Blog

  • Still Turning Borrowers into Political Pawns (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Still Turning Borrowers into Political Pawns (Student Borrower Protection Center)

    Day 2 of the U.S. Department of Education (ED)’s Neg Reg aimed at weaponizing Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) was… just as damning as Day 1. Here’s the recap:

    Session Summary:

    The session got SPICY right off the bat. ED began the day by presenting their newly revised language. Here are some key moments:

    • Abby Shafroth, legal aid negotiator, stated CLEARLY for the record that this Neg Reg is not about protecting PSLF; it’s about the Department of Education (ED) using it as a tool to coerce nonprofits and universities to further the Trump Administration’s own goals. The government’s response was not convincing. Watch her remarks here.
    • Betsy Mayotte, the negotiator representing consumers, brought more fire: “When reading the statute of PSLF, I don’t see where the Education Secretary has the authority to remove employer eligibility definition from a 501(c)(3) or government organization…but my understanding of the regulations and executive order is that they cannot be contrary to the statute. There are no ifs, ands, or buts under government or 501(c)(3).” Watch the exchange here.
    • In a heated discussion on ED’s proposal to exclude public service workers who provide gender-affirming care to transgender minors, Abby further flagged that no one in the room had any medical expertise, so no one had qualifications to weigh in on medical definitions like “chemical and surgical castration.”
    • The non-federal negotiators held a caucus to talk about large employers that fall under a single federal Employer Identification Number. They are CONCERNED that the extreme breadth of this rule could potentially cut out thousands of workers only because a subset of people work on issues disfavored by this Administration—all without any right to appeal. Negotiators plan to submit language that would allow employers to appeal a decision to revoke PSLF eligibility by ED.
    • Borrowers and other experts and advocates came in HOT with public comment today—calling out ED for using this rulemaking to unlawfully engage in viewpoint discrimination and leave borrowers drowning in debt, unable to keep food on their tables, or provide for their families.

    Missing From the Table:

    Today, our legal director, Winston Berkman-Breen, who was excluded from the committee (but still gave powerful public comment yesterday!) has some thoughts on what was missing from the conversation:

    For two days now, negotiators have raised legitimate questions and important concerns about the Secretary of Education’s authority to disqualify certain government and 501(c)(3) employers from PSLF. And for two days now, ED’s neg reg staff—inlcuding the moderator!—have engaged in bad faith negotiations.

    Jacob, ED’s attorney, asserted that the Secretary has broad authority in its administration of the PSLF program—true, but only to an extent. The Secretary cannot narrow the program beyond the basic requirements set by Congress. When pushed for specific authority, Tamy—the federal negotiator—simply declined.

    It doesn’t stop there—ED representatives sidestepped, dismissed, or outright ignored negotiators’ questions and concerns. That’s because this isn’t a negotiation—it’s an exercise in gaslighting. ED is proposing action that exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority and likely violates the U.S. Constitution—all the while telling negotiators to fall in line.

    The kicker? By pushing this proposal, ED itself is engaged in an activity with “substantial illegal purpose.” Let that sink in.

    Public Comment Mic  Drops:

    And Satra D. Taylor, a student loan borrower, Black woman, and SBPC fellow, who was also not selected by ED to negotiate, shared more thoughts during public comment:

    “I am disheartened and frustrated by what I have witnessed over the last few days… It has become clear that this Administration is intent on… making college once again exclusive to white, male, and wealthy individuals. These political attacks, disguised as rulemaking, are inequitable and target communities from historically marginalized backgrounds. The PSLF program has provided a vital incentive for Americans interested in serving our country and local communities, regardless of their political affiliation. The Department’s efforts to engage in rulemaking and to change PSLF eligibility are directly related to the goal of Trump’s Executive Order and exceed the Administration’s authority…”

    Source link

  • ATEC starts work with reform agenda – Campus Review

    ATEC starts work with reform agenda – Campus Review

    Tertiary education’s new steward will focus on allocating university funding, harmonising tertiary education and negotiating mission-based contracts, according to its Terms of Reference released on Tuesday.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Alleged WSU hacker out on bail – Campus Review

    Alleged WSU hacker out on bail – Campus Review

    An alleged hacker accused of ransoming gigabytes of data stolen from Western Sydney University (WSU) has been released on bail but only after her housemate handed over her smart TV.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Call for unis to ditch teacher education – Campus Review

    Call for unis to ditch teacher education – Campus Review

    A conservative research centre has recommended initial teacher education (ITE) courses be removed from universities and be once again set up through independent colleges.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • What’s inside the Senate megabill for higher education?

    What’s inside the Senate megabill for higher education?

    The Senate on Tuesday passed its mammoth domestic policy package, which would reshape the federal student lending system and delay major higher education regulations. 

    Vice President JD Vance cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the legislative package 51-50. Lawmakers passed the bill through the reconciliation process, which allows the Senate to bypass the usual 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. 

    The House and the Senate will have to reconcile their two versions of the bill before they can send it to President Donald Trump’s desk. 

    That could prove difficult. Although the two proposals would both extend tax cuts and fund Republican priorities like increased immigration enforcement, some aspects are dramatically different. 

    That includes for the higher education sector. For instance, while the House version would put colleges on the hook for their former students’ unpaid student loans, the Senate’s version creates an entirely different system intended to hold institutions accountable for their student outcomes. 

    Below, we’re rounding up some of the Senate bill’s major provisions. 

    Cutting off student loan eligibility to college programs

    One of the biggest provisions in the Senate’s bill would prevent college programs from being eligible to receive student loan funding if their graduates can’t meet certain earnings thresholds. 

    For undergraduate degree programs, they would have to prove that at least half of their graduates earn more than the typical worker in their state with only a high school diploma. Similarly, graduate programs would have to show their graduates earn more than the typical bachelor’s degree holder working in the same field and region. 

    College programs would lose their eligibility for federal student loans if they fail the earnings test in two out of three consecutive years. 

    Reshaping federal student loans

    Like the House-passed version, the Senate bill would end Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate students to borrow up to the cost of the attendance for their programs, including tuition, fees, textbooks and living expenses. 

    The bill would moreover cap graduate student lending to $100,000 per borrower, or $200,000 for students enrolled in professional programs, such as law or medicine. It would also cap Parent PLUS loans to $65,000 per student. 

    Additionally, the Senate’s plan would consolidate the number of repayment options for federal student loans. Starting July 1, 2026, borrowers taking out new loans would only have access to two plans: one standard plan with fixed payments and one income-driven repayment plan with remaining balances forgiven after 30 years. 

    Major changes to Pell

    The Senate’s version of the bill would allow Pell Grants to be used for short-term programs between eight and 15 weeks. 

    However, lawmakers took out a controversial provision that would have also extended short-term Pell Grants to unaccredited providers. The move came after the Senate’s parliamentarian said the original provision should be subject to a 60-vote approval versus the simple majority needed for reconciliation.

    The package also would increase funding for Pell Grants to cover expected shortfalls while removing eligibility for students if they receive scholarships that cover their full cost of attendance. 

    Endowment tax hikes

    The Senate’s version of the bill would raise the tax that wealthy private nonprofit colleges pay on their endowment returns. The new system would introduce a tiered tax, starting at the current rate of 1.4% and jumping up to 4% and 8% based on endowment assets per student. 

    Currently, only colleges with at least $500,000 in endowment assets and 500 tuition-paying students pay the tax. But the new bill provides an exemption for smaller colleges, excluding those with 3,000 tuition-paying students or fewer from having to pay the tax. Like the initial short-term Pell proposal, lawmakers took out an earlier proposed exemption for religious colleges after scrutiny from the chamber’s’s parliamentarian.

    Delays to Biden-era regulations

    The Senate’s original plan would have rolled back permanently two Biden-era versions of regulations: the borrower defense to repayment and closed school discharge rules. The former allows borrowers to receive debt relief if they were defrauded by their colleges while the latter offers forgiveness if their institutions closed before they could finish their programs. 

    Source link

  • Penn Agrees to Trump’s Demands, Will Strip Trans Athlete’s Awards

    Penn Agrees to Trump’s Demands, Will Strip Trans Athlete’s Awards

    The university plans to “apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Kyle Mazza/Anadolu/Getty Images | Rich von Biberstein/Icon Sportswire/Getty Images

    The University of Pennsylvania will concede to the Trump administration’s demands that the university “restore” swimming awards—and send apology notes—to female competitors who lost to a trans athlete, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced Tuesday.

    The department previously found that Penn violated Title IX for allowing a trans woman to compete on a women’s sports team—presumably referring to Lia Thomas, who rose to national attention while competing on Penn’s women’s swim team three years ago.

    To end the investigation, the administration demanded in part that Penn apologize to cisgender women whose swimming awards and honors were “misappropriated” to trans women athletes. Multiple Title IX advocates lambasted the department’s demands, arguing the agency was misusing the landmark gender-equity law to punish trans students and their institutions.

    Penn is one of multiple higher education institutions and K–12 schools that the administration has targeted for allowing trans women to play on women’s sports teams, in accordance with NCAA policy at the time. But it appears to be the first institution of higher education to reach a resolution agreement over the issue since Trump took office.

    “Penn remains committed to fostering a community that is welcoming, inclusive, and open to all students, faculty, and staff,” Penn president J. Larry Jameson said in a statement Tuesday. “I share this commitment, just as I remain dedicated to preserving and advancing the University’s vital and enduring mission. We have now brought to a close an investigation that, if unresolved, could have had significant and lasting implications for the University of Pennsylvania.”

    Separate from the department’s investigation, the White House paused $175 million in funding to the university because Penn “infamously permitted a male to compete on its women’s swimming team,” an official said in March. It’s not clear if the funding will be restored or when.

    Jameson stressed in the statement that the university was in compliance with Title IX and all NCAA guidelines at the time that Thomas swam for Penn’s women’s team from 2021 to 2022. But, he said, “we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules. We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”

    Title IX advocates have emphasized that trans athletes are not, in fact, explicitly forbidden from playing on women’s sports teams under the current Title IX regulations, which were finalized under the previous Trump administration and are the same ones that were in effect when Thomas was competing.

    In addition to stripping Thomas’s awards, Penn agreed to ED’s demands to make a public statement that people assigned male at birth are not allowed in Penn’s women’s athletic programs or its bathrooms and locker rooms, according to the department’s news release. The institution must also promise to adopt “biology-based definitions for the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ pursuant to Title IX” and Trump’s February executive order banning trans athletes from playing on the team that aligns with their gender.

    That statement also went up Tuesday. In it, the university promised to follow Trump’s trans athlete ban, as well as the executive order he signed that withdraws federal recognition of transgender people, with regard to women’s athletics.

    In the department’s announcement, Paula Scanlan, one of Thomas’s former teammates who has since led the crusade against trans women athletes, said she was “deeply grateful to the Trump Administration for refusing to back down on protecting women and girls and restoring our rightful accolades. I am also pleased that my alma mater has finally agreed to take not only the lawful path, but the honorable one.”

    Shiwali Patel, senior director of safe and inclusive schools at the National Women’s Law Center, criticized the agreement in a statement Tuesday as a “devastating and shameful outcome.” She blamed Penn’s “utter failure” as well as the department’s “continued manipulation of Title IX.”

    “The Trump administration’s attacks on civil rights protections, including Title IX, and obsession with undermining bodily autonomy is the real harm to women and girls, unlike transgender athletes who want to compete in sports alongside their peers and pose no threat to women’s sports, contrary to Trump’s lies,” Patel said in the statement. “In fact, their inclusion benefits all women and girls. We will continue to support Lia Thomas and her peers and their right to compete.”

    Source link

  • To speak or not to speak: Universities face the Kalven question

    To speak or not to speak: Universities face the Kalven question

    In the wake of the Trump administration’s extralegal attack on Harvard University, which is essentially an attempted government takeover of a private school, the importance of academic freedom and institutional independence is clearer than ever. Had Harvard meekly complied with the demands in the hopes of maintaining its funding, it would’ve set a dangerous precedent for political interference in higher education. 

    Enter the Kalven Report: the north star for institutions striving to foster academic freedom. Crafted by the University of Chicago in response to Vietnam-era foment, the report warns that a university, though it may have the constitutional right to speak about unrelated political issues, should not take an official stance on these issues because of the chilling effect it has on the ability of university community members to discuss and debate amongst themselves.

    But it allows for two exceptions. First, when it comes to threats to the university’s very mission and values of free inquiry, the Kalven report explains, “it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.” Second, when university ownership of property, its receipt of funds, its awarding of honors, or its membership in other organizations is at issue, the university is likewise entitled to defend itself.

    Both exceptions apply to Harvard.

    There is no standard by which an “exceptional” threat to the university can be determined. Instead, that is up to the university’s administration to determine. Kalven stresses that “it must always be appropriate, therefore, for faculty or students or administration to question whether in light of these principles the University in particular circumstances is playing its proper role.” 

    But by issuing a statement at all, the university risks chilling the speech of those who wish to question it.

    The decision by many universities to sign a “Call for Constructive Engagement” statement, published in April as a response to government pressure, may likewise be deemed an appropriate response by virtue of the Kalven exceptions. Yet, the question remains: was it wise to do so?

    By issuing a statement at all, the situation risks chilling the speech of those who may disagree.

    Developed by college and university leadership in conjunction with the American Association of Colleges and Universities, the statement urges opposition to “undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses” and rejects “the coercive use of public research funding.” It is signed by over 650 institutional leaders and counting.

    And while the signatories explicitly affirm their “commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where . . . faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas . . . without fear of retribution,” they cannot escape the fact that their willingness to make an institutional statement risks undermining that commitment to open inquiry. After all, there are undoubtedly many people on those 650 campuses who agree, either in whole or in part, with the Trump administration’s efforts.

    The Kalven report issues a “heavy presumption” against making statements, “however appealing or compelling” the social or political value in question may be. This is partly because there is no escaping the question of who will decide which situations qualify as exceptional — there is no standard set by Kalven, simply the distinction of an “exceptional” circumstance. By issuing a statement at all, the situation risks chilling the speech of those who may disagree.

    There are other actions an institution can take to protect itself. Remaining neutral does not mean the university cannot advocate for itself against unconstitutional action. Nothing in the Kalven Report requires colleges to submit to unlawful action that merits a lawsuit. But when an institution adopts a statement on behalf of all its members, this stifles dissent and free inquiry because to question university statements then becomes tantamount to questioning the very values of that institution. This, in turn, negatively impacts students’ education. As J.S. Mill famously argued in On Liberty, “The only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion.”

    Indeed, in many cases, schools that have signed the letter don’t always uphold the values of free speech internally.

    For example, Columbia University signed the Constructive Engagement letter — and ranks second-to-last on FIRE’s Free Speech Rankings. Its faculty have experienced pushback from university administrators in response to their scholarship for decades, from the 2001 case of George Fletcher to the 2024 case of Adbul Kayum Ahmed. Nearly half (48%) of Columbia faculty think academic freedom on their campus is “not at all” or “not very” secure. Signing an open letter does little to improve the situation.

    To preserve a culture of open debate and expression, colleges and universities must have the courage to defend their principles on campus and in court.

    Another signatory to the statement, University of Pennsylvania has recently illustrated why statements aren’t an all-purpose solution but are instead an invitation for side-taking. The university faced significant backlash after it began to offer statements deemed inadequate in the weeks following October 7, including those by President Liz Magill and by members of Penn’s Board of Trustees.

    In response to a displeased alumnus, administrators released a slew of institutional statements, putting even more daylight between themselves and anything resembling institutional neutrality. Concerns over antisemitism eventually led to Magill’s resignation and the Pennsylvania House of Representatives withholding $31 million in state funding from Penn’s veterinary school. Finally in September, then-interim President J. Larry Jamson declared Penn would no longer issue statements in response to social and political events.

    Penn’s policy shift was a good call, even if it took a lot to get there. Modeling Kalven, Penn made a carve-out by promising not to comment on any more issues “except for those which have direct and significant bearing on University functions.” The only problem is that that loophole was on full display weeks ago when Penn signed the Constructive Engagement letter. Penn is once again speaking with its institutional voice by way of signature, finding itself aligned with a stance that is by nature political.

    To preserve a culture of open debate and expression, colleges and universities must have the courage to defend their principles on campus and in court. It is therefore worth considering whether signing the AACU statement was a smart move or an instance of political posturing that may end up doing more harm than good.

    Dinah Megibow-Taylor is a FIRE intern and a rising second-year at the University of Chicago.

    Source link

  • What Is IT Governance and Why Is It So Important in Higher Ed?

    What Is IT Governance and Why Is It So Important in Higher Ed?

    Technology can be one of the most powerful tools an institution has to advance its mission. But without clear, strategic guidance, that same technology can quickly become a source of frustration, inefficiency, and risk. That’s where IT governance comes in.

    Today’s colleges and universities are navigating rising cybersecurity threats, tighter budgets, and an expanding ecosystem of platforms and tools. In this environment, IT governance isn’t just an operational necessity — it’s a strategic imperative.

    In this article, I’ll define what higher ed IT governance is, why it matters more than ever, and how institutions can build a framework that aligns technology investments with institutional priorities.

    What is IT governance in higher ed?

    Put simply, IT governance is the structure that ensures every technology investment and decision supports the institution’s goals and strategies. While IT management focuses on maintaining day-to-day systems — like patching servers or updating networks — IT governance answers a different set of questions, such as:

    • Which projects should we prioritize?
    • How do we allocate limited resources for the greatest impact?
    • Who needs to be involved in shaping these decisions?

    A thoughtful approach to IT governance isn’t just a collection of policies. It’s an intentional structure that fosters transparency, collaboration, and accountability across the entire institution.

    When done well, governance clarifies how decisions are made, who is responsible for making them, and what criteria determine success. This clarity reduces confusion, builds trust, and ensures that technology investments consistently support the institution’s mission and priorities.

    An effective governance framework typically includes:

    • Decision-making structures such as IT governance committees with representation across academic and administrative areas
    • Policy development that guides how technology projects are evaluated and approved
    • Risk management and compliance oversight to keep pace with evolving regulations and security requirements

    When institutions embrace governance as a shared responsibility, technology becomes a strategic asset rather than a departmental concern.

    Why higher ed IT governance matters more than ever

    The complexity of higher ed technology ecosystems has grown exponentially. Many institutions now rely on cloud platforms, ERP and student information systems, learning management systems, and emerging tools like AI.

    Without governance, it’s easy for tech investments to become siloed or redundant — especially when departments act independently. This fragmentation can lead to:

    • Financial waste due to functional redundancy
    • No clear system of record/unclear data access policies
    • Missed opportunities for collaboration and efficiency

    External pressures are also intensifying. Regulatory requirements such as FERPA and GLBA have expanded. Accrediting bodies increasingly expect transparent, documented technology processes. And stakeholders — from faculty to students — demand seamless, secure digital experiences.

    In an era of constrained budgets, institutions can’t afford to treat IT governance as an afterthought.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    The risks of poor or nonexistent IT governance

    When governance isn’t in place, institutions face serious consequences that extend far beyond the IT department. Gaps in oversight and alignment can ripple across every facet of the organization, undermining financial stability, operational efficiency, and stakeholder confidence. Over time, these issues can erode the very foundation of an institution’s mission and reputation.

    Some of the most common (and costly) problems include:

    • Financial inefficiency and wasted resources: With shrinking enrollments and limited funding, institutions can’t afford investments that fail to deliver measurable value or duplicate existing capabilities.
    • Missed opportunities to maximize impact: When IT resources are spread thin across too many projects, even high-priority initiatives can stall or underperform.
    • Increased security vulnerabilities: Technology risks are growing faster than most budgets. Without clear governance to prioritize spending on solutions that mitigate the most critical threats, institutions are more exposed to breaches and compliance failures.
    • Resistance to change: If end users feel excluded from decisions, adoption suffers—and so does return on investment.
    • Reputational damage: Failed implementations and security incidents can erode trust with students, staff, and stakeholders.
    • Inability to scale or innovate effectively: Disconnected systems and uncoordinated efforts make it harder to keep pace with evolving needs.

    We’ve seen this firsthand, where IT leadership at institutions make major platform decisions without involving departmental leaders. The result was widespread resistance and a perception that technology was imposed rather than collaborative. When people don’t have a seat at the table, they’re far less likely to champion change.

    “When people don’t have a seat at the table, they’re far less likely to champion change.”

    What effective higher ed IT governance looks like

    Good governance is intentional, inclusive, and transparent. It doesn’t happen by accident — it requires clear structures and a shared commitment to align technology decisions with institutional goals. When these elements come together, colleges and universities create an environment where technology can thrive as a strategic asset rather than a siloed expense.

    To build this kind of foundation, governance should include:

    • Cross-functional committees: Cabinet members typically designate representatives from key areas (e.g., academic affairs, enrollment, finance) to ensure diverse perspectives.
    • Clear processes: Policies that define how projects are proposed, prioritized, and evaluated.
    • Defined success metrics: Criteria for measuring whether investments deliver the intended impact.
    • Regular reviews: Governance frameworks should be revisited at least annually to keep pace with evolving needs and regulations.

    Moving forward: IT governance as a strategic imperative

    IT governance in higher ed isn’t just about compliance or risk avoidance. Done well, it empowers colleges and universities to:

    • Use technology as a force multiplier
    • Align financial and technology resource investments with strategic goals
    • Build a culture of collaboration and shared accountability

    As institutions navigate emerging priorities — from AI policies to hybrid learning environments — governance will only grow more critical. If you haven’t assessed your governance framework recently, now is the time.

    Ready to strengthen your IT governance?

    At Collegis, we help institutions develop and operationalize IT governance models that balance innovation with accountability. Our team brings decades of expertise with deep experience aligning technology strategy with institutional vision.

    If you’re ready to move beyond reactive technology decisions and build a governance model that drives lasting success, let’s connect!

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • Songs for the Student Loan Struggle

    Songs for the Student Loan Struggle

    In the United States, where over 43 million people carry more than $1.7 trillion in student debt, it’s no wonder that the crisis has made its way into the bloodstream of American music. Across genres—hip-hop, punk, folk, pop, indie, and beyond—artists have given voice to the quiet desperation and loud frustration of a generation who bought the dream of higher education, only to find themselves overworked, underpaid, and perpetually in debt. 

    Student loans aren’t just a financial burden—they’re a cultural trauma. They delay marriages and children, block homeownership, exacerbate mental health struggles, and fuel cycles of economic precarity. For many, they are the symbol of a promise broken. Music has become one of the only honest mirrors left—naming what politicians won’t and exposing what marketing campaigns obscure.

    Few songs capture this generational malaise as directly as Twenty One Pilots’ “Stressed Out.” In one of its most pointed lines, Tyler Joseph sings:

    “Out of student loans and treehouse homes we all would take the latter.”



    The lyric, delivered like a casual aside, cuts to the heart of the matter. The dream of adulthood has been replaced by nostalgia for childhood. Treehouse homes—imaginary, fragile, idealized—are preferred to the very real pressure of loans that never seem to shrink. The song became an anthem not just because of its catchy hook, but because it gave voice to a shared longing to escape a system that feels rigged from the start.

    In folk and Americana, the tradition of protest lives on through artists like David Rovics, who sings candidly about capitalism, debt, and the false promise of meritocracy. Anaïs Mitchell’s “Why We Build the Wall,” from Hadestown, offers a parable of entrapment that mirrors the moral logic behind lifelong indebtedness—“we build the wall to keep us free,” the characters insist, as they cage themselves in the name of security.

    Hip-hop, born from systemic exclusion, has long offered some of the most unflinching commentary on education, class, and race. Dee-1’s “Sallie Mae Back” is a rare moment of triumph—his celebration of paying off his loans is joyful, but also revealing: the milestone is treated like beating a boss in a video game, an exceptional feat in a system designed to trap. Meanwhile, J. Cole, Kendrick Lamar, and Noname have all touched on the disillusionment that comes from pursuing education and still being locked out of wealth and opportunity.

    In the indie and emo scenes, debt doesn’t always appear as a headline—it’s in the background, a persistent hum of dread. Phoebe Bridgers’ ballads of suspended adulthood and unfulfilled expectations capture the emotional aftermath of investing in a future that hasn’t arrived. Bright Eyes’ early 2000s work resonated with disaffected students who already sensed that the system was cracking. Their songs are not about loans explicitly, but about what loans represent: being stuck, being lied to, being tired.

    Punk, true to form, skips subtlety. DIY bands across the country scream out titles like “Broke and Educated” and “Loan Shark Nation” to crowds of kids who know the words by heart. These songs aren’t just cathartic—they’re organizing tools, naming the shared betrayal of a generation taught that college was a way out. Instead, it became a life sentence.

    Country music has added its voice too, quietly but powerfully. Artists like Sturgill Simpson and Tyler Childers have used old-school storytelling to critique modern economic realities. Their characters are often trying to make ends meet in a world that seems designed to keep them down, and college debt is one of many invisible fences. Kacey Musgraves, in her ballads of broken dreams and gentle rebellion, speaks to the emotional toll of chasing a version of success that was never really for us.

    In pop and R&B, the mood shifts but the themes remain. Lizzo’s affirmations of self-worth have become survival anthems for those trying to thrive despite systemic sabotage. Billie Eilish, with her whispered melancholy, captures the numbness that often follows years of grinding toward a goal that keeps moving.

    Even instrumental genres reflect the weight of education debt. Jazz musicians and conservatory-trained artists emerge with six-figure loans and few stable jobs. Their music may not name the debt, but it carries its echoes—in the tension, the improvisation, the repetition of unresolved progressions.

    Taken together, these songs form a shadow archive of student debt in America. This is not a playlist of protest songs in the traditional sense, but a collective cultural record of what it feels like to be promised opportunity and handed obligation. To be sold a degree and saddled with interest. To be told to work hard, only to discover the rules were never fair.

    Twenty One Pilots’ “Stressed Out” may have sounded playful on first listen. But for many borrowers, that line about choosing treehouses over loans is all too real. It’s a cry for retreat—but also a quiet act of rebellion. It reminds us that the system has failed and that we are not alone in feeling crushed by its weight.

    Let the music play. Let it say what policymakers won’t. Let it remind us that while the loans may be individual, the struggle is collective—and the chorus of resistance is still growing louder.

    [Editor’s note: A 2019 version of this article is here.]

    Playlist: Songs for the Student Loan Struggle

    1. Stressed Out – Twenty One Pilots

    2. Sallie Mae Back – Dee-1

    3. Why We Build the Wall – Anaïs Mitchell

    4. Brackets – J. Cole

    5. Alright – Kendrick Lamar

    6. Broke and Educated – DIY punk band (Bandcamp)

    7. Kyoto – Phoebe Bridgers

    8. Landlocked Blues – Bright Eyes

    9. Call to Arms – Sturgill Simpson

    10. High Horse – Kacey Musgraves

    11. Truth Hurts – Lizzo

    12. everything i wanted – Billie Eilish

    13. Guillotine – Death Grips

    14. Everything Can Change – David Rovics

    15. Good as Hell – Lizzo

    16. We Are Nowhere and It’s Now – Bright Eyes

    Source link

  • AFSCME Municipal Workers Local 33 (Philadelphia) on Strike

    AFSCME Municipal Workers Local 33 (Philadelphia) on Strike

    After the latest marathon with the city, which ended without a deal, Philadelphia’s largest blue-collar union, AFSCME Local 33, is moving toward going on strike at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday.



    Source link