
Rural US high schools are offering more college-level classes, but college can still be a tough sell
But despite the college credits he earned, college isn't part of his plan.
Since graduating from high school in June, he has been overseeing an art camp at the county's Arts Council. If that doesn't turn into a permanent job, there is work at Creative Food Ingredients, known as the 'cookie factory' for the way it makes the town smell like baking cookies, or at local factories like American Classic Outfitters, which designs and sews athletic uniforms.
'My stress is picking an option, not finding an option,' he said.
Even though rural students graduate from high school at higher rates than their peers in cities and suburbs, fewer of them go on to college.
Many rural school districts, including the one in Perry that Townes attends, have begun offering college-level courses and working to remove academic and financial obstacles to higher education, with some success. But college doesn't hold the same appeal for students in rural areas where they often would need to travel farther for school, parents have less college experience themselves, and some of the loudest political voices are skeptical of the need for higher education.
College enrollment for rural students has remained largely flat in recent years, despite the district-level efforts and stepped-up recruitment by many universities. About 55% of rural U.S. high school students who graduated in 2023 enrolled in college, according to National Clearinghouse Research Center data. That's compared to 64% of suburban graduates and 59% of urban graduates.
College can make a huge difference in earning potential. An American man with a bachelor's degree earns an estimated $900,000 more over his lifetime than a peer with a high school diploma, research by the Social Security Administration has found. For women, the difference is about $630,000.
A school takes cues from families' hopes and goals
A lack of a college degree is no obstacle to opportunity in places such as Wyoming County, where people like to say there are more cows than people. The dairy farms, potato fields and maple sugar houses are a source of identity and jobs for the county just east of Buffalo.
'College has never really been, I don't know, a necessity or problem in my family,' said Townes, the middle of three children whose father has a tattoo shop in Perry.
At Perry High School, Superintendent Daryl McLaughlin said the district takes cues from students like Townes, their families and the community, supplementing college offerings with programs geared toward career and technical fields such as the building trades. He said he is as happy to provide reference checks for employers and the military as he is to write recommendations for college applications.
'We're letting our students know these institutions, whether it is a college or whether employers, they're competing for you,' he said. 'Our job is now setting them up for success so that they can take the greatest advantage of that competition, ultimately, to improve their quality of life.'
Still, college enrollment in the district has exceeded the national average in recent years, going from 60% of the class of 2022's 55 graduates to 67% of 2024's and 56% of 2025's graduates. The district points to a decision to direct federal pandemic relief money toward covering tuition for students in its Accelerated College Enrollment program — a partnership with Genesee Community College. When the federal money ran out, the district paid to keep it going.
'This is a program that's been in our community for quite some time, and it's a program our community supports,' McLaughlin said.
About 15% of rural U.S. high school students were enrolled in college classes in January 2025 through such dual enrollment arrangements, a slightly lower rate than urban and suburban students, an Education Department survey found.
Rural access to dual enrollment is a growing area of focus as advocates seek to close gaps in access to higher education. The College in High School Alliance this year announced funding for seven states to develop policy to expand programs for rural students.
Higher education's image problem is acute in rural America
Around the country, many students feel jaded by the high costs of college tuition. And Americans are increasingly skeptical about the value of college, polls have shown, with Republicans, the dominant party in rural America, losing confidence in higher education at higher rates than Democrats.
'Whenever you have this narrative that 'college is bad, college is bad, these professors are going to indoctrinate you,' it's hard,' said Andrew Koricich, executive director of the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges at Appalachian State University in North Carolina. 'You have to figure out, how do you crack through that information ecosphere and say, actually, people with a bachelor's degree, on average, earn 65% more than people with a high school diploma only?'
In much of rural America, about 21% of people over the age of 25 have a bachelor's degree, compared to about 36% of adults in other areas, according to a government analysis of U.S. Census findings.
Some rural educators don't hold back on promoting college
In rural Putnam County, Florida, about 14% of adults have a bachelor's degree. That doesn't stop principal Joe Theobold from setting and meeting an annual goal of 100% college admission for students at Q.I. Roberts Jr.-Sr. High School.
Paper mills and power plants provide opportunities for a middle class life in the county, where the cost of living is low. But Theobold tells students the goal of higher education 'is to go off and learn more about not only the world, but also about yourself.'
'You don't want to be 17 years old, determining what you're going to do for the rest of your life,' he said.
Families choose the magnet school because of its focus on higher education, even though most of the district's parents never went to a college. Many students visit college campuses through Camp Osprey, a University of North Florida program that helps students experience college dorms and dining halls.
In upstate New York, high school junior Devon Wells grew up on his family farm in Perry but doesn't see his future there. He's considering a career in welding, or as an electrical line worker in South Carolina, where he heard the pay might be double what he would make at home. None of his plans require college, he said.
'I grew up on a farm, so that's all hands-on work. That's really all I know and would want to do,' Devon said.
Neither his nor Townes' parents have pushed one way or the other, they said.
'I remember them talking to me like, `Hey, would you want to go to college?' I remember telling them, 'not really,'' Townes said. He would have listened if a college recruiter reached out, he said, but wouldn't be willing to move very far.
___

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Atlantic
21 minutes ago
- Atlantic
So, About Those Big Trade Deals
If there's anything Donald Trump loves more than tariffs, it's a deal. So you can understand his excitement lately. Over the past few weeks, the president has announced tariff-related deals with three major trading partners—the European Union, Japan, and South Korea—that have been hailed as major victories for the United States. In each case, America's partners agreed to accept 15 percent tariffs on their exports to the U.S. while lowering trade barriers on American goods and promising to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S. economy—in essence paying Trump to impose trade restrictions on them. 'Europe Caves to Trump on Tariffs' read a representative New York Times headline. In the days following the European Union deal announcement, the White House released a fact sheet quoting all the positive coverage. On Thursday, Jamieson Greer, Trump's top trade official, published a New York Times op-ed boasting that, with the completion of these deals, the administration had successfully 'remade the global order.' But upon closer inspection, Trump's trade deals aren't nearly as impressive as they sound. In fact, they aren't really trade deals in the traditional sense, and they might not benefit the U.S. at all. Trump did prove the doubters wrong in one important way. When the president originally announced his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, other countries threatened to respond in kind, leading many economists and journalists (myself included) to conclude that the tariffs would lead to a spiral of retaliation. With a few exceptions (notably China and Canada), that didn't happen. Instead, Trump has gotten key trading partners to back down. But simply avoiding retribution was never the goal of tariffs. The whole point of Trump's dealmaking strategy was supposedly to get foreign countries to lower their existing trade barriers—the classic purpose of a trade agreement. In his Liberation Day announcement, Trump complained at length about what he considered to be the excessive restrictions that other countries had imposed on American goods—including not only tariffs but also currency manipulation, value-added taxes, and subsidies to domestic firms—and vowed not to back down on tariffs until those countries lowered them. Scott Lincicome: What the U.K. deal reveals about Trump's trade strategy The announcements of the new deals purport to have delivered on this promise, giving Americans 'unprecedented levels of market access' to Europe, 'breaking open long-closed markets' in Japan, and making South Korea 'completely OPEN TO TRADE with the United States.' But the details of the deals, which remain sparse, tell a very different story. None include agreements by trading partners to meaningfully reform their tax or regulatory codes, strengthen their currencies, or reduce the barriers that have long been major sticking points in prior trade negotiations. Instead, the announcements are full of vague statements of intent—'The United States and the European Union intend to work together to address non-tariff barriers affecting trade in food and agricultural products' (my emphasis)—and references to things such as 'openings for a range of industrial and consumer goods.' The main concrete action that the EU agreed to was to eliminate its tariffs on American industrial products. This sounds impressive unless you're aware that the average EU tariff rate on nonagricultural goods prior to the deal was just 1 percent. The main difficulty in trade negotiations with the EU has long been its barriers on agricultural products, which appear to have been untouched by these deals. South Korea and Japan, meanwhile, agreed to allow more American-made cars into their markets—which also sounds great until you realize that the main reason American companies don't sell a lot of cars to those countries is the fact that almost nobody wants to drive a truck or SUV in Tokyo or Seoul. Lower trade barriers won't change that. What about the investments? According to the announcements, South Korea, Japan, and Europe have respectively pledged to invest $350 billion, $550 billion, and $600 billion in the United States (In an interview with CNBC, referring to the EU investment, Trump claimed that 'the details are $600 billion to invest in anything I want. Anything. I can do anything I want with it.') The EU has also agreed to purchase an additional $750 billion of American oil and gas. Those are big numbers, but they might not add up to much in the real world. The EU has no authority to require European companies to invest in the U.S. or buy its products. What the Trump administration touted as 'commitments' were mostly rough numbers based on what European companies were already planning to invest and buy. 'We can't force the company to do anything, nor will be able to pretend that we can, but we can talk to them, we can get their intentions, and we can transmit that as a faithful indication to our partners in the U.S.,' Olof Gill, a spokesperson for the European Commission, the EU's trade-negotiation body, said after the deal was announced. The 'investments' from Japan and South Korea, meanwhile, might not be investments at all. Shortly after the deal with Japan was announced, the country's top trade negotiator said that he anticipated only 1 or 2 percent of the $550 billion fund would come in the form of direct investment; the rest would mostly consist of loans that would need to be repaid with interest. South Korean officials have made similar statements. 'These numbers bear no relation to any conception of reality,' Brad Setser, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a trade adviser to the Biden administration, told me. 'Everyone has figured out that Trump really likes big numbers to sell his trade deals and doesn't need much substance to do so.' Recent history supports this view. As part of Trump's first-term trade deal with China, Beijing agreed to increase its annual purchasing of American goods by $200 billion. In the event, it didn't increase its purchasing at all. If America's trading partners didn't agree to meaningfully lower barriers to U.S. imports, and if their promises of investment are likely vaporous, then the only real concession that Trump's tariffs have won is … the right to impose tariffs. This means that the value of the deals comes down to the value of the tariffs. Tariffs can help domestic producers by making their foreign competitors' products more expensive. But tariffs can also hurt them, by raising the costs of the inputs they import to make their products. Several studies of the tariffs imposed during Trump's first term, which were much smaller and more targeted, found that manufacturing employment either stayed level or actually fell as a result. The ultimate result of the current wave of tariffs is yet to be determined, but so far, since Liberation Day, the manufacturing sector has shed tens of thousands of jobs and investment in new factories has fallen. A quarterly survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers in May found that optimism among manufacturing firms had fallen to its lowest point since the height of the coronavirus pandemic; trade uncertainty and raw-material costs were cited as top concerns. Rogé Karma: The mystery of the strong economy has finally been solved The new deals should at least give companies some much-needed certainty about tariff rates, which will help them make investment decisions. But in other ways, the deals actively undermine key American industries. Foreign cars, which represent the single largest American import from Japan and South Korea and the third largest from the EU, will face 15 percent tariffs. That is far lower than the rate American car companies have to pay to import car parts, which are tariffed at 25 percent, and crucial car-building materials like steel and aluminum, which are tariffed at 50 percent. As Jim Farley, the CEO of Ford, said in a recent interview, foreign competitors such as Toyota now have a $5,000 to $10,000 cost advantage over American-made vehicles. Ford projects that it will lose $2 billion in profits this year alone because of higher tariffs; General Motors forecasts losses of $4 billion to $5 billion by the end of the year. The deals announced so far are only the beginning. The Trump administration is currently in the midst of negotiations with several trading partners, including China, Mexico, Switzerland, and Taiwan, and just yesterday implemented a new round of tariffs on about 90 countries, the ostensible goal being to bring those nations to the bargaining table too. If recent events are an indication, any future pacts will be framed as historic milestones in the quest to remake the global trade system in America's favor. The White House will issue pronouncements of eye-popping investments, drastically reduced foreign-trade barriers, and major concessions to American industry. When that happens, remember to look closely at the details.


CNBC
21 minutes ago
- CNBC
Family office deal-making slides with some bright spots in Europe
A version of this article first appeared in CNBC's Inside Wealth newsletter with Robert Frank, a weekly guide to the high-net-worth investor and consumer. Sign up to receive future editions, straight to your inbox. Private investment firms of the ultra-rich once again dialed back their deal-making in July. Family offices made only 42 direct investments last month, down nearly 60% on an annual basis, according to data provided exclusively to CNBC by private wealth platform Fintrx. While the drop in July was especially steep, uncertainty over President Donald Trump 's tariffs has weighed on deal flow for months. Family office investors made 32% fewer direct investments in the first half of 2025 , per Fintrx. For those family offices that are still making deals, tariff anxieties have prompted more, including American firms, to increasingly invest overseas, advisors told CNBC . Nearly one-third of last month's direct investments were made in companies based in Europe, according to Fintrx. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt's Hillspire invested in two AI startups based in Paris, document processor Retab and robotics firm Genesis AI, which also has an office in Palo Alto, California. Robin Lauber, CEO and co-founder of Swiss family office Infinitas Capital, told Inside Wealth that his family office has had a busier year so far in 2025 than the previous two years. Infinitas Capital, originally formed to manage the Lauber family's Swiss residential real estate assets, backed xAI and SpaceX in January and March, respectively, through its secondaries arm Opportuna. He told CNBC that he expects three portfolio companies to go public on Swedish or German exchanges by the end of the year. In July, Infinitas made its 12th direct startup investment of 2025, co-leading a $5 million pre-Series A round for Berlin-based lingerie and hosiery brand Saint Sass. The funds will be used to launch new categories like swimwear and expand further into the U.S. and U.K. Despite the market volatility, Lauber has a positive outlook, citing recent record IPOs and the likelihood of interest rate cuts in the U.S. He also anticipates that the Trump administration will moderate its economic policy before the midterm elections in 2026. "We are actually quite optimistic about the current environment and investing now," said the 32-year-old third-generation heir. "From an allocation point of view, I think it's actually a good time." Infinitas has also been able to make opportunistic investments thanks to the market turmoil. Infinitas-backed Kanaan Sellers Group, a conglomerate of ecommerce brands spanning kitchen appliances and outdoor furniture, has been able to "roll up assets really nicely," he said. "VCs or more institutional startup investors have been very reluctant to deploy into consumer businesses and asset-heavy businesses lately," he said. "These companies have had to adapt and look for more patient capital raising from family offices and high-net-worth individuals."


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
The 78 cent opinion: Why stamp prices surge while mail volume plummets
If you wanted to send me a letter via mail with your opinion about this column, it would cost you 78 cents. Let that sink in. That's the current price of a forever stamp in America – yes, the same ones that cost 39 cents in 2006. That's a 100% increase in less than two decades. In just the last five years, stamp prices have jumped from 55 cents to 66, then 68, then 73, 76, and now 78 cents. That is an 8% per annum inflation rate on stamps since 2020. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is raising prices so often, it's starting to feel like you're trying to ship your letter via Space X to Mars, not to your grandmother in Des Moines. And still, somehow, they're losing money, the one thing government is great at. Let's unpack this. According to USPS financial statements, the agency posted a net loss of $6.5 billion in 2023. Yes, billion – with a "B." This comes after price hikes on stamps, shipping and package delivery services. And the kicker? Mail volume continues to plummet. First-class mail has dropped more than 50% since 2001. It's not hard to see why. When everything from paying bills to saying "Happy Birthday" can be done with the tap of a phone screen, why would anyone fork over nearly a buck to lick a stamp? Here's the brutal truth: the U.S. Postal Service is a 247-year-old relic, clinging to a 20th-century business model in a 21st-century digital economy. It's like Blockbuster trying to survive in the age of Netflix. And who pays the price? You do. I do. Every American taxpayer does. And every business owner trying to ship a product or communicate with customers. Have you seen the cost of an overnight UPS or FedEx package as of late? And it's not just stamps. USPS lost $94 billion between 2007 and 2020. The agency carries more than $188 billion in liabilities and unfunded obligations. Meanwhile, private carriers like FedEx and UPS are thriving, innovating and investing in automation while USPS remains bloated, bureaucratic and bogged down by outdated infrastructure and a labor force that's nearly impossible to reform due to union pressure and congressional meddling. Some will say, "But, Ted, the Postal Service provides a vital public good. It connects rural America. It delivers medications. It ensures equity." I don't disagree with the mission. But can we at least agree that any business – public or private – that loses billions of dollars every year and still raises prices for lower service should be held accountable? Here's where it gets even more ridiculous. While USPS has been hemorrhaging money and shedding mail volume, it's also spending millions on failed pilot programs like banking services, Sunday deliveries that no one asked for, and electric vehicles that sound great in a press release but cost taxpayers far more than the savings they'll ever bring. The postmaster general has already warned that more price hikes are coming. So maybe it'll be $1 to mail a letter by next year. But I'll ask you again: is your opinion worth 78 cents? In the age of social media, you can tweet me, post on my LinkedIn page or leave a comment below – instantly, freely and from anywhere. Yet the very government that promised to provide "universal service" at low cost is now charging more for a worse product. And they still expect a round of applause. Recently, it took 10 days for a birthday card to get to my own mother. This isn't just about stamps. It's about government waste. It's about poor planning. It's about politicians kicking the can down the road for decades, refusing to modernize, streamline or privatize when necessary. And it's about us, the American people, being asked to pay more for less – and being told to be grateful for it. So, if you feel strongly about what I wrote, I dare you: write me a letter. Stick a stamp on it. Mail it to my office. But before you drop it in the blue box, just ask yourself: Is your opinion worth 78 cents? Because that's what it costs to be heard in today's America if you want to send your two cents via USPS.