Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    AI and Microcredentials
Sign In
The Review

Can Starbucks Save the Middle Class? No. But It Might Ruin Higher Education.

By Geoffrey M. Cox August 1, 2019
Can Starbucks Save the Middle Class? No. But It Might Ruin Higher Education. 1
Tim Foley for The Chronicle

A number of large employers have garnered praise recently for creating higher-education benefits for their employees in partnership with one or more universities. For example, Starbucks has established a program through Arizona State University; Walmart has partnered with several institutions, including the University of Florida, Brandman University, and Bellevue University; and Peet’s Coffee has an arrangement through Oregon State University. Arizona State is planning to create a for-profit subsidiary to broker employer-university partnerships on an even larger scale.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

A number of large employers have garnered praise recently for creating higher-education benefits for their employees in partnership with one or more universities. For example, Starbucks has established a program through Arizona State University; Walmart has partnered with several institutions, including the University of Florida, Brandman University, and Bellevue University; and Peet’s Coffee has an arrangement through Oregon State University. Arizona State is planning to create a for-profit subsidiary to broker employer-university partnerships on an even larger scale.

These programs have generally been seen as both innovative and enlightened; they provide evidence that employers are willing to invest in their workers — many of whom are at entry-level, low-skill jobs — and that universities are developing new ways to expand access and respond to the needs of the work force. At first glance, arrangements such as these appear to deliver benefits to everyone concerned. Employers gain from more stable and better-educated workers; employees gain access to educational programs they might not otherwise have; and universities hungry for revenue gain a new wholesale business model to supplement the traditional retail approach.

While it is easy to appreciate both the good intentions and the opportunities represented by these arrangements, we should be concerned if they become the new standard pathway to college. Doing so could replicate the problems created decades ago when access to health care became linked to employment.

Employer-sponsored health-care plans became prevalent during World War II as a way for companies to skirt federal wage freezes. Employers realized that offering fringe benefits such as health insurance would increase worker compensation without adding to cash income. These programs gained momentum when, in 1943, the IRS ruled that health benefits are exempt from taxation. The practice quickly spread, and as health-care costs rose, employer-sponsored health insurance became the only way most people could afford even basic medical care. The U.S. health “system,” such as it is, arose more by accident than from thoughtful policy making.

The unintended consequences of this model have haunted us ever since. We have developed the most unequal and expensive system of health care in the world. While important corrections to the system were made through the Affordable Care Act, millions of people still remain uninsured or underinsured, and access to health care remains problematic for many who most need it. Furthermore, health-care rights are vulnerable to the dysfunctions of both our political system and our economy. The system reduces job mobility (because it is risky to leave a job with good benefits); and it has created powerful vested interests that consistently stand in the way of reform. The link between employment and health insurance also effectively privatizes an important public-policy issue and has allowed the federal government to avoid addressing it adequately for decades. It is not difficult to imagine a similar fate for higher education. If employment becomes a precondition for most people to gain a college degree, it will freeze many people out of the system.

It will be difficult to claim that higher education is a public good if it is dominated by private arrangements.

Instead of viewing barista jobs as entry-level, high-turnover positions, there will be increased competition for them, and incumbents will stay in them longer. Indeed, making lattes or stocking shelves could become the new way most students pay for tuition — even those who could finance their education in other ways. This would be fine if everyone had access to these jobs, but this is unlikely to be the case. As total compensation (salary plus tuition and other benefits) from these jobs rises, those who already have difficulty competing in the job market are likely to get crowded out.

Furthermore, if the benchmark cost of education becomes a matter of private negotiation between companies and universities, the experience from health care suggests that it will skyrocket even more so than it has in recent years. Colleges, as rational economic actors, may limit or reduce their commitments to financial aid, preferring instead to attract students who are subsidized by their employers.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the pressure on states and the federal government to support higher education will erode even further. Indeed, it will become increasingly difficult to claim that higher education is a public good that deserves sustained support if it is dominated by private arrangements among firms and universities.

The history of American higher education has been marked by many efforts to expand access. Some of these efforts, such as the establishment of land-grant universities and community colleges, have undoubtedly created opportunities for students who might otherwise have been excluded.

Other initiatives have arisen from the same democratizing spirit, but have had at best mixed results. Standardized admissions tests were meant to mitigate ethnic and class-based bias, but in practice they have tended to amplify the effects of privilege. Portable federal loan programs put power in the hands of student consumers, but may also have inflationary effects on tuition and create perverse incentives which are seen most clearly (but not exclusively) in the for-profit side of higher education. Well-intended innovations often have unintended consequences, particularly in the absence of a coherent policy framework supporting clear purposes and goals — a state of affairs that characterizes both higher education and health care in the United States.

ADVERTISEMENT

Public education has been radically defunded by state governments in recent years, and new ways must be found to maintain access to good quality institutions at reasonable cost to students. But those who most need education also most need jobs and frequently cannot get them. Linking access more closely to employment could well exacerbate a vicious cycle that is already unacceptable.

Tying health care to employment was arguably one of the greatest failures of public policy in U.S. history. We should learn from this experience rather than replicate it.

Geoffrey M. Cox is senior associate dean for administration and finance in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University.

A version of this article appeared in the August 16, 2019, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Admissions & Enrollment Finance & Operations Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Related Content

Arizona State Will Create a For-Profit Spinoff to Court Students in the Work Force
Public-Private Partnerships Take New Shapes
Why More Colleges Are Emulating Deals Like the ASU-Starbucks Alliance

More News

Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through paper that is a photo of an idyllic liberal arts college campus on one side and money on the other
Finance
Small Colleges Are Banding Together Against a Higher Endowment Tax. This Is Why.
Pano Kanelos, founding president of the U. of Austin.
Q&A
One Year In, What Has ‘the Anti-Harvard’ University Accomplished?

From The Review

Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg
Illustration of an unequal sign in black on a white background
The Review | Essay
What Is Replacing DEI? Racism.
By Richard Amesbury

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin