The debate over federal funding continues as voters discuss the prospect of defunding the Department of Education. Voters on the right view the agency as a bloated bureaucracy pushing progressive ideology at the expense of academic performance. Those on the left frame federal oversight as essential to maintaining educational equity.

Recent controversies around DOGE’s financial investigations into federal spending intensify scrutiny of the Department’s budget. The exposure of wasteful government allocations emboldens Republicans demanding education reform and defunding.

Maxine Waters (D) is currently accosting random federal employees outside the Department of Education pic.twitter.com/5L8RviQ9rH

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 7, 2025

Overall Sentiment

• 64% of those discussing defunding the Department of Education oppose the idea
• 36% of voters nationally support it

Opposition is largely driven by concerns over education equity, access to resources, and the fear of widening disparities between wealthy and low-income school districts. Supporters want to dismantle the Department, which they see as part of the federal bureaucracy, exempt from accountability. This group believes states are better positioned to govern their own education systems.

Strong Republican Support

Among Republicans, 57% support defunding the Department. They see it as a failed institution that funnels taxpayer dollars into bureaucracy rather than classrooms. Many conservatives point to the decline in U.S. education rankings since the agency’s establishment in 1979 as evidence that federal involvement has done more harm than good.

Fiscal conservatives say eliminating the Department would allow states to redirect billions toward local education initiatives or even return funds to taxpayers. There is also a strong demand for spending audits, with increasing skepticism of where education dollars are going. The perception that DEI programs, ideological curriculum mandates, and wasteful foreign education aid drives Republican frustration.

The cultural war in education is another driving factor. Controversies over progressive curriculums, transgender policies, and race-based education initiatives causes conservatives to view federal control as a tool for leftist social engineering. Parent uproar against things like a kindergarten LGBTQ pride book in the Penfield Central School District amplify calls for dismantling the Department.

Democrats Cling to Their Power

Around 85% of Democrats discussing this issue oppose defunding or dismantling the Department. They say federal involvement is essential to ensuring equal access to education. They say states cannot be trusted to provide a consistent standard of quality, fearing inequalities between wealthy and poor school districts.

There is also a strong defense of federal funding for disadvantaged students, with many on the left saying minority and low-income students would suffer without it. Partisan Democrats frame education as a fundamental right, not a discretionary budget item. They warn cuts could undermine public schools in favor of privatization efforts.

However, some moderate Democrats express frustration with inefficiencies in the Department, particularly when it comes to spending allocation and administrative bloat. While they oppose defunding, they acknowledge that federal education spending needs reform, particularly in reducing unnecessary expenditures.

Institutional Resistance

The strongest opposition to defunding comes from teachers and education administrators, with 80% rejecting the proposal. This group says cutting federal funding would jeopardize key programs, particularly those supporting special education, rural schools, and low-income communities.

Teachers frequently cite underfunded schools, teacher shortages, and the growing challenges of classroom management as reasons why the federal government should be increasing, not decreasing, its role in education. There is also concern that without federal funding, state governments will be forced to make cuts that will harm students rather than improve efficiency.

Fiscal Priorities and Political Realities

The debate over defunding or dismantling the Department of Education is part of a larger battle over federal spending priorities. DOGE’s recent revelations about government waste have amplified fiscal conservative calls for significant budget cuts and reducing federal bureaucracy.

Some Republicans argue funds should be redirected to domestic infrastructure, law enforcement, or national security rather than federal education programs they see as ideologically driven and grossly mismanaged. Others argue cutting education funding at a time of rising inflation and economic uncertainty is politically untenable, calling instead for reform.

Americans are fractured along epistemological lines, with a growing divide between those who "trust the science" and those who insist on "doing their own research." This chasm is evident in several key societal debates: vaccines, climate change, and education.

Discussions show a fundamental split in how people determine truth, who they trust as authorities, and how they integrate knowledge into their worldviews. What emerges is a debate over facts and a broader ideological conflict over epistemology, power, and autonomy.

Those advocating for trust in science tend to initiate discussions, cite expert consensus, and rely on established institutions. Skeptics who prefer to do their own research often react defensively, question mainstream narratives, and rely on personal experiences or non-establishment sources.

Oh look the meme is real https://t.co/BblS9reVms pic.twitter.com/Fj75pl4yOr

— Seed Oil Disrespecter™️ (@SeedOilDsrspctr) February 1, 2025

Vaccines: Science vs. Personal Autonomy

The vaccine debate is one of the most volatile battlegrounds in the "trust vs. research" divide. Public health “experts,” physicians, and scientists promote vaccinations through peer-reviewed studies, statistical data, and institutional endorsements from agencies like the CDC and WHO. Their arguments emphasize community health, collective responsibility, and the dangers of misinformation.

Vaccine skeptics frame their stance around personal autonomy, medical freedom, and institutional distrust. They frequently cite anecdotal experiences, independent sources, and alternative health narratives. Many also believe scientific institutions are compromised by corporate or political interests, leading them to view expert recommendations as propaganda rather than objective analysis.

Patterns in Vaccine Discourse

• Dismissiveness: The "trust the science" camp often dismisses skeptics as misinformed, while skeptics view scientific institutions as corrupt or biased.
• Echo Chambers: Both sides retreat into communities that reinforce their views.
• Emotional Escalation: Fear, anger, and defensiveness characterize many interactions.

Despite occasional shifts in opinion, most vaccine debates entrench existing beliefs rather than change them. Conversation remains a microcosm of broader distrust in authority and expertise.

Consensus is dead. Unity is over. We dont want a seat at the table and they’ll never offer us a chair.

It’s neoliberal hellworld vs normal people, winner take all.

— Titus of the Dreamlands (@hereliesthighs) November 6, 2020

Climate Change: Institutions vs. Independence

Climate change discourse follows a similar pattern. Those who "trust the science" consistently initiate discussions by citing scientific consensus, climate models, and peer-reviewed studies. Their arguments highlight carbon emissions, global warming trends, and the urgency of policy intervention. They frequently reference international organizations, academic research, and environmental data to substantiate their claims.

Those “doing their own research" react with skepticism, questioning the credibility of scientists and mainstream media. Some argue climate change is exaggerated or manipulated for political or financial gain. Others reinterpret scientific data or lean on alternative theories that contradict the consensus.

Climate Change Discourse

• Circular Debates: Each side operates with distinct epistemological frameworks, making genuine engagement difficult.
• Emotional Intensity: Accusations of "alarmism" and "denialism" dominate exchanges.
• Polarization: Skeptics feel further alienated by mainstream narratives, reinforcing their stance.

While some moderates acknowledge environmental concerns, the overall conversation remains deeply ideological.

There was a consensus a couple generations ago because there were a few major newspapers and television stations. Everyone believed ‘the news.’

Now it’s shattered into a thousand pieces. But everyone still believes his little piece of shattered glass, sacrosanct truth.

— FischerKing (@FischerKing64) November 1, 2024

Education: Science-Based vs. Indoctrination

Discussions around education—particularly in areas like social justice, critical race theory, and scientific literacy—again reveal the same fracture. Institutional defenders argue for expert-backed curricula, emphasizing scientific integrity and educational standards. They see education as a means of broadening knowledge, fostering critical thinking, and correcting “misinformation.”

The "do your own research" group often sees modern education as an ideological battleground. They frame certain curricula as indoctrination, reject expertise in favor of personal interpretation, and emphasize parental rights over institutional authority. They frequently cite examples of bias in textbooks, controversial lesson plans, and anecdotes of teachers promoting political agendas.

Education Discourse

• Knowledge vs. Autonomy: Proponents argue for scientific literacy, while skeptics argue for freedom of thought.
• Political Mobilization: Education debates frequently inspire policy activism, with factions pushing for legislative changes.
• Cultural War: Conversations often extend beyond the classroom into larger debates about national identity, ideological control, and state authority.

The institutions our society relied on to function have sacrificed all credibility for short term ideological hegemony

We will never return to mass social consensus which means the mechanism by which the managerial elite maintained power is irrevocably broken https://t.co/2nLXDrmLBr

— Auron MacIntyre (@AuronMacintyre) October 24, 2024

Predictive Analysis: The Future of the Divide

The divide between trusting the science and doing your own research is becoming a defining feature of contemporary American polarization. This conflict will likely intensify in coming years due to:

• Institutional Distrust: Skepticism toward experts, media, and government will continue growing, reinforcing independent information networks.
• Fragmentation of Knowledge: The internet enables infinite competing narratives, making consensus-building more difficult.
• Political and Cultural Reinforcement: Each side sees their epistemology as existentially tied to their political and cultural identity.

Public discourse will likely become more entrenched, not less. Those advocating for scientific authority should refine their strategies, focusing on transparency, engagement, and reducing perceived elitism. Self-research advocates should continue seeking independent sources that prove entrenched norms wrong with evidence.

The future of this debate is not just about facts—it is about who gets to define reality.

Linguistic analysis of Gen Z (Zoomer) discourse reveals how they differ from previous generations in talking about serious issues. This generation was impacted by COVID during formative years, adding to uncertainty, social upheaval, and digital connectivity.

Gen Z is adopting a linguistic shift that blends humor with serious discourse. This new lexicon, featuring playful slang like "stressy depressy" and "hard launch my trauma" to talk about mental health shows a generation navigating societal concerns with inside jokes and a casual kind of gallows humor.

MIG Reports analysis depicts Gen Z’s unique approach to language fosters community, destigmatizes taboo topics, and adapts to modern life.

🚨Breaking🚨 Gen Z workers are being fired because they're unprepared for the workforce. 75% of companies say recent grads are unsatisfactory. 50% report a lack of motivation, 46% cite unprofessionalism, and 39% note poor communication. It's time to TEACH, not adapt to Gen Z! pic.twitter.com/O7n8j9zv2Z

— Jacob Morgan (@jacobm) September 26, 2024

Humor for Serious Topics

Gen Z’s use of slang demonstrates a conscious effort to make heavy topics more accessible. Expressions like "trauma dumping " and "existential crisis mode" juxtapose humor with vulnerability, allowing them to discuss mental health, burnout, and societal frustrations.

Humor serves as a coping mechanism, softening the weight of these issues and making them palatable for open discussion. However, some older generations suggest this may be a form of avoidance or wallowing in damaging behaviors.

Blurring humor and gravity attempts to reduce stigma and encourages relatability and shared understanding. Young people want a communal language where they can openly discuss their experiences with a sense of belonging among peers facing similar struggles.

Employers report that many Gen Z workers are unprepared for the workplace, per MSN

— Barefoot Student (@BarefootStudent) October 15, 2024

Social Media: Catalyst for a Linguistic Revolution

Platforms like TikTok and X amplify the spread and evolution of Gen Z slang in a fast-paced digital world. Short-form content rewards brevity, leading to the condensation of complex emotions into phrases like "Stressy Depressy" or "Main Character Syndrome." These terms thrive in online environments where creativity and relatability are paramount, allowing rapid adoption and widespread resonance.

Social media also uses memetic expressions as tools for engagement and connection. Shared slang creates a collective identity, where users find community through humor and mutual understanding. The phrase "Touch Grass," for example, invites individuals to reconnect with reality after prolonged online engagement, symbolizing a generational push for balance amidst digital immersion.

Destigmatizing Mental Health

The use of slang to address mental health and social friction strives for openness and authenticity. Zoomers want to normalize conversations that might otherwise carry shame or discomfort. Terms like "Menty B" (short for mental breakdown) acknowledge serious experiences while reducing their emotional intensity, allowing individuals to share their struggles more freely.

This approach is a coping mechanism reaching for collective resilience. In a post-COVID, isolation and uncertainty are growing, but humor has become a tool for coping with stress and fear for the future.

Cultural Adaptation and Evolution

The Zoomer attitude toward life has been shaped by COVID, political, and cultural upheaval. Their slang is not just a response to personal challenges but also a critique of societal structures.

Many younger Americans say they feel resignation toward traditional systems and norms. They want a raw, unfiltered approach to sharing personal experiences, searching for connection and identity.

The entire Chicago Public Schools (CPS) Board of Education resigned, triggering a wide array of emotional and analytical responses. Parents, educators, and political commentators are weighing in on the controversial move involving widely criticized Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson. This event reveals frustrations about educational governance and catalyzes new discussions about the future of public schooling in Chicago.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson just compared the School Board he just forced out because they refused to blow out the budget by taking out a high interest loan to pay off the Teacher's union, to slave owners. He only has 1 trick which is call EVERYONE who disagrees with him RACIST pic.twitter.com/KBX6yNYf69

— Sean Fitzgerald (Actual Justice Warrior) (@IamSean90) October 7, 2024

Johnson appointed six new school board members after the entire board resigned amid budget disputes and tensions with the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). The resignations followed disagreements over handling CPS finances, particularly regarding loans and pensions.

The appointments raise concerns about transparency and political influence. Critics argue replacing the entire school board was hasty, potentially sidelining voices that disagree with the union's stance. The timing, just before elections, adds to the frustration, with some city leaders feeling left out of the decision-making process and questioning the board's ability to handle financial and policy challenges.

Voter Reactions

Positive Sentiment (40%)

Parents and community members view the resignations as an opportunity for change, expressing hope for new leadership that might prioritize student needs over bureaucracy. Many articulate the desire for more accountability, with some suggesting a fresh board might be more attuned to the realities faced by students and families.

Negative Sentiment (35%)

Almost as many people voice skepticism and concern. Critics see the mass resignation as an indicator of dysfunction within the CPS and the Teacher’s Union. Phrases like “abandonment” and “lack of responsibility” permeate discussions, reflecting fears that this departure creates a leadership vacuum or suggests corruption among leaders.

Neutral or Analytical Sentiment (25%)

A quarter of reactions take a more analytical stance, focusing on systemic issues that led to the resignations. Commentary highlights the challenges of governance in the CPS landscape, including the interplay between state mandates, funding deficits, and societal pressures. This narrative suggests a need for comprehensive reform beyond personnel changes.

Impact on Parents

Disruption of Trust

A significant number of parents express feelings of betrayal and uncertainty. Parents have concerns about whether ongoing reforms and standard educational practices will suffer due to the instability following the resignations.

Desire for Engagement

Amid the upheaval, many parents actively seek information about the implications of the resignations for their children’s education. Parents rally around the call for greater community engagement in selecting new board members, signifying a shift toward more grassroots involvement in educational governance.

Anxiety About the Future

Uncertainty about future governance prompts feelings of anxiety and distrust among parents. Many worry about the potential for diminished support services and resources for students, especially those with special needs or underserved communities.

Language Patterns

Imagery of Battle

Many comments evoke a sense of struggle, with language that portrays the resignation as a battle between effective governance and an educational system under siege. Terms like “fighting for our kids,” “standing firm,” and “taking back control” express

the urgent calls for advocacy and accountability.

Crisis Narrative

Some frame the situation as a crisis, suggesting a breakdown in the system. This includes references to broader societal issues, such as educational inequity and funding challenges. People link the resignations to national educational trends rather than isolating them to Chicago.

Polarization of Educational Perspectives

People are divided about educational priorities. Some advocate for radical reforms and a reevaluation of funding sources, while others emphasize the need to maintain the integrity and stability of existing programs.

Calls for Unity

Despite divergent opinions, a recurring theme urges community solidarity and collective action. Many advocate for collaboration among parents, educators, and local organizations, perceiving a shared responsibility toward improving the educational landscape.

Recent news about Chicago Public School teachers being forced by administrators to pass migrant children has stirred significant debate and concern. MIG Reports analysis of discussions among moms and teachers shows concerns about the potential impact in their communities.

Both of these groups express mixed emotions about the impact on their children's and students’ education and school experiences. Reactions show a complex dynamic between empathy for migrant children and anxiety over how this shift will affect American children's academic and social experiences.

🚨Huge scandal unfolding in @ChiPubSchools!

Chicago elementary teachers have come forward alleging that administrators instructed them they have to give migrant students a passing grade of 70% in every subject.

Teachers say they spoke no Spanish, the kids spoke no English and… pic.twitter.com/opwlMKfOEn

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 19, 2024

Mom Concerns: Anxiety and Empathy

American moms are addressing the difficult nature of this dilemma. Across numerous datasets, between 62-75% fear the influx of migrant students will disrupt their children's education. They cite concerns about the strain on resources, overcrowding, and reduced individual attention from teachers.

Around 40-45% are also worried about social and cultural conflicts, such as bullying, that may arise in the integration process. Another 30% of moms caveat their discussions to express empathy, acknowledging that migrant children deserve a chance to rebuild their lives through education.

Teachers and Educators: Managing Practical Realities

Teachers and educators are at the forefront of this challenge as well. They are trying to balance empathy with the practical realities of accommodating a larger and more diverse student population.

MIG Reports data shows around 65% of self-described educators express concerns about the strain on resources. They note that current school infrastructure—staff, textbooks, and technology—may not be sufficient to manage the influx of new students.

Approximately 55% are particularly worried about the potential impact on the academic performance of their existing students. They say integrating migrant children will likely lead to disruptions in the classroom.

Despite teacher worries, around 40-45% remain committed to the principle of providing quality education for all children, regardless of background, and are determined to make it work with the right support.

A Complex and Nuanced Reaction

Reactions to this story reflect the complexity of empathy from mothers and teachers with the realities of the border crisis. Both groups grapple with balancing their desire for fairness and empathy with concerns about how illegal immigration is affecting the quality of education and social dynamics in American schools.

This all comes on the heels of American schoolchildren still reeling from the effects of school lockdowns during COVID, with parents still distrusting the school system.

MIG Reports analysis shows parents discussing school in swing states fear for their children’s education and safety. An unsettling theme emerges as voters grapple with the state of public education and social issues. Parents are actively engaging in debates about their children's education, with significant emphasis on school choice, curriculum content, and safety concerns.

School Choice and CRT

Approximately 40% of parents advocate for educational freedom and school choice, arguing it provides better opportunities for their children. This is a particular desire in underperforming districts. Parents are proactive in their desire to escape the growing inadequacies of the public school system. They largely favor alternatives like charter schools or school vouchers.

On a national scale, there are strong opinions on curriculum content—particularly when it comes to Critical Race Theory (CRT). Nationally, about 45% of parents support bans on CRT, fearing it creates division among students. Meanwhile, 35% oppose bans, arguing they would restrict essential discussions on race and social justice.

National sentiments align with concerns from swing state parents, where approximately 30% worry about the politicization of school curricula. In these states, the discussion is also focused on CRT and LGBTQ issues.

Achievement Gaps are a Paramount Concern

Safety concerns also feature prominently in these discussions. In swing states, about 60% of parents express anxiety over the adequacy of safety measures in schools. They especially discuss safety in the context of ongoing health concerns post-COVID.

Parental worries are not primarily around potential illnesses, but the educational and social impact of health policies on children. This worry is also present in national conversations, underscoring American families’ concern over physical safety and the emotional well-being of children.

A November 2020 report from Fairfax County Public Schools showed students were severely impacted by COVID measures. And more recent studies continue to show that the damage of COVID measures to students is not a short-term issue.

• Student performance has continued to struggle, still not recovering from 2020’s disastrous metrics now, four years later.
• Speech delays, academic achievement gaps, and other developmental impacts are still haunting school children in 2024.

Since the COVID pandemic, there's been an increase in the number of young children who have been slow to develop language skills, with pediatric speech delays more than doubling for children aged 12 and younger.@zschultzWPT reports. pic.twitter.com/CkJ2ZtNVNB

— PBS News (@NewsHour) January 7, 2024

The discourse in swing states, supported by national sentiments, shows parents are focused both on immediate educational choices and the broader implications of these choices on their children's future.

The active and passionate voices in these discussions underscore the determination of parents to influence educational policies that align with their values. Parents are determined to ensure safety and promote a balanced, effective curriculum.

Higher education discussions online revolve around student loans, government spending, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in educational environments. MIG Reports analysis of sentiment trends in these discussions indicates a growing concern about the influence of leftist ideologies in academia. A particular focus is on the operations and ideologies promoted by higher education professors.

A survey from American Association of University Professors reveals a structured integration of DEI in tenure practices across universities. Today, many institutions have adopted DEI criteria to allegedly combat bias.

Increasingly, professors must demonstrate a strong commitment to DEI in order to receive tenure.

A 2022 survey by the American Association of University Professors found 46% of large universities have DEI criteria included in tenure standards (along w/ teaching & research). pic.twitter.com/6w5tKuHogF

— The Missing Data Depot (@data_depot) August 18, 2024

Taxpayers Funding Loans

Voters are angry about Democratic proposals to give tax-funded financial assistance to those who don’t qualify as citizens or taxpayers. Americans are against what they view as "liberal" financial strategies like student loan forgiveness and financial assistance schemes for homebuyers.

The federal government has significantly increased its role in managing and alleviating the financial burden of student loans for some students. Biden-Harris initiatives claim to protect borrowers from escalating debt and ensuring financial relief.

Voter backlash is identifiable in conversations about student loans and government spending. People are frustrated at government policies that assist specific demographic groups—like the college educated upper-middle-class and illegal immigrants—at the expense of taxpayers.

DEI in Universities

Discussions about DEI are also in conversations about higher education. Many say DEI initiatives serve as a mechanism for left-leaning ideologies to permeate higher education systems.

The phrase "driving the direction of higher education" frequently arises, emphasizing the belief that DEI principles significantly influence curricula and the behaviors of educators. Critics say DEI steers conversations and practices away from traditional academic rigor into ideologically driven social justice.

Many people call DEI a form of ideological indoctrination. They say it destroys merit-based assessments and fosters a discriminatory environment against certain races and viewpoints.

Voter Reactions

Public sentiment towards DEI and government subsidies for loans skews negative. Approximately 65% of conversations reflect a belief that DEI and leftism are influential forces negatively shaping higher education. People believe DEI is contributing to division based on ideological beliefs.

Conversations reveal parallels between the broader political climate and higher education issues. Greater economic anxiety and frustration at governmental overreach overlaps with disapproval of financial assistance and DEI policies in colleges and universities.

Comments suggest taxpayers feel they are being compelled to subsidize systems that disproportionately favor certain groups. They resent tax dollars going to wealthy college graduates and those who have not contributed to the tax base. They blame this on Biden’s student loan forgiveness program and Harris’s proposed housing initiatives for illegal immigrants.

Overall, conversations about financial assistance programs in the current economy are dominated by concerns about fiscal responsibility. There is also resentment toward ideological indoctrination and the perceived failures of DEI initiatives. While some advocate for these progressive programs, much of the public dialogue is critical.

The general sentiment among Americans is best encapsulated by the consensus—65%—viewing DEI and leftism as reshaping higher education and influencing fiscal policy.

Viral tweets about parents who are unable to afford back-to-school supplies sparks conversations about economic issues, household finances, and school costs. MIG Reports shows parents are agitated and discussions are charged with political overtones in scrutinizing economic policies and their impacts.

34% of parents said they plan to take on debt to afford back to school supplies this year, and 16% said they plan to take on up to $1,000 in debt, per Credit Karma.

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 12, 2024

These discussions come within larger debates and worries about inflation, household expenses, debt, and the results of political policies. Younger voters are especially worried about their financial prospects.

The inability to afford back-to-school shopping is especially true for young parents – 39% of Gen Z and 37% of millennials.

Read more: https://t.co/IPL4WdZXol

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 9, 2024

New Conversation, Same Problem

Voters continue to compare the Trump’s economy with the Biden-Harris economy. Discussions juxtapose memories of low inflation, cheap gas, and secure borders during Trump's presidency against complaints of high inflation, unaffordable gas prices, and open borders under Democrats. This matches recent trends blaming Joe Bide and Kamala Harris for two key policies:

• The Inflation Reduction Act, which increases inflationary pressures
• Open borders and unchecked migration harming American families

Voter engagement on economic topics confirms existing political schisms in sentiment. In general, Americans are dissatisfied with the economy, but causes and solutions are often determined by political beliefs. Nostalgia for past times is acute in conversations about living costs and financial insecurity for middle-class and working families.

Low Income, Low Expectations

People are talking about the financial burden placed on low-income families who cannot afford back-to-school expenses. Americans worry about the rising cost of essential items and the consequences for families already struggling to make ends meet.

Government allocation of resources being disproportionately directed toward illegal immigrants is a point of contention. U.S. citizens say welfare programs offer free housing, healthcare, and monthly stipends to people who should not even be in the country. This causes resentment as local communities continue to sink deeper into debt.

Voters blame to government saying things like, "Americans they put into tents with their policies suffer.” Many feel the Biden-Harris administration cares more about people who enter the country illegally than its own citizens.

Parents describe their struggles, lamenting the unaffordability of necessities like backpacks and school clothes. These expenses force many families into credit card debt just to buy school supplies. Sentiment in these discussions is predominantly negative, reflecting frustration and financial strain.

• National Retail Federation data shows back-to-school costs for American families have increased from just under $700 in 2019 to nearly $900 in 2024.

Recently, a whistleblower report made headlines alleging that half of UCLA medical students fail basic tests of medical competence, eliciting serious concerns. MIG Reports analysis shows the discourse is mostly focused ongoing controversies and failures of U.S. higher education.

What Americans Are Saying

Many parents, alumni, and prospective students voice serious concerns about the implications of the report for public health and safety. They also question the integrity of medical education at UCLA. Some suggest the report might represent systemic issues like grade inflation, lower academic standards, or a failure of oversight and accountability within the medical school.

There is also some doubt about the whistleblower's report, with critics arguing it may have been exaggerated or unfounded. To them, the reported failure rate seemed unusually high compared to national norms, leading them to question the report's reliability.

Others are discussing the need for immediate measures to address the alleged failure of medical school education at UCLA. They argue for policy changes, stronger regulation, and potentially increased funding to promote better training.

Views of Affirmative Action

Those in favor of affirmative action argue it's a necessary measure to remedy inequalities caused by racial discrimination in America. They also suggest affirmative action brings about a diversity of perspectives in the professional field, which is seen as beneficial.

However, critics of the affirmative action policy fear it compromises the merit-based principle of admission or hiring. They believe the gateway to various positions or opportunities should be open to individuals based on their qualifications, not aspects like race or ethnicity.

Many suggest the standard criterion for selection, usually test scores, better predicts the realistic capability of students to complete their degrees. Some also fear those admitted through affirmative action might get into financial trouble with student loans. This is especially true if under-educated or underprepared students cannot complete their degrees.

Sentiment Towards ULCA

Overall sentiment following the whistleblower report is negative, but there appears to be a division. General negative sentiment towards higher education increases among those who believe universities are failing in multiple aspects of their mission. This group accuses academic institutions of failing to manage modern scandals like:

• Increasing and unruly campus protests
• Caving to anti-western ideologies among students
• Prioritizing unnecessary and woke programs over practical education
• Failing to provide a rigorous education for students who enroll

There is some positive sentiment from people who see universities as catalysts for social mobility and tools for societal development. They advocate for more accessible and less costly education, recognition and support for disabled students at colleges, and a fairer distribution of student financial aid.