No, “College for All” Is NOT Dying!

Two assertions — same researcher — two different meanings. In the first instance, the researcher specifically warns that her conclusions — specific to New England — are limited … both locally and nationally. It’s a warning that’s buried in the research itself; just 16 words camouflaged amongst 22,000.[1] In the second instance — from a podcast that reaches thousands of people — the researcher announces something different. Her findings, without caution or caveat, now seem applicable “across the country.”[2]

To some, this may seem like a minor incongruity regarding the 2024 study “A ‘good life’ for every student: High schools embrace many pathways to success,” co-conducted by Chelsea Waite from the Center on Reinventing Public Education. To me — someone who advocates for college — it’s part of the ongoing conspiracy against higher education.

“College for All” Misexplained

Much of Waite’s research (and the publicity surrounding it) focuses on:

The “college for all” mindset[3]

Expanding upon this concept, Waite recently appeared on the Vox podcast “Explain It to Me”, where she discusses:

The end of “college for all”[4]

Is college for everybody?[5] According to Chelsea Waite, a senior researcher at the Center on Reinventing Public Education, the answer is no. And more students, parents, and educators are realizing it.

As part of the discussion, Waite makes the “universal” case (not just in New England) that:

There has been a lot of reckoning about how pushing every student to go to college[6] and take on the cost of college without necessarily being really clear about what they want it to do for them means that we have a lot of students who enroll in college and then never complete a degree, take on a ton of debt, and generally kind of struggle to make college really work for them as a path to the rest of their career.

And while I don’t necessarily disagree with Waite’s idea (i.e., college isn’t every student’s best choice),[7] I do question the research and its framing. Because despite the warning …

Our research is not designed to represent all high schools.

… the research is being offered to support a “universal” bashing of college choice. As Waite publicly (and without adding any qualification) proclaims in her Vox interview:

Students [i.e., an open-ended “all students”] are genuinely questioning if college is worth it and if college is really the right thing for them, knowing what they know about themselves.

Fattening Up the Data

In the Vox podcast, Waite implies a couple things:

• That big, generic “students” are questioning if college is worth it.
• That big, generic “parents and educators” are now realizing this.
• That big, generic “leaders across the country” are seeing this.

But how big, generic, and universal is this idea … that more and more American students are turning away from college? Does Waite’s research actually prove this?

In the U.S., there are about 27,000 public and private high schools in operation, educating well over 50 million students. In light of this, it makes sense for Waite’s research — specific to New England — to include the caveat:

Our research is not designed to represent all high schools.

Despite this, Waite’s podcast appearance implies universalism amongst 50 million students (i.e., a national and far-reaching rejection of “college for all”). It’s an assertion that’s baked into Vox’s limitless title — ”The end of ‘college for all’.” A more honest title would’ve been “The end of college for some very specific students from a handful of very select schools in the New England area.” Because instead of “all,” Waite’s research focuses on:

• Six public high schools in New England over the course of 20 months, beginning in the spring of 2022.
• Schools enrolling mostly students from “historically marginalized communities.” Four of the six schools were over 80% BIPOC (i.e., students who are Black, Indigenous, or People of Color).[8]
• Two alternative schools that “support students who are overage and undercredited, who are pregnant/parenting, who have a history of chronic absenteeism, or who experience other major barriers to conforming to a traditional high school trajectory, schedule, etc.”[9]
• 266 interviews conducted with students, their caregivers, educators, and administrators (at least 5 participants were sought for each category, with each participant being interviewed about four times over the course of the study.). In total, between 33 and 58 interviews were conducted at each school.[10]

From a sampling that’s very tiny (about 0.0005% of U.S. students), very narrow (about 0.02% of American schools), and very specific (historically marginalized communities in New England), Waite, in her podcast interview, asserts that:

Students are genuinely questioning if college is worth it.

It’s a big outcome without any big data, the whole thing depending solely on a microscopic slice (New England) of another microscopic slice (marginalized communities) of another microscopic slice (just 6 schools and 266 interviews).

So if it’s a truth, it’s a very, very thinly sliced truth. But even then, this raises another question: how true is the research? Are students, as Waite says, genuinely questioning if college is “worth it”?

Let’s “Genuinely” Question the Research

In anti-college language, “worth it” generally means one of two things: a) college isn’t worth the price, and/or b) college isn’t worth the outcome (either because of salary or because of alternative career paths). Speaking to Vox, Waite uses rhetoric that signals “worth it” in the mainstream/anti-college sense:

“… pushing every student to … take on the cost of college ….”

“… students who enroll in college … take on a ton of debt ….”

“… choosing to go to college has financial risk ….”

“… students are genuinely questioning if … college is really the right thing for them ….”

So are these concerns specifically and universally reflected in Waite’s research?

#1. “Others” Still Believe College is “Worth It”

According to Waite’s research, the people with these concerns include “other young people and families,” as in:

… other young people and families weren’t so convinced that college would lead to success on their terms.

So NOT ALL “young people,” just “others.” This betrays something: if “others” in the survey thought one thing, there must be another group who thought something different. And there were:

Some students told us about college plans, confident that higher education provided the best path, as one student put it, to “being my best self and earning my own money and doing a job that I enjoy.” Some caregivers also confidently declared college as the next step for their students; one mother hoped her daughter would get a college degree as “something to fall back on” even if her initial aspirations didn’t seem to require it.

Despite these very diverse stories, Waite publicly states:

Students are genuinely questioning if college is worth it.

However, her own anecdotal evidence supports the opposite statement:

Students are genuinely confident that higher education provides the best path.

#2. “Too Hard” Isn’t a Pathway to Success

And what about those anti-college concerns Waite offers up: “cost,” “debt,” and “financial risk”? Are these “other young people” actually weighing the cons of college? Are they investing the thought that’s needed to make an informed/post-high school decision that could impact their life trajectory? According to Waite, the reasons for skipping college were “varied”:

[S]ome students are burned out on school; some prefer to avoid high-stakes tests and applications; others are concerned about financial risk. And many are compelled by an increasing number of jobs that don’t require a college degree, and want to start earning income.

So for some of these “other” students, the decision to skip college has nothing to do with finances and/or college alternatives. Instead, in choosing their “pathway to success” as Waite calls it, some students are making important choices based simply on school burnout, testing stress, and high-stakes applications. Most would argue that basing one’s college decision on any of these factors (i.e., it’s too hard) is less a “pathway to success” and more a “pathway to failure.”

The Evidence of College Growth (not “Decline”)

Of course, maybe (just maybe) none of this is anti-college.[11] Maybe it’s just an unintentional slip of the tongue. Or a clumsy exaggeration made under Vox’s bright spotlight. But then I noticed this in Waite’s research:

We saw plenty of evidence for the patterns documented in recent surveys and reporting about declining interest in higher education. Indeed, data show declining undergraduate enrollment since 2010, with accelerated decline since the pandemic.

Hmmm … “patterns documented” … which would imply that somebody has thoroughly dug into America’s enrollment “patterns” (and isn’t just echoing an anti-college talking point). However, in my opinion, this thoroughness is missing. Because while there is data showing a decline in “undergraduate enrollment since 2010,” that data is now old and out-of-date. Instead, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, college enrollment has been increasing over the last three academic years. The data shows:

• Total postsecondary enrollment is up 4.5 percent this fall [2024] (+817,000; Figure 1.2). Undergraduate enrollment neared 16 million, just 1.0 percent below 2019 levels (+4.7%, +716,000 this fall), while graduate enrollment grew to 3.2 million (+3.3%, +100,000).
• Freshmen enrollment grew 5.5 percent this fall [2024] (+130,000; see Figure 3.1). Building on last fall’s increases, the growth was strongest at community colleges, which added 63,000 freshmen (+7.1%). Overall 18-year-old freshmen also saw enrollment gains this fall (+3.4%, +59,000).
• Undergraduate enrollment grew 2.5 percent in spring 2024 compared to the previous year (+359,000) …. This is the second consecutive semester of year-over-year enrollment growth, continuing the trend from last fall’s [2023] 1.2 percent increase, following years of decline during the pandemic.
• [In fall 2022], freshman enrollment … [began] to rise, increasing by about 97,000 (+4.3%) compared to the previous fall.

But maybe this “evidence … about declining interest in higher education” is more plentiful in New England, where Waite conducted her research. Maybe, in the year 2025, this is more a regional truth than a national truth. If that’s the argument, it doesn’t quite jibe with recent data from the National Student Clearinghouse, which found that:

Institutions in the Northeast saw a 4.7 percent [enrollment] increase, the first gains since prior to the pandemic. … Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maine saw about 7 percent growth of both undergraduates and graduates that contributed to the increases in the Northeast region.

Taking an even closer look at New England, “college for all” — despite Waite’s research — doesn’t seem to be slowing down at the University of Maine, the University of Connecticut, or the University of Vermont:

The University of Maine welcomed the largest first-year class in three years this fall, one that is 11% larger than the fall 2023 first-year class. … Across all of the University of Maine System campuses, first-year enrollment increased 8.2% from fall 2023.

More than 62,000 aspiring [UConn] Huskies from throughout Connecticut and the nation have so far applied for spots in the Class of 2029 …. So far, more than 62,000 people have applied for acceptance in this fall’s entering class, easily surpassing last year’s approximately 58,000 applicants.

[Vermont’s] Class of 2028 is one of the most accomplished and diverse first-year group of students in the university’s history, drawing from nearly 30,000 applicants. … This year’s 5.5% percent increase in Vermonters follows a ten percent increase last year.

Constricted Research Meets Unrestricted Fiction

Admittedly, as someone who advocates for higher education, I’m biased against anti-college research. This doesn’t mean I’ll brush off or ignore the negative research; however, I’ll always put it under a microscope. Because for a long time, the media has torn down higher education through the misuse of research.

In this case, it’s the global interpretation — done on a public stage — of some very limited research that bothers me, not the conclusions themselves. If “college for all” is “ending” across the country (as both Vox and Waite seem to agree on), then I expect the data to show this AND show it clearly, broadly, and unequivocally. But the data simply doesn’t show this, despite Vox’s definitive title …

The end of “college for all”

… and Waite’s unrestricted allegation …

Students are genuinely questioning if college is worth it.

Dig beyond the podcast — which few (if any) listeners will do — and you soon discover that “the end of ‘college for all’” builds a fragile foundation upon just six schools (mostly BIPOC), in just a small area of America, featuring just a handful of students who provide mixed viewpoints (some for, some against) about college. Regardless of the spin (and the “heard from” stories), this research doesn’t prove “the end of ‘college for all’.” Instead, it proves, once again, that the media hungers for an anti-college story, even if it’s mostly fiction.

[1] Incredibly, Watie’s research is even more limited than initially admitted to. Toward the end of the research, further limitations are revealed:

Our study participants did not always perfectly meet our goals for recruitment. Some of the students we enrolled in the study were not juniors in April 2022, though all were within one grade level of that target. We had marginal success recruiting students with diverse experiences of high school.

And then there’s this admission, that the research was potentially skewed based on the hunt for a certain type of high school experience:

We suspect that, compared to schools’ overall populations, our sample likely overrepresented students who are academically ambitious and highly involved in student life. For this reason, we endeavored in our data collection and analysis to elicit and highlight perspectives from those students who told us about fraught past experiences in school and major challenges to their success.

[2] There’s no research or data proving how “school leaders across the country” feel about “college for all.” In this case, it’s merely hearsay … what Waite has “heard from” [x] number of school leaders (this could be 10 leaders, could be 50, could be 100). Regardless of the number, the implication is that these “heard from” conversations are somehow substantive proof of a nationwide ending to “college for all.”

Easily, I can make the same “truthy” comment but assert a very different conclusion. I’ve “heard from” my college-aged son that his friends are going to different colleges across America. And I’ve “heard from” my sister-in-law, a college professor in St. Louis, that she sees students going to college. And I’ve “heard from” the diverse parents I meet (I work at a college) that their children are choosing higher eduction. Thus, like Waite, I can confidently assert a similar but opposite (and still “truthy”) statement:

I’ve heard from students, educators, and parents across the country that “college for all” still resonates with them.

[3] Notice that the subject and title of the Vox podcast — ”The end of ‘college for all’” — doesn’t necessarily reflect the research as a whole. The title of the research is “A ‘good life’ for every student: High schools embrace many pathways to success.” A more appropriate podcast title would be “Students embracing more pathways to success.” Instead, Vox chooses to frame the research as something more salacious and disastrous … that “college for all” is ending.

[4] Consider how poorly this podcast is structured (FYI … The podcast’s blog title — ”The end of ‘college for all’” — is slightly different than the title of the podcast itself — ”What if college isn’t for everyone?”). The podcast’s central theme — reinforced by Waite’s research — is that “college for all” is waning. However, contrary to this theme, the podcast opens with a counter-quote from Erica, an enrollee at the University of Texas-Austin:

I, I knew I went to college ’cause like 99% of the kids at my high school go to a four year college after like junior year we have an assembly and they say, look, this is how you apply to college. They don’t even mention trade school or anything like that. Like it’s not an it’s, I mean it’s no option, but like at my school, they don’t advertise it.

Despite Waite’s comment that ”Students are genuinely questioning if college is worth it,” the podcast starts with a paradoxical observation that “like 99% of the kids at my high school go to a four year college.” Waite also says that her “findings resonate” with “school leaders across the country,” but at Erica’s school, “They [school leaders] don’t even mention trade school or anything like that.”

[5] You’d think that a podcast titled “Explain It to Me” would attempt to explain things in a balanced and complete way. For example, to fully explore “college for all,” one would hope for more than a one-sided conversation. But this isn’t the case. Vox invites to the table:

• An expert whose research is stretched well beyond its limits.
• The assistant director of a career and technical center.
• The representative of a civil service organization.

All three have some kind of motivation (academic, financial, or career) to speak out against college. Exacerbating this, no one is on hand … either a higher ed administrator or a college and career counselor … to highlight the importance and growth of college.

[6] I’m not entirely sure what this “reckoning” — the avenging or punishing of past mistakes or misdeeds — is. Regardless, it implies that the “push” toward college has met some kind of biblical demise, as if a great anti-college plague has infected high school administrations across the country. But how true is this?

In my city — Tulsa, Oklahoma — it doesn’t appear to be true at all because the largest, metropolitan schools push mostly college, not trade schools, not the military, not alternative pathways. Look at the “college and career” Instagram page for my daughter’s high school https://www.instagram.com/jenkscollegecareer/, and you’ll see that the college content (like the other schools in our city (here’s another https://www.instagram.com/bahsccc/)) heavily outweighs non-college content.

[7] However, I do believe college is for everyone, that every student-–if they go to college — will reap benefits in terms of growth, education, and opportunity (i.e., social, cultural, and professional). However, even if college will benefit a student, that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be the right/best choice for that student (e.g., because of finances or personality or disposition).

[8] As far as I can tell, Waite makes no effort to discern if these six schools, which are predominantly BIPOC, suffer from any kind of inherent bias against higher education. If that were the case, the end of “college for all” would be less about students (in general) and more about a fundamental problem–i.e., there’s a prejudice against “college for all” (to the detriment of students) in BIPOC schools/marginalized communities. I’m not saying this is true or not, but a quote from Waite’s research suggests a potential problem:

One counselor from a school mostly serving students of color said that emphasizing college as the best choice, and judging success based on where students go to college, upholds white supremacy culture. The counselor explained that an antiracist vision for success, instead, “should look like students, and people in general, being able to lead the life they want to lead.”

[9] Shockingly, Waite, during her Vox interview, mentions very little about her research’s limitations. This is how she frames the research:

I led a study for the Center on Reinventing Public Education on high schools in New England specifically, but I’ve heard from many other high school leaders across the nation that our findings really resonate with them too.

We talked with administrators, teachers, parents and students in six high schools over the course of two years.

In the first instance, she admits the “New England” limitation, but then she quickly verbalizes an expansion to that limitation, implying broader applicability (“our findings really resonate”) to “high school leaders across the nation.” In two instances above, Waite makes no mention that her research is also limited to 1) “historically marginalized communities,” 2) predominantly BIPOC students, and 3) two alternative schools that “support students who are overage and undercredited, who are pregnant/parenting, who have a history of chronic absenteeism, or who experience other major barriers to conforming to a traditional high school trajectory, schedule, etc.”

[10] At times, there are huge gaping holes in Waite’s “2 year study.” For example, at “School 2,” just 2 educators were interviewed during the first 3 waves. It’s not until wave 4 that a full 5 interviews are finally reached (for a total of just 7 “educator” interviews over 2 years). At “School 3,” there’s only 1 wave (over the two-year period) where more than 5 students are interviewed. The other 3 waves include just 1 student, 0 students, and 2 students.

[11] Waite might argue that “negative” higher ed research isn’t anti-college research. Of course, she’d be right that negative (from the higher-ed viewpoint) research doesn’t automatically mean an “anti” or “in opposition” bias. However, when negative research is stretched well beyond its limits, when it’s reframed for publicity and viewership, when it’s accepted (unread and unchallenged) as the gospel, that research is more than just research; it’s a catalyst for both misinformation and disinformation.