COLLEGE: THE BIGGEST SCAM IN AMERICA

To pick up from Warp Whistle 11 of “The Investor’s Warp Whistles,” what follows are specific examples of administrative bloat as well as lessons from what a college looks like today.

Administrative Bloat

These excessive expenditures serve to enhance the university’s brand or to attract prospective students—but they do nothing to improve the quality of education!

Given this stark reality, it’s apparent to anyone with eyes that college has become nothing but an organization vainly in the business of marketing itself to its paying customers (i.e. the students) by means of providing the most lavish halls, the flashiest amenities, or the most gilded floor tiles.

One prominent example is the University of Alabama, which in 2020 spent a whopping $92.5 million on a 10,000-seat addition to its football stadium, bringing the total capacity to over 100,000 seats. Such a massive expenditure on athletics, while beneficial to the university’s sports revenue and “prestige,” has absolutely nothing to do with academics and disproportionately impacts students who see their tuition dollars funneled into these projects.

Another instance of unnecessary collegiate spending is at Texas A&M University, which in 2015 completed a $485 million renovation of Kyle Field, its football stadium. This project was funded through bonds that ultimately must be paid back by students and taxpayers.

At Ohio State University, the 2018 construction of the Covelli Center, a $48.9 million multi-sport arena, represents a significant investment in non-academic infrastructure.

Student centers, like the $175 million Dr. Phillips Academic Commons at the University of Central Florida, feature luxurious amenities to exclusively serve as a recruitment tool rather than as an academic facility.

I wish I could say the list stopped there. But there are literally hundreds of disgusting examples demonstrating how college administrators choose to ignore its primary mission (providing a valuable education) and instead spend wild sums of money on construction projects and amenities entirely non-essential to the educational arena.

Understanding the size and scope of this bloat only adds mountains of salt on top of an already-open wound when one considers the absurdly large college tuition fees which struggling students are asked to pay. 

To provide further evidence of this sickening trend:

1. In 2012 the University of California, Berkeley undertook a $321 million renovation of its Memorial Stadium, which was built on an active fault line.

• The renovation project, which included seismic retrofitting and luxury amenities such as premium seating, club levels, and exclusive suites, was funded through debt.

• According to many reports, the university projected that it would take up to 100 years to pay off the debt.

• This herculean project demonstrates just how much colleges prioritize sports over the academic needs of students.

• The University of Texas at Austin completed a $175 million renovation of the Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium in 2021, which included a new south end zone with premium seating, lounges, and food options.

• The university “justified” the expense by pointing to the revenue generated by its football program, further capitulating to the assertion that college has become far more concerned with “Sportsball” than education.

1. And perhaps one of the most controversial examples is the University of Oregon‘s construction of the $68 million Hatfield-Dowlin Complex, an opulent football operations center funded by Nike co-founder Phil Knight.

• This facility features a barbershop, private theater, and lounge areas with leather furniture, making it more of a luxury resort than an educational facility.

• While the project was funded by private donations, its construction underscores the growing trend of universities investing in extravagant, non-academic facilities at the expense of their educational missions.

Recognizing the massive bloat and a far greater focus on extracurriculars than education, it’s no great surprise that a college degree, in many areas, is as worthless as the paper on which it’s printed.

Free Speech is Not a Priority at Universities

It shouldn’t need to be stated that free speech is a cornerstone value for our society. This especially must be true in a collegiate environment where innovative, and perhaps controversial, ideas ideally would be vigorously debated and discussed by both faculty and students. For real learning happens in a crucible of ideas!

However, over recent years, there have been numerous reports and studies suggesting that politics has become a dividing line; countless ideas, philosophies, mantras, opinions, ideologies, religious beliefs, topics, or mere thoughts are considered “taboo” on a college campus.

Specifically, conservative students and faculty on college campuses routinely face significant challenges and hostility when expressing views that may chide with leftist ideology, or the majority opinion held by University Administration.

Below are several examples and studies that highlight instances where individuals were routinely silenced, vilified, or punished for daring to voice something other than Leftist ideology while in a college setting:

1. Study by the Heterodox Academy

• Heterodox Academy is a group that advocates for viewpoint diversity in academia. In a 2019 study, they found that a significant percentage of conservative students self-censor on campus. The report showed that conservative students were more likely to feel uncomfortable expressing their political views, fearing backlash from peers or professors. They also reported being concerned that their grades might be affected by their political beliefs.
• The study concluded that a lack of viewpoint diversity can lead to self-censorship, particularly among conservative students.

2. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

• FIRE, an organization that focuses on free speech on college campuses, has documented multiple cases where conservative students and speakers have been silenced, disinvited, or faced punitive actions. Their annual report, “Spotlight on Speech Codes”, highlights instances where universities have implemented restrictive policies that disproportionately affect conservative viewpoints.
• For example, FIRE has reported cases where conservative speakers were disinvited from campuses, often due to protests or concerns about safety. In many instances, conservative students organizing these events have faced administrative-pushback or been required to pay high security fees.

3. 2020 Survey by College Pulse, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), and RealClearEducation

• A survey of over 20,000 college students conducted in 2020 found that conservative students were more likely than their liberal counterparts to feel that they couldn’t express their views on campus. Specifically, 44% of conservative students said they felt unable to openly share their political opinions, compared to 16% of liberal students.
• The survey also found that conservative students were more likely to self-censor in classroom discussions and assignments due to concerns about potential negative repercussions.

4. University of North Carolina System Study (2019)

• A 2019 study commissioned by the University of North Carolina system found that conservative students were significantly more likely to feel pressure to conform to liberal viewpoints on campus. The report noted that conservative students often felt isolated and worried that expressing their views could lead to social ostracism or academic penalties.
• The study showed that conservative students were twice as likely as liberal students to say they “often” felt they had to keep their views to themselves.

5. Case of Nicholas and Erika Christakis at Yale University (2015)

• In 2015, Yale professors Nicholas and Erika Christakis were caught in controversy over an email suggesting that students be allowed to wear Halloween costumes of their choice, a stance perceived as defending free speech. Defending students’ rights to self-expression led to calls for the couple’s resignation.
• The incident was widely viewed as an example of a conservative or libertarian viewpoint being aggressively silenced by a dominant progressive student culture. Although not directly about students, the Christakis case shows how faculty who don’t align with left-leaning perspectives can face intense backlash.

6. Berkeley Protests and Disinvitations

• UC Berkeley, historically known for its role in the free speech movement, has ironically become a focal point for accusations of conservative censorship. Several high-profile conservative speakers had their events canceled or were met with violent protests that led to the university citing safety concerns.
• In these cases, conservative students who organized the events were accused of fomenting divisiveness, and in some cases, were penalized with increased security fees or administrative restrictions, leading to claims of unequal treatment.

7. ADF Lawsuits and Legal Actions

• The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative legal group, has represented several conservative students in lawsuits against universities for allegedly suppressing their freedom of speech. In one case at Kennesaw State University, a conservative student group claimed they were restricted from displaying a pro-life display while other groups faced no such restrictions.
• ADF has also represented students at several universities who have claimed that their conservative views led to punitive actions, such as being forced to relocate demonstrations to less visible areas or being denied the same privileges as more liberal groups.

8. Sarah Lawrence College (2019)

• In 2019, a professor at Sarah Lawrence College, Samuel Abrams, faced backlash after he wrote a New York Times op-ed criticizing the lack of ideological diversity among college administrators. Abrams, a conservative, reported being harassed and receiving threats. His office was vandalized, and some students and faculty called for his dismissal, illustrating how conservative views, even from faculty members, can be met with punitive responses.

9. Jordan Peterson’s Ostracism & Suspension (2016)

• Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychology professor and public intellectual, is a notable example of a figure in academia who faced ostracism and punitive actions simply due to his views.
• Background: Jordan Peterson, a professor at the University of Toronto, became widely known in 2016 for his opposition to Canada’s Bill C-16, which he argued would compel speech by requiring the use of gender-neutral pronouns. His stance was controversial and sparked widespread debate, leading to accusations of “transphobia” from the administration.
• Consequences: Following his public opposition to the bill, Peterson faced significant backlash from the university. He reported receiving multiple disciplinary warnings from the University of Toronto, though the university denied formally disciplining him. Despite this, the controversy led to protests against him, calls for his removal from the university, and significant criticism from fellow academics. Although he was not officially suspended at that time, the intense pressure and ostracism he faced were emblematic of the broader issues around academic freedom and the expression of conservative views in academia.
• Further Ostracism: In 2023, Peterson was ordered by the Ontario College of Psychologists to undergo “Social Media Retraining” due to his public statements, which were deemed inappropriate by the college. Peterson argued that this was another instance of ideological enforcement, further intensifying debates about the limits of free speech and the consequences of holding controversial views within academic and professional circles.
• Peterson’s experiences illustrate how expressing conservative or non-conformist views, especially in the context of sensitive topics like gender identity, can lead to significant professional and social repercussions within academic environments. His case is often cited as an example of the punitive challenges conservative academics face in expressing their viewpoints.

10. College Presidents Scandal & Resignations (2023)

• Who can forget the recent scandal involving the college presidents of Penn, Harvard and MIT, along with other prominent college leaders, which erupted after a contentious hearing before Congress where they were questioned about their institutions’ handling of antisemitism and free speech issues on campus?
• During the hearing, the presidents faced intense scrutiny for their tone-deaf and ‘college bubble’ responses, which were perceived by many as inadequate in addressing rising antisemitism and bias against conservative viewpoints. The fallout from the hearing led to a wave of public criticism, resulting in the resignation of several university leaders such as Claudine Gay and Liz Magill (Presidents of Harvard and Penn, respectively) who were seen as failing to uphold principles of free expression & protect minority groups.
• The controversy sparked a broader debate about the role of higher education institutions in fostering an environment of open dialogue and inclusivity, and the responsibility of leadership in these matters.

Summarizing Education’s War on Conservatism

Summarizing the above research and examples, it’s clear that free speech very often takes a backseat on liberal campuses—which are far more concerned with pushing liberal agenda, #woke ideology, political correctness, and Marxist propaganda on its students.

In fact, a 2018 study published in the journal Academic Questions found that approximately 60-90% of faculty at universities identified as liberal or left-leaning.

A 2020 survey by the Heterodox Academy indicated that a significant majority of university administrators hold liberal views. The study found that over 80% of administrators identified as liberal or progressive.

A preponderance of political leaning towards one side or the other is certainly no threat to the quality of education, nor even free speech, in and of itself. However, following the 2020-2024 war on free speech by the Left—culminating in outright calls for censorship, “cancellation,” and silencing of certain “unapproved” opinions during the Covid regime, it’s clear that Left-leaning Universities are no bastion for civil liberties or the 1^st Amendment. Quite the opposite!

As mentioned above, college has lost its way—its mission and purpose to seek truth and guide students to sound employment. The University is no longer a crucible fostering robust dialogue around a diversity of ideas & viewpoints, as it once was.

Debate used to be a critical tool of higher learning and education. For what better way to showcase a command of a subject than to debate its merits against others who might disagree? Good ideas should drive out bad ideas, no!?

Rather, college has instead chosen to informally adopt a mantra of “it’s our ideology or the highway.” Contrary viewpoints, such as those not held by the Administration, are eschewed; those who dare to voice them are turned into pariahs, disciplined, or silenced.

Therefore, while many Higher Education may pretend to admire and support free expression – a virtue absolutely vital in society which should be celebrated in an academic setting – there instead exist countless examples and studies suggesting that those speaking up for objective truth or conservative values feel silenced or face social and institutional barriers to expressing their views.

The handful of examples cited above highlight a broader concern about viewpoint diversity in higher education, especially the fear of social ostracism or academic repercussions for expressing anti-Marxist opinions and datapoints.

College Just Ain’t Worth the Massive Cost

The debate over the value of a college education in America also has intensified in recent years, with many (particularly men) questioning whether the substantial financial investment required for a degree is worth the return.

Empirically speaking, the cost of attending a university in the United States is certainly no longer worth the high price tag, particularly for many graduates who end up with significant debt and limited job prospects.

Given this data, if you’re currently considering college, take a breath or two before rushing off to “Grade 13.”

Unless you have a very specific career goal in mind that REQUIRES a college degree (e.g. any STEM job or professional occupation such as engineer, lawyer, chemist, doctor, etc.), I would highly recommend you instead blow on that Warp Whistle and SKIP OUT on $100K+ worth of indentured servitude—which you need like a hole in the head.

You’ll get a second benefit as well—beyond that of not being a slave to your college debt for the rest of your life; you’ll also get a jump-start on four wasted years which you can use to work on your career or build valuable investing skills which will help you build generational wealth.

Quality of a College Education has Massively Deteriorated

It would actually be an argument worth having if the massive cost of college was somehow all “worth it” because the QUALITY of the education was just so high and so impressive that it was worth the cost.

For example, some people still purchase massively overpriced cars like Lamborghinis, Bugattis, Rolls-Royces, etc. In such cases, the outrageous price tags (e.g. $265K for a “Lambo”) can be offset by the high quality of the vehicle or the social status it affords.

BUT that sadly is not even the case with respect to the quality of a college education. Although the price of college education has tripled since the 1980s, the quality of education has significantly decreased since then!

Rot in the Economics Department

Take, for example, one of the most important subjects to learn in college: Economics.

Not only are a number of Economics departments across the globe failing to teach students basic macro-economics, but professors are actually spoon-feeding outright lies and postmodern Marxist hogwash in the classroom!

Currently within the halls of many universities, economics professors ignore all prevailing data on the topic and instead teach that price controls, such as rent control laws, minimum wage laws, and anti-gouging measures, can actually have positive effects under specific circumstances!

Many economics departments now embrace so-called Heterodox Economics (which includes schools of thought like Marxist, Keynesian, or institutional economics). Within these postmodern frameworks there is a greater emphasis on the benefits of price controls and government intervention in markets. These professors argue that price controls can address social inequalities, prevent exploitation, and ensure that basic needs are met, especially during crises.

Now, when I was in school at the University of Vermont (and it was very progressive even then), my Economics professor explained in Econ 101 that price controls, including rent controls, minimum wage laws, and anti-gouging regulations lead to massive market distortions, such as shortages, reduced supply, and inefficiencies.

This Economic reality was established and proven long ago.

This explanation of market distortion is not “opinion;” it is fact. A mountain of data and empirical evidence have supported these economic conclusions for hundreds of years. Price controls artificially interfere and skew demand and supply curves and manipulate the natural functioning of the market, leading to unintended negative consequences. This fact is as well-known and established in economic circles as the fact the sky’s natural color is blue.

This economic axiom is an objective fact and is supported by peer-reviewed data and research. All the “wishing and hoping” that supply/demand curves behaved differently won’t make it so. Scarcity is an economic reality and cannot be undone by Marxist propaganda. For if wishes were horses, beggars would ride!

Today the quality of college education is so eroded and bastardized by Postmodernism and Marxism that even fundamental economic truths and axioms are under fire!

If a student at today’s college must pay $100,000+ to receive only blatant mistruths and lies about the basic realities of scarcity and the impacts of government manipulation in the marketplace, the revered institution of College has indeed become entirely and utterly defunct. It is a nail in the coffin of Higher Learning itself! 

Quality Breakdown

The declining quality of college education over the past 20 years has been marked by a decrease in students’ ability to learn and apply valuable skills after graduation.

One major factor is the shift toward a “customer service” model in higher education, where institutions prioritize student satisfaction over academic rigor.

A 2016 study published in The Journal of Higher Education found that students now spend significantly less time studying compared to previous decades, with the average study time dropping from 24 hours per week in 1961 to about 14 hours in 2003.

This reduction in study time, coupled with grade inflation—where the average GPA has steadily increased without a corresponding rise in learning outcomes—suggests that students are graduating with less depth of knowledge and fewer critical thinking skills.

Additionally, the quality of education has been impacted by the increasing reliance on adjunct faculty and the expansion of online courses. Adjunct professors, who often lack the job security and resources of full-time faculty, are often less available for student mentoring and may have fewer opportunities to innovate in their teaching.

A 2012 study by the American Association of University Professors highlighted that adjunct faculty are typically paid low wages and often juggle multiple jobs, which can detract from their ability to engage deeply with students.

Finally, while online education has made college more accessible, research shows that it often falls short in fostering the same level of critical thinking and practical skills as in-person instruction.

A 2019 study by the Brookings Institution found that students enrolled in online courses were more likely to perform poorly compared to their peers in traditional classroom settings, particularly in subjects requiring hands-on learning and interaction.

Such alarming trends of educational decline indicate a broader erosion in the quality of education, where students graduate with degrees but lack the practical skills and critical thinking abilities needed to succeed in the workforce. In other words, many of their degrees are worthless!

Heavy-Handed Intransigence & Refusal to Study the Data

Last but not least, in recent years University administrations have ironically demonstrated themselves to be the least ‘learned’ and most intransigent of all organizations, choosing to mandate draconian policies at their campuses even when faced with data showing such measures to be harmful and completely unnecessary (not to mention a violation of personal liberty).

For example, in 2022 approximately 318 colleges and universities in the United States denied higher education to a large number of young Americans by mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for all students.

This was a significant number, reflecting an overreaction to the amount of real risk present to the primary demographic of the institution. In self-proclaimed efforts to maintain ‘a safe campus environment,’ the civil rights of students as well as medical and bodily freedom were conveniently put on the shelf.

To add insult to injury, more than fifty-five (55) peer-reviewed or double-blind medical studies surfaced between 2021-2023 documenting and demonstrating the efficacy data for the vaccine(s); these data evidenced that the mRNA vaccines neither prevented the spread of the Covid-19 virus nor were they statistically useful for the age demographic of the vast majority of college-age students (those in the age group 18-25).

Despite this information, institutions such as Harvard University, Rutgers University, and Johns Hopkins University were among those rigorously enforcing vaccine requirements, even as many schools began to relax or eliminate such mandates in response to changing public health guidance as well as growing debates over civil freedoms, rising covid-19 vaccine injuries in the young, and medical freedom.

This trend marked a demarcation point in higher education—when medical freedom and civil rights took a clear backseat to government propaganda misrepresenting the data-supported and real risks of Covid-19 for healthy young persons aged 18-25.

Instead of Higher Learning pushing back on bad information and clear propaganda using the tenants espoused in their sacred hallways (i.e. logic, reason, data-supported arguments), it instead quietly kowtowed to the US Government—which, in return, continued to provide these institutions with a steady flow of educational grants as well as provide billions of dollars in financial aid to students so they could afford the massive price tag of college.

This trend of mandates, administrative intransigence, and data avoidance within universities abated slightly over the last 12 months, but not by nearly enough.

For example, even in 2024 a notable number of colleges in the United States continue to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for their students. Specifically, around 60 universities still require students to be vaccinated, even though many institutions have relaxed such mandates in response to updated public health guidelines, proven lack of risk for the age demographic of those attending the universities (i.e. the students), and concerns about the long-term efficacy and side effects of the vaccines.

Notable schools among those maintaining these requirements include Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, and Rutgers University.

These policies remain contentious, with critics arguing that they infringe on personal freedoms and are increasingly unnecessary given public health data finally being acknowledged.

It should be noted that a myriad Covid-19 vaccine efficacy reports and medical studies originally surfaced as early as 2021 but were largely derided and disregarded by the college administration as well as governments until fairly recently.

Men are Fleeing College Faster than Women

As a result of the issues described above, many young people are exploring alternative education pathways that offer better returns on investment, less debt, and more direct entry into the workforce.

This is particularly the case for men—whereby over the last decade women have grown to make up the majority of college students in the United States.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), women now account for approximately 59% of total undergraduate enrollment, while men account for about 41%. The gender gap is also evident at the graduate level, where women continue to outnumber men; women represent 58% of students enrolled in graduate programs.

Many college-age men have largely come to realize that the implied “value” of college is no longer worth its hefty, government-bloated price tag.

It is perhaps a case of muted irony that the “smartest people in the room” are now those who choose to pick up a calculator and decide to leave college in the rearview mirror.

Those Shirking College Become More Prosperous

These intelligent (yet not college-educated) young persons are at the same time picking up their Warp Whistles and catapulting themselves well ahead of their college-educated peers—who remain stuck for four-years in classrooms reading about gender studies and participating in their fine-arts curriculum.

These college students will graduate with a mountain of debt ($50-100K+) hanging on their necks like an albatross!

Question: And what do diligent college graduates get for all their time, trouble and financial outlay…?

Answer: They get the ‘benefit’ of very few viable job prospects as well as the challenge of being four years behind the curve with respect to their (smarter) peers who decided to leave college behind.

However, those who choose to skip college can build up their careers (many of which now do NOT require a college degree), seek after passive income streams, and build generational wealth.

In today’s fast-moving world, these valuable skills can be learned via a basic internet connection or in a community of like-minded, intelligent professionals.

Society has perhaps reached a new age when the act of not ‘educating’ oneself in the college classroom is now one of the smartest things they can possibly do.