AI robots do not a good education make

The suggestion that AI robots should be used to educate children is an opportunity for a renewed focus on the real nature of education.

by Sarah Reardon at Intellectual Takeout

Several weeks ago, Melania Trump garnered attention for proposing an innovative educational methodology: robot education. At the “Fostering the Future Together Global Coalition Summit,” she was escorted by a humanoid, “American-made” robot as she presented the potential lustre of AI’s future: humanoid robots could provide a “personalised” education, reminiscent of the tutoring models of centuries gone by.

Melania asked her audience to envision a robot called Plato through whom “access to the classical studies is now instantaneous.” She continued: “Humanity’s entire corpus of information is available in the comfort of your home. Plato will provide a personalised experience, adaptive to the needs of each student. Plato is always patient, and always available.”

Forget about the fact that an “always available” robot sounds somewhat ominous. Instead, Melania appealed to the virtues lauded by the corporate world, “analytic skills and problem solving,” as well as “deep critical thinking and independent reasoning abilities.” Children who learn from such robots, she maintained, could have a “more well-rounded lifestyle,” including more time for play and extracurriculars.

Can robots really teach?

Melania’s proposition sounds similar to programs already in operation, such as homeschooling platforms that utilize AI or the in-person Alpha Schools, where students, under the direction of human guides, spend about two hours daily on schoolwork, thanks to personalised AI tutors. Where her proposition differs is in the use of a three-dimensional humanoid robot, not merely a web-based persona, as tutor. Regardless, Melania’s “Plato” and existing AI education models both spring from a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and education.

Any education model that tasks AI with teaching or training human beings undermines the fundamentally relational nature of humans. This is merely one aspect of its danger, but a significant one. Human beings require physical interaction and relationship with other humans in order to flourish, whether in spiritual, emotional, or intellectual areas of life.

Without a certain amount of relational input, whether from classmates in a traditional classroom, a homeschooling mother, or a private (human!) tutor, learning becomes an isolating and Sisyphean endeavor. This is one reason why programs of individual “self-education” in the style of “Good Will Hunting” require a rare and precocious personality to be effective.

Nowhere is the need for relational input in education more evident than in research about COVID. When lockdowns and mandates pushed institutions toward online and asynchronous classes, student outcomes suffered. Students simply did not learn as much when their education was mediated by screens, video calls, and online discussion boards as when education was mediated by physical interaction. While students have returned to physical classroom since COVID, student outcomes continue to suffer as “heightened absenteeism” and “educational technology” gain steam. While computer-based learning and educational technology can be utilised for good in some circumstances, as in specialized degree programs, they are not wise pedagogical models when applied broadly.

Education should be communal

Our need for human interaction is not a “bug” that can be fixed by increased exposure to or refinement of computer-based learning or humanoid systems. It is part of our nature: from the Garden of Eden onward, it is clear that “it is not good for man to be alone” – that we are designed for fellowship with each other and God.

We are, after all, not computers ourselves, however much our minds and bodies follow discernible patterns. We are living, breathing, earthly, fleshy creatures. “It is easy for me to imagine,” Wendell Berry famously wrote, “that the next great division of the world will be between people who wish to live as creatures and people who wish to live as machines.”

AI education requires a mechanistic view of man. It outsources human tasks of teaching, guiding, conversing, and correcting to a non-human entity, thus treating the student as a machine for knowledge accumulation rather than a creature needing formation and direction.

In this way, the faulty pedagogical theory behind AI education is also evident. AI education assumes that the end of education is the mere acquisition of knowledge, which, in this framework is “an inert substance that can be delivered by robots,” as Mary Harrington recently wrote. If the primary aim of education is for students to learn facts, then robots could be useful. They could even, in some cases, make for good teachers, better at least than the forgetful grandfather who worked as a professor for 40 years or the eager but unpracticed recent graduate new to the elementary school.

But knowledge is not an inert substance composed of discrete facts, and education aims at more even than knowledge.

Robots can’t develop the whole person

If the aim of education is wisdom and the shaping of a person, then people will be needed, body and soul. If the aim of education is to, as John Milton wrote, “repair the ruins of our first parents,” or to, as Hugh of St. Victor wrote, “restore within us the divine likeness,” then students will not only need people, but those whose souls seek the true, good, and beautiful and their source in God alone.

“Plato,” however patient he may be, will be no match for a flesh-and-blood human teacher, with all his faults, who loves his students and directs them toward divine wisdom.


by Sarah Reardon. The above article first appeared in Intellectual Takeout (Bloomington, Minnesota), and is reproduced by permission.

Victoria ‘gender pronouns’ case could reshape religious rights

Melbourne teacher Myka Sanders is suing his Catholic school after it declined to use his preferred pronouns. The case could establish a nationwide precedent for religious freedom in faith-based education.

A legal battle taking place in Victoria could determine whether faith-based schools can uphold Christian teachings on sex and gender without facing legal penalties.

Myka Sanders, a teacher at Sacred Heart Girls College in Oakleigh, Melbourne, is suing Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools (MACS) after the school declined to use his preferred pronouns in official communications.

The hearing is scheduled in the Melbourne Magistrates Court later this month and could progress to the High Court of Australia.

“This case could finally determine how Federal and State discrimination laws and religious exemptions interact,” explained Mike Southon in a recent email from Freedom for Faith.

“Its outcome may have far-reaching consequences for religious freedom in schools nationwide.”

Monica Doumit, Freedom for Faith board member and Director of Public Affairs and Engagement for the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, recently explained that MACS’s stance reflects Catholic teaching on gender.

“The school’s approach is rooted in the understanding that biological sex is a fundamental reality, and this underpins the educational mission entrusted to Catholic institutions,” she said.

The Independent Education Union of Australia (IEUA), representing 75,000 non-government school employees, is supporting Sanders. The union seeks compensation and legal orders to prevent further alleged breaches of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act.

“The Albanese government is also under pressure from the union to tighten federal anti-discrimination laws in line with Victoria and Tasmania,” Southon warns.

Federal versus state law clash

The case exposes a clash between Victoria’s law, which restricts religious exemptions, and the federal Sex Discrimination Act, which gives faith-based schools wider legal protection.

As Professor Neil Foster, legal scholar and Freedom for Faith board member, has explained:

Where a State or Territory law dealing with discrimination provides a narrower balancing clause in relation to religious bodies or educational institutions than the Commonwealth law provides, the State or Territory law will, to the extent of that inconsistency, be inoperative by virtue of s 109 of the Constitution.

This means that if state rules limit a school’s ability to act according to its faith, federal law can override those limits — potentially allowing schools to follow their religious principles without breaching state regulations.

Earlier, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) found that protections for religious freedom are treated differently under State and Federal law. Section 109 of the Constitution gives federal law priority when conflicts arise, a key point likely to be tested if the case moves forward.

“The case has the potential to require the courts to address whether an organisation can rely on a religious freedom right granted by Commonwealth law, if that right is not recognised by State law,” Foster added. “I believe any action against the school should fail.”

The heart of the dispute

The conflict began when Melbourne Archdiocese Catholic Schools declined Sanders’ request to use the title “Mx” instead of “Mr” and the pronoun “they” in official communications.

Under Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act, “gender identity” includes personal references such as pronouns or titles. For discrimination to be unlawful, it must involve unfavourable treatment “because of that attribute” or practices that indirectly disadvantage persons with that attribute.

While Sanders was directed not to use the title “Mx,” she has not been disciplined or dismissed.

MACS contends that all of its teachers are expected to use titles aligned with biological sex — a policy the school applies equally across staff.

“This personal decision by a staff member has consequences that affect the whole school community,” the school stated.

“It illustrates an ideological shift from Catholic teaching and an inability of the staff member to uphold the vision and mission of the Catholic school.”

Legal protections for religious schools

Section 83A of Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act allows discrimination in employment only when it relates to a staff member’s religious belief or activity. Because Sanders’ request is not based on religion, MACS cannot rely on this provision for protection.

By contrast, section 38 of the federal Sex Discrimination Act provides broader protection.

“Decisions in relation to staff which are based on the need to avoid injury to religious susceptibilities of adherents are made lawful,” Foster explained in his legal opinion. In other words, schools acting in good faith may apply policies that reflect deeply held religious convictions without breaching the law.

The case highlights the challenge that Australian faith-based schools face in upholding Christian teachings while managing the demands of individual staff members.

Southon reinforced the broader significance of the case for faith-based education in Australia, writing, “This is not simply about pronouns. It is about whether schools can operate according to their deeply held beliefs without fear of legal reprisal.”

Freedom for Faith has said it will continue monitoring the case given that the outcome could set a precedent for religious freedom in schools nationwide.

by Kurt Mahlburg

Kurt Mahlburg is a husband to Angie, a father, a freelance writer, and a familiar Australian voice on culture and the Christian faith. He is the Senior Editor and a regular columnist at The Daily Declaration. More of his writings can be found at MercatorIntellectual TakeoutThe Spectator AustraliaThe American Spectator and Caldron Pool.

The Daily Declaration is Australia’s largest Christian news site. We are dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and we provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific. 

Homeschooling in America: from fringe to future

The number of families homeschooling in the United States has doubled in the past five years, meaning it is becoming a mainstream alternative to the traditional model of schooling.

Imagine a girl, about age 15, sitting in the cozy four-season room of her home. She might be clutching a Jane Austen novel in one hand and a cup of tea in the other. A yellow school bus passes the home and stops at the corner of her lot. Children tumble out, some her age, but many much younger. They just finished the school day, having arrived at 7 a.m., and did not arrive home until about 3:30 p.m. They will have roughly two hours of homework.

The girl started her school day around 10 a.m. She woke up naturally, had the time to prepare and eat a nutritious breakfast, and then powered through her schoolbooks at the kitchen table. Today she focused on her chemistry, Latin and language arts. She completed her school day after roughly three hours of work.

Her siblings worked alongside her. Their mother, doing her household chores, periodically checked in to see how her children were doing. After the girl finished her schoolwork, she went on a walk with a fellow homeschooled friend.

She is enjoying her leisure time with her novel, and tonight she will go to tennis practice at the local community center. She has no homework and will be in bed by 10 p.m. She aspires to be a nurse, and next year will begin classes at her local community college, which will eventually count toward her nursing degree.

This young girl is homeschooled, and her future is bright. By the end of the Progressive Era in the early 20th century, every state in the U.S. had some form of compulsory schooling law. Homeschooling was largely discouraged and unregulated until the 1970s and 1980s. Those who chose to homeschool were generally Christian conservatives or secular freethinkers. Homeschooling was a fringe movement that was met with official resistance. Families that did homeschool faced truancy charges and were taken to court.

Homeschool advocates sought judicial protection, citing the Supreme Court decision of Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), in which Amish parents challenged a state law requiring children to attend school until the age of 16.1 The Court ruled that forcing Amish children to attend high school violated their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The case centered on ending formal education after eighth grade, and it established a crucial precedent affirming parents’ rights to direct their children’s education. While few today advocate ending formal education after eighth grade, the case laid a legal foundation supporting homeschooling as a legitimate and personalized educational path.

Pandemic pivot

By 1993, all 50 states legalized homeschooling, but the oversight varied greatly by state. As a result of this legalization, the number of homeschooled children grew from 15,000 in the 1980s to an estimated 2 million just prior to the Covid-19 pandemic.2 Homeschooling was on the radar, both legally and statistically, but it was not something most families seriously considered.

The Covid-19 pandemic took the world by storm, and education was certainly affected. Spring 2020 emergenc school closures sent educators and parents alike scrambling to maintain the semblance of a school education at home. In the first weeks, when the closures were expected to be brief, students were often given packets of worksheets or would meet with their classes virtually for an hour, with the rest of the day dependent on parental oversight.

As the fog of uncertainty lifted to reveal a longer road ahead, schools and parents adapted to make the school
day more structured. In most instances, students were provided with electronic devices, and virtual learning went on throughout the day. The virtual learning was balanced by individual work to be reviewed by the parent or teacher after the fact. Later in the pandemic, this virtual learning combined with in-person learning to create a hybrid model. Today, the Covid school shutdowns are almost universally reviled as a failure of educational policy.

Many parents grudgingly went along for lack of choice. For the first time, they balanced being co-teachers in their child’s education with their own careers and responsibilities. Some came face-to-face with their children’s curriculum, only to cringe at what they saw.3 Others found they liked spending the days with their children and being hands-on in the learning process. These parents began to see homeschooling as a genuine option.

A dramatic increase

In 2019, prior to the pandemic, homeschooling statistically represented only a small movement— just 3.4 percent of school-age children were homeschooled.4 At the peak of the pandemic, most children experienced their schooling at home, while some were withdrawn from their registered school of attendance to be homeschooled. In 2020-21, 6 percent of American students were reported to be homeschooled.5 More recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey show that 6.3 to 7.9 percent of school-age children were homeschooled in 2024, comprising 3.4 to 4.3 million children.6 In just five years, the number of homeschooled children in the U.S. has doubled.

The pandemic fueled the start of this growth, and perhaps without parents having found themselves in the role of co-teachers, it would not have been so rapid. Yet, several years after the pandemic, the number of homeschooled children continues to grow. Homeschooling is no longer a fringe choice. It has become a significant educational method in the United States.

When considering homeschooling, many assume that the format of the school day is modeled after a traditional classroom. While it can fit that description, this is far from the approach most families take. Homeschoolers are a diverse group. Demographically, it runs the full gamut of religion, political affiliation, income, education levels and ethnicity. Naturally, the educational approach will vary greatly depending on family resources and priorities. Some of the more common approaches include:

Classical Education: Classical education aims for a structured approach with emphasis on grammar, logic and rhetoric through studying great books, history and language. Generally, families following this approach will purchase their curriculum through a company such as Mother of Divine Grace or The Well-Trained Mind Academy.

Charlotte Mason: A British educator from the late 19th century, Mason emphasized a gentle, literature-rich method of learning. This philosophy cultivates a love of education through “living books,” nature and the arts. “Living books” are engaging works that bring subjects to life, in stark contrast to dry textbooks.

Montessori: Based on the philosophy of Italian physician and educator Maria Montessori, this method is child-led and focused on fostering independence and practical life skills in a tactile environment. This method is particularly popular among parents of young children.

Unschooling: As the name suggests, this method largely rejects the concept of structured learning and is led entirely by the child’s interests and motivations.

Hybrid Homeschooling: involves a mix of in-home instruction and outside classes, generally provided through a private, part-time school. Students will learn at the school for a portion of the week and are provided a curriculum to follow at home under the direction of the parent for the remainder of the week.

Benefits of homeschooling

Most families probably use a combination of these approaches to best fit the needs of their children. These methods are best combined with ample usage of extracurricular and social opportunities for children.

The benefits of homeschooling are abundant for most families. Katie Fitzgerald, a mother of five in Maryland, states: “My children are authentically themselves. They have time and space to pursue their God-given gifts and the support and encouragement to persevere in them. They are well-spoken and confident around children and adults.” This may be one of the more common reasons parents cite when they make the choice to homeschool. They want their children to be confident and free thinking: in the world, but not of it.

Some parents remember a school experience that was punitive if they were of the rowdier type, while others recall sliding under the radar if they were quiet: their strengths or weaknesses may have gone unnoticed if they kept their head down and followed instructions. Gifted students were often bored and unchallenged, while struggling students felt embarrassed and left behind.

To homeschool is to offer a unique solution to each child, each circumstance, each ability level: that is, to meet them where they are and help them to excel. Whereas the traditional school setting is focused on the collective, the
homeschool experience is focused on the individual, so that as an adult, he or she might be a healthy member of the community.

Individual attention, flexibility

Lorryn McGarry from Oklahoma homeschools six children and enthusiastically reports: “My children get their childhood back. For millennia, children have been taught for a few hours a day, and the rest of the day is for exploring and climbing and playing. Through homeschooling, this is how I give this centuries old, developmentally appropriate structure back to my children. They are each other’s greatest playmates.” Lorryn alludes to another great benefit of homeschooling, which is the flexibility of the day.

Much of the school day in a traditional setting is not dedicated to active learning, but to busy-work, transitions
and behavior management. A homeschooled child can achieve these same active learning hours at home under
the guidance of a parent and forgo some of the less necessary activities. Instead, the world is their oyster! As they get older, some students can begin taking courses for college credit. Students can sharpen skills they are interested in such as art, music, crafts or athletics—and without sacrificing family dinners or relaxation on the weekend.

Children who were homeschooled for the long term (eight or more years) generally report higher levels of optimism, gratitude and life satisfaction as compared to their peers.7 They are also less likely to report symptoms associated with depression and anxiety.8 In terms of academics, they tend to outperform their public school peers by 15 to 30 percentile points on standardised tests, indicating that, on average, homeschooling is more efficient than public school.9 If homeschooled students generally have better mental health and academic outcomes, what is the argument against homeschooling?

Principal critiques

Perhaps the loudest concern voiced by those opposed to homeschooling is the question of socialisation. They worry that if children aren’t interacting with their peers all day and following the structure of a typical classroom, they will be unable to cope once they leave the nest as adults. Something these naysayers fail to consider is what the world looks like outside of the nest.

Your average adult spends the day surrounded by adults of varying ages, often of different ethnic and economic backgrounds. Compare this to the typical public (or even private) school student. Their peers were born within nine months of their own birth date and often come from similar economic backgrounds. Let’s not forget that
school districts are funded by the property tax of the surrounding area, and that to attend most private schools, you must be able to afford the tuition. This sounds considerably more homogeneous than the world that awaits them upon graduation.

By contrast, homeschoolers who are exposed to extracurricular activities (such as a cooperative group, or even regular trips to the local library or playground), are regularly interacting with a wide range of ethnicities, religious backgrounds, economic levels and ages. From a younger age than their peers, they are learning how to collaborate and interact with people who are different from them. Of course, if a family approaches homeschooling from an isolationist mindset, their children may struggle socially. Homeschooling families must be conscientious about integrating their children into the world early and often, or they run the risk of giving homeschoolers a bad name.

The other concern involves educational blind spots in the parent acting as educator, otherwise explained as the inability to teach a subject at the level necessary. This is less likely to be a problem when teaching a young child phonics or arithmetic but is far more likely to be a concern with high-school-level instruction in foreign languages, math or science. This is solved by outsourcing the subject: by hiring a private tutor, sending the child to a class taught by an expert, or utilising online learning.

The road ahead

Homeschooling in America has always existed alongside a wide spectrum of regulations. Some states impose multiple layers of oversight, requiring parents to file curriculum plans, submit test scores or undergo evaluations. Other states demand very little documentation. Yet, even in states historically considered relaxed, attempts to tighten control can surface.

A recent example is Illinois, where a proposed Homeschool Act (H.B. 2827) would have imposed some harsh penalties, including criminal charges for submitting incomplete paperwork. Parents mobilized in opposition, and the bill was defeated earlier this year. This underscores both the ongoing vulnerability of homeschool freedoms and the steadfast commitment of families to defend them.10

Taxpayers spend an average of $16,446 per pupil in public schools.11 With 3.1 million homeschooled
students in 2021-22 and the cost of their education largely shifted to their parents (who spent an average of $600 per student), $51 billion was saved for taxpayers.12 This significant cost savings may not continue in the future as school choice options spread to more and more states.13

However, most homeschooling families have no financial aid to cover their children’s homeschooling costs, and many prefer it this way. More government dollars may equate to more government oversight, which generally gives families less autonomy over their curriculum and pacing. As homeschooling continues to grow in numbers, it will be interesting to observe how both state and federal laws adapt.

Homeschooling is no longer a fringe experiment. It is an increasingly mainstream educational path rooted in the
belief that parents are best equipped to guide their children’s learning and development. As laws evolve and
educational options expand, one thing remains constant: The home continues to be a powerful place of formation. In homeschooling, families are reclaiming their children’s education and finding joy in the process.

For families who are new to homeschooling, see the final endnote below for some reputable online resources to help you get started.14

This article is published by the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation in St Louis, Missouri, USA. The original article is available from the foundation’s website:  www.mindszenty.org. The Mindszenty Report is not copyrighted, and readers are invited to forward copies to their local bishops, priests and pastors.

  1. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). ↩︎
  2. Albert Cheng and Daniel Hamlin, “Contemporary Homeschooling Arrangements:
    An Analysis of Three Waves of Nationally Representative Data,” Educational Policy
    37, no. 5 (July 2023), https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221103795. ↩︎
  3. See, e.g., Mindszenty Report, September 2023 and July 2021, for discussions of
    the pervasive infiltration of transgender ideology and critical race theory into U.S.
    schools. ↩︎
  4. https://hslda.org/post/homeschooling-continues-to-grow-in-2021 ↩︎
  5. https://nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/ ↩︎
  6. https://admissionsly.com/homeschooling-statistics/ ↩︎
  7. https://readlion.com/op-ed-long-term-homeschoolers-enjoy-most-favorablelevels-of-mental-health-study-finds/ ↩︎
  8. Ibid ↩︎
  9. https://homeschoolingbackgrounder.com/average-academic-performancehomeschooled-students/ ↩︎
  10. https://edreporteronline.org/documents/august2025 article 3.cfm?utm source=email&utm_medium=email%20 marketing ↩︎
  11. https://nheri.org/research-facts-on-homeschooling/ ↩︎
  12. Ibid ↩︎
  13. Regarding the spread of school choice options in the U.S., see, e.g., Mindszenty Report, July 2023 ↩︎
  14. Heart of a Mother: Offers a broad overview of guidance and curriculum recommendations specifically for Catholic families. https://www.heartofamother.net/curriculum.
    Homeschooling 101: A breakdown of essential subjects to teach at various age levels. Home School Legal Defense Association: A comprehensive source for state laws and legal guidance for homeschool in the United States. https://hslda.org/legal ↩︎

Higher Education at a Crossroads

Whereas higher education was once focussed on training our future leaders, today’s university administrators are more concerned about the bottom line.

A confluence of factors—student age demographics, high tuition costs, more young people opting out, student debt, cuts in state funding for public colleges, federal restrictions on visas for international students, threatened loss of federal subsidies, and loss of public confidence—have placed U.S. higher education at a crossroads.

Universities have responded by freezing staff and faculty hiring, while trying to expand their markets through online programs. What universities have failed to do is to lower tuition rates, or address complaints of “woke” education in the classroom, or restore public confidence that most degrees are worth it for students who want to acquire job skills.

Once the pride of the United States, higher education has lost the confidence of a large segment of the American population. A 2024 Gallup survey revealed that nearly a third of U.S. adults have no confidence in higher education, while another third said that they have “some confidence.”

This leaves only a third of Americans expressing a great deal or quite a lot of confidence. This survey should be worrisome for university administrators and their governing boards. More alarming, though, is the acceleration of the decline in confidence in the past decade. When Gallup first measured public confidence in higher education in 2015, nearly 60 percent of Americans had great or a good deal of confidence. Only 10 percent had little or none.

Lack of confidence, as might be expected, is especially high among Republicans, with the majority in this subset telling Gallup they have little or no confidence. Similar declines are seen in independents. Yet even Democratic confidence in higher education is falling, having dropped from 68 percent stating that they had high confidence in 2015 to only 56 percent in 2024.

Many respondents expressed concerns that colleges are pushing political agendas not relevant to job skills and are overly expensive. These two concerns are exactly what is not being addressed by college administrators,
notwithstanding announcements that they are ending or renaming Diversity, Equity and Inclusion offices in their
universities.

Rising tuition, staggering student debt and misalignment with the labor market are not going to be any easier for
college administrators to address than “woke” education in the classroom. Nor is the problem of large numbers of
college-eligible students concluding that college isn’t worth the cost. Moreover, nearly 42 million U.S. adults who
started college never finished. Some 94 percent of those students who do graduate have regrets about their degrees.

An overwhelming number feel that they received better training from their employers than from their undergraduate education. Nearly half say that they feel “doomed to fail because I chose the wrong degree.”

Demographic Headwinds

At the other end, employers are finding that recent college graduates lack the right skill sets and are deficient in appropriate business etiquette. As a result, nearly half of human resource managers say they prefer to recruit a retired former employee. Nearly a third say they would rather go with a robot or artificial intelligence, or just leave the position unfilled. These trends are already affecting colleges’ financial viability. Forbes magazine reports that colleges are closing at the rate of approximately one per week.

The larger problem for administrators is a demographic one. After decades of expansion in the 1960s and 1970s when post-Second World War Baby Boomers were entering college, colleges now face a looming severe drop in the college-age population.

Using the latest available census figures, the educational consulting firm Ruffalo Noel Levitz projects that by 2029
there will be 650,000 (or 15 percent) fewer students than now. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher
Education estimates that the number of 18-year-olds nationwide who graduate from high school each year will erode by 13 percent—nearly a half million students—by 2041.

Today, American higher education spends about $700 billion a year, enrolls nearly 25 million students, and employs approximately 3 million people. Tuition represents only a portion of the total cost of providing college courses, but still remains the major source of revenue. Tuition accounts for 16 percent of public institutions’ total revenue. Public institutions also receive state government funding and generate income from investments and student services such as campus housing, meal plans and parking fees. On average, public universities charge tuition close to $10,000 annually per undergraduate, with higher tuition for out-of-state and international students.

Additional revenue comes from federal funding, which stands at around $59 billion for private and public institutions. Top federal funders are the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Defence, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. In addition, the Office of Federal Student Aid indirectly funds higher education through grants, loans and work-study programs for students.

State funding provides another source of revenue for public universities and colleges, totalling $129 billion in fiscal year 2025. State funding varies by state but is falling overall. Half of all public colleges and universities receive less funding from their states than they did before the Great Recession of 2008 (adjusted for inflation).

Hiking Tuition

Confronted with a restrained budget, public and private universities are responding in various ways, from cutting budgets to expanding their enrollment through online courses. At the same time, higher education continues to hike tuition, and student debt continues to escalate to unsustainable levels. Some public universities have raised their undergraduate tuition nearly 30 percent over the past decade. University administrators claim, with some justification, that increases in tuition are necessary because of rising costs of data security, technological services and employee benefits.

In response to rising tuition, the Iowa legislature has stipulated that state universities must develop three-year
bachelor’s degree programs. Tuition hikes only exacerbate U.S. student loan debt, which has more than tripled since 2006 and now approaches an astronomical $1.6 trillion.

Budget Cuts

Faced with rising costs and declining funding, universities across the country have announced hiring freezes. Many university administrators blame these cuts on the Trump administration’s call for reduced federal funding of grants. The Trump administration has announced deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health grants to research universities.

In March, the administration pulled $400 million from Columbia University over its failure to address the problem of antisemitism on campus. This was followed by the Department of Education warning 60 other colleges that they face the loss of federal funding unless they make their campuses safe for Jewish students. Universities are also bracing for a tax hike on their endowment income under the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed by President Trump on July 4.

Dozens of schools have announced hiring freezes, including Harvard, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Notre Dame, University of Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh, Emory, University of Vermont, North Carolina State University, University of Washington and University of California, San Diego. In March 2025, Johns Hopkins University announced that it was eliminating more than 2,200 employees because of a loss of funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Although the full impact of the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to federal grants for higher education is unclear, universities have undertaken other cost-cutting measures as well, including freezes on raises, placing capital development projects on hold, and scaling back graduate programs.

Promoting Online Education

Colleges and universities are using online education as a way to subsidize their other programs. These programs frequently charge students more for online courses and degrees than for in-person classes. In fact, 83 percent of online programs in higher education cost more than in-person classes. As a result, these colleges are spending significant amounts on marketing and advertising their online programs.

Even though online courses and degree programs usually cost more in tuition, more students are learning entirely online than from in-person classes. Online instruction for in-state students at four-year colleges averages $341 per credit, while in-person classes for in-state students average $325 per credit. This adds up to about $41,000 in revenue for an average online degree at a four-year university, compared to about $39,000 for an in-person degree. But for out-of-state students taking online classes, the costs are considerably lower than for in-person classes—$30,545 lower over four years.

Many students find online courses convenient because they fit easily into family and work schedules. Also, online
students save substantially by avoiding other costs of inperson education including dorm and housing charges, parking permits, books and various student fees. Universities offering online courses and degrees claim that online students will learn as much as in-person students. Yet studies show that online students are less successful in completing courses and degree programs. And student surveys disclose another side to the story.

‘It’s super easy’

Interviews of students at the University of Arizona by the campus newspaper found that students choose online
education because the courses are easier and they can expect a high grade. As Karsyn Breiman, a pre-business freshman, described her online class, “It’s super easy. The professor does not live here. All I have to do is take a quiz on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the questions come directly from notes that he posts. It takes me five minutes, three days a week.”

After the unhappy global experiment of lengthy Covid-19 classroom shutdowns, which forced students to go online, few people argue anymore that online learning is as effective as classroom instruction. For universities and
colleges, however, online learning is big business. Online programs expand the market, often use cheap adjunct
professors or other non-tenured faculty, and subsidize other programs.

Universities offering online programs appear hesitant to provide full reports on grade inflation, failure to complete
courses, and knowledge gained in online programs. Universities tend to focus their reports on in-person student
figures and class enrollments, even as a major part of their programs is now online. Boards of regents and state
legislators should insist on full reports from universities on graduation and retention rates, costs and profits, and other data for online education.

Foreign Students: A Cash Cow

Colleges and universities, private and public, have found international students to be a cash cow—at least until recently. As the demographic pool of eligible American students began to decline, and universities faced rising costs, many institutions turned to recruiting international students. President Trump’s threat (and actions) to scale back visas for international students, and to penalize universities that won’t implement policies to protect Jewish students, has sent shock waves throughout higher education.

Today there are about 19 million students enrolled in U.S.degree-granting colleges. At state institutions, international students pay on average three times the tuition rate applicable to in-state students. Close to 6 percent of the total student population—about 1.1 million—are from another country. Approximately three quarters of these students are from Asia. Nearly half come from India or China.

The top five schools that have the most international students are New York University, Northeastern University, Columbia University, Arizona State University and University of Southern California. Over half of the students at Illinois Tech are international. At Carnegie Mellon, 44 percent of the student body is international, at Stevens Institute of Technology 42 percent, at Northeastern 40 percent, at Columbia 40 percent and at Johns Hopkins 39 percent.1

Most of these foreign students major in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering or math). The U.S. State Department has paused accepting visa applications for international students—and this has caused panic among university administrators across the country. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s announcement that the Trump administration is aggressively moving to revoke visas held by certain Chinese students, as part of an effort to crack down on research theft, has only heightened this fear among college administrators. U.S. higher education has a large revenue stream at risk if there is a decline in the foreign student population.

The legacy media and university administrators insist that international students make major contributions to the American economy. If this population is reduced, the entire American economy will be damaged. At least this is the claim.18 As the education reporter for the Washington Post put it, “International students contributed $44 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2023-2024 school year. Their loss could hurt more than just universities’ bottom line.” But why should taxpayer-subsidised elite institutions allocate so many of their highly sought-after student slots to foreigners?

The Bottom Line

The real issue for universities is not about national security, or even education, but the bottom line.
University administrators today seem more concerned with making money and less with good education. Universities continue to hike tuition, contributing to the student debt crisis. They rely increasingly on offering online courses, without much attention to their educational effectiveness or retention rates.

Higher education used to be about training future national leaders, imparting civic values and developing informed citizens. Today’s college administrators seem less concerned about the purpose of higher education. Many of these administrators never enter the classroom. Instead, they stay in their offices complaining about politicians and objections to woke ideology. Meanwhile, these same administrators ask their state legislators, the federal government and donors for more and more money.

Amid the eternal quest for more funding, college administrators rarely ask, “For what?” This is exactly the question being asked by students, parents, employers and much of the public. It is a question that demands an answer.

This article is published by the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation in St Louis, Missouri, USA. The original article is available from the foundation’s website:  www.mindszenty.org. The Mindszenty Report is not copyrighted, and readers are invited to forward copies to their local bishops, priests and pastors.

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/23/upshot/harvard-trump-international-students.html ↩︎