The tuition fee for students at the University of Southern California is predicted to hit six digits in 2026, with schools like NorthWestern and Vanderbilt trailing closely behind.  While tuition fees continue to rise and more students leave university with debt than ever before, a debate has sparked as to whether or not university is a scam. 

But what is a scam? Common things we consider scams include ponzi schemes, phishing and fake invoices. However, one could also argue that buying tickets for a charity event without transparency about how much of the proceeds actually go to the cause, shares some characteristics of a scam. There is a wide range of behaviors that could fall under this term, but for clarity, I will use the following definition: a scam is a dishonest scheme designed to trick people into giving up money, personal information or other valuables, often through deception or manipulation.

Charlie Kirk, a conservative “influencer”, is a major pioneer of these debates, making his name going to universities and debating students in person. Kirk’s argument as to why college/university is a scam lies in the fact that the majority of people who go to university are promised something they are not given. They take classes which they do not necessarily need or want, and many graduates do not use anything that they learned during their degree throughout their career. In my opinion, university is not a scam (at least I hope not), despite the fact that I actually agree with several of Kirk’s claims. Before dissecting Kirk’s argument, it should be noted that I am not going to engage with his claim that university indoctrinates its students because it is not relevant to the definition of scam I am using. 

So, does university force students to take classes that they do not necessarily need or want? Firstly, I do not think that a student’s wants are relevant. Ultimately, it is the student's responsibility to understand the requirements of their course and university. If students identify a class they don't want to take, they should choose not to apply for that course. Secondly, the desires of young adults may not always align with their actual needs. For instance, many students in my psychology course may not want to take statistics, but that doesn’t mean statistics should be excluded from the curriculum. This being said, do universities force students to take classes that they do not necessarily need? To tackle this assertion, we must understand what it means to “need” a class. Kirk believes that a class is only needed if it grants us skills necessary for employment. The issue with his argument lies in the fact that skills valuable for employment can be developed in all sorts of classes. For example, an art history class can help students develop important skills in engineering but may not be categorized in this context as “necessary”.  Proving a class to be “unnecessary” also becomes infinitely more difficult under Kirk’s conditions if students do not know what they want to pursue. Overall, the responsibility of knowing the necessary requirements of their degree falls onto the student who applies and enrolls. Using this assumption coupled with the fact that it is nearly impossible to gauge what classes are unnecessary, it is clear that universities do not scam students by “forcing” them to enroll in classes they do not need or want.

This leads to Kirk’s second claim that many university graduates will never use anything that they learned throughout their degree, therefore, attending university is a scam. He argues that there are many students who go on to pursue areas which they did not study, and thus do not use any “practical” knowledge from their degree. But this does not mean that their degree taught them nothing. University is meant to give individuals skills which go beyond tangible knowledge; it is knowing how to write, think and collaborate with others. It also (almost) guarantees future employers that graduates consistently worked toward something for a certain number of years, under specific deadlines and met given criteria. Furthermore, a student’s GPA and their university’s prestige legitimizes the amount of work and effort they put toward their degree. I agree with Kirk’s claim that some university graduates do not use the “practical” knowledge from their degree if they pursue other areas of expertise, but I cannot agree with the claim that they do not use any skills they acquired throughout their degree. Therefore, according to his logic, university is not a scam, as graduates will apply some skills learned throughout their degree in their careers.

Now the crux of this debate is whether university promises individuals something they do not give, and to that I argue no. Universities cannot even promise a degree, they only promise enrolment; if you work consistently for years you can successfully leave with a diploma. University is a place where students go to learn, and its main objective is not to directly prepare individuals for future employment – equipping students with desirable skills for employers is a byproduct. The burden to train employees should only fall onto the organization hiring, and to solely see university as an institution built to prepare individuals for employment is harmful. In sum, university only promises individuals the chance to get a degree and delivers on its promise; ergo, it must not be a scam. 

That being said, people clearly feel very passionate about this debate. I think that is because of the underlying discourse – maybe the implicit questions being asked are if university is worthwhile, or if university is the right path? These are personal questions that cannot be answered by myself or even Charlie Kirk. But, is university a scam? No.