Faux Facting, and Its Exploding Popularity in the Anti-College Movement

A novel, semi-ridiculous, some-what cultural (usually negative), made-up word seems to make things collectively true. Once there’s a coined term (a/k/a neologism)—doom scrolling, phubbing, FOMO, quiet quitting, trip stacking, ghosting, gaslighting, mansplaining—its relevance grows exponentially (especially in the media). In 2019, journalist Rebecca Reid saw a “sad” post by Kendall Jenner, coined the term “sadfishing,” and then suddenly:

Behavioral specialist and researcher Cara Petrofes has since defined “sadfishing” as the “a tendency of social media users to publish exaggerations of their emotional states to generate sympathy,” …. She and her fellow researchers explored the social media phenomenon in a 2021 paper published in the Journal of American College Health, intrigued by its prevalence as a “maladaptive” coping mechanism among college students.

Made up term = “prevalence.”

Like sadfishing, faux facting is prevalent as a writing mechanism among journalists. “Faux facting” (I’m jumping on the neologism bandwagon) is the journalistic art of implying a fact when a fact isn’t really or fully there. This is especially true in higher education writing, where the media designs hazy, negative “facts” through one-sided stories, shallow research, and tactical framing.

One Story: A Universal Truth?

Faux facting often hinges on storytelling as truth. Assert the Earth is flat, and if you can find five people to tell their flat-Earth stories, you have a faux fact. In higher education, you see this with encompassing, “factual” headlines that are followed by personal stories as proof.

Take this higher education article for example: Gen Z is the new threat to the American college experience . In it, Business Insider’s Ayelet Sheffey quotes Gen Zer Sadie Shaw as saying:

It has been amazing for me to not be in debt. I have no student loans, like so many of my friends are in $100,000 in debt and student loans just to get a job that pays $60,000 a year.

While the article also contains data, Shaw’s story acts as the lede.[1] It’s the article’s all-important, powerful hook, one that standardizes Shaw’s situation and elevates it to that of an entire generation. Her story ties directly and immediately back to the “scary” title, suggesting—through one person and her unique position—that “Gen Z,” in all its entirety, is a “threat to the American college experience.”

One story = faux fact.

The “Expert” Quote

Equally faux factual is Shaw’s perception of higher education:

It has been amazing for me to not be in debt. I have no student loans, like so many of my friends are in $100,000 in debt and student loans just to get a job that pays $60,000 a year.[2]

Her individual viewpoint, complete with large, scary numbers, goes unchallenged and unconfirmed. Without more, this highly specific quote seems exactingly true (and representative of reality). But how true is it??

• Is there not an opposite Gen-Z voice—somewhere in our vast world—who thinks the college experience is “amazing”? Is Shaw’s voice representative of the 19M students (many of them Gen Z) who are enrolled in college?
• How does Shaw know that “many of my friends are in $100,000 in debt and student loans”? Did she survey her friends, or is this an assumption? And what constitutes this crisis of “many” … 2 or 5 or 10 or 100 friends?
• Are her many friends truly $100,000 in debt? This seems improbable considering the average student loan debt is about $29,000 per borrower .
• How does Shaw know that her many friends are working jobs that pay $60,000 a year? Do her friends readily and openly share their paychecks?
• While it’s implied, is a $60,000-a-year job a bad job for Gen Zers? If the average U.S. salary is $59,384 , a $60,000-a-year job places a Gen-Z grad above average at the start of their career.
• And left unanswered is this: Are her friends happy or unhappy with these $60,000-a-year jobs? Salary and debt seem open for discussion, but happiness and quality of life are not.

One quote = faux fact.

The Art of Framing Reality

Or consider this recent title/subtitle from the Pew Research Center:

Is College Worth It? ?

As economic outcomes for young adults with and without degrees have improved, Americans hold mixed views on the value of college

From this alone, the reader is left thinking that “worth” (i.e., the value of college) must be in jeopardy. The opening sentence not only reaffirms this, it implies a pandemic amongst “many Americans”:

At a time when many Americans are questioning the value of a four-year college degree, economic outcomes for young adults without a degree are improving.

So what exactly is this doomsday scenario based upon? Mostly, two surveys:

?Through framing, both surveys create a faux fact that “many Americans are questioning the value of a four-year college degree.” The first survey is framed as:

Only[3] one-in-four U.S. adults say 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.?

To some degree, I side with the three out of four Americans who think it’s NOT “extremely or very important to have a four-year college degree in order to get a well-paying job in today’s economy.” College isn’t for everyone, and I believe you can find a good job without a degree. BUT I also have a child in college. So how can I believe the former while also supporting the latter?

What Pew Research neglects to mention is that Americans can hold two opposite ideas in their heads. They can acknowledge that a college degree isn’t “extremely or very important” for a “well-paying” job while also believing that there’s immense value in attending college (e.g., the value found in one’s “dream” job or in a “purposeful” job or in maturity and growth). Ask this follow-up question, and Pew’s negative spin might be reversed:?

Even if a college degree isn’t “extremely or very important” for a “well-paying job,” is there still value in attending college?

The second survey is framed this way:

Only 22% say the cost of getting a four-year college degree today is worth it even if someone has to take out loans.[4] Some 47% say the cost is worth it only if someone doesn’t have to take out loans.[5] And 29% say the cost is not worth it.

Does this support the assertion that “many Americans are questioning the value of a four-year college degree”? Or is it just framed that way? Because framed a different way, this can be read as:

Nearly 70% of Americans (three-in-four U.S. adults) still believe a four-year college degree today is worth it, though finances are an important consideration. Only 29% (just one-in-four U.S. adults) say the cost is not worth it.

Biased framing = faux fact.

Unspoked Data Is Non-Existent Data

Writing for U.S. News, Alan Mallach warns that Higher Education [Is] on the Edge . He says:

[H]igher education in America is in serious trouble …. Total enrollment in two-year and four-year institutions of higher education peaked in 2010, and it has been tailing off ever since. … Large numbers of Americans appear to have soured on the idea that a college degree is worth the trouble.

Mallach wants to improve higher education, and I appreciate his ideas. Higher education is far from perfect, and there’s vast room for improvement. But like many people who speak about higher education (especially detractors), Mallach paints a statistically chilling picture. But is it really as bad as he says?

Mallach’s article, published in February 2024, neglects to mention relevant and available data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) Research Center. In October 2023, the NSC published this:

This fall, undergraduate enrollment grew for the first time since the beginning of the pandemic …. Initial fall 2023 enrollment data shows undergraduate enrollment increased 2.1 percent compared to 2022 and is now 1.2 percent above 2021 enrollments.

And in January 2024, they published this:

The latest National Student Clearinghouse Research Center report reveals positive news for higher education, with undergraduate enrollment growing 1.2% and graduate enrollment growing 0.6%.

The Current Term Enrollment Estimates report showed that freshman enrollment also grew this fall.

According to Mallach, “Total enrollment in two-year and four-year institutions of higher education peaked in 2010, and it has been tailing off ever since.” [emphasis added] This is a faux fact because it’s left unchallenged by unspoken (and yet highly relevant) data … i.e., NSC data (published before February 2024) which shows that enrollment has been “trending up” since fall of 2023.[6]

If, as Mallach contends, “Large numbers of Americans appear to have soured on the idea that a college degree is worth the trouble,”[7] why is college enrollment in America trending up??

Incomplete data = faux fact.

Fooled by a Faux Reality

The trap in reading the media is in trusting the media. At the very least, all journalists have a “viewership” agenda … to tell an eye-catching (typically shocking or scary) story. They shy away from balance because where there’s balance, impact is lessened by the “more honest” (but less scary) middle. Moreover, it’s much easier (and much lazier) to find a stat, quote, or story that reaffirms a “good” fiction than it is to dig into the nuances and contradictions that make up our complex reality.?

Faux facting is the antithesis of both complexity and reality; it creates black-or-white where there’s no such thing. This is especially true in the anti-college movement, which clings to black-or-white in its disparagement of higher education. Through faux facting, the anti-college movement steers the story into something frightening and apocalyptic, concealing reality (and its complexity) behind selected quotes, singular stories, biased framing, and unspoken data. ?

As I said, higher education can be improved; it should always be seeking betterment, change, and progress. But this need for improvement doesn’t—itself—automatically create a doomsday scenario. Rather, the doomsday scenario we’ve been reading about is manmade—a/k/a media made—inflamed by journalism’s elevation of the faux facts and its loathing of the full facts.

[1] And no, this isn’t a one-off. In How Gen Z is rethinking the idea of college by Business Insider’s Charlotte Lytton, the lede is:

It took just one semester for Rushil Srivastava to realize that college was not what he had hoped. … Soon after Srivastava decided to launch a startup designed to help job seekers find work. Today, as most of his peers are starting their senior year of college, he's got more than $1 million in venture-capital funding. … Srivastava is one of a soaring number of Gen Zers who has decided to skip college altogether.

One elevated, personal story doesn’t prove that an entire generation—all 70 million of them—is “rethinking” the idea of college. Moreover, one dropout’s success story doesn’t reflect every dropout’s story. Though glaringly implied by the author, dropping out of college doesn’t guarantee success (not any more than going to college guarantees it). Despite Srivastava’s magical story, very, very few college dropouts have “more than $1 million in venture-capital funding.”

[2] A great quote can be both powerful and deceptive. Clever words are often more eye-catching (and more entrancing) than a list of stiff, boring numbers. In the Fox News article Adults who skipped college urge high school grads to follow suit, say rewards are ‘immeasurable’ , Bobby Kittleberger is quoted as saying:

I like to put it this way: You never see a dude pull up in a Ferrari and think, “Oh, I bet he has a college degree!” So, I tell my kids, why would you walk a path that by design does not lead to wealth and prosperity?

Like Shaw’s quote, Kittleberger’s quote is elevated to the generic, all-around voice for “Adults who skipped college.” Moreover, the quote—which goes unchallenged and unproven—injects a subtle propaganda that college, for everyone, is “a path that by design [emphasis added] does not lead to wealth and prosperity.”?

[3] There’s a big difference between reporting that “One-in-four U.S. adults say ….” and “Only one-in-four U.S. adults say ….” The first is straightforward, without bias or opinion. The second—as used by Pew Research—is not. It purposefully and strategically injects the word “only,” a subjective modifier that purposefully guides readers into seeing what the writer wants them to see … i.e., “very few of something.” ?

[4] The other problem with Pew’s survey is the undefined “take out loans.” Without boundaries, “take out loans” spans the debt spectrum, running from small to large. It reeks of bias, the same subtle bias you might find in the question “Is a $10,000 vacation to Disney worth it if you have to take out loans?” As asked, most would say “no,” but it begs the question, “How much of a loan?” For many, a $500 loan for a Disney vacation might change their “no” to a “yes.”?

Many might agree that $100,000 in loans puts into question the “value of college.” But for many, “taking out loans” isn’t that excessive. It’s something much less, like $5,000 or $10,000 or $15,000, supplemented by scholarships, savings, 529 plans, work study, or part-time jobs (e.g., 53% of federal student loan borrowers owe $20,000 or less. 47% of the total outstanding federal loan debt is held by 10% of borrowers, who owe $80,000 or more ).

[5] Pew implies that without college, obtaining a “well-paying job in today’s economy” is universally free in America. It echoes a theme from the anti-college movement, that college is expensive and that trade school is a magical alternative. In making this argument, the anti-college movement pretends that trade school is both free and satisfying. They rattle offer data and surveys against college, but in talking about trade school, they rarely speak of debt or happiness.

Despite the narrative, trade school isn’t free. The average cost to obtain a degree from a trade school is $33,000, according to the Center for Employment Training, so many of these graduates are also carrying student debt. Moreover, if the argument holds true that “college isn’t for everyone,” the opposite argument must also hold true: “trade school isn’t for everyone.” I once interviewed a college student who, prior to college, spent two years training in metal machining. In choosing to attend college, he said:

I couldn’t find my purpose in it [metal machining]. When you have a purpose, you're led, or you're drawn to do something. I love helping people, but I couldn’t see myself helping people if I was sitting behind a machine 12 hours a day.

[6] According to the NSC, the enrollment growth trend continued through the spring of 2024:

Undergraduate enrollment grew 2.5 percent (+359,000) in spring 2024, marking the second consecutive semester of enrollment growth …. Freshman enrollment grew at a faster rate this spring than overall undergraduate enrollment (+3.9% compared to spring 2023).?

[7] Mallach also creates a faux fact by focusing on a single data point … i.e., enrollment. One way to gauge if a “college degree is worth the trouble” is, of course, enrollment data. But “worth the trouble” can also be gauged by those who enter college, find value, and decide to continue. This latter group—those who attend college—is a better gauge of actual or experienced value vs. perceived or hypothetical value (those who never attend college). According to Michael T. Nietzel, writing for Forbes: ?

More than 76% of students who began college in the fall of 2022 returned for their second year , according to a new report on college persistence and retention rates from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.?

According to NSCRC’s 2024 Persistence and Retention report, the persistence rate rose 0.8 percentage points to 76.5% last year, while the national retention rate increased one full percentage point to 68.2%. Persistence refers to students returning to college at any institution for a second year, while retention measures return to the same institution.

This is the second straight year of improved student persistence and retention, with each number the highest it’s been in the last decade.