logo
America's College Crisis

America's College Crisis

The Atlantic4 days ago

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
College-graduation ceremonies are expressions of joy, but also of relief. As photos are taken, tassels turned, hugs exchanged, the hope is that all of the hard work, and the money, will have been worth it.
But many Americans aren't convinced that it is. Confidence in the institution of higher education has fallen sharply over the past decade, and among political groups, Republicans show the most skepticism. A 2024 Pew Research Center report noted that only one in four Americans says 'it's extremely or very important to have a four-year college degree in order to get a well-paying job in today's economy.' The fact that finding a job has gotten more difficult for recent graduates hasn't done much to inspire faith in higher education. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported in late April that the unemployment rate for recent grads is at 5.8 percent (compared with the overall unemployment rate of 4.2 percent), its highest since July 2021.
Some challenges in finding a job after graduation are more about the economic patterns of the past few years than they are about the deficiencies of college. In 2021, America was going through the 'Great Resignation,' when many people were quitting jobs to find better pay or better working conditions elsewhere. But after inflation rose dramatically that same year and the U.S. Federal Reserve raised interest rates in 2022, demand cooled for white-collar industry jobs such as those in technology and consulting. Now 'the Great Resignation has become what some people call the 'Great Stay,'' my colleague Derek Thompson told me. 'We're still adding jobs, but there's not as many openings for the musical chairs of the economy as there used to be.'
The years immediately following the pandemic were also a time of major wage growth for traditionally low-wage industries, such as retail and hospitality,which employ a large share of workers with less formal education. But this growth may not last throughout a worker's life: In general, earnings for low-wage jobs that do not require a college degree tend to stagnate over time. 'Wages grow faster for more-educated workers because college is a gateway to professional occupations, such as business and engineering, in which workers learn new skills, get promoted, and gain managerial experience,' the economist David Deming explained in The Atlantic in 2023.
If we take the recent unemployment stats as a result of specific post-pandemic trends, they shouldn't necessarily spook people into giving up on college. But questions about the benefit of a college degree far precede the pandemic. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimates that the earnings gap between college graduates and high-school graduates stopped widening around 2010 and has been fairly consistent ever since. The experts I spoke with were clear: The college wage premium is still high—in other words, college graduates make more money on average than nongraduates. In fact, the latest data suggest that the median salary for college graduates aged 22–27 is 50 percent higher than high-school graduates of the same age. But this premium doesn't appear to be going up.
Part of this story is the fact that employers have found it easier in recent years to hire high-school graduates to do the same entry-level work as college graduates. As the San Francisco Bank researchers note, this may be because we've seen a relative slowdown in the invention of new technologies that favor college graduates who are educated in using them, like desktop computers did in the 1980s. And although it's too soon to tell the effect that generative AI is having on the job market for new grads, this tech seems likely to introduce the opposite dynamic: Instead of putting college graduates at an advantage, it could decrease the number of entry-level jobs that require more formal education.
The college wage premium is still high, which means that it's still beneficial to get a degree. But for whom, exactly? A new working paper from Zachary Bleemer, an assistant professor of economics at Princeton, and Sarah Quincy, an assistant professor of economics at Vanderbilt, found that for the first half of the 20th century, college offered the same added wage value for students from both high- and low-income backgrounds. That changed after the 1960s: Since then, the overall return on college has grown, and the relative value of college for lower-income kids has steadily declined.
Some of this is because lower-income students have become less likely than higher-income students to enroll in traditional four-year colleges, instead opting for community or for-profit colleges. Another reason, Bleemer told me, is that in recent decades, many states have chosen to invest more in their flagship schools than in the local public universities, where a large share of their students are enrolled. As the gaps between these schools have widened, Bleemer said, 'the relative value of college for the lower-income kids that predominantly go to these local public institutions has fallen.' What a student chooses to major in also matters: Higher-income students have become more likely to earn degrees in computer science and engineering in recent years. As universities have become more selective about which students they admit to these degree programs, 'lower-income kids are increasingly left out of those very high-wage disciplines,' he said.
Bleemer had the same note of caution as the other experts I spoke with: Although the relative value of college for low-income students has fallen, 'it's still way bigger than zero.' He pointed me to studies from several states that show the value of college to the long-run outcomes of students who were just at the margins of being permitted to enroll in their state's public higher-education system—particularly those with lower incomes. The research shows that college-going is valuable for those kids—'far more valuable than the tuition costs' they accrue, Bleemer said.
Even though the numbers make the case for college, much of Americans' distrust in higher education has nothing to do with return on investment. Some of their skepticism is rooted in the realities of a difficult job market, but another portion is rooted in broader political views and abstract notions about the perils of academia. These doubts may also have a basis in Americans' lack of faith in institutions, and in one another.
Colleges can't solve those problems by themselves. But schools, and the governments that fund them, do have a role in earning that trust back—in strengthening universities' reputation as places for learning, discovering oneself, and finding abundant opportunity. More state and federal investment in higher education could help. As the Trump administration attempts to strip schools of federal funding, though, it's becoming clear that setting up colleges to better benefit students is not a national priority.
Here are three new stories from The Atlantic.
Today's News
Donald Trump's 50 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports have kicked in.
The Congressional Budget Office released an analysis estimating that the tax bill working its way through Congress will increase deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade. It also estimated that an additional 10.9 million people will lose health insurance by 2034 because of cuts and new eligibility rules in the bill.
President Trump said that Vladimir Putin told him he plans to respond to Ukraine's major drone attack on Russian airfields.
Evening Read
Mount Everest's Xenon-Gas Controversy Will Last Forever
It was a travesty—two travesties, actually, separate but inextricably linked. In May 1953, Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first people to reach the summit of Mount Everest, a challenge that had killed more than a dozen people in the preceding decades and that scientists had once declared impossible. The catch: They breathed canisters of pure oxygen, an aid that the Everest pioneer George Mallory—one of those who died on the mountain—had once dismissed as 'a damnable heresy.'
Look. Spend time with photos of a spectacular eruption at Mount Etna.
Read. These five books will redirect your attention when you need it.
Play our daily crossword.
Isabel Fattal contributed to this newsletter.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Americans' Electric Bills Are Headed Higher With the Temperatures
Americans' Electric Bills Are Headed Higher With the Temperatures

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Americans' Electric Bills Are Headed Higher With the Temperatures

Americans can expect to pay more to stay cool this summer thanks to forecasts for above-average temperatures across the country and natural-gas prices that are heading into air-conditioning season 37% higher than last year. On average, Americans should count on their electricity bills in June, July and August rising 4% from last year, mostly due to more expensive natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration. New England—where a dearth of gas pipelines keeps energy prices among the highest in the country—should see the biggest jump in monthly bills, up 6.7% from last year, to about $200.

The Bluesky bubble hurts liberals and their causes
The Bluesky bubble hurts liberals and their causes

Washington Post

timean hour ago

  • Washington Post

The Bluesky bubble hurts liberals and their causes

Ever since Elon Musk bought Twitter, changed the social media site's name to X and altered its moderation policies, progressives have been hunting for a substitute. To judge how their search is going, consider a recent item from Politico's Playbook, which notes that 'a number of prominent commentators, experts and groups' are pledging to post on other platforms before X. 'The 'X-last' strategy,' says Playbook, 'led by Indivisible and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, is an effort to shift discourse from Elon Musk's platform to Bluesky.' Note that they're not demanding that people stop posting to X. They're just asking them to post a bit less. It's certainly inventive, but a little wistful, as though they're aware how unlikely this is to work. A recent Pew Research Center analysis found that many news influencers have Bluesky accounts (I'm one of them) but that, like me, two-thirds post irregularly. By contrast, more than 80 percent still post to X on most days. Engagement on Bluesky appears to have peaked in mid-November. It's now down about 50 percent, and the decline shows no sign of leveling out. This is the tyranny of social media network effects. When a network grows, each new user makes it more valuable to every other user, enabling exponential growth. When the users start leaving, however, those network effects also hasten the decline. Nor is this process likely to be halted by organizing your pals and exhorting people to be better, or getting progressive writers to post to Bluesky before X. Yes, seeding platforms early with a small group of influential individuals can help it grow, as other users flock to be around them. But when that movement is organized by liberal groups, it's most likely to appeal to folks who are very interested in progressive politics — which is to say, the other people who have already moved to Bluesky. You can't blame them for trying, I suppose. But wait, actually, I can. Because even if this works, moving progressives off X into Bluesky's beautiful blue bubble isn't a great idea for the movement. This effort isn't just a doomed attempt to re-create the old Twitter. It's likely to sap already-waning progressive influence and make the movement itself less politically effective. Consider why progressive groups are so eager to hasten the demise of X and move their users to other platforms. One reason is simply that they are mad at Musk for supporting Donald Trump and allowing the alt-right to flourish on X. But another is that they are trying to duplicate what used to be an incredible platform for liberal influence. For roughly a decade, Twitter hosted what is lightheartedly called the 'national conversation' on issues of the day, particularly social justice and public health. Twitter never had that many users, compared with Instagram or Facebook. But it had a big group of influential users — politicians, policymakers, journalists and academics, all of whom were engaged in a 24/7 conversation about politics and current events. That was a boon to progressives, who wielded outsize influence on the platform because they were early adopters who outnumbered the conservatives. They were also better organized and better networked, and had the sympathy of Twitter's professional-class employees, who proved increasingly susceptible to liberals' demands for tighter moderation policies on things such as using male pronouns to refer to a transgender woman. Moderation suppressed conservative users and stories that hurt the left — most notoriously, the story about Hunter Biden's laptop, which Twitter throttled as 'disinformation' in the run-up to the 2020 election. Of course, progressive Twitter mobs also policed the discourse themselves, securing high-profile firings that made many people afraid to cross them. Thus, that national conversation ended up skewed toward liberal views, creating the illusion that their ideas were more popular than they actually were. That's a major reason that institutions went all-in on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, and why the 2020 Democratic primary field moved so far to the left that Kamala Harris was still struggling to backtrack four years later. All that changed when Musk bought Twitter. It's not surprising that progressives want to return to the good old days. But it's not working, and I'm skeptical it ever will. The people who have migrated to Bluesky tend to be those who feel the most visceral disgust for Musk and Trump, plus a smattering of those who are merely curious and another smattering who are tired of the AI slop and unregenerate racism that increasingly pollutes their X feeds. Because the Musk and Trump haters are the largest and most passionate group, the result is something of an echo chamber where it's hard to get positive engagement unless you're saying things progressives want to hear — and where the negative engagement on things they don't want to hear can be intense. That's true even for content that isn't obviously political: Ethan Mollick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School who studies AI, recently announced that he'll be limiting his Bluesky posting because AI discussions on the platform are too 'fraught.' All this is pretty off-putting for folks who aren't already rather progressive, and that creates a threefold problem for the ones who dream of getting the old band back together. Most obviously, it makes it hard for the platform to build a large enough userbase for the company to become financially self-sustaining, or for liberals to amass the influence they wielded on old Twitter. There, they accumulated power by shaping the contours of a conversation that included a lot of non-progressives. On Bluesky, they're mostly talking among themselves. One can say the same about Truth Social, of course, but that's not an example the left should be eager to emulate. Segregating yourself in a political silo amplifies any political movement's worst tendencies, giving free rein to your most toxic adherents and cutting you off from vital feedback about, say, your unpopular tariff policies. Something similar has happened on Bluesky. The nasty fringe has become even nastier: A Bluesky technical adviser recently felt the need to clarify that 'The 'let's tell anyone we don't like to kill themselves' crowd are not welcome here' because left-wing trolls kept urging people who disagreed with them to commit suicide. And without the leavening influence of their opponents, Bluesky discourse appears even more censorious and doctrinaire than what progressives were saying on old Twitter. When you never hear from the other side, it's pretty easy to talk yourself into a political dead end. That might be enough for the political dead-enders. But it's a terrible mistake for any political movement that actually hopes to rack up some durable victories.

Prices of eggs and gas are down. Does Trump deserve credit, or is something else going on?
Prices of eggs and gas are down. Does Trump deserve credit, or is something else going on?

San Francisco Chronicle​

timean hour ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Prices of eggs and gas are down. Does Trump deserve credit, or is something else going on?

President Donald Trump ran on promises to bring down prices for Americans. Today, prices of eggs and gas are down from their peaks of the past few years. Can he take credit? Nope, experts say. In both cases, prices were expected to come down as external factors abated. There's no compelling, recently implemented federal policy that had much impact on either commodity. First, let's look at the numbers. A year ago, the average national price of a gallon of unleaded gas was $3.47, according to AAA, and $4.88 a gallon in California. So far this month, the average price is $3.14 a gallon nationally and $4.77 in California. (Gas prices are higher in California for a combination of reasons, including regulatory issues, the special type of gas required to be sold here, and the highest gasoline taxes in the country.) • Got money questions? Here's how to send them to our California budgeting advice columnist. Doug Johnson, a spokesperson for AAA Northern California, said gas industry experts predicted prices were going to come down this year 'no matter who would've won the 2024 election.' Egg prices have fluctuated a lot since the most recent bird flu outbreak began in 2022. A year ago, the average price of a dozen eggs was $2.35. Prices skyrocketed from $2.11 in October to an all-time high of $8.17 a dozen in March. As of this week, the average price has dropped to $2.54 a dozen — only 8% higher than a year ago — and is likely to continue dropping as bird flu detections decline. 'Eggs have come down 400%,' Trump declared, wrongly, in a White House interview on Fox News. Going from $8.17 to $2.54 would work out to a 68.9% decrease. 'Price of eggs has dropped 61% since Trump took office,' declared Fox Business in a piece comparing January and June egg prices. A headline on the right-wing news and opinion site Daily Caller said, 'Grocery Prices See Biggest Drop In 5 Years As Trump's Policies Take Effect.' But, again, experts say Trump's policies aren't driving the price decreases. So what actually is behind them? Why gas prices have come down in California Gas is down 13 cents a gallon just from last week in the Bay Area, said Patrick De Haan, the head of petroleum analysis for cost comparison website GasBuddy. That's more than the drop we've seen at the national level — only 2 cents compared with the previous week. Most of the recent drop here is because refinery issues in California have begun to resolve, De Haan said. However, refinery repairs are ongoing, so the decline may be only temporary, he added. Though Trump ran on 'drill, baby, drill' and his administration has discussed opening public lands for oil and gas drilling, federal policy takes a long time to work its way to the price at the pump, De Haan said. 'It really takes years for those types of policies to have a broad significant impact,' he said. Both California and national gas prices are up from January, when Trump took office. Why eggs are getting cheaper again Though the current bird flu outbreak, now in its third year, is not over, it's not as bad as it was at the start of 2025. Detections of bird flu in commercial and backyard flocks have decreased by a lot, which is part of the reason egg prices have dropped, said Daniel Sumner, a professor of agricultural economics at UC Davis. This isn't the first time bird flu has hit chicken farms in the United States. The most recent outbreak was in 2015. Like ebola, bird flu is endemic, Sumner said: Somewhere in the world, there's always a wild bird that is carrying the virus. What's different about this outbreak is how long it's lasted. Often, like many pandemics humans have faced before, an outbreak hits and then fades away. That hasn't been the case yet with this incidence of bird flu. Bird flu was first detected in a flock in Dubois, Ind., in February 2022. A year ago, when eggs were $2.35 a dozen, there were 12 confirmed bird flu detections in the U.S. The virus was detected more frequently in commercial and backyard flocks throughout late 2024 and early 2025: 16 in October, 62 detections in November, 122 in December, a peak of 133 in January. When bird flu is detected in a flock, even if it's found in only one chicken, industry practice dictates that the entire flock should be culled — agriculture-speak for killed. Some of those flocks consist of thousands, even millions, of birds. That has translated into a grim toll: More than 174 million poultry, including commercially farmed chicken and backyard flocks, have died or been killed because of bird flu, according to a CDC estimate. The abrupt drop in supply contributes to price increases. However, only 12 instances of bird flu were detected in May 2025, according to the USDA, and the agency said it hasn't been detected in any flock in California since February. Members of the Trump administration laid out a number of potential policy changes to tackle the bird flu epidemic: increasing imports, boosting biosecurity and exploring vaccination. Sumner dismissed the foreign imports as 'publicity' and said the other suggestions haven't been put into effect at a broad scale since Trump took office. 'There have been no significant changes to egg policy,' he said. The other two pieces of the pricing puzzle relate to how grocery stores get eggs to put on the shelves and how egg demand works compared with other products. Grocery stores typically have contracts with specific farms to get their eggs, Sumner said. If the egg farmer can't perform — in other words, if they have no eggs to sell because they've culled their herd because of an outbreak — the contract usually lets the retailer find another source for eggs. So grocery store chains have been able to use alternative providers. At the same time, farmers that did have to cull their herds have now had enough time to restart their flocks: Chickens can begin laying eggs when they're around 4 months old. Egg demand is typically known as inelastic — it doesn't change much. That's because there aren't a ton of good substitutes for eggs, Sumner said. Though bird flu can hit a flock of chickens being raised for meat as easily as it can hit a flock of egg-layers, we haven't seen the same price surge in chicken breasts and thighs as we have for eggs. Sumner said to think of the difference like this: If chicken meat goes up in price, grocery shoppers will swap in pork, beef, beans, tofu or other protein sources. But it's tricky to find a suitable one-to-one substitute for eggs in a baking recipe or an omelette. That's part of why shoppers have been so sensitive to the price of eggs. That said, persistent high prices have curbed some of America's appetite for eggs. A recent report on the egg market from the USDA described consumer demand as 'lackluster' and 'sluggish.' People have found alternatives. This year, Sumner said, his grandchildren's Easter eggs were the plastic variety.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store