Skip to main content
Ads-ADVERTISEMENT-2
Watch after 35s
X

The Placebo University: How Higher Ed Is Performing Progress but Delivering Disillusion


A few years ago, at an edtech summit in Boston, I listened to a university president declare solemnly, “We must act like a future-ready institution.” Behind him, a glossy video looped on a screen showcasing their new AI-powered student support platform, complete with uplifting music and polished graphics.

The applause was enthusiastic. But I couldn’t help thinking of a conversation just a week earlier with an adjunct professor over coffee in a small New York City college. She was juggling classes at three different institutions, teaching five courses, and still couldn't land a full-time contract—let alone benefits.

“It’s not that I don’t love teaching,” she said, half-smiling, “but it feels like we’ve all just become tools for algorithms.”

This is the paradox of our time. We’re surrounded by the aesthetics of innovation—new platforms, digital dashboards, AI tutors—while the foundations of higher education quietly erode beneath the surface.

Take online degrees, for instance. Once praised for their promise of democratizing access to education, they have become a cautionary tale. The University of Phoenix partnered with ManpowerGroup to offer “free upskilling” to employees. The reality? Algorithm-graded assignments, accelerated completion, and minimal instructor interaction. It resembled a factory more than a classroom.

Then there’s the Arizona Global Campus (formerly Ashford University), which was fined $21 million for misleading recruitment and later granted over $70 million in federal loan forgiveness for defrauded students.

At the heart of this ecosystem are for-profit Online Program Managers like 2U, Pearson, and Academic Partnerships, who manage everything from marketing to enrollment to curriculum—taking as much as 60% of tuition revenue in return. A 2022 U.S. Government Accountability Office report warned that these opaque relationships were inflating costs while eroding educational accountability.

In Baltimore County, Maryland, the public school system recently launched an AI career program, intended to teach students machine learning, coding, and the social implications of smart systems. It sounded promising. But much of the curriculum was outsourced to vendors. The initiative leaned more on tech’s symbolic capital than any proven pedagogical benefit.

This is not just a Baltimore story. Around the globe, under political and economic pressure, education departments sign deals with tech suppliers in the name of modernization. These moves are often driven more by optics than evidence. As a result, adoption of new platforms becomes policy in itself—innovation becomes a press release rather than a pedagogical breakthrough.

Meanwhile, universities pour billions into edtech infrastructure—hardware, analytics, AI systems—framed as non-negotiable upgrades. But with every flashy dashboard or new data model, a deeper contradiction surfaces.

Institutions feel compelled to adopt new technologies to maintain public credibility. Yet what’s delivered rarely matches the rhetoric. Faculty meetings, student town halls, and alumni circles all echo the same quiet frustration: this is about appearance, not substance.

When resources for digital platforms outweigh investment in faculty development, or when chatbot systems replace real human advisors, one has to ask—who is this transformation really for?

Ironically, the pressure to “prove equity” has itself become a driver of inequality. Universities scramble to display technological sophistication to avoid looking negligent. But investing in the wrong tools—costly, untested, and often unregulated—leads to poor performance without meaningful change.

We now live in a bizarre bind: universities must adopt technology to avoid public backlash. But when they do so superficially, they become participants in what is best described as a political placebo. It soothes donors, placates media, and maintains public calm—while the underlying conditions worsen.

Students still struggle with access. Faculty remain underpaid. Core questions of pedagogy are quietly handed off to algorithms and IT vendors.

In this light, edtech is no longer just a toolkit—it’s a performance. The rituals of transformation are recited like a liturgy. But the outcomes remain shallow, uneven, and often exploitative.

Unless institutions begin to make deeper structural commitments—to funding, pedagogy, labor, and purpose—technology won’t be a solution. It’ll just be another stage set.

And this performance has real social costs. When universities charge six-figure fees for online degrees, they normalize debt as a prerequisite for progress. Student loan debt in the U.S. now exceeds $1.77 trillion. Nearly one in five borrowers are in default or behind on payments.

That debt delays homeownership, family formation, and mobility. It erodes the promise of education. And it hits hardest for those from disadvantaged backgrounds—students who borrow more, default more, and face harsher long-term consequences, all in pursuit of degrees that increasingly fail to deliver economic stability.

Meanwhile, adjuncts prop up the system—teaching the majority of courses at many institutions while lacking healthcare, academic freedom, or job security. The illusion of digital progress often rests on invisible labor exploitation.

The public’s declining trust in higher education isn’t about anti-intellectualism. It’s because institutions have promised transformation and delivered transactions. That’s the deeper price of political placebo—not just symbolic failure, but the erosion of higher education as a public good.

Across elite campuses and resource-strapped colleges alike, the pressure to appear “inclusive,” “innovative,” “efficient,” and “future-proof” has blurred the lines between mission and marketing.

Even the differences between Ivy Leagues and community colleges, rural campuses and urban research hubs, are flattened by the performance logic. Everyone adopts the same language—dashboards, slogans, rankings—while deeper educational values like mentorship, inquiry, and intellectual risk are sidelined.

And so we must ask: better for what? Better for whom?

We don’t need another platform or initiative. We need to return to education’s deeper commitments: critical inquiry, public service, and human development. That means transparency, relationship-centered pedagogy, and epistemic justice.

There are hopeful signs. Some institutions are reevaluating their OPM contracts. Faculty unions are challenging algorithmic management. Open-source, community-driven platforms are emerging. Around the world, educators are asking: Can real learning be scaled—or is scale itself an illusion?

Placebos persist because they comfort. But real education begins with discomfort—with rejecting the idea that metrics equal meaning, that visibility equals value.

To break the spell, universities must re-center their ethical and civic purpose. They must care more about people than platforms, about listening than branding. They must fund the humanities not for ROI, but because they ask what "return" even means.

Students must no longer be seen as content consumers, but as co-creators of knowledge. They should be invited to reclaim education from utility—and restore it to a moral and democratic practice.

Policymakers must stop treating education as a market and start seeing it as infrastructure—as vital to society as bridges or hospitals. Not built for profit, but for justice.

Sometimes, real transformation doesn’t look like a new app. It looks like an adjunct finally earning a living wage. A student seeing their identity reflected in the syllabus. A teacher having time to deeply listen.

Universities can’t be saved by simulation. They must be rebuilt—as places of truth-telling, humility, and presence. This work is slow. It’s hard. But it’s the only future worth building.