Since that day, over 400 FDNY Firefighters, EMS and other responders have died from 9/11 related illnesses, and hundreds of others are sick, including EMS, PD and civilians. There is a new area at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in NYC for these individuals who are sick.
As time passes, people seem to forget what happened and the toll it has taken. We need to make sure we never forget and educate our children about what happened. Talk to them about it, tell them how you felt and what the experience was. Take them to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in NYC. It is an amazing, somber experience going there. My 8 year old daughter has been to ground zero and the park, but not into the museum. That will come later.
I still vividly remember where I was (engineer at Sikorsky Aircraft) when it happened, responding down there as a paramedic, the sights, the smells, the people. I was at Ground Zero for the last part of my shift down there on 9/12. It was sobering to see the pile, knowing there were people in there.
As the years have gone by, we have lost first responders to 9/11 related diseases, many struggle with PTSD or other medical issues. The current generation doesn’t know this as anything but history. The worst part for many of us was not being able to save people and the many days and weeks hoping against all odds that we would find people alive.
I went to the 9/11 Memorial Museum in NYC in 2012. It was an amazing, heartbreaking experience. I recommend that every American go there and see it, remember those who were lost, and pray something like this never happens again.
9/11 still haunts me to this day, as it does most of us who responded. But we persevere and move on, not letting the terrorists win.
The anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks has become a very important National Day of Service and Remembrance in America, known as “9/11 Day”.
9/11 Day is a time when Americans are asked to join together in unity, remember those lost on 9/11, and if possible, perform good deeds or other acts of service as a positive tribute to the 9/11 victims, as well as first responders and military personnel who rose in service in response to the terrorist attacks.
This year, the organizers of 9/11 Day are asking all of us to participate virtually through a special program called “Take a moment. Do a good deed”, There is no cost or required donation involved. The goal is to inspire one million acts of kindness that participants are able to do from home.
24 years after 9/11, we’re remembering the outreach, love and support that emerged in response to the tragedy. Let’s keep that togetherness alive. Join us in turning 9/11 into a global day of doing good.
They also have Toolkits and Lesson Plans around 9/11 and #911day.
So please share a message of support for 9/11 Day, about your deed, using #911day
Nothing could be more important right now than joining together in unity and to pay tribute by helping those most in need. Never forget what we are capable of doing together. Thank you!
I’m also very proud that my company, CDW, is a sponsor of 911day and supports the military, first responders, and all affected by 9/11.
United We Stood, United We Stand Today is a day Americans will never forget.
It is a day of remembrance, a day of reflection and a day to be proud.
It is a day we honor and remember the thousands of lives lost, the survivors, and those who rose up in service in response to the attacks on 9-11-2001.
It is a day we pay tribute to and reflect on the sacrifices of the public safety workers and the men and women in our military who serve us and protect us 365 days a year.
It is a day Americans can be proud of the way we came together following the attacks on 9-11.
United We Stood. United We Stand.
Here are some more resources about my experience on 9/11 and 9/11 in general:
On this day, Americans pause to remember the lives lost and the trauma endured on September 11, 2001. But remembrance is not only about history—it is also about recognizing the ongoing threats that shape our daily lives, both at home and abroad.
Many college students today are too young to remember 9/11, the Great Recession, Hurricane Katrina or the Iraq-Afghanistan War. In just a few years, the next generation will similarly lack first-hand memory of Covid-19 or the Trump era. For them, history can feel abstract—a collection of dates and headlines rather than lived experience. Yet the consequences of these events—economic instability, public health crises, climate disasters, and political polarization—still define the world they inherit.
The aftermath of 9/11 illustrates how misinformation and disinformation can create far-reaching harm. In the years following the attacks, false claims about weapons of mass destruction and distorted narratives about Iraq’s connections to terrorism were used to justify the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. This decision cost hundreds of thousands of lives, destabilized the Middle East, and diverted resources from domestic priorities—all while enriching defense contractors, private security firms, and energy interests. The lesson is clear: unchecked narratives, especially when amplified by power and profit motives, can have catastrophic consequences.
Today, the dangers we face are as complex as they are insidious. Beyond external threats, Americans contend with the corrosive influence of economic powerhouses whose actions ripple through every corner of society. Bankers, corporate CEOs, and venture capitalists wield enormous influence over the economy, often prioritizing profit over the well-being of workers, consumers, and communities. Their speculative ventures and risky gambles—what one could call a “casino economy”—have repeatedly endangered livelihoods, magnified inequality, and destabilized markets.
The consequences of these decisions are tangible. In the United States, student loan debt has reached more than $1.8 trillion, and millions of college graduates find themselves trapped in jobs that fail to match their skills or aspirations. Housing costs, medical expenses, and inflation compound the economic squeeze, leaving working families vulnerable while the wealthiest accumulate unprecedented fortunes.
Internationally, threats are equally complex. Global supply chains remain fragile, climate change intensifies natural disasters, and geopolitical conflicts threaten stability. Yet the U.S. response is often shaped by elite interests—defense contractors, multinational banks, and energy conglomerates—that profit from chaos while ordinary citizens bear the cost.
Remembering September 11 is a reminder that security cannot be measured only in military terms. True security encompasses economic fairness, access to healthcare, and political accountability. Without confronting the greed, unchecked power, and manipulation of information that dominate our society, the vulnerabilities that allowed past tragedies to occur remain.
For younger Americans, whose direct memories of past crises are limited, understanding these patterns is critical. The threats of today—both domestic and international—are not only external but internal, arising from concentrated wealth, influence, and the ability to shape narratives, from decisions made in boardrooms, newsrooms, and venture capital offices, that affect millions who have no voice in those decisions.
September 11 should remind us that vigilance is ongoing. It is a day to reflect, yes, but also to act—to demand transparency, equity, and responsibility in the institutions that govern our lives. Only by addressing these threats can Americans truly honor the past while securing a safer and more just future for the generations that follow.
Sources:
U.S. Federal Reserve, Household Debt and Credit Report, Q2 2025
Institute for College Access & Success, Student Debt Data (2025)
Oxfam, Inequality in the U.S. 2024–25
Global Financial Stability Report, International Monetary Fund (2025)
World Bank, Global Economic Prospects (2025)
9/11 Commission Report (2004)
National Security Archive, Iraq War Intelligence and Disinformation
It’s been about eighteen months since this podcast last visited Australia. The story at the time was about something called “the Universities Accord”, an oddly-named expert panel report which was supposed to give the Labor government a roadmap for re-structuring a higher education system widely believed to be under enormous stress.
Since then, lots has happened. There’s been an international student visa controversy, a whole ton of cutbacks at institutions (including a quite wild polycrisis at Australian National Universities) and a general election which saw the Labor Party unexpectedly returned to power with an increased majority.
So, what’s on the agenda now? To answer that question, we called up long-time podcast friend Andrew Norton, currently Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, and Policy and Government Relations Adviser at the University of Melbourne, and as usual he’s here to give us the straight dope down under. Our discussion ranges pretty widely over developments in the last 18 months: to me the most interesting question is why the government has been so slow to move on key aspects of the Universities Accord. Andrew’s answer to that question is, I think, pretty revealing, and should resonate both in Canada and the UK – quite simply, left-wing governments aren’t as different from right-wing ones as you might think when it comes to delivering change in higher education.
The World of Higher Education Podcast Episode 4.2 | Higher Ed at the Ballot Box: Australia’s Election and the Accord with Andrew Norton
Transcript
Alex Usher: Andrew, welcome back. Last time we talked was about 18 months ago, and the Universities Accord report had just dropped. There were a whole bunch of recommendations about funding, job-ready graduates, access, system regulation, and even something odd about a national regional university. Labor had about a year and a half between the time the report came out and the election this past May. What did they do with that time? What aspects did they move on most quickly?
Andrew Norton: It was a bit of an odds-and-ends approach. The big, expensive changes to the way students and institutions are funded have really been postponed. But they’ve done a range of things.
They’ve introduced a national student ombudsman—the first national complaints organization for students. They’ve created a new system for funding people in preparatory courses. They’ve increased regulations on universities to support students who are struggling or at risk of failing.
Mostly, they’ve done things aimed at helping students, while the big structural work is still to come.
Alex Usher: So, they did the cheap stuff?
Andrew Norton: Essentially. They did the things that were cheap for the government but shifted costs onto the universities.
Alex Usher: And with the other elements, did they say no to any of them? Or did they just leave it quiet—maybe we’ll do it, maybe we won’t?
Andrew Norton: The thing they’re attracting the most criticism for is the Job-Ready Graduate student contribution. Back in 2021, the previous government radically redesigned how students pay for their education. The idea was to encourage people into courses the government wanted, like teaching or nursing, by discounting student fees, and to discourage others by raising fees in areas the government regarded as “not job-ready,” like humanities and social sciences.
The Accord’s final report said the system should change—go back to something closer to what we had before, where there’s a rough relationship between fees and likely future earnings. But the government has deferred this to the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC), which currently exists as a website but doesn’t yet have legislation. That legislation will probably come early next year.
So, the earliest possible date for changes is 2027, and quite possibly later. The government is getting a lot of criticism because, while fees were being increased, they said it was a bad thing and that they’d fix it. Yet first they sent it off to the Accord review, then to ATEC, and now who knows when it will actually happen.
Alex Usher: So, there’s a lot of kicking the can down the road at a time when institutions are having financial trouble?
Andrew Norton: That’s true. A lot of institutions are reducing staff and cutting courses. Exactly why varies—some are still struggling with international student numbers, some with domestic enrolment. But the key problem is that costs are rising faster than revenues.
They’ve signed wage deals that are well above inflation, while government grants are only indexed to inflation. So they’re in a situation where they have to control costs, and staff numbers and courses are one of the few levers they have left.
Alex Usher: You mentioned international students. One of the things we noticed here in Canada—because we went through the same thing a few months before you—was this whole notion of international student caps. The idea was similar: there was a perception, I’m not sure how true it was, that international students were affecting the housing market. Both Labor and the opposition supported caps; they just disagreed on how severe they should be. What actually happened on that front? Are there caps, and how are they regulated?
Andrew Norton: I think the answer is: sort of.
The background is that in the second half of 2023, the government started to believe that international student numbers were contributing to housing shortages and rising rents. Many in the sector agree there’s some truth to that. If you add up all the students, ex-students on temporary graduate visas, and people on bridging visas—often students waiting on another visa—you’re probably looking at around a million people in a population of about 27 million. It’s hard to argue that it has no impact on the housing market.
The government introduced a range of migration measures: making visas more expensive and making it harder to get a student visa in the first place. But this wasn’t really affecting Chinese students, who remain the largest single group in Australia. So in May last year, they introduced legislation that would have put formal caps on the number of students each university and education provider could take. Everyone thought this was certain to pass, since the opposition also supported caps.
But in a big surprise last November, the opposition changed course and didn’t support the bill. Combined with the Greens’ opposition, it couldn’t get through the Senate and didn’t become law.
Instead, the government recycled the caps idea at the “national planning” level. The main feature was that once an institution hit 80% of its allocated number, further visa applications would go into a “go-slow” lane. The implied threat was that if an institution went over in future, there could be penalties. But so far, that hasn’t happened.
So now we’re essentially back to a migration-driven set of restrictions on international numbers.
Alex Usher: Before we get to the election, there was an interesting article—I think it was in Times Higher—about the idea that universities had nobody in their corner going into the election, that they’d lost some of the social license they once had.
Part of it was about the very large vice-chancellors’ salary packages, which have been an issue for a long time—many presidents earning over a million dollars. But there have also been persistent stories about wage theft, with universities systematically underpaying employees. Then there are the narratives about “management gone mad” and cuts—particularly at the Australian National University.
Is it true? Are universities more friendless in Australia than they used to be? Or is there something different this time?
Andrew Norton: I think there is something different this time. It’s not just that there have been a lot of issues.
On wage theft—as the union calls it—this has mostly resulted from universities relying heavily on casual or sessional employees. Payroll systems are complex, with different rates for different activities. It is genuinely hard to get right, but it seems almost every university has failed to align payroll systems with how people are actually employed.
As a result, about half the institutions have had to repay staff or correct wages they didn’t pay the first time. Roughly half a dozen universities are now facing high-level enforcement by workplace authorities, putting them in the same category as traditional rogue employers like those in retail.
The optics are terrible: people on very low wages aren’t being paid correctly, while vice-chancellors are earning over a million dollars a year. That contrast doesn’t look good.
The real big change, though, is political. The Liberal Party opposition has long been skeptical of universities, but what shocked institutions was that the governing Labor Party took the Accord review and, if anything, has been even harsher with universities than the previous government.
That’s why universities are reeling. They expected that after the change of government in 2022, life would get easier. It certainly hasn’t.
Alex Usher: Let’s talk about the election. Your election was only about a week after ours in Canada, and it seemed like a very similar story: a weak center-left government on course to be crushed by a right-wing party. But then that right-wing party suddenly didn’t seem so cuddly once Trump had been in office for two or three months. I think the difference, though, is that higher education actually played some role in the Australian election. What promises did the different parties make?
Andrew Norton: That was quite unusual. Higher education usually isn’t an election issue in Australia. But this time Labor picked up on discontent over student debt in its first term.
The issue was that we index student debt to inflation. And like in many other countries, there was a post-COVID inflationary period. At one point, indexation was around 7% in a single year.
I think that triggered what I’d call a latent issue. Over the 2010s, there was a big increase in student numbers and, correspondingly, in debt. We ended up with about 3 million people holding student debt, totaling over 80 billion Australian dollars. That’s a very large constituency. Labor realized that while this hurt them in their first term, maybe they could turn it into a positive.
They did something similar to what’s been discussed in the U.S.—or in some cases done in the U.S.—which was to promise cutting all debts by 20%. They announced this in November last year. During the campaign they didn’t push it hard until the final week, when they really started to focus on it.
There was a late surge in support for the government, which gave them a very large majority. My theory is that the 20% cut—which was worth more than $5,000 to the average person with student debt—was enough to swing people over the line and deliver Labor its big win.
Alex Usher: What I found odd about this is that debt doesn’t actually affect your payments in Australia, because you’ve got one of the purest and original income-contingent systems in the world. Cutting debt by $5,000 only reduces the length of time you’ll be paying—for example, my debt is paid off in 2050 instead of 2055. I’m amazed that would move the needle so much, because next year what everybody pays is still a function of their income, not the size of their debt. So how did that work?
Andrew Norton: I think it’s because the debt issue had become so salient in people’s minds. The strange thing is that, at the same time, Labor also promised to change the repayment system in ways that would actually reduce how much people repay this year, under laws already operating now. But that got almost no airtime.
When journalists called me, I’d ask, “Do you want me to talk about this too?” And they’d say, “What’s that?” There was zero recognition. It just wasn’t being highlighted.
One reason might be that the repayment change isn’t straightforward. While the average person will repay less, everyone will now face a marginal repayment rate of 47%—that’s including income tax plus the 15% of income they have to repay once they’re over $67,000 Australian.
As this comes into operation, I think there could be political problems. But during the campaign, the overwhelming focus—99%—was simply on the debt cut.
Alex Usher: Let’s be clear about that, because it’s interesting. Australia has always had an income-contingent system where, if you were below a threshold, you paid nothing. But as soon as you went over that threshold, you paid a percentage of your total income, not just the marginal income above the threshold.
Andrew Norton: The change is that it’s now a marginal system. And the threshold for starting repayment has moved from $56,000 Australian to $67,000. So a whole lot of people are now out of the repayment system as a result.
But there’s a downside: more people will see their debt keep rising through indexation, because they’re not making repayments—or their repayments are smaller than the amount added by indexation. I think that’s going to be a problem.
Alex Usher: What’s the marginal rate above that?
Andrew Norton: It’s 15% above $67,000, and then it goes up to 17% at $125,000 a year. Those are high numbers. Once you set a high threshold, you’ve got to set high repayment rates to bring in a reasonable amount of revenue for the government.
Alex Usher: Now that Labor has been reelected, what do you think their agenda looks like for the next three years? Which parts of the Universities Accord that they passed on last year are they actually going to move on? You’ve mentioned the Job-Ready Graduate program and the regulator. Anything else?
Andrew Norton: One thing they’ve already done, consistent with some of their earlier moves, is new legislation on what they call gender-based violence. That’s going to be quite complex regulation for the sector to manage.
The big issue ahead is how they’ll distribute student places in the future. Their general mantra is “managed growth.” What they’re aiming for is a system with much more government control over the number of student places at each university, and likely also more control over which courses those places are allocated to.
At the moment, universities have a maximum grant, but aside from niche areas like medicine, there’s effectively no control over how those places are distributed internally. And even though universities eventually use up all their public funding, they can still enroll more students if they’re willing to accept only the student contribution. Some universities have been quite happy to do that.
Alex Usher: Similar to what we have in Ontario.
Andrew Norton: Exactly. The universities that are currently what we call “over-enrolled”—taking more students than they’re being fully funded for—are feeling vulnerable. Some of them will find this shift very difficult to manage.
Alex Usher: So, the government wants to control domestic student numbers through this mechanism, and they’re effectively going to do something similar for international students through a system of caps, perhaps. Are they going to move on caps again, and will it be in line with this whole notion of managed growth?
Andrew Norton: I think so, yes. The Australian Tertiary Education Commission has said it will regulate international student numbers in the future—at least in the university sector. Presumably there will be some coordination between the domestic and international totals.
In the past, there’s been discussion of saying international students should make up no more than a certain percentage of total enrollments. Some universities already do this voluntarily, so I wouldn’t be surprised if a maximum percentage is formally set.
Alex Usher: It’s interesting you mention growth, because we’ve just been talking about how difficult it is for universities to balance their budgets. If there’s no new money—either from domestic sources or international students—how are they going to grow? I just saw, I think it was today, that the University of Melbourne is giving up on building a second campus.
Andrew Norton: That’s partly due to problems with the particular site they had chosen.
To backtrack a little—when they say “managed growth,” that doesn’t necessarily mean actual growth. They used the same phrase for international students even when the goal was clearly to reduce numbers. So in that case, it was really managed degrowth rather than growth.
What they do want in the long run, as recommended in the Accord, is for a higher percentage of people—particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds—to acquire a university degree. That’s the growth they want to achieve.
The challenge is the student market. The school-leaver market, in my analysis, is probably recovering after being flatter than usual. Universities that rely on school leavers are likely the ones that have managed to over-enroll.
But the mature-age market is in a long slump, apart from a brief spike during COVID. I don’t think that market will fully recover, because many in that cohort have already earned their bachelor’s degrees at a younger age and aren’t returning in the same numbers as before.
Alex Usher: With all these restrictions—fewer international students, slumping domestic enrollments, and declining government funding—what do you think the system looks like five years from now? By 2030, is this a sector that’s found its mojo again, or are we looking at long-term decline?
Andrew Norton: I don’t think it’s as bad as it looks in some other countries, where demographics are worse than in Australia. But I do think the 2020s will continue to be a difficult period.
We’ve been talking about potential structural changes in the labor market and the impact of AI, which could devalue a degree. That could cause shocks in the system we haven’t yet seen.
Higher education has survived numerous ups and downs in the labor market over the decades. Usually, any drop-offs are short-term, and then growth returns. But maybe this time is different—I’m not sure. Right now, we’re not seeing huge effects of AI in either international or domestic enrollment numbers. But it’s definitely possible that, once we start seeing negative labor market signals—like new graduates struggling to find work—that could hit demand.
Alex Usher: Andrew, thanks for joining us on the show.
Andrew Norton: Thanks, Alex.
Alex Usher: And thanks as always to our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan, and to you—our listeners and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, please don’t hesitate to get in touch at [email protected].
Join us next week when Marcelo Rabossi from the Universidad Torcuato Di Tella returns to talk about new developments in Argentina’s university financial crisis, and the showdown between Congress and President Javier Milei over a new higher education law. Bye for now.
*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.
As communications manager, I quickly learned that translation is never just about swapping words. It’s about tone, style, even design. A press release that sounded professional in Paris could feel cold in Rome. A social media graphic that looked fresh in Madrid felt too flashy in Berlin.
The solution was to build a common identity and then let each country adapt it. Slower, yes. But the result felt more authentic, and audiences responded.
These challenges are not unique to communication teams; they are central to journalism itself. The biggest stories today — migration, climate change, political unrest — rarely stop at national frontiers. To cover them well, reporters must collaborate across borders.
Translation beyond words
That type of collaboration is messy. Sources are harder to coordinate. Legal and cultural differences can complicate investigations. And readers, or listeners, may have very different expectations depending on their nationality or where they live.
But when it works, it is powerful. Our podcasts carried voices across Europe, letting audiences in one country hear accents, pauses and perspectives from another. It turned abstract debates into human stories.
Working across cultures also reminded me that projects are not just tasks — they are people. Some partners preferred long memos, others quick calls. Some valued hierarchy, others wanted open debate. I learned to leave space for informal chat, to ask how colleagues were doing before diving into deadlines.
Those small gestures built trust, and trust kept the project moving.
For young journalists and students, the lesson is simple: cross-border work can feel messy, but it’s worth it. Don’t be discouraged by misunderstandings; they often lead to clearer understanding. Pay attention not only to language, but to culture. And above all, listen.
My two years with WePod taught me that communication is less about perfect phrasing and more about building bridges. In the end, that is what journalism itself is meant to do: connect people across borders, cultures and languages.
Questions to consider:
1. What does the author mean by translating is more than swapping out words?
2. How can people from different countries and cultures find a common identity?
3. How would you communicate with someone who speaks a different language?
While there is wide agreement that student engagement plays a vital role in learning, educators continue to face uncertainty about what engagement looks like, how best to measure it, and how to sustain it, according to a new study from Discovery Education.
“Discovery Education conducted the EducationInsights report to gain a deeper understanding of how engagement is defined, observed, and nurtured in K-12 classrooms nationwide, and we are thankful to the participants who shared their perspectives and insights with us,” said Brian Shaw, Discovery Education’s Chief Executive Officer. “One of the most important findings of this report is that engagement is seen as essential to learning, but is inconsistently defined, observed, and supported in K-12 classrooms. I believe this highlights the need for a more standardized approach to measuring student engagement and connecting it to academic achievement. Discovery Education has embarked on an effort to address those challenges, and we look forward to sharing more as our work progresses.”
Key findings of the Education Insights 2025–2026: Fueling Learning Through Engagementreport include:
Engagement is broadly recognized as a key driver of learning and success. Ninety-three percent of educators surveyed agreed that student engagement is a critical metric for understanding overall achievement, and 99 percent of superintendents polled believe student engagement is one of the top predictors of success at school. Finally, 92 percent of students said that engaging lessons make school more enjoyable.
But educators disagree on the top indicators of engagement. Seventy-two percent of teachers rated asking thoughtful questions as the strongest indicator of student engagement. However, 54 percent of superintendents identified performing well on assessments as a top engagement indicator. This is nearly twice as high as teachers, who rank assessments among the lowest indicators of engagement.
School leaders and teachers disagree on if their schools have systems for measuring engagement. While 99 percent of superintendents and 88 percent of principals said their district has an intentional approach for measuring engagement, only 60 percent of teachers agreed. Further, nearly one-third of teachers said that a lack of clear, shared definitions of student engagement is a top challenge to measuring engagement effectively.
Educators and students differ on their perceptions of engagement levels. While 63 percent of students agreed with the statement “Students are highly engaged in school,” only 45 percent of teachers and 51 percent of principals surveyed agreed with the same statement.
Students rate their own engagement much higher than their peers. Seventy percent of elementary students perceived themselves as engaged, but only 42 percent perceived their peers as engaged. Fifty-nine percent of middle school students perceived themselves engaged in learning, but only 36 percent perceived their peers as engaged. Finally, 61 percent of high school students perceived themselves as engaged, but only 39 percent described their peers as engaged.
Proximity to learning changes impressions of AI. Two-thirds of students believe AI could help them learn faster, yet fewer than half of teachers report using AI themselves to complete tasks. Only 57 percent of teachers agreed with the statement “I frequently learn about positive ways students are using AI,” while 87 percent of principals and 98 percent of superintendents agree. Likewise, only 53 percent of teachers agreed with the statement “I am excited about the potential for AI to support teaching and learning,” while 83 percent of principals and 94 percent of superintendents agreed.
In 2018, Military Times published a guide titled “8 Tips to Help Vets Pick the Right College.” While the intent was good, the higher education landscape has shifted dramatically since then — and not for the better. For-profit colleges have collapsed and rebranded, public universities are raising tuition while cutting services, and predatory practices continue to target veterans with GI Bill benefits.
Meanwhile, agencies like the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) — tasked with protecting veterans — have too often failed in their oversight. Investigations have revealed FOIA stonewalling, regulatory rollbacks, and a revolving door between government and industry. Veterans are left to navigate a minefield of deceptive recruiting, inflated job-placement claims, and programs that leave them indebted and underemployed.
Here’s what veterans need to know in 2025.
1. Don’t Trust the Branding
Colleges love to advertise themselves as “military friendly.” This phrase is meaningless. It’s often nothing more than a marketing slogan used to lure GI Bill dollars. The fact that a school has a veterans’ center or flags on campus tells you little about program quality, affordability, or long-term value.
If a school avoids publishing these numbers or makes them hard to find, that’s a red flag.
3. Understand the Limits of Oversight
The VA’s GI Bill Comparison Tool and DOD “oversight” portals may look official, but they are incomplete and sometimes misleading. The VA has even restored access to schools after proven misconduct under political pressure. DOD contracts with shady for-profit providers continue despite documented abuse.
Oversight agencies are not independent referees — too often, they are captured regulators.
4. Seek Independent Evidence
Avoid relying on large, national veteran nonprofits. Many of these organizations accept funding from schools, corporate partners, or government agencies with vested interests.
Instead, veterans should:
Check state attorney general enforcement actions and FTC press releases.
Read independent investigative journalism (such as the Higher Education Inquirer or Project on Predatory Student Lending).
Ask tough questions of alumni — especially those who dropped out or ended up in debt.
5. Watch Out for Job Placement Claims
Schools often boast of “high job placement rates” without clarifying what that means. Some count temporary or part-time work unrelated to your field. If a program promises guaranteed employment, demand written proof.
6. Don’t Chase Prestige
Big-name universities are not automatically better. Some elite schools partner with for-profit online program managers (OPMs) that deliver low-quality, high-cost programs to veterans and working adults. Prestige branding doesn’t guarantee fair treatment.
7. Weigh Community Colleges and Public Options
Community colleges can be a safer starting point, offering affordable tuition, transferable credits, and practical programs. Some state universities provide strong veteran support at the local level, even when national oversight is weak.
8. Build and Rely on Grassroots Networks
Large veteran organizations at the national level often fail to protect veterans from predatory colleges. Veterans are better served by:
Local veteran groups that are independent and community-based
Direct peer networks of fellow veterans who have attended the schools you’re considering
Public libraries, grassroots councils, and smaller veteran meetups not tied to corporate or political funding
Sharing experiences through independent media when official channels fail
Protect Yourself, Protect Others
Veterans have long been targeted by predatory colleges because their GI Bill benefits represent guaranteed federal money. DOD, VA, and large national veteran groups have too often enabled this exploitation.
The best defense is independent evidence, grassroots testimony, and investigative journalism. By asking hard questions, demanding transparency, and supporting one another at the local level, veterans can avoid the traps that continue to ensnare far too many.
For those who have been targeted and preyed upon, please consider joining the Facebook group, Restore GI Bill for Veterans.
A new report from the Center for Community College Student Engagement found that even though parenting students are especially dedicated to their studies, they face significant obstacles in college.
The report, based on a 2024 survey of students from 164 community colleges, found that parenting students were more engaged than nonparenting students across multiple benchmarks, including coming to class prepared and never skipping classes, despite their additional responsibilities. These students were also more likely than nonparents to have earned an associate degree or certificate or to mention changing careers as a goal.
But even with such strong drive, 71 percent of student parents reported caring for dependents could cause them to withdraw from college; 73 percent said financial circumstances might make them stop out. Student parents were also more likely than nonparents to face food and housing insecurity, but only small fractions of students reported receiving food or housing support from their college in the last month. In a similar vein, a third of students with children say that their colleges don’t adequately support them as parents. Meanwhile, these students say underutilized supports that could help them, including campus childcare services, financial advising and career counseling, the report found.
The report also offers examples of higher ed institutions that have put in place effective supports for student parents. For example, Lee College in Texas offers weekly financial assistance for childcare and family-friendly study areas. Monroe Community College in New York created a designated student success coach role to serve single mothers.
“Parenting students are among the most engaged learners on our campuses, but they face barriers that too often derail their progress,” Linda García, CCCSE’s executive director, said in a news release. “But when colleges take intentional steps to support them, the impact is not only on students, but on their children and communities.”
A university group warned that the proposal would stifle the U.S. innovation pipeline and hurt the American public.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Axios he wants the federal government to get half the dollars generated from patents that universities and their researchers develop with federal funding, the outlet reported Wednesday.
“The scientists get the patents, the universities get the patents and the funder of $50 billion, the U.S. government, you know what we get? Zero,” Lutnick says in an interview clip from the forthcoming first episode of The Axios Show.
“I think if we fund it and they invent a patent, the United States of America taxpayer should get half the benefit,” Lutnick says, adding, “if we are paying for the research, if we’re paying for the lab, if it’s our money, the American taxpayer’s money.”
“How do we not get our money back?” he says. “That’s insane.”
As Axios noted in its article about the interview, the Bayh-Dole Act generally gives universities the right to own patents developed with federal funding. The Commerce Department didn’t return requests for comment Wednesday about how the Trump administration could legally get around that law.
Kate Hudson, the Association of American Universities’ deputy vice president and counsel for government relations and public policy, said in an email that Lutnick’s idea “would completely gut universities’ ability to partner with the private sector to turn research discoveries into real-world technologies, cures, and solutions that serve the American people.”
“The proposal would obliterate the progress that university tech transfer has enjoyed in the 45 years since the passage of the seminal Bayh-Dole Act, which facilitated new university-industry partnerships and led to an explosion of technological progress and substantial economic gains,” Hudson said. “If enacted, the proposal would stifle the U.S. innovation pipeline, with the American people, not universities, being the ultimate losers.”
At least a quarter of students across a broad range of graduate and professional programs could need private loans, which tend to come with higher interest rates, in order to pay for their education once new caps on federal loans take effect next summer, multiple studies show. For some, the loans could become so costly as to make earning a master’s or doctoral degree unattainable.
Currently, this group can borrow federal loans up to the total cost of attendance thanks to a program known as Grad PLUS. But starting July 1, students will max out at either $20,500 or $50,000 per year depending on whether they enroll in a graduate or professional program, respectively. And those in graduate programs will only be able to take out $100,000 over all, while students in professional programs will be limited to $200,000. Congress made the changes as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed earlier this summer.
The caps mean that the median borrower in four of the nine largest professional programs likely will need to find other financing to pay tuition bills, according to a recent analysis from the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University. Borrowers in the 75th percentile exceed the cap in six of the nine fields.
And it’s not just the most costly doctoral programs such as medicine and dentistry in which students will face such a challenge, PEER notes. Out of the 30 master’s degree programs with the highest loan volume, 50 percent of students exceed the cap in nearly half of them.
Many of these students could struggle to find a private lender to make up the difference, potentially forcing them to drop out or not enroll in the first place, policy experts at PEER and other research groups say. And even if a student finds a lender, taking out a private loan could lead to steep, sometimes predatory, interest rates that take decades to pay off. (Research shows that low-income individuals particularly struggle to secure private financing because of a range of factors such as low credit scores, a lack of assets or an inconsistent flow of income.)
Before this new law, “students could have just filled out their FAFSA, applied for loans through the Department of Education and been able to borrow up to the full cost of attendance of their program,” said Jordan Matsudaira, director of the PEER Center and a former deputy under secretary at the Department of Education.
But now, for upward of a quarter of graduate students, it likely won’t be that simple.
“I think that will come as a surprise to a lot of people,” he said.
Can Private Lenders Fill the Gap?
Other researchers at Urban Institute and Jobs for the Future have also crunched the numbers on the loan caps and reached similar findings.
Jobs for the Future estimated in a report released last month that if this loan cap had been in place for the 2019–20 graduating class, roughly 38 percent of graduate borrowers would have needed to take out more loans beyond the cap. And thanks to the limit, the federal government would have issued $9.7 billion less in loans—a decrease of about 28 percent, according to the report.
Urban also used data from 2019–20 but broke it down by program, finding that dentistry would have the largest share of students exceeding the cap. About 56 percent would have exceeded the annual limit, and 58 percent blew through the aggregate cap. Other programs with a high share of students that could be pushed into the private market include medicine, at 41 percent, a master’s in public health, at 29 percent, and a master’s in fine arts, at 26 percent.
Policy experts on both sides of the political aisle tend to agree that the student debt crisis needs to be addressed. But unlike conservative lawmakers and analysts who believe these caps are necessary in order to lessen student debt and encourage colleges to lower costs, some researchers worry the limits are too aggressive and don’t account for nuances like a program’s return on investment.
“The kind of pain involved here is a little bit bigger than it needed to be to rein in the most egregious abuses in the system,” Matsudaira said. “The better approach over all would have been to adopt an approach where different fields of study had different limits that were scaled with borrowers’ ability to repay.”
Some questions about how the loan limits will work and which programs they’ll apply to will be answered later this month when the Education Department starts to work through the rule-making process to carry out the law’s provisions. Representatives from nursing, aviation and social work have already started to speak out about why their programs should be considered professional degrees and therefore be eligible for the higher cap.
“In today’s economy, the majority of graduate education is practical and workforce-aligned, preparing students for jobs in health care, education, counseling, technology and much more,” Stephanie Giesecke, a representative of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, said at a public hearing in August. “The definition that is too narrow risks excluding programs that are vitally important to communities and employers nationwide.”
Like Matsudaira, Ethan Pollack, a senior director of policy at JFF, said that while he sympathizes with the Republican diagnosis that debt is too high, he probably would have gone about addressing it a different way. But rather than suggesting changes to the cap itself, JFF’s report looked at the financial impact on borrowers and suggested ways that institutions, the government and private lenders can adjust in response.
One key recommendation was the use of outcomes-based financing for private loans, which would base payments in part on borrowers’ earnings after graduating. Pollack said that this approach could help students who lack strong credit histories or cosigners still pursue well-paying degrees like a juris doctorate.
But current regulations, like requiring a bank to disclose a flat annual percentage rate, or APR, when offering a loan, make it difficult for some private vendors to explore new models like outcomes-based financing, he explained. If the government were to build on the recent legislation by amending current regulations and introducing new guardrails for private lenders, Pollack added, the OBF model could make nonfederal loans more affordable for borrowers of all backgrounds.
“The federal government, in some sense, is stepping on the gas and the brake at the same time,” he said. “They’re saying that they want the private market to be stepping up, but at the same time, the federal government is one of the obstacles to the private market being able to step up in the way that we would all like them to, which is to be offering financing with much more student-friendly terms.”
Matsudaira, on the other hand, was more skeptical.
“The big question is whether the private sector is really going to be able to come in and fill a hole that big,” he said. “And even if they do, how long does it take for them to spin up to be able to do those kinds of things?”
This HEPI blog was authored by Elaine Jackson, Lecturer in Business and Management at the University of the West of Scotland.
Imagine earning a full salary while studying for your degree, graduating debt-free, and having a guaranteed job at the end. This isn’t fantasy, it’s exactly what graduate apprenticeships offer. Yet these programmes represent just 8% of Scotland’s university intake, despite employers desperately needing skilled workers in the very sectors where apprenticeships thrive.
The story of what’s possible starts with people like Donna. Through her graduate apprenticeship with a Local Authority, she delivered a project that secured £280,000 in funding and earned recognition as a nominee for the 2025 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) excellence awards. Her success demonstrates the transformative potential of combining work and study but it also highlights a troubling question: if graduate apprenticeships work so well, why aren’t there more of them?
Graduate apprenticeships (GAs), also known as Degree Apprenticeships (DAs) in the UK, represent a specific model of work-based learning where the apprentice is an employee who is simultaneously studying for a full undergraduate or master’s degree. These programmes typically last three to six years, with apprentices spending approximately 20% of their time studying and 80% working.
The scale challenge reveals a deeper problem
The numbers reveal a stark reality. Since these programmes launched in 2017, only 37,000 Scots have enrolled in Foundation and Graduate Apprenticeships combined across all years combined. To put that in perspective, 16,340 Scottish 18-year-olds accepted traditional university places in just 2024 alone. Graduate apprenticeships are growing alongside regular university degrees, offering an alternative pathway rather than replacing traditional routes, but they’re growing far too slowly.
This slow growth becomes even more puzzling when we consider the demand. Skills Development Scotland reports that social work faces a 9.3% vacancy rate, while engineering, digital technology, healthcare, and business management show similar patterns of unmet need. These are exactly the sectors where graduate apprenticeships are proving most successful, yet only 1,378 new opportunities are projected for 2024-25 across all Scottish universities.
So, what would realistic growth look like? Based on current university capacity, documented employer partnerships, and persistent skills shortages, Scotland could reasonably support 2,000-2,500 new apprentices each year, nearly doubling current numbers. This figure accounts for genuine employer capacity to provide meaningful workplace learning, not just any company willing to take on apprentices. It represents growth that the system could absorb without compromising quality.
But three fundamental barriers prevent this expansion from happening and understanding them reveals why good intentions alone aren’t enough to scale successful programmes.
Why growth remains elusive: Three critical barriers
The first barrier is financial, and it’s more complex than simply needing more money. Graduate apprenticeships cost significantly more to deliver than traditional degrees, yet they’re funded as if they were the same thing. Think about how a typical university lecture works: one professor teaches 200 students in a hall, students complete assignments independently, and most learning happens through individual study. Now consider how apprenticeships work: Glasgow Caledonian University provides one-to-one mentoring and three-way liaison between each student, their employer, and university staff throughout the entire programme. Class sizes on these programmes are typically 15-35 students, not 200, and every apprentice needs dedicated support to balance work and study successfully.
This intensive approach works, apprentices like Donna achieve remarkable outcomes. But it is expensive. Evidence from England’s apprenticeship system shows funding ranges from £1,500 to £27,000 depending on complexity, with degree-level programmes requiring the higher amounts. Yet Scottish universities, already facing a £4,000 to £7,000 funding gap per student, receive the same amount whether they’re delivering a large lecture or providing intensive one-to-one support. This creates a perverse incentive: the better the apprenticeship programme, the more money the university loses.
The second barrier involves employer readiness, and here Scotland faces a fundamental difference from countries where apprenticeships work at scale. In Germany and Switzerland, companies must meet standardised quality criteria before they can take on apprentices. They need qualified supervisors, structured learning programmes, and formal assessment processes. This ensures every apprentice receives genuine training, not just a work placement.
Scotland takes a different approach: any employer can participate without meeting specific training standards. While this sounds more flexible, it creates wildly inconsistent experiences. Some employers, like those partnering with the University of the West of Scotland, provide excellent mentoring and career development. Others treat apprentices more like temporary staff, offering limited learning opportunities. This inconsistency doesn’t just harm individual apprentices, it undermines confidence in the entire system, making other employers hesitant to participate and students uncertain about programme quality.
The third barrier is bureaucratic complexity that would frustrate even the most determined institutions. Universities wanting to create new apprenticeship programmes must navigate approval processes across Skills Development Scotland, degree-awarding bodies, and professional accreditation requirements. The Scottish Funding Council’s guidance spans multiple pages covering compliance requirements across 14 different subject areas. When universities are already struggling financially, investing scarce resources in complex approval processes for programmes that may not even cover their costs becomes increasingly difficult to justify.
These barriers explain why graduate apprenticeships remain promising but small-scale, despite clear demand from both employers and students. Early evidence suggests positive retention outcomes among graduate apprentice cohorts, though comprehensive longitudinal data is still emerging given the programmes’ recent introduction. This contrasts with broader patterns where Scotland faces challenges retaining skilled graduates, particularly in STEM fields where migration to other regions for career opportunities remains a persistent concern.
The investment case
The solutions are straightforward, though not simple to implement. First, funding must reflect delivery reality. Universities need premium funding of 125-135% of standard degree rates to cover the intensive support that makes apprenticeships effective. Given that Scottish universities already receive £2,020 less per student than English institutions, this investment would address both general underfunding and apprenticeship-specific costs.
Second, Scotland should build employer capacity systematically rather than simply recruiting more participants. This means developing quality standards for workplace learning, supporting successful employers to mentor others, and focusing on sustainable growth rather than rapid expansion that compromises quality.
Third, approval processes need streamlining. Rather than navigating multiple agencies with overlapping requirements, universities should face consolidated processes that maintain quality while reducing bureaucratic barriers to innovation.
The investment required, approximately £20-35 million annually to reach 2,000-2,500 starts, is significant but justified. Graduate apprenticeships address multiple policy priorities simultaneously: reducing student debt, developing skills where shortages are most acute, and retaining talent in Scotland rather than losing graduates to other regions.
Funding viability: A realistic investment in Scotland’s economic future
The question of funding viability deserves a data-driven response. The proposed £20-35 million annual investment represents just 0.03-0.06% of Scotland’s £59.7 billion public budget—smaller than typical annual budget variations. Scotland already invests £185 million annually in apprenticeships, making this 11-19% increase both modest and strategically targeted.
A phased expansion demonstrates fiscal responsibility while addressing urgent skills gaps. Starting with £15 million (expanding from 1,200 to 1,500 graduate apprentices), scaling to £25 million by year three (2,000 apprentices), and reaching £35 million by year five (2,500 apprentices) aligns expansion with demonstrated employer capacity while allowing quality oversight.
International benchmarking supports this scale. England’s apprenticeship system spends £1,500-27,000 per apprentice depending on complexity, with degree-level programmes requiring higher investments. Scotland’s proposed £14,000-20,000 per graduate apprentice (including university premium funding) sits within this proven range while delivering superior outcomes through integrated workplace learning.
The return on investment is compelling: each graduate apprentice avoids approximately £15,000 in student debt compared to the Scottish average, while earning during their studies and contributing immediately to productivity. Graduate apprentices also avoid the debt burden that affects traditional students, providing a genuine alternative to debt-financed higher education.
Rather than adopting loan models that would undermine the fundamental “earn while learning” proposition, Scotland should view this as infrastructure investment—comparable to the £150 million being invested in offshore wind manufacturing. Both create sustainable employment, address skills shortages, and position Scotland competitively in growth sectors. Analysis of successful apprenticeship systems consistently shows that sustainable models rely on public investment rather than employer or student financing.
The choice is strategic, not fiscal. Scotland can afford this investment; the question is whether it can afford not to make it when facing documented skills shortages in sectors critical to economic growth and the net-zero transition.
Conclusion
The choice facing Scottish policymakers is ultimately about ambition and fiscal realism. The evidence shows what works, the economic case is compelling, and the investment is demonstrably affordable through phased implementation. Scotland can accept that graduate apprenticeships remain a valuable but limited option, or it can make a modest, strategic investment to unlock their transformative potential for addressing skills shortages and retaining talent. Now it’s time to scale what works.
