Save the date – September 26-27! As a non-profit educational organization, we hope you will join us at our annual conference! If you are looking for a conference that includes sharing histories of education to help define present processes and inform the development of future responses, we hope you will join us and attend our annual conference. This year’s conference will include at least one panel on aspects of how artificial intelligence will impact educational history, but there will be many other panels. While the final conference schedule is still in development, this poster features examples of previous topics at the annual conference, so we can’t guarantee sessions on all these topics yet, but they demonstrate our past conference topics and may be indicative of what will be in this year’s conference. Our conference being offered online ensures low cost as we seek to invite many scholars into the organization by keeping travel costs low – and a full year’s membership, complete with the journal and attendance at the conference, remains affordable with a student rate ($60) and a regular rate (non-student) ($120)! With a peer-reviewed journal, an annual conference attendance complete with a noted keynote speaker, and a membership, we are dedicated to ensuring as many people as are interested can attend our conference. As you look to the fall, save the date and register here to attend: http://www.edhistorians.org/annual-meeting.html
The headline numbers from this year’s graduate outcomes data – which represents the activities and experiences of the cohort that graduated in 2022-23 around 15 months after graduation look, on the face of it, disappointing.
There’s a bunch of things to bear in mind before we join the chorus claiming to perceive the end of graduate employment as a benefit of higher education due to some mixture (dilute to preference) of generative AI, the skills revolution, and wokeness.
We are coming off an exceptional year both for graduate numbers and graduate recruitment – as the pandemic shock dissipates numbers will be returning to normal: viewed in isolation this looks like failure. It isn’t.
But we’ve something even more fundamental to think about first.
Before we start
We’re currently living in a world in which HESA’s Graduate Outcomes data represents the UK’s only comprehensive official statistics dealing with employment.
If you’ve not been following the travails of the ONS Labour Force Survey (the July overview is just out) large parts of the reported results are currently designated “official statistics in development” and thus not really usable for policy purposes – the response rate is currently around 20 per cent after some very hard work by the transformation team, having been hovering in the mid-teens for a good while.
Because this is Wonkhe we’re going to do things properly and start with looking at response rates and sample quality for Graduate Outcomes, so strap in. We’ll get to graduate activities in a bit. But this stuff is important.
Response rates and sample quality
Declining survey response rates are a huge problem all over the place – and one that should concern anyone who uses survey data to make policy or support the delivery of services. If you are reading or drawing any actionable conclusions from a survey you should have the response rate and sample quality front and centre.
The overall completion rate for the 2022-23 cohort for Graduate Outcomes was 35 per cent, which you can bump up to 39 per cent if you include partial completions (when someone started on the form but gave up half-way through). This is down substantially from 48 per cent fully completing in 2019-20, 43 per cent in 2020-21, and 40 per cent in 2021-22.
There’s a lot of variation underneath that: but provider, level of previous study (undergraduate responses are stronger than postgraduate responses), and permanent address all have an impact. If you are wondering about sampling errors (and you’d be right to be at these response rates!) work done by HESA and others assures us that there has been no evidence of a problem outside of very small sub-samples.
Here’s a plot of the provider level variation. I’ve included a filter to let you remove very small providers from the view based on the number of graduates for the year in question – by default you see nothing with less than 250 graduates.
As above, the headlines are slightly disappointing – 88 per cent of graduates from 2022-23 who responded to the survey reported that they were in work or further study, a single percentage point drop on last year. The 59 per cent in full-time employment is down from 61 per cent last year, while the proportion in unemployment is up a percentage point.
However, if you believe that (on top of the general economic malaise) that generative AI is rendering entry level graduate jobs obsolete (a theme I will return to) you will be pleasantly surprised by how well employment is holding up. The graduate job market is difficult, but there is no evidence that it is out of the ordinary for this part of the economic cycle. Indeed, as Charlie Ball notes, we don’t see the counter-cyclical growth in further study that would suggest a full-blown downturn.
There are factors that influence graduate activities – and we see a huge variation by provider. I’ve also included a filter here to let you investigate the impact of age: older graduates (particularly those who studied at a postgraduate level) are more likely to return to previous employment, which flatters the numbers for those who recruit more mature students.
One thing to note in this chart is that the bar graph at the bottom shows proportions of all graduates, not the proportions of graduates with known destinations as we see at the top. I’ve done this to help put these results into context: though the sample may be representative it is not (as is frequently suggested) really a population level finding. The huge grey box at the top of each bar represents graduates that have not completed the survey.
A lot of the time we focus on graduates in full-time employment and/or further study – this alternative plot looks at this by provider and subject. It’s genuinely fascinating: if you or someone you know is thinking about undergraduate law with a view to progressing a career there are some big surprises!
Again, this chart shows the proportion of graduates with a known destination (ie those who responded to the Graduate Outcomes survey in some way), while the size filter refers to the total number of graduates.
Industrial patterns
There’s been a year-on-year decline in the proportion of graduates from UG courses in paid employment in professional services – that is the destination of just 11.92 per cent of them this year, the lowest on record. Industries that have seen growth include public administration, wholesale and retail, and health and social care.
There’s been a two percentage point drop in the proportion of PG level graduates working in education – a lot of this could realistically put down to higher education providers recruiting fewer early-career staff. This is a huge concern, as it means a lot of very capable potential academics are not getting the first jobs they need to keep them in the sector.
And if you’ve an eye on the impact of generative AI on early career employment, you’d be advised to keep an eye on the information and communication sector – currently machine generated slop is somehow deemed acceptable for many industrial applications (and indeed employment applications themselves, a whole other can of worms: AI has wrecked the usual application processes of most large graduate employers) in PR, media, and journalism. The proportion of recent undergraduates in paid employment in the sector has fallen from nearly 8 per cent in 2020-21 to just 4.86 per cent over the last two years. Again, this should be of national concern – the UK punches well above its weight in these sectors, and if we are not bringing in talented new professionals to gain experience and enhance profiles then we will lose that edge.
To be clear, there is limited evidence that AI is taking anyone’s jobs, and you would be advised to take the rather breathless media coverage with a very large pinch of salt.
Under occupation
Providers in England will have an eye on the proportion of those in employment in the top three SOC codes, as this is a key part of the Office for Students progression measure. Here’s a handy chart to get you started with that, showing by default providers with 250 or more graduates in employment, and sorted by the proportion in the top three SOC categories (broadly managers and directors, professionals, and associate professionals).
This is not a direct proxy for a “graduate job”, but it seems to be what the government and sector have defaulted to using instead of getting into the weeds of job descriptions. Again, you can see huge differences across the sector – but do remember subject mix and the likely areas in which graduates are working (along with the pre-existing social capital of said graduates) will have an impact on this. Maybe one day OfS will control for these factors in regulatory measures – we can but hope.
Here’s a plot of how a bunch of other personal characteristics (age of graduates, ethnicity, disability, sex) can affect graduate activities, alongside information on deprivation, parental education, and socio-economic class for undergraduates. The idea of higher education somehow levelling out structural inequalities in the employment market completely was a fashionable stick to beat the sector with under the last government.
That’s a lot of charts and a lot of information to scratch the surface of what’s in the updated graduate outcomes tables. I had hoped to see the HESA “quality of work” measure join the collection – maybe next year – so I will do a proxy version of that at some point over the summer. There’s also data on wellbeing which looks interesting, and a bunch of stuff on salaries which really doesn’t (even though it is better than LEO in that it reflects salaries rather than the more nebulous “earnings”) There’s information on the impact of degree classifications on activity, and more detail around the impact of subjects.
Look out for more – but do bear in mind the caveats above.
Deborah F. RutterDeborah F. Rutter, the former president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., has been appointed vice provost for the arts at Duke University.
From 2014 to 2025, Rutter was the first woman to serve as president of the Kennedy Center, the nation’s cultural center and living memorial to President Kennedy. Under Rutter’s leadership, the center experienced a period of transformative programmatic growth; opened the REACH, a physical expansion of the campus; and strengthened its financial position through increases in its endowment and working capital reserves.
Rutter is a graduate of Stanford University, where she majored in music and German, and earned an MBA from the University of Southern California. Trained in piano and violin, she previously served as president of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra Association and executive director of the Seattle Symphony Orchestra. She also held executive leadership roles with the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra and the Los Angeles Philharmonic.
Rutter received an honorary Doctor of Arts degree from Duke in 2023.
At the age of 9, Hannah Choo found herself shuttled across the Pacific Ocean from California to Seongnam, South Korea. She found herself living in a city, about an hour from Seoul, where everything from language to climate was different.
She’d grown up in sunny, suburban, slow-paced Pasadena in Southern California and wasn’t happy at first about the move.
“When I first arrived, the honking of cars at night was so loud that I couldn’t fall asleep,” Choo said.
But now, seven years later, she realizes that the experience of living in two starkly different cities has given her a better understanding of people. And this is important because Choo wants to be a journalist.
She has joined News Decoder as a summer intern, bringing with her an interest in communities and how they collectivize and support themselves.
“Korea has made me look deeper into how people differ experientially, not just in terms of surface factors like race or ethnicity or where they’re from,” she said. “I think there’s a lot of diversity in Korea with what people go through in their lives.”
Appreciating cultural differences
The homogenous culture of South Korea gives Choo a strong sense of community and has helped her realise that people’s differences are not defined by where they come from.
For News Decoder, Choo brings the perspective of a young person, which is valuable to an organization devoted to helping youth process global events and the confusing digital world that consumes them.
“Hannah has been helping me critique News Decoder’s climate journalism educational materials,” McCauley said. “As the EYES project enters its phase of dissemination, Hannah’s curiosity and understanding of depth is helping the curriculum to become stronger and more relevant for the young people of today.”
McCauley said that Choo is thoughtful and critical, but that it is her way of interacting with others that is her best asset.
“She brings me trust in future generations,” McCauley said.
Working with News Decoder
Choo said she wanted to work with News Decoder because of the way it spotlights the human side of news, and how lives are impacted by everyday events.
“I feel like News Decoder aims to really empower students to not just write a story in general, but also how to incorporate their own voice into that while sticking with the rules of journalism,” Choo said.
Choo will also help News Decoder bolster its social media. In the coming weeks, she will be working with News Decoder’s Program and Communication Manager Cathal O’Luanaigh on her own series of posts on News Decoder’s social media pages and working with its Educational News Director Marcy Burstiner on articles related to climate change, people and culture.
Burstiner said that when Choo first came to News Decoder it was as if she knew exactly what was wanted of her. “She has a great instinct for news, for seeing the story that hasn’t been told and that needs to be told,” Burstiner said. “For News Decoder, South Korea is a country that has been underreported. I’m really looking forward to her stories.”
Ultimately, Choo hopes to tell stories about people in many different places.
“I see myself travelling the world and visiting different communities and really hearing their stories, and being able to present it in a way that’s authentic to them,” she said. “And showing that to the rest of the world and allowing other people to also see all of these unique parts of a global culture that you never really get a spotlight on.”
Telling global stories
What she has learned so far in her travels from California to South Korea is that there is great satisfaction in adapting to a new culture.
While there was no language barrier for Choo when she moved to Seongnam, having spoken Korean with her parents since she was a child, the noise and way of living there needed some getting used to. But what she at first found so different, she now finds comfort in.
Everything she needs outside of her apartment complex, which is wrapped by four different roads, is just a short subway, drive or walk away. And with community comes safety.
“I always tell people that you could leave your laptop on top of a coffee shop table and expect to find it there again an hour later,” Choo said.
There are still challenges.
Korean schools are hyper competitive and getting into a prestigious university is important. This means that in high school, students are so focused on getting good grades that their mental health often suffers.
Young people prioritise studying for tests over sleep and a social life. They compare themselves to each other and base their self worth on academic performance.
“That creates pretty toxic dynamics between people,” she said. “Beating out the competition, I think, is a huge narrative here.”
This also means that school and learning is centred on grades, so that critical thinking and interest is of much lower importance.
“Studying in any school in Korea, even if international, means you’re still affected by the culture,” Choo said.
In the animated film Up, the character Dug is a talking dog with an interesting mannerism. Each time he sees a movement off to the side, he stops whatever he is doing, stares off in that direction and shouts, “Squirrel!” I feel that this is a perfect representation of how schools often deal with new and emerging technologies. They can be working hard to provide the best instruction for their students but become immediately distracted anytime a new technology is introduced.
From the internet and computers to cell phones and artificial intelligence, schools continue to invest a lot of time and money into figuring out how best to use these new technologies. Overall, schools have done a good job adapting to the numerous digital tools introduced in classrooms and offices–and often, these tools are introduced as standalone initiatives. Why do school districts feel the need to ‘reinvent the wheel’ every time a new technology is released? Instead of looking at each new technology as a tool that must be integrated in the curriculum, why not determine what is missing from current instruction and identify what prevents integration from occurring naturally?
Schools need to recognize that it is not just learning how to use these new digital tools that is important. They must learn how to interpret and use the incredible variety of resources that accompany these tools–resources that provide perspectives that students would never have access to when using physical resources.
Digital is different
For centuries, learning material has come from a variety of physical resources. These include human-made items (i.e. textbooks, documents, paintings, audio recordings, and movies) as well as one of the most commonly used physical resources: teachers. In traditional instruction, teachers spend a great deal of class time teaching students information from these physical resources. But the physical nature of these resources limits their availability to students. To ensure that students have long-term access to the information provided by these physical resources, most traditional instruction emphasizes memorization, summarizing, and note taking.
With digital resources, students can access information at any time from anywhere, which means learning how to retain information is less important than learning how to effectively find credible information. The authenticity of the information is important because the same tools that are used to access digital resources can just as easily be used to create new digital resources. This means there is a lot of misinformation available online, often consisting of nothing more than personal opinions. Students need to not only be able to search for information online, but they also need to be able to verify the authenticity of online information. The ability to identify misleading or false information is a skill that will benefit them in their personal and academic lives.
Learning
While it is fairly easy to find information online, especially with the inclusion of AI in search engines, there are some search techniques that will reduce the amount of misinformation found in simple search requests. By teaching students how to refine their searches and discussing the impact of these search skills, students will be more discerning when it comes to reviewing search results. They need to be aware that the most helpful sites do not always appear at the top of the search list. Some sites are sponsored and thus automatically placed at the beginning of the search list. Other sites will tweak their web search parameters to ensure a higher priority in the search list. A better understanding of how online searching works will result in more effective searches.
Once information is found, the authenticity of the resource and the information itself needs to be established. Fortunately, there are standard practices that can be utilized to teach verification. In the early 2000’s, a popular checklist method called CRAAP (Currency [timeliness], Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) emerged. While this method was effective in evaluating the authenticity of the website, it did not ensure the accuracy of the information on the website. In 2019, the SIFT (Stop, Investigate, Find confirming resources, and Trace claims) methodology was introduced. This methodology focuses on determining if online content is credible. These are not the only tools available to teachers. Librarians and media specialists are a good place to start when determining age-appropriate lessons and material to teach verification.
Students need to have access to some high-quality digital resources starting in elementary school. Teaching website verification at an early age will help students understand, from the beginning, that there is a lot of misinformation available online. At the same time, schools need to ensure that they provide access to digital resources that are age appropriate. Today’s network technology provides many ways for schools to monitor and control what information or sites are available to students at different grade levels. While these network tools are effective, they should be used in conjunction with well-trained teachers who understand how to safely navigate digital resources and students who are expected to practice responsible internet behavior. Introducing a select number of digital resources in elementary classes is the first step toward creating discerning researchers who will gain the ability to effectively judge a website’s appropriateness and usefulness.
Teaching
In order to create opportunities for students to experience learning with digital resources, instructional practices need to be less reliant on teacher-directed instruction. The use of physical resources requires the teacher to be the primary distributor of the information. Typically, this is done through lecture or whole-class presentations. With digital resources, students have direct access to the information, so whole-class distribution is not necessary. Instead, instructional practices need to provide lessons that emphasize finding and verifying information, which can be done by shifting to a learner-centered instructional model. In a learner-centered lesson, the onus falls on the student to determine what information is needed, and if the found information is credible for a given task. The class time that previously would have been spent on lecture becomes time for students to practice finding and authenticating online information. Initially, these learning experiences would be designed as guided practice for finding specific information. As students become more proficient with their search skills, the lesson can shift toward project-based lessons.
Project-based lessons will help students learn how to apply the information they find, as well as determine what unknown information they need to complete the work. Unlike lesson design for practicing information searching and verification, project-based lessons provide opportunities for students to decide what information is needed and how best to use it. Instead of directing the student’s information-gathering, the teacher provides guidance to ensure they are accessing information that will allow the students to complete the project.
This shift in instruction does not necessarily mean there will be a significant curricular change. The curricular content will remain the same, but the resources could be different. Because students control what resources they use, it is possible that they could find resources different from the ones specified in the curriculum. Teachers will need to be aware of the resources students are using and may have to spend time checking the credibility of the resource. Given the varying formats (text, audio, video, graphic) available with digital resources, students will be able to determine which format(s) best supports their learning style. Because most digital tools utilize the same digital resources and formats, teaching students how to learn with digital resources will prepare them for adapting to the next new digital tool. It is simply a matter of learning how to use the tool–after all, they already know how to use the resource.
When creating units of study, teachers should consider the type of resources students will be using. To simplify matters, some units should be designed to utilize digital resources only and include lessons that teach students how to find and verify information. Students still need to develop skills to work with physical resources as well. It may be helpful to start off with units that utilize only physical or digital resources. That way teachers can focus on the specific skills needed for each type of resource. As students gain proficiency with these skills, they will learn to use the appropriate skills for the given resources.
The amount of information available to the public today is staggering. Unfortunately, too much of it is unverified and even purposely misleading. Trying to stop misinformation from being created and distributed is not realistic. But teaching students how to validate online information can make the distribution of and exposure to misinformation much less impactful. The open nature of the internet allows for many divergent opinions and perspectives. We need to ensure that when students graduate, they have the skills necessary to determine the authenticity of online information and to be able to determine its merit.
Teaching and learning with digital resources is different, and traditional instruction does not meet the learning needs of today’s students. Giving students the opportunity to master learning with digital resources will prepare them for the next technology “squirrel” and will enable them to determine how best to use it on their own.
Rick Cave, West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District
Rick Cave recently retired as the director of technology in the West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District in West Windsor, N.J. With 40 years of experience as a teacher, ed tech coach and director Rick has been involved with instructional technology from the beginning.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
As school districts continue to seek new ways to enhance learning outcomes, Madison County School District represents an outstanding case study of the next-level success that may be attained by centralizing IT governance and formalizing procedures.
When Isaac Goyette joined MCSD approximately seven years ago, he saw an opportunity to use his role as Coordinator of Information Technology to make a positive impact on the most important mission of any district: student learning. The district, located in northern Florida and serving approximately 2,700 students, had made strides towards achieving a 1:1 device ratio, but there was a need for centralized IT governance to fully realize its vision.
Goyette’s arrival is noted for marking the beginning of a new era, bringing innovation, uniformity, and central control to the district’s technology infrastructure. His team aimed to ensure that every school was using the same systems and processes, thereby advancing the students’ access to technology.
Every step of the way, Goyette counted on the support of district leadership, who recognized the need for optimizing IT governance. Major projects were funded through E-rate, grants, and COVID relief funds, enabling the district to replace outdated systems without burdening the general fund. MCSD’s principals and staff have embraced the IT team’s efforts to standardize technology across the district, leading to a successful implementation. Auto rostering and single sign-on have made processes easier for everyone, and the benefits of a cohesive, cross-department approach are now widely recognized.
To successfully support and enable centralization efforts, Goyette recognized the need to build a strong underlying infrastructure. One of the key milestones in MCSD’s technology journey was the complete overhaul of its network infrastructure. The existing network was unreliable and fragmented in design. Goyette and his team rebuilt the network from the ground up, addressing connectivity issues, upgrading equipment, and logically redoing district systems and processes, such as the district’s IP network addressing scheme. This transformation has had a positive impact on student learning and engagement. With reliable connectivity, students no longer face disruptions.
The implementation of an enterprise-grade managed WAN solution has further transformed the educational experience for MCSD’s students and educators, serving as the backbone for all other technologies. Goyette’s innovative co-management approach, coupled with his deep understanding of network topology, has enabled him to optimize the resources of an experienced K-12 service provider while retaining control and visibility over the district’s network.
New School Safety Resources
Another significant milestone MCSD has achieved is the successful deployment of the district’s voice system. This reliable phone system is crucial for ensuring that MCSD’s schools, staff, and parents remain seamlessly connected, enhancing communication and safety across the district.
Goyette’s innovative leadership extends to his strategies for integrating technology in the district. He and his team work closely with the district’s curriculum team to ensure that technology initiatives align with educational goals. By acting as facilitators for educational technology, his team prevents app sprawl and ensures that new tools are truly needed and effective.
“Having ongoing conversations with our principals and curriculum team regarding digital learning tools has been critical for us, ensuring we all remain aligned and on the same page,” said Goyette. “There are so many new apps available, and many of them are great. However, we must ask ourselves: If we already have two apps that accomplish the same goal or objective, why do we need a third? Asking those questions and fostering that interdepartmental dialogue ensures everyone has a voice, while preventing the headaches and consequences of everyone doing their own thing.”
MCSD’s IT transformation has had a profound impact on student learning and engagement. With reliable connectivity and ample bandwidth, students no longer face disruptions, and processes like single sign-on and auto account provisioning have streamlined their access to educational resources. The district’s centralization efforts have not only improved the educational experience for students and educators but have also positioned Madison County School District as a model of success and innovation.
###
Jesus Peña, UDT
Jesus Peña serves as Executive Vice President and Chief Experience Officer (CXO) at UDT, where he leads customer-focused innovation and strategic growth initiatives. With a career spanning leadership roles in sales, service delivery, and executive management, he brings a proven ability to align technology with business outcomes. Prior to joining UDT, Jesus held senior positions at leading technology firms including Cisco, Modcomp, R2 Technologies, and Dimension Data, and co-founded Davocom One. Known for his people-first leadership and passion for delivering meaningful experiences, he consistently drives value for clients across public and private sector organizations. He may be reached at [email protected].
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Operating margins at private nonprofit colleges have plummeted to their lowest levels in over a decade due to growing financial challenges, especially for tuition-dependent institutions, according to a new Fitch Ratings analysis.
The median adjusted operating margin, which includes endowment funds for operations, fell to -2.0% in fiscal 2024 for the 56 private nonprofit colleges in Fitch’s portfolio. Despite the median margin sitting squarely in negative territory, the highest-rated colleges still enjoyed positive operating margins.
Fitch analysts expect the credit environment for the U.S. higher education sector to deteriorate in 2025 year over year,with federal policy shifts likely to increase pressure on operations and revenue.
Dive Insight:
The Fitch analysis reflects the challenging financial environment that private nonprofit colleges are navigating. The litany of problems includes continued inflation, threats to federal funding and an expected decline in the number of high school graduates starting next year.
Amid these challenges, adjusted operating margins shrank for all types of colleges.
That includes the three private nonprofits with AAA ratings from Fitch — the highest one given by the credit rating agency, signaling an institution at very low risk of default. Their median adjusted operating margins declined to 8.4% in fiscal 2024. While “still strong,” that’s down from double-digit highs seen during the coronavirus pandemic, according to Fitch.
Colleges with AA ratings showed a median adjusted operating margin of 2.3%, while those with ratings below AA had negative margins, a continuation of a yearslong trend.
Lower-rated colleges tend to rely on tuition as their primary revenue source, while higher-rated colleges are more likely to get large contributions from their healthcare operations or investment returns, according to analysts.
“This growing credit differentiation within the sector highlights mounting financial challenges for less selective, tuition-dependent institutions,” they wrote.
Despite numerous challenges, private nonprofits brought in more tuition and fee revenue in fiscal 2024 than the year before. On average, AA-rated colleges and below saw this revenue stream increase between 1.2 and 3.8%,while institutions with AAA ratings saw a 0.1% decline.
However, this year has brought even more financial turbulence.
“Operating margins and financial flexibility will remain narrow in 2025, as further increases in tuition, if any, will likely be offset by losses in other revenue streams and are unlikely to be sufficient to preserve margins,” analysts wrote.
Financial challenges are not new to much of the higher education sector. But many well-known private research universities are also starting to feel the pressure due to massive drops in federal research funding under the second Trump administration.
The National Science Foundation, for instance, approved only $989 million in new grant funding from Jan. 1 through May 21, according to a recent analysis from The New York Times. That’s a massive 51% decline from the 10-year average over the same time period.
On top of the slowdown in new grant approvals, NSF has so far terminated some 1,600 active grants, totaling $1.5 billion in research funding.
President Donald Trump’s return to office introduced myriad new fiscal ordeals for colleges, along with legal and political tribulations.
Already the administration has terminated or slowed countless research grants both universally and in targeted attacks on disfavored institutions. With the passage and signing of Republicans’ massive budget bill, taxes will rise for some of the larger college endowments while the student aid system will undergo a revamp that includes an end to Grad PLUS loans and introduction of various borrowing limits, all of which could weigh on revenues.
Moreover, Trump’s aggressive stance on immigration and international students could hamper college demand and revenue, as Moody’s analysts recently noted.
As colleges try to adapt, reimagine their operations or just survive, many are shrinking their budgets, including by laying off faculty and staff. In effect, Trump has introduced a new era of austerity for higher ed, while the pain of inflation and enrollment pressure never went away.
Here’s a look at how some are girding for an uncertain fiscal future in Trump’s second term:
Cory Doctorow’s theory of enshitification—originally coined to describe how digital platforms decay over time—perfectly captures the grim evolution of U.S. higher education. Institutions that once positioned themselves as public goods now exist primarily to sustain themselves, extracting revenue, prestige, and labor at the expense of students, faculty, and the broader public.
In the post–World War II era, higher education in the United States was broadly seen as a driver of social mobility, economic growth, and democratic citizenship. The GI Bill and substantial state funding opened college doors to millions. Tuition at public institutions was minimal or nonexistent. Academic freedom, faculty governance, and research for the common good were foundational ideals.
By the 1980s, neoliberal policies began to reshape the higher education landscape. Public disinvestment led institutions to rely more heavily on tuition, philanthropy, corporate partnerships, and student debt. Universities became more bureaucratic and brand-conscious. Students were reframed as consumers, and education as a commodity. Faculty positions gave way to underpaid adjunct labor, and Online Program Managers like 2U, Academic Partnerships (aka Risepoint) and Kaplan emerged to monetize digital learning. Marketing budgets ballooned. Classrooms and research labs became secondary to enrollment targets and revenue generation.
A 2019 Higher Education Inquirer report revealed how elite universities joined the downward spiral. Institutions like Harvard, Yale, and USC outsourced online graduate programs to 2U, employing aggressive recruitment tactics that resembled those of discredited for-profit colleges. Applicants were encouraged to take on excessive debt for degrees with uncertain returns. Whistleblowers likened it to fraud-by-phone—evidence that even the most prestigious universities were embracing an extractive model.
Doctoral education offers a deeper glimpse into how enshitification has hollowed out academia. Sold as a noble pursuit of truth and a path to secure academic employment, the Ph.D. has become, for many, a journey into economic instability, psychological distress, and underemployment. Only a small percentage of doctoral students land tenure-track jobs. Graduate schools continue to admit far more students than they can responsibly support, while providing little preparation for careers outside academia. Mentorship is often lacking, and financial support is frequently inadequate. Many graduate students rely on food pantries, defer medical care, or take on gig work just to survive. Meanwhile, universities benefit from their labor in teaching and research.
International graduate students face even steeper challenges. Promised opportunity, they instead encounter a saturated job market, low wages, and immigration precarity. Their labor props up U.S. research and rankings, but their long-term prospects are often bleak.
The rise of career-transition consultants—like Cheeky Scientist and The Professor Is In—has become a booming cottage industry, a byproduct of the failed academic job pipeline. For most Ph.D.s, what was once considered “alternative academia” is now the only path forward.
Financial hardship compounds the crisis. Graduate stipends in many programs are far below local living wages, especially in high-cost cities like San Francisco, Boston, or New York. Few programs provide retirement benefits or financial literacy resources. The financial toll of earning a doctorate is often hidden until students are years deep into their programs—and years behind in wealth accumulation.
Meanwhile, university medical centers—often affiliated with elite institutions—offer a parallel example of institutional enshitification. These hospitals have long histories of exploitation, particularly of poor and minority patients. Even today, these facilities prioritize affluent patients and donors, while relying on precariously employed staff and treating marginalized communities as research subjects. The disparities are systematic and ongoing. The rhetoric of innovation and healing masks a legacy of racial injustice and extractive labor practices.
Legacy admissions further entrench inequality. While race-conscious admissions have been rolled back, legacy preferences remain largely untouched. They serve to maintain elite networks, ensuring that wealth and access remain intergenerational. These policies not only contradict the rhetoric of meritocracy but also deepen structural inequities in the name of tradition.
Today, higher education serves itself. Institutions protect billion-dollar endowments, award executive salaries in the millions, expand sports programs and real estate portfolios, and depend on underpaid faculty and indebted students. Campuses are rife with inequality, surveillance of student protest, and performative gestures of inclusion, even as DEI initiatives are gutted by state governments or internal austerity.
The consequences are clear. Enrollment is declining. Campuses are closing. Faculty are being laid off. Public trust is eroding. And even elite institutions are feeling the strain. Doctorow’s theory suggests that once a system has fully enshittified, collapse becomes inevitable. The College Meltdown is not hypothetical—it’s here.
And yet, collapse can be a beginning. Higher education must be radically reimagined: public investment, tuition-free education, student debt relief, labor protections, honest admissions policies, and genuine democratic governance. The alternative is more of the same: a system that costs more, delivers less, and cannibalizes its future to feed its prestige economy.
Selected Sources
Caterine, Christopher L. Leaving Academia: A Practical Guide. Princeton University Press, 2020.
Cassuto, Leonard. The Graduate School Mess: What Caused It and How We Can Fix It. Harvard University Press, 2015.
Kelsky, Karen. The Professor Is In: The Essential Guide to Turning Your Ph.D. into a Job. Three Rivers Press, 2015.
While the Trump administration has painted a bleak picture of the higher education sector as a costly enterprise that burdens taxpayers and pushes leftist ideologies, new survey data shows that most Americans—regardless of their political leanings—still value it.
“Increasingly, higher ed is being cast as elite, expensive and not connected with everyday Americans,” said Sophie Nguyen, senior policy manager with the higher education team at New America, the left-leaning think tank that published its annual Varying Degrees survey on Wednesday. “There’s a significant disconnect in the narrative about what higher ed is” and how it’s perceived.
Capturing the American public’s views on the purpose of higher education drove many of the questions Nguyen and her colleagues asked 1,631 respondents in March for the ninth iteration of the survey.
After reaching a low point last year, the data shows that satisfaction with higher education is on the rise: 40 percent of respondents—including 42 percent of both Republicans and Democrats—reported that higher education is “fine as it is,” compared to 36 percent who said the same last year.
“We see a lot of alignment between Democrats and Republicans, something we haven’t heard a lot about,” Nguyen said, describing such data points as “the common ground” colleges can tap into when defending their worth to both consumers and lawmakers.
New America’s findings are in line with a poll Gallup also released Wednesday in partnership with the Lumina Foundation, which shows that 42 percent of Americans surveyed said they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, compared to a low of 36 percent in 2024 and 2023—though it’s still far from the nearly 60 percent confidence peak in 2015. The share of people who reported “very little” or no confidence is also on the decline, falling from 32 percent last year to 23 percent this year. Although Democrats reported much higher confidence in higher education institutions, Republican confidence in both four- and two-year colleges rose by 11 and 12 percentage points, respectively, compared to last year.
Respondents cited the economic and social benefits of higher education, its standing at the forefront of innovation, the quality of education and training—both for jobs and exposure to different viewpoints—as drivers of the uptick in their confidence.
The Trump administration’s war on higher ed may have played a role, said Courtney Brown, Lumina’s vice president of impact and planning.
“It is possible that we are seeing people in support of the sector because they see so many attacks,” she said. Whatever the reason, she said the new data is positive, and if institutions want to restore confidence to 2015 levels they should consider “how they can build on this moment and show up for students and ensure they’re getting value.”
Like Gallup’s report, New America’s survey revealed partisan divides as well as agreements. Sixty percent of Republicans said colleges are having a negative impact on the country, while 75 percent of Democrats said they’re having a positive impact. But respondents from both parties were much more aligned on questions about specific aspects of higher ed’s value and purpose.
While Republican lawmakers pressure universities into proving their return on investment, the vast majority of Americans, including both Republicans and Democrats, believe higher education should function as more than a transaction. They say it should not only equip students with the skills and knowledge to succeed in their chosen fields (97 percent of Democrats; 98 percent of Republicans), but also help students become informed citizens (97 percent of Democrats; 89 percent of Republicans) and critical thinkers (97 percent of Democrats; 92 percent of Republicans).
“The rhetoric coming from Washington tends to be a caricature of what are some real issues facing college campuses and the sector in general,” Beth Akers, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute who focuses on the economics of higher education, said at a media briefing about New America’s survey. While “there’s room for improvement … it’s unfortunate that the rhetoric is empowering misinformation about what institutions are doing.”
Even as Trump and his political allies move to dramatically cut federal funding for university research—which advocates say will devastate university budgets, local economies and progress toward lifesaving research—88 percent of Republicans and 97 percent of Democrats believe it’s important to some degree that colleges and universities conduct research to expand understanding in various subjects.
Despite political rhetoric that suggests otherwise, American higher education has delivered an array of personal and societal benefits for decades, Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, said during a news briefing on the report.
“Higher ed continues to be the single most powerful socioeconomic catalyst in America, which is associated not only with higher earnings, but longer productive lives, better physical and mental health, resilience, adaptability, and personal development and fulfillment,” she said. “At the societal level, education drives long-term economic growth for local communities and the nation.”
More broadly, it “strengthens our democracy,” because it “tends to mitigate or tame authoritarian tendencies” and “reduces individuals’ sensitivities to potential triggers by providing them with psychological protection in the form of self-esteem, personal security and autonomy,” she said. “It fosters a moral imagination—imagining what it’s like to be in the shoes of another, different from oneself—and interpersonal trust.”
Despite the Trump administration and its allies’ attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, the survey data shows that an overwhelming majority of Republicans and Democrats agree that higher education should create an environment where students of all backgrounds feel supported, provide a platform for exploration of diverse ideas and foster cross-cultural understanding.
Although New America’s survey suggests that most Americans recognize the layered value of higher education, Republican lawmakers have increasingly focused on both controlling the subjects colleges can teach and research and making it harder for students and colleges to access federal funding.
While Republicans and Democrats are divided on who they think should be primarily responsible for paying for college—76 percent of Democrats believe the government should; 67 percent of Republicans believe students should—respondents from both parties cited cost as the single biggest barrier to enrolling in or finishing college.
At the same time, 75 percent of respondents over all (91 percent of Democrats and 58 percent of Republicans) said the federal government should spend more on making college more affordable.
Hironao Okahana, vice president and executive director of the Education Futures Lab at the American Council on Education, said this data offers a ray of optimism for the higher education sector navigating an onslaught of partisan attacks from Republican policymakers.
“The public is seeing higher education as a sector beyond some of the sound bites we’re hearing,” he said. “They’re seeing that it has more nuance and texture, and that there’s not just one way higher education can contribute to society.”
