employment in their chosen fields. This failure to provide accurate or transparent accreditation information can have long-lasting consequences for military students, who may unknowingly invest years of their life in programs that ultimately leave them unprepared for the workforce.

Lack of Support for Military Students

Another concerning finding involved a lack of support for service members once they entered educational institutions. According to the ICP’s compliance checks, many institutions failed to comply with the MOU requirement to provide a knowledgeable point of contact (POC) for students seeking assistance with military Tuition Assistance, federal Title IV funding, and VA education benefits. In some cases, the institutions provided no POC information at all. In others, they only offered a name or a hyperlink to a page that lacked substance—no qualifications or training information for the individual listed.

This oversight reflects a deeper systemic issue: military students are not receiving the necessary academic, financial, or job search counseling they need to succeed. Without proper support, these students may struggle to navigate the complexities of education benefits and find themselves lost in a sea of bureaucratic inefficiencies. In turn, this increases the risk that they may drop out, accumulate unnecessary debt, or be left with an education that does not help them transition smoothly to civilian life.

The Numbers Behind the Failures

The findings are staggering. Over a five-year period from 2017 to 2022, the DoD’s compliance program uncovered a total of 10,560 compliance-related issues across 1,414 assessments of institutions participating in the TA program. This indicates systemic problems in the delivery of education to military members and points to an alarming trend of disregard for the agreements made between the institutions and the DoD. Despite efforts to monitor compliance, these violations continue to undermine the integrity of the TA program and threaten to harm servicemembers seeking educational opportunities.

Each year, the ICP team provides feedback to the institutions involved, offering corrective action plans (CAPs) to improve their compliance. Institutions are expected to address these issues to align with the MOU and provide the necessary improvements to better serve military students. However, even with this support, the issues persist, leading to questions about the effectiveness of the DoD’s compliance program and whether enough is being done to hold institutions accountable.

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

The Department of Defense’s efforts to hold institutions accountable through the VolEd program and the MOU agreement are commendable, but the findings clearly show that much more needs to be done. The onus should be on these educational institutions to provide servicemembers with the highest standards of transparency, support, and educational quality. After all, these men and women risk their lives for the nation, and in return, they deserve to receive the best education possible, with all the necessary tools to succeed in their civilian careers.

As DoD works to refine its compliance programs, it is imperative that it pushes for stronger accountability mechanisms and greater transparency from institutions. With new initiatives, clearer regulations, and a culture of compliance, DoD can ensure that all service members are equipped with the education they were promised—and avoid leaving them vulnerable to misleading and deceptive practices from educational institutions.

Looking Ahead

While the ICP has made significant strides in assessing institutional compliance, the overall effectiveness of these efforts will ultimately depend on whether the institutions take responsibility for making the necessary changes. DoD's mission of protecting and supporting military students remains a vital one, and it is crucial that all educational institutions participating in the TA program take their commitments seriously. Only through true compliance and a dedication to military students’ success can we ensure that those who serve this country are treated with the respect and care they deserve.

If educational institutions fail to hold up their end of the bargain, it is time for the DoD to take stronger actions to protect military members from being deceived. It’s time to demand that these schools do better—for the sake of the brave men and women who serve.

More Schools Report Visa Revocations and Student Detentions

Reports have surfaced of a significant increase in the number of international student visas being revoked and students being detained across various universities in the United States. This follows heightened immigration scrutiny, particularly under the administration of Donald Trump. According to Senator Marco Rubio, more than 300 international student visas have been pulled in recent months, primarily targeting students involved in political activism or minor infractions. WeAreHigherEd has named 30 schools where students' visas have been revoked. 

Campus Abductions — We Are Higher Ed

Key Universities Affected

• University of California System (UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley):
  Universities within the University of California system, which hosts a large international student population, have reported multiple visa cancellations. These revocations have affected students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, political activism, or perceived violations of U.S. immigration policies. For instance, the University of California has seen as many as 20 students affected in recent weeks.

• Columbia University:
  At Columbia University, the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a student activist, has gained significant media attention. Khalil, who was detained and faced deportation, exemplifies the growing concerns over student rights and the growing impact of politically charged visa revocations.

• Tufts University:
  Tufts University is currently battling the Trump administration over the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish graduate student whose visa was revoked. Her detention and the ensuing legal battles highlight the growing tensions between academic freedom and government policy. Tufts and its student body are advocating for Öztürk's release and seeking clarification on the legal processes involved.

• University of Minnesota:
  At the University of Minnesota, one international graduate student was detained as part of an ongoing federal crackdown on visa violations. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions continue to raise concerns over the rights of international students to remain in the country, especially as visa renewals and compliance checks become more stringent.

• Arizona State University:
  Arizona State University has also reported incidents of international students having their visas revoked without prior notice. These revocations have affected students from various countries, creating uncertainty within the international student community at the university.

• Cornell University:
  At Cornell University, international students have similarly faced unexpected visa cancellations. This has raised concerns about the ability of universities to adequately support their international student populations, as students are left to navigate the complexities of visa status without sufficient notice or explanation.

• North Carolina State University:
  North Carolina State University is another institution where international students have had their visas revoked without notice. The university has expressed concern over the lack of clarity from immigration authorities, which has left students in a precarious situation.

• University of Oregon:
  The University of Oregon has experienced several cases of international students having their visas revoked. This has been particularly troubling for students who were actively pursuing their education in the U.S. and now face the prospect of deportation or being forced to leave the country unexpectedly.

• University of Texas:
  At the University of Texas, international students have faced visa issues, with several reports of revocations and detentions, affecting students who are working toward completing their degrees. This has sparked protests and advocacy efforts from both students and university administration, seeking more transparency in the process.

• University of Colorado:
  The University of Colorado has similarly reported instances of international student visa revocations, particularly affecting those involved in political activism. The university has been working to support students impacted by these actions, although many are left in limbo regarding their ability to continue their studies.

• University of Michigan:
  The University of Michigan has also been impacted by a wave of visa revocations. Similar to other institutions, students involved in political protests or activism have found themselves under scrutiny, facing the risk of detention or deportation. Students, faculty, and staff are pushing for clearer policies and legal protections to support international students, who are increasingly at risk due to the political environment.

The Broader Implications

These incidents of visa revocation and detentions are seen as part of a broader trend of increasing immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Critics argue that these actions infringe upon students' rights, potentially violating freedom of speech and academic freedom. International students, especially those participating in protests or political discourse, have found themselves at risk of being detained or deported, with little prior notice or transparency regarding the reasons for such actions.

Moreover, the economic impact of these actions is significant. In 2023, a record 253,355 student visa applications were denied, representing a 36% refusal rate. This has major implications not only for the affected students but also for U.S. universities that rely heavily on international students for tuition revenue. The financial loss could be as much as $7.6 billion in tuition fees and living expenses, further emphasizing the broader consequences of these policies.

Legal and Administrative Responses

Many universities are rallying behind their international student populations, with advocacy efforts from institutions like Tufts University and Columbia University. These universities have criticized the abruptness of the visa cancellations and detentions, calling for more transparency and due process.

However, despite these efforts, the political climate surrounding U.S. immigration remains volatile, and it is unclear whether policy changes will result in more lenient or more restrictive measures for international students.

Conclusion

These stories underscore the fragile position of international students in the U.S. today. With incidents of detentions and visa revocations increasing, students face significant challenges navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law, particularly those involved in political or activist circles. University administrations and students alike continue to call for clearer policies, protections for international student rights, and more transparent practices to avoid the unintended consequences of politically motivated visa actions.

This issue remains ongoing, with much at stake for both 

Yale Law School Firing Sparks Debate Over Free Speech and the State of American Academia

In a statement shared on social media on March 28th, Helyeh Doutaghi, the Deputy Director of the Law and Political Economy Project at Yale Law School (YLS), revealed that her employment was terminated by the prestigious institution. The firing came just days before Muslims across the world marked the second Eid under the shadow of an ongoing genocide against Palestinian families. Doutaghi’s termination followed her outspoken criticism of Zionist policies in Palestine, igniting a wider conversation about free speech, academic freedom, and institutional silencing in American universities.

According to Doutaghi, the circumstances surrounding her firing raise critical questions about the role of elite educational institutions in suppressing dissent. She criticized universities like Yale, Cornell, Columbia, and Harvard for what she described as the normalization of "fascistic governance." In her statement, Doutaghi argued that these institutions were increasingly functioning as "sites of surveillance and oppression," actively collaborating with state apparatuses to criminalize resistance movements.

Doutaghi's termination was preceded by her being placed on administrative leave in February, following allegations of ties to Samidoun, the Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, which the U.S. government has labeled a terrorist-linked organization. Doutaghi has denied any unlawful affiliation with the group, asserting that she was never given an opportunity for a fair hearing before her abrupt dismissal. In her view, Yale’s actions exemplify a broader trend of academic institutions suppressing pro-Palestinian voices, especially as the geopolitical tensions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict escalate.

In a chilling warning about the broader implications of her firing, Doutaghi emphasized the troubling precedent her case could set for academic freedom. "This sets a chilling precedent," she wrote. "If any Al bot – or anyone at all – accuses a Yale faculty or student of wrongdoing, that alone can now suffice to end their career." Doutaghi's comments draw attention to concerns about due process in academic settings, especially when external pressures—such as politically motivated surveillance or AI-generated campaigns—are used to target and silence critical voices.

The investigation into Doutaghi's alleged ties to Samidoun came to light after an article in Jewish Onliner, an Israeli publication. However, doubts have been raised about the credibility of the publication. Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Jewish Onliner might be an AI-generated bot with potential links to the Israeli government and military, further casting uncertainty on the investigation’s motives. Doutaghi’s attorney, Eric Lee, pointed out that the basis for the investigation was flimsy, with the sole evidence being an online article, raising serious questions about the fairness and transparency of Yale’s decision-making process.

Doutaghi has also linked her termination to broader shifts in U.S. policy, particularly under the Trump administration, which she claims has escalated attacks on noncitizen students and faculty supporting Palestinian human rights. For Doutaghi, her firing is symptomatic of a deeper crisis in American institutions, one that reflects the decline of what she calls "Western liberal democracy." She contends that these systems, despite their outward commitment to democracy and human rights, are built to serve the interests of the propertied classes, often at the expense of marginalized communities.

The implications of Doutaghi’s termination extend beyond her personal case, signaling a potentially dangerous precedent for academic freedom in the U.S. As universities increasingly become sites of ideological conformity, there is growing concern that dissenting voices—particularly those in solidarity with Palestine—are being systematically silenced. The firing raises questions about the extent to which academic institutions are willing to protect free speech in the face of external political and social pressures.

In the wake of Doutaghi’s dismissal, students, faculty members, and advocacy groups have rallied in support of her, condemning Yale’s actions as an affront to academic freedom. Protests have erupted at various campuses, demanding accountability from university administrators and calling for the protection of Palestinian human rights.

As the case continues to unfold, the larger debate about the role of universities in upholding democratic values, academic freedom, and social justice remains at the forefront. Doutaghi’s statement serves as a reminder of the precarious nature of dissent in today’s political climate, where even academic institutions that once stood as bastions of free thought and expression are increasingly vulnerable to the pressures of political influence and ideological control.

The question now facing the broader academic community is how to respond to the growing trend of censorship and silencing on campuses. Will institutions like Yale take a stand in defense of free speech, or will they continue to bow to external political and social pressures? The answers to these questions will have far-reaching consequences for the future of academic freedom in the United States.

Potential Title IV Disruption Catastrophic (Glen McGhee)

Impact of Department of Education Dismantlement on Higher Education Act Programs

On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to begin dismantling the Department of Education, a move that threatens to create significant upheaval across higher education's federal support system. While the order cannot immediately eliminate the department without congressional approval, it has already resulted in substantial workforce reductions and signals major changes ahead for the administration of federal education programs 1.

Title IV: The Most Vulnerable and Consequential Program

Among all eight titles of the Higher Education Act (HEA), Title IV federal student aid programs would create the most severe upheaval for the higher education sector if destabilized through the Department of Education's dismantling. Title IV represents the foundation of federal financial support for higher education, administering approximately $111.6 billion in financial assistance to 9.8 million students in FY202211. This massive program encompasses Pell Grants, federal student loans, and work-study opportunities that directly enable student access and persistence.

Financial Impact Scale

The sheer financial magnitude of Title IV makes its disruption particularly consequential. In 2021 alone, 10.5 million students received $125 billion in federal student aid through the Department of Education15. Title IV's Office of Federal Student Aid received the largest departmental budget allocation - over $68 billion, with $20 billion promised for distribution during 20254. This represents the largest financial relationship between the federal government and higher education institutions.

Enrollment Consequences Already Evident

Even small disruptions to Title IV administration have already demonstrated severe enrollment impacts. Recent problems with the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) system implementation led to measurable enrollment declines:

• 43% of private institutions reported smaller freshman classes
• 27% noted fewer financial aid recipients
• 18% reported decreased racial or ethnic diversity in incoming students2

These enrollment impacts disproportionately affect disadvantaged student populations. The FAFSA completion rates dropped nearly 10%, showing how administrative dysfunction can directly reduce educational access2.

Complex Regulatory Framework

Title IV administration involves an extraordinarily complex regulatory structure that would be challenging to transfer or maintain during a departmental transition. The program includes more than 300 pages of regulations, with significant compliance requirements for institutions6. Recent rule changes have created new financial responsibility, administrative capability and certification requirements applicable to institutions participating in Title IV programs7.

Presidential Assurances vs. Implementation Reality

While President Trump has indicated that essential functions like Pell Grants, Title I funding, and programs for students with disabilities would be "fully maintained and redistributed to various other agencies and departments," the implementation details remain unclear18. The executive order instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "undertake all necessary actions to facilitate the dissolution" while ensuring continuous provision of services8.

However, the Department's workforce has already been reduced from over 4,000 to approximately 2,000 employees through layoffs and voluntary resignations14. This reduction in administrative capacity raises serious questions about the continuity of Title IV program implementation.

Other HEA Titles: Significant but Less Catastrophic Impact

While all HEA titles would face disruption through departmental dismantling, Title IV's combination of massive funding scale, direct impact on enrollments, and regulatory complexity makes its destabilization particularly consequential.

Other HEA titles, while important, would not create the same level of immediate financial and enrollment chaos:

• Title I: Provides general provisions and administrative requirements, but lacks direct funding mechanisms
• Title II: Supports teacher preparation programs, but with significantly smaller funding scales
• Title III: Provides institutional aid for minority-serving institutions, representing important but more targeted support
• Titles V-VIII: Offer specialized program support for specific institutional types or educational priorities

Conclusion

The dismantling of the Department of Education threatens all federal higher education programs, but Title IV student aid programs represent the most consequential area for potential upheaval. The scale of financial support, direct impact on enrollment and access, complexity of administration, and early evidence from FAFSA disruptions all indicate that Title IV destabilization would produce the most severe consequences for higher education institutions and students.

While the administration has promised to maintain essential functions, the mechanisms for doing so remain unclear, and the significant reduction in departmental workforce suggests potential administrative challenges ahead. The higher education community must closely monitor this transition to ensure that critical student financial support systems remain functional during this unprecedented departmental restructuring.

Citations:

1. https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5179987-trump-executive-order-department-of-education-linda-mcmahon/
2. https://www.insightintodiversity.com/fafsa-issues-led-to-decreased-enrollment/
3. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IF12780.html
4. https://onwardstate.com/2025/03/20/how-the-dismantling-of-the-department-of-education-will-affect-college-students-across-the-nation/
5. https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf
6. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-crisis-and-politics-of-higher-education/
7. https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2024/2/significant-new-financial-responsibility-administrative-capability-and-certification-requirements-loom-ahead-for-title-iv-institutions
8. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/education-department-trump-what-is-next-student-loans-fafsa-rcna197302
9. https://www.startribune.com/trump-orders-a-plan-to-dismantle-the-education-department-while-keeping-some-core-functions/601240066
10. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/dozens-colleges-see-fafsa-turmoils-impact-freshman-classes-rcna167342
11. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43351.pdf
12. https://www.asugsvsummit.com/video/preview-of-the-great-upheaval-higher-educations-past-present-and-uncertain-future
13. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/20/politics/dismantling-department-of-education-trump/index.html
14. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2024/11/04/what-abolishing-education-department-could-mean
15. https://campuscafesoftware.com/title-iv-student-financial-aid-guide/
16. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2025/03/13/how-education-department-layoffs-could-affect-higher
17. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2024/11/14/future-financial-aid-under-trump
18. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-03-19/trump-to-order-a-plan-to-shut-down-the-us-education-department
19. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2024/10/23/after-fafsa-issues-steep-drop-first-year-enrollment
20. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2020-2021/appendices/appx-g-higher-education-act-1965-table-contents-august-26-2020
21. https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/35894/Trump_Signs_Executive_Order_Seeking_to_Dismantle_ED
22. https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/35508/ED_Title_IV_Student_Aid_Exempt_From_White_House_Pause_on_Federal_Grants_and_Loans
23. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/how-dismantling-department-education-would-harm-students
24. https://www.carnegiehighered.com/blog/fafsa-delays-impact-2024-enrollment/
25. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/functional-area/Overview%20of%20Title%20IV
26. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2025/02/07/five-ways-education-department-impacts-higher-ed
27. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/12/education-department-cuts-student-loan-fafsa-iep-impact/82310137007/
28. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fafsa-student-loans-what-does-the-department-of-education-do/
29. https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/dallas-cowboys-free-agency-draft-2025
30. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/22/gen-z-millennials-debt-inflation/
31. https://help.studentclearinghouse.org/compliancecentral/knowledge-base/gainful-employment-financial-value-transparency-faqs/
32. https://19thnews.org/2025/03/trump-executive-order-department-of-education/
33. https://www.ctpost.com/news/education/article/bridgeport-school-superintendent-search-20230032.php
34. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-announcements/2024-06-20/implementation-gainful-employment-funding-metric-requirements-institutions-under-administrative-capability-and-financial-responsibility
35. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43159
36. https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/trump-wants-to-end-education-department-what-does-that-mean-for-financial-aid/

Risepoint: The Rise and Fall of Another OPM?

In recent years, the online education sector has seen dramatic growth, largely fueled by partnerships between universities and Online Program Managers (OPMs) like Risepoint (formerly known as Academic Partnerships). These companies promised to help institutions expand their online offerings, providing technical support, marketing services, and student recruitment in exchange for a significant share of tuition revenue. However, as OPMs grew in power, their business models came under intense scrutiny for potentially exploitative and predatory practices.

The Rise of Risepoint

Risepoint, initially founded as Academic Partnerships (AP) in 2007 by Randy Best, became a leading player in the OPM space, helping universities launch and manage online degree programs. In return, Risepoint took a significant cut of the tuition fees, sometimes as much as 50%. The company’s model relied heavily on tuition-share agreements, which have long been controversial due to the significant financial burden they place on both institutions and students.

These arrangements became more contentious as the cost of higher education continued to rise, particularly in the case of online degrees. Critics argue that the large sums taken by OPMs like Risepoint divert essential funds from universities, leading to higher tuition fees and contributing to the growing student debt crisis. This concern has been amplified by the rise in aggressive recruitment tactics employed by OPMs, which often target low-income students with promises of easy access to higher education without fully disclosing the financial implications.

Randy Best's Ties to Republicans: A Controversial Network

Randy Best, the founder of Academic Partnerships, had close connections to prominent Republicans, including Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. Best has been a well-known advocate for education reform and has built a network of relationships within both political parties. His close ties to Bush, a key figure in education policy, have been part of a broader pattern of OPM companies gaining influence across the political spectrum.

This bipartisan network of political connections allowed Best and Academic Partnerships to navigate the political landscape and expand their reach in the higher education sector. However, critics argue that such ties may have contributed to a lack of accountability for OPM companies like AP/Risepoint, who have operated with little oversight while profiting off of public institutions.

Risepoint's Ownership: The Vistria Group and Its Ties to the Obama Administration

A key piece of Risepoint’s corporate structure lies in its ownership by Vistria Group, a Chicago-based venture capital firm with close ties to political and corporate elites, including former President Barack Obama. In 2019, Vistria Group acquired Academic Partnerships for its Vistria II fund, adding the company to a broader portfolio that includes a number of for-profit education assets such as Edmentum, Vanta Education, FullBloom Education, MSI Information Services, Apollo Education Group, and Unitek Learning.

Vistria’s co-founder, Marty Nesbitt, is a close friend of Barack Obama, and the firm has been associated with several high-profile political figures. Nesbitt himself is known to have worked closely with Obama on various initiatives, and his connections have helped Vistria expand its reach in the education sector. The firm’s investment in Risepoint underscores a broader trend of venture capital firms seeking profit from higher education, leading to concerns about the growing corporate influence on public institutions and their students.

The Controversy at the University of Texas-Arlington

The close connections between OPMs and university leaders have not been without scandal. In 2020, Vistasp Karbhari, the president of the University of Texas-Arlington, resigned following a controversy involving his relationship with Academic Partnerships. Karbhari had accepted two international trips paid for by the company, sparking an investigation into potential conflicts of interest. The university had paid Academic Partnerships more than $178 million over a five-year period for managing its online degree programs.

This situation drew public attention to the potential for improper financial relationships between university administrators and private OPM companies. The high cost of these partnerships, particularly the large amounts paid to OPMs like Academic Partnerships, raised questions about whether universities were prioritizing student outcomes or simply enriching private firms at the expense of public funds.

Minnesota Leads the Way: A State Takes Action

The controversy surrounding tuition-share deals reached a boiling point in 2024 when Minnesota became the first state to pass legislation restricting these agreements. St. Cloud State University in Minnesota had signed a tuition-share deal with Risepoint that resulted in the company receiving a substantial percentage of tuition revenue. Critics of the arrangement argued that the deal drained valuable resources from public universities, while enriching private companies at the expense of students.

In response to mounting pressure, Minnesota lawmakers passed a bill banning new tuition-share agreements with OPMs, signaling a shift toward greater oversight of these partnerships. The move was hailed by critics as a much-needed reform to protect public institutions and students from exploitative business models.

Senate Concerns and Growing Backlash

In addition to state-level efforts, U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Tina Smith raised concerns over OPM practices in a 2024 letter to eight major OPM companies, including Risepoint. The senators questioned whether the recruitment tactics and revenue-sharing models contributed to rising student debt and whether these companies were sufficiently transparent about how tuition funds were being used.

“We continue to have concerns about the impact of OPM partnerships on rising student debt loads,” the senators wrote. They specifically targeted the high percentage of tuition revenue taken by OPMs, arguing that this model created financial disincentives for universities to lower costs or improve educational outcomes for students.

In response, Risepoint and other OPM companies indicated a willingness to engage with policymakers, but the growing scrutiny of their business practices indicates that their influence in the higher education space may be waning.

Academic Partnerships Acquires Wiley’s Online Business

In an interesting turn of events, AP/Risepoint expanded its reach in November 2023 by acquiring Wiley’s online business for $150 million. This acquisition is part of a broader trend of consolidation in the OPM sector, as companies seek to maintain their competitive edge in an increasingly saturated market.

The deal underscores Risepoint’s ambition to broaden its portfolio of online education services, even as its business practices face growing criticism. While Risepoint sees this acquisition as a growth opportunity, others view it as a sign of the consolidation of power within the OPM sector—a market that has been repeatedly criticized for its lack of transparency and for its role in inflating costs for both universities and students.

New Department of Education Guidelines

As the federal government joined the conversation, the U.S. Department of Education took steps to regulate the OPM industry more closely. In January 2025, the department issued new guidance that could lead to penalties for colleges that allow their OPM partners to mislead students. The guidance prohibits OPM employees from using college email addresses or signatures that imply they are employed by the institution, as well as from misrepresenting the quality of online programs.

The Department of Education’s actions came in response to long-standing concerns about misleading marketing practices. Student advocacy groups have called for stronger oversight of OPMs, which often promise students high-quality education without fully disclosing the financial ramifications. “OPMs commonly mislead students about the quality of their online programs, and that is illegal,” said Carolyn Fast, director of higher education policy at The Century Foundation.

The Decline of OPM Growth

However, the OPM industry is showing signs of slowing down. A report by Validated Insights in October 2024 revealed that OPM growth has dramatically slowed, with 147 partnerships ending in 2023—the highest number of contract terminations since 2020. Additionally, new contracts for 2024 have dropped by more than 50%. This slowdown signals that many universities are reevaluating their reliance on OPMs like Risepoint, opting instead to bring online programs in-house or partner with alternative providers.

The reduction in OPM partnerships reflects broader trends in higher education, where increasing scrutiny over business models, rising student debt, and calls for greater accountability are reshaping the landscape. Universities are under increasing pressure to justify the cost and efficacy of online degree programs, and many are finding that the financial burden of partnering with OPMs may no longer be sustainable.

The Future of Risepoint and the OPM Industry

The scrutiny surrounding Risepoint and other OPMs is part of a larger conversation about the future of online education and the need for greater transparency in how these programs are marketed and funded. As states like Minnesota lead the charge to limit tuition-share agreements, and as federal agencies take a more active role in regulating the industry, the days of unchecked growth for OPMs may be numbered.

Risepoint, once a leader in the OPM space, now faces a rapidly changing regulatory environment that threatens its business model. While the company continues to acquire new assets like Wiley’s online business, the industry as a whole may be entering a period of retrenchment, with universities becoming more cautious about entering into partnerships with companies that take a large cut of tuition revenue.

As the OPM industry faces increasing scrutiny and regulatory challenges, the future of companies like Risepoint remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the once-booming market for online program management is shifting, and the predatory practices that have long been associated with OPMs are being closely examined. Whether Risepoint can adapt to these changes or whether the OPM model as a whole will undergo significant reform remains to be seen.

The Future of Federal Student Loans

The U.S. student loan system, now exceeding $1.7 trillion in debt and affecting over 40 million borrowers, is facing significant challenges. As political pressures rise, the management of student loans could be significantly altered. A combination of potential privatization, the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), and a new role for the Department of the Treasury raises critical questions about the future of the system.

U.S. Department of Education: Strained Resources and Outsourcing

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is responsible for managing federal student loan servicing, loan forgiveness programs, and borrower defense to repayment (BDR) claims. However, ED has faced ongoing issues with understaffing and inefficiency, particularly as many functions have been outsourced to contractors. Companies like Maximus (including subsidiaries like AidVantage) manage much of the administrative burden for loan servicing. This has raised concerns about accountability and the impact on borrowers, especially those seeking loan relief.

In recent years, ED has also experienced staff reductions and funding cuts, making it difficult to process claims or maintain high-quality service. The potential for further cuts or even the elimination of the department could exacerbate these problems. If ED’s role is diminished, other entities, such as the Department of the Treasury, could assume responsibility for managing the student loan portfolio, though this would present its own set of challenges.

Potential for Privatization of the Student Loan Portfolio

One of the most discussed options for addressing the student loan crisis is the privatization of the federal student loan portfolio. Under previous administration discussions, including those during President Trump’s tenure, there were talks about selling off parts of the student loan portfolio to private companies. This would be done with the aim of reducing the federal deficit.

In 2019, McKinsey & Company was hired by the Trump administration to analyze the value of the student loan portfolio, considering factors such as default rates and economic conditions. While the report's findings were never made public, the idea of transferring the loans to private companies—such as banks or investment firms—remains a possibility.

The consequences of privatizing federal student loans could be significant. Private companies would likely focus on profitability, which could result in stricter repayment terms or less flexibility for borrowers seeking loan forgiveness or other relief options. This shift may reduce borrower protections, making it harder for students to challenge repayment terms or pursue loan discharges.

The Department of the Treasury and its Potential Role

If the U.S. Department of Education is restructured or eliminated, there is a possibility that the Department of the Treasury could step in to manage some aspects of the student loan portfolio. The Treasury is responsible for the country’s financial systems and debt management, so it could, in theory, handle the federal student loan portfolio from a financial oversight perspective.

However, while the Treasury has experience in financial management, it lacks the specialized knowledge of student loans and borrower protections that the Department of Education currently provides. For example, the Treasury would need to find ways to process complex Borrower Defense to Repayment claims, a responsibility ED currently manages. In 2023, over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were pending, with thousands of claims related to predatory practices at for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix, ITT Tech, and Kaplan University (now known as Purdue Global). Additionally, some of these for-profit schools were able to reorganize and continue operating under different names, further complicating the situation.

The Treasury could also contract out loan servicing, but this could increase reliance on profit-driven companies, possibly compromising the interests of borrowers in favor of financial performance.

Borrower Defense Claims and the Impact of For-Profit Schools

A large portion of the Borrower Defense to Repayment claims comes from students who attended for-profit colleges with a history of deceptive practices. These institutions, often referred to as subprime colleges, misled students about job prospects, program outcomes, and accreditation, leaving many with significant student debt but poor employment outcomes.

Data from 2023 revealed that over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were filed with the Department of Education, many of them against for-profit institutions. The Sweet v. Cardona case showed that more than 200,000 borrowers were expected to receive debt relief after years of waiting. However, the process was slow, with an estimated 16,000 new claims being filed each month, and only 35 ED workers handling these claims. These delays, combined with the uncertainty around the future of ED, leave borrowers vulnerable to prolonged financial hardship. 

Lack of Transparency and Accountability in the System

While the U.S. Department of Education tracks Borrower Defense claims, it does not publish institutional-level data, making it difficult to identify which schools are responsible for the most fraudulent activity. 

In response to this, FOIA requests have been filed by organizations like the National Student Legal Defense Network and the Higher Education Inquirer to obtain detailed information about which institutions are disproportionately affecting borrowers. 

In one such request, the Higher Education Inquirer asked for information regarding claims filed against the University of Phoenix, a school with a significant number of Borrower Defense claims.

The lack of transparency in the system makes it harder for borrowers to make informed decisions about which institutions to attend and limits accountability for schools that have harmed students. If the Treasury or private companies take over management of the loan portfolio, these transparency issues could worsen, as private entities are less likely to prioritize public accountability.

Conclusion

The future of the U.S. student loan system is uncertain, particularly as the Department of Education faces the potential of funding cuts, staff reductions, or even complete dissolution. If ED’s role diminishes or disappears, the Department of the Treasury could take over some functions, but this would raise questions about the fairness and transparency of the system.

The possibility of privatizing the student loan portfolio also looms large, which could shift the focus away from borrower protections and toward financial gain for private companies. For-profit schools, many of which have a history of predatory practices, are responsible for a disproportionate number of Borrower Defense claims, and any move to privatize the loan portfolio could exacerbate the challenges faced by borrowers seeking relief from these institutions.

Ultimately, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability in how the student loan system operates. Whether managed by the Department of Education, the Treasury, or private companies, protecting borrowers and ensuring fairness should remain central to any future reforms. If these issues are not addressed, millions of borrowers will continue to face significant financial hardship.

Our Journalism

Our journalism is different than most others who cover higher education.  Like those other outlets, we report the news, but that is not our focus. And like a few outlets, we also do time-consuming investigative work.  We recognize the outstanding contributions of dedicated journalists, but these times, the 2020s, call good people to do more--much more. 

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) follows the legacy of the muckrakers from the early 20th century. HEI delves into in-depth investigative reporting, uncovering scandals, institutional failures, and systemic inequalities in colleges, universities, and their related businesses. Journalists like Upton Sinclair (who exposed the meatpacking industry) and Ida Tarbell (who revealed monopolistic practices in oil) used their platforms to spotlight hidden problems. In a similar vein, HEI carries this tradition forward by focusing on the higher education industry and connects it with the world outside the ivory tower.

Muckraking journalists of the past often focused on giving a voice to the voiceless, and in today's context, HEI highlights issues such as racial, class, and gender disparities in education and the work that should follow. These topics have become more prominent in the 2020s as society grapples with the effects of systemic inequalities and how marginalized communities are underserved and underrepresented in elite institutions.

Just as muckrakers' stories led to reforms (e.g., child labor laws, anti-trust regulations), HEI aims to create change in higher education by influencing public opinion and policy. Change that can take decades to create and months to lose. By exposing unethical practices and systemic problems, such as the growing burden of student loans, the corporatization of universities, and complicity in climate change and authoritarianism, we hope to prompt action from lawmakers and educators to implement more equitable solutions.

Importance of This Type of Journalism in the 2020s:

In the 2020s, higher education is undergoing significant challenges, to include skyrocketing tuition, an increasing reliance on adjunct faculty, and concerns over the value of a college degree. Investigative journalism like ours holds universities accountable for the way they handle these issues. It serves as a check on the growing power and wealth of educational institutions, particularly in light of their increasing commercialization and influence over public policy.

The 2020s have brought heightened awareness of issues like racial inequality, mental health concerns, and the widening gap between wealthy and poor students. Investigative journalism continues to expose these problems, helping to drive conversations about fairness and equity in education. In an era when many people feel disconnected from powerful institutions, journalism that uncovers uncomfortable truths is essential for mobilizing change.

Higher education has been seen by many as a beacon of knowledge, innovation, and fairness, yet there are growing concerns about its accessibility and integrity. Investigative journalism done well helps maintain public trust in higher education by ensuring that universities live up to their purported values. HEI helps the public see when universities exploit students, misuse funds, or engage in unethical practices.

In the 2020s, many key policy issues—such as student debt, the cost of education, and educational access—are hot topics. Journalism that scrutinizes higher education can influence policy reform, potentially leading to legislative action aimed at reducing student debt, increasing transparency in university finances, and addressing fair hiring practices.

War and Peace:

War is often driven by political, economic, and technological forces, and universities are deeply intertwined with these drivers. Many top universities have longstanding partnerships with military contractors, defense organizations, and intelligence agencies. Research funded by these institutions may directly contribute to the development of weapons or military technologies, some of which are used in conflicts around the world. 

The Higher Education Inquirer investigates how these partnerships influence the direction of research, as well as the ethical implications of universities prioritizing military contracts over other forms of academic inquiry. Similarly, university programs train future leaders who will shape foreign policy or lead military operations, and HEI will hold them accountable for the potential consequences of those actions. 

On the other hand, universities can be spaces where peace studies, conflict resolution programs, and global diplomacy are taught—an important counterbalance that HEI highlights, showing how academia can be a force for peace amidst the militarization of knowledge.

Genocide:

Genocides are often preceded by a climate of division and dehumanization, and universities are often the breeding grounds for ideologies that either challenge or perpetuate these dynamics. Throughout history, some academic institutions have provided intellectual support to regimes that perpetrate genocide, whether through the training of military officers or the dissemination of harmful nationalist ideologies. 

Conversely, universities can also serve as platforms for the resistance against genocide, with professors and students leading efforts to expose atrocities, advocate for human rights, and prevent violence.  

The Higher Education Inquirer investigates how universities have both been complicit in, and resisted, the ideologies that fuel genocide. HEI explores the ways in which certain university-funded research or prominent academic figures have either contributed to genocidal narratives or become strong advocates for justice and reconciliation in the aftermath of such horrors.

Global Climate Change:

Climate change represents a massive, existential crisis that touches every part of society, and universities are both contributors to and leaders in tackling this challenge. 

HEI investigates how universities have been complicit in exacerbating the climate crisis—whether through fossil fuel investments, ties to unsustainable industries, or research that furthers environmentally harmful practices. At the same time, universities are also at the cutting edge of climate science, sustainable technologies, and environmental activism.  

The Higher Education Inquirer investigates whether universities are doing enough to address their own carbon footprints, promote sustainable practices on campus, and foster a generation of leaders who are committed to climate justice. In a world where universities are increasingly seen as both perpetrators of environmental degradation and potential agents of change, HEI’s investigative reporting is crucial in holding these institutions accountable.

Mass Incarceration:

The United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and universities are deeply involved in the systems that perpetuate this crisis. Many universities participate in research that supports law enforcement, surveillance technologies, or criminal justice policies, which can fuel the growth of the prison-industrial complex.  

The Higher Education Inquirer examines how higher education sustains and challenges mass incarceration. For instance, some universities benefit from partnerships with prisons, offering education programs to incarcerated individuals, but also facing criticism for their indirect role in perpetuating a system that disproportionately targets people of color.  

HEI investigates whether universities are actively working to dismantle mass incarceration through programs that promote restorative justice, education in prisons, or advocacy for systemic reform, or whether they are complicit in perpetuating the status quo through research and policy influence that supports harsh criminal justice policies.

Uniting These Issues:

The Higher Education Inquirer brings these issues together by demonstrating how universities are not isolated entities but integral parts of a global system that influences war, human rights, the environment, and justice. 

For example, universities that are heavily funded by military contracts should be implicated in fueling global conflict and war, while also contributing to climate change through the development of harmful technologies. At the same time, these same universities often fail to adequately address the ways in which their research, policies, and curricula shape or reinforce systemic racism and mass incarceration.

By following the muckraker tradition of exposing corruption and exploitation, HEI investigates how the pursuit of profit, power, and prestige within academia intersects with larger global crises. 

Investigative journalism that connects the dots between higher education, war, genocide, climate change, and mass incarceration is crucial to fully understanding these issues and holding institutions accountable for their roles in perpetuating or mitigating them. 

In the 2020s, when universities hold immense cultural, political, and economic power, the Higher Education Inquirer continues the legacy of the muckrakers by pushing for a more ethical, transparent, and socially responsible approach to higher education—one that reveals the problems of the world and to its solutions.