What, you ask, is the diploma divide? Here’s how Google’s AI summarizes it in one paragraph:
The “diploma divide” describes a significant political split in the U.S., where college-educated voters increasingly lean Democratic, supporting progressive social views and experts, while non-college-educated voters (especially white voters) increasingly lean Republican, embracing populist messages and distrusting institutions like universities, creating a major realignment in party alignment based on education level rather than just income or class.
I came across a discussion of the diploma divide reading Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back (St. Martins Press, 2025) by Joan C. Williams, a law prof. As she recounts in Chapter One, “Is There Really a Diploma Divide?”, this migration of non-college educated white voters away from the Democrats to the Republican Party (under the MAGA banner) is a recent thing, maybe over the last dozen years. They turned from voting Democrat out of anxiety over declining economic prospects and frustration that neither party seemed to be listening to their concerns. Trump’s right-wing populism was attractive to them — it seemed to address their issues — and the rest is history. So there really is a diploma divide. Read the chapter or some other discussion for the full story.
This is not a political post. The above discussion is just to set up our own issue, namely: Is there an LDS diploma divide? At one level, the political case, it is almost certainly true that the political story recounted above applies to the Mormon population, although most Mormons, regardless of education or income, voted Republican to start with. My query is whether the diploma divide is evident in other aspects of Mormon life and belief. Here are some quick reflections.
First, something of a corollary. Looking at the political diploma divide from the other side, I would claim that Mormons most likely to resist the attraction of Trump and MAGA would be college-educated whites and non-white non-college educated people. Remember, in the LDS Church, rejecting Trump and MAGA is swimming against the tide. Someone with data sets (LDS statistical department or individual researchers) might be able to make a persuasive case for or aginst; all that you and I can produce are our own anecdotal observations and experience.
Second, might an LDS diploma divide explain how an individual Mormon breaks on the black-and-white versus more nuanced approach to LDS belief and practice? Maybe that corresponds to Iron Rod Mormons versus Liahona Mormons, labels and a discussion that goes back several decades. I’ve read accounts that *describe* Iron Rod versus Liahona types, but not with any particular effort to *explain* why a person is one or the other by crunching data or even proposing a model. The point is that people don’t just turn 18 or 25 and decide, “Hey, I’m a black-and-white thinker, an Iron Rodder.” There is data that can be crunched, just like for the political diploma divide. Maybe an LDS diploma divide explains some of the difference, maybe it doesn’t.
Third, I’ll bet you have noticed a diploma divide in LDS leadership, which skews in favor of the college-educated professional class. The higher you look in the hierarchy, the stronger the effect. Does that mean I’m suggesting that LDS leadership is therefore more likely to take a nuanced view of LDS doctrine and practice? Or, in a political vein, to be more likely to resist Trump and MAGA? Not necessarily. LDS leadership is not a random draw from the pool of active college-educated Mormon men. It skews conservative. I’m pretty sure that any candidate who is openly politically liberal and doctrinally nuanced is just not going to feel right to the existing LDS leader evaluating candidates and then extending a call. So a conservative leadership cadre tends to select new leaders who are at least as conservative as they are.
Fourth, what about age cohorts? Obviously, the college versus non-college split doesn’t apply to LDS youth or young adults until maybe mid-twenties. Maybe after retirement the effect diminishes, as senior citizens become less involved in civic life and maybe less concerned with the kind of issues and questions we talk about here at W&T and other venues. It’s too much to say that old people, including old Mormons, all think alike, but it is certainly true that other topics (healthcare, retirement assets and income, grandkids, legacy issues) become important for all seniors, regardless of politics, income, or education.
There are two ways to look at age cohorts. One is with the reliable data that I have seen (you have too) showing younger LDS cohorts are less conservative, sometimes considerably less conservative, on a variety of LDS issues than are older LDS age cohorts. But there is also the question of whether the average Mormon becomes gradually more liberal or nuanced over the course of their life. My gut feeling is that some in *both* groups, college and non-college, become more liberal or nuanced over time. On the other hand, seniors tend to be reliably conservative in both the political and religious sense, which argues that most people become more conservative, not less, over the course of their lives. I can see this both ways. Need. More. Data.
Fifth, not all college degrees are the same. I wonder whether more detailed data might break down the diploma divide effect by area of study. Likewise for LDS leadership. You see a lot more lawyers, accountants, and business types in leadership than humanities majors or social science types.
Finally, a disclaimer. I’m not making any value judgments on college versus non-college persons in this discussion. Obviously, there are good and bad people, likable people and jerks, in both camps. But it’s just a demographic fact that there are college educated and non-college people in the country, and the diploma divide data shows that this contrast has explanatory power politically. My discussion here is to ask whether it might also have some explanatory power for differences in LDS belief and practice.
So what do you think? Does this discussion ring a bell for you? Or do you think I’m barking up the wrong tree?
.
Wheat & Tares 
At first glance, writing this as a white, libertarian-leaning conservative (who also happens to have a composite major, a second major, and a minor), your assessment of the general population seems right, and even LDS might skew that way a little bit. I think it’s a little more complicated than that though.
There’s definitely a number of dumbed down LDS conservatism, which may be growing. These are the people who drive up to their respected neighbor’s lawn and write down all the names on political signs before voting the next day, having done no homework themselves.
But the very most articulate LDS conservative people I’ve met over the years also happen to be the most voracious readers I’ve ever met, on any number and spectrum of subjects, whether college educated or not. One of the most conservative and well-read of those never set foot in a university, but got himself certified in a number of different things on a number of levels. He was told by one government official that he likely had the equivalent of a Phd (as a university graduate, I do think certifications are underrated, and too often left unfactored, along with a number of other learning paths).
I do tend to think there is a bit of a fallacy assuming that someone who hasn’t gotten a diploma is therefore not educated, though plenty of those people exist. I also happen to think conservatives overestimate the power a university has to influence a young adult, and underestimate the ability a young adult has to think for his or herself. Is it somewhat telling though, that of all the most voracious and non-discriminating readers I know, whether university-educated or not, the university ones do often lean liberal? Maybe this does point more to the charisma and group think that can be experienced in a university, rather than actual knowledge.
There’s also a tendency, often on this blog as well, to group many LDS conservatives as unapologetically MAGA. I’ve not met one conservative LDS who self-identifies as MAGA, and only met two conservatives who had nothing bad to say about Trump. Those who voice their misgivings generally give well thought out and informed answers (and could likely give a longer response on why they didn’t vote for Harris). As one who voted for Trump instead of Harris, I’m horrified by what happened in Venezuela. As much as I dislike socialist dictators, it simply wasn’t constitutional. Let’s leave Greenland alone, while we’re at it.
But to more specifically answer your question as to the LDS influence, I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that education is essentially mandated in LDS theology, which many equate (perhaps falsely) to a university. But the generally conservative values of LDS, with perhaps the added encouragement to be agents unto themselves, allows many LDS to get through the university experience “unscathed,” though that is likely diminishing. You’re also likely spot on about the nature of different degrees. I’m almost certain LDS skew from the rest of the population in those regards, in large part out of long-term desire to provide for a (larger) family.
Some of the most educated LDS I know, whether university educated or not, simply recognize that the political process is in desperate need of enlightenment on both sides of the aisle.
Maybe it’s just a coincidence but what I discovered in my own life was the more I researched certain institutions that I used to blindly follow, the further I moved away from them. In my case this meant leaving the Church and the Republican Party. As I became more “educated”, it was obvious to me that these two did not represent me anymore. This was a big deal…I was VERY Republican and VERY TBM LDS. But I was brought up this way. I didn’t really “know” anything.
Before the liberal readers here click on the thumbs up, please understand that I did not transfer my allegiance to the Dem Party (nor did I even think about joining another religious organization). Being more informed has pushed me in the direction of almost complete disaffiliation.
25 years ago I thought I was educated. I had a BA from BYU and an MBA from a top 10 business school. And I was on the Church leadership fastrack (based on callings and my age). Boy I was wrong. My credentials were solid but I don’t think I was smart.
I’ve replaced loyalty and allegiance with curiosity and authenticity and this has driven me away from organizational membership. I hope this is a sign that I am more educated but only in the most informal since. I’ve replaced diplomas and LDS milestones with an effort to just be real. I hope that means I am more educated now. I’m sure not everyone agrees.
josh h-
Very well said! Many, including myself, are in complete alignment with your experience.
I was raised weird for a Mormon, so, my personal experience is not going to count. I started as a bleeding heart liberal, so my education could hardly make me more liberal. My father was a union member of a steel plant, so strong Democrat. I also was not raised “in” the church, more next to it. See, my parents were closet apostates who sent us to church to keep ultra orthodox grandmothers from yelling at them. So, I wasn’t really raised “in” the church and most certainly not Republican. Church was a choice I made. Other than staying out of trouble with their battle ax mothers, my parents didn’t much care if we as their children chose the church or not. So, being Mormon was not a default setting, but a choice I made as a teen.
I do think there is an educational divide among Mormons, but it shows up as feminism among women. I am not really sure about a divide in the men, because the working class men as well as the educated professional men all follow the church leadership in being conservative. The working class Mormons often vote against what is in their own best interest because Democrats are seen as evil. In fact, my husband had the ideology of a liberal and voted Republican because the church expected it.
There may be a divide along what kind of subject a person majors in. For example, most of the men I know in social work are liberal, psychology less so, but still more left leaning than average for Mormons.
That is about the extend of my obervations.
I hadn’t previously heard the term “diploma divide”, but as I ponder my own attitudes and those of my fellow congregants, I think I do see this pattern. Most of the members in my California ward are college educated, and while most lean conservative, a large percentage are quite vocal in their anti-MAGA and/or left-leaning ideologies. I wonder, however, if there is another LDS diploma divide between alumni of CES schools and those who attended secular schools. Thoughts?
I have no diploma. Maybe that’s why I’m the black sheep here.
We are all on our own personal journey. I’m sure the “diploma divide” plays into it. I was raised LDS and JBS (John Birch Society). I chose to go to a Big Ten school rather than an LDS school. The Big Ten school did not make me liberal. I was still very hard right-leaning, but I did learn to study things out and question things. Life threw me all the curves, causing me to do some real hard thinking about both religion and politics. Gradually over time, I did the opposite of most people as they grow older by becoming more liberal. I may still be conservative in nature with money and change, but I’m much more liberal in how I look at people, social justice, education, and religion.
I don’t think this change over time came as a result of my college education. I got a bachelor’s and a master’s at non-LDS schools, but I got a second master’s at BYU. It was after my time at BYU that I really started to question things. I probably wasn’t at BYU that caused the change, but a divorce, struggling to pay bills and child support, working three jobs, and struggling with a TBM spouse in a second marriage with bipolar disorder.
I spent huge amounts of time reading and studying both the church and history, asking questions all the time about how this applied to me and to the world around me. I talked with people and didn’t try to argue, but tried to ask questions to understand. After 25 years in my second marriage and a divorce, the personal reflection intensified. One thing I noticed then was how many in the church, diploma or not, did not know the history of the church hense had no questions. The second thing I noticed was that if you talk about political things, they immediately shut down, and the most common reason was “It’s so depressing now, I don’t watch the news.”
So I don’t know if it’s a “diploma divide,” but there is something that divides members. It could be curiosity, or it could be desiveness. It could be questioning or accepting. I could be a quest to find the answers, or thinking you already have them. A diploma may give one person some tools, but not having a diploma does the same thing with different tools.
We all like to think of ourselves as reasonable, moderate, loving, accepting human beings, but there are so many labels like “liberal” or “MAGA” that are both misunderstood and demonized. There are also many misunderstood and misrepresented definitions used to define terms like “liberal” or “MAGA” that we use to equate each term or person we label with that term. No one wants to or claims to be a racist, but if someone is labeled MAGA, we might assume they are. So, of course, they aren’t going to label themselves that way. It’s the same for being labeled a Liberal because they are obviously socialists or even communists, which is a way they don’t want to be tagged.
So why is there a divide? I think it has more to do with the energy we put into learning, self-reflection, and applying our thoughts and ideas in real world situtations than it does with where we got our diploma. It’s also, who do we listen to? Is it real? Do we live in fear? Do we have faith? Can we accept people? Does everyone have to believe like me? Do we just disagree, or are you the enemy? Will it matter in our lives? Will it affect us personally? Finally, do our “standards” apply to both sides? I mean, I wonder what people would say if Biden had invaded Venezuela or talked about invading Greenland, let alone if the Epstein Files included even a hint of him (Biden).
Young people may be more liberal and older people more conservative, but there are exceptions in both groups. Data can also point in a direction for a group, but it can’t paint an individual. We need to remember to give everyone their due, listen, and try to find common ground.
I grew up in Provo in the BYU professor community and had an aunt in rural central Utah who had four kids. All her kids grew up to have blue collar jobs. All had problems with drugs. All left the church. In my Provo environment, everyone was well educated, academic minded, intellectual, and committed to the church. I grew up thinking that it was the low class who had the tendency to the leave the church and it was the intellectual white-bread types who stayed. In my interactions with the ex-Mormon community, I have found all types. College-educated and non-college-educated departers.
On political attitudes and opinions, I don’t know any hardcore MAGA intellectual Mormons. Many are conservativish and libertarian. Some are liberal. At BYU, I felt that many of my professors were more liberal, but liberal in a Mormon sense, so kind of centrist liberal. But I feel that we are entering a new age of political divides. Conservative and liberal aren’t what they used to be. The narratives have changed considerably. Perhaps the old metrics of determining what is conservative or liberal and how they are aligning with diplomas could be outdated.
ekangell has a good point: I would wager that there is a statistically-significant divide in political leanings of graduates of church-owned schools vs. other colleges. I think this is more self-sorting than causation. As I was graduating from high school 30 years ago I had friends that really wanted to be at BYU and others who really did not want to be at BYU. I would wager that this preference is a better predictor of their political leanings today than their (very young) political leanings at the time.
@Eli
>The university ones do often lean liberal?
This is primarily because the University experience forces a person to come in contact with people that they don’t understand, including the types of people who have been vilified by their family or church of origin, in a way that book learning simply does not. This teaches tolerance much more quickly and effectively than any professor could even hope to teach their subject material, let alone implement some form of liberal brainwashing. Students find respect for, and form friendships with, people who do not see the world as they do. Students learn from their own experience that when they consider the world from another person’s perspective their eyes and minds are opened in powerful new ways. The fear-based conservative movement in the US is just not palatable to someone who has experienced this.
ekangell,
My two sisters went to BYU. One came away much more liberal. The other came away apolitical but has since become more liberal. I did not go to BYU. They did get degrees that lean more to the social science side. My degree was a technical one.
Charles,
Having spent more time at a university than some graduate students do, I experienced most or all of what you described of the student experience, yet came away more conservative than before. Honestly, a small part of that was due to hanging out with self-proclaimed liberals. A good chunk of what they said sounded good on paper, but didn’t make sense to me in application. And although I wouldn’t go so far as to say the way they wanted to enforce their ideals was “fear-inducing,” (at least most of the time) it did seem rather unpleasant or unattractive. It was a small but real push toward my current location.
The older I get, the more convinced I am that the real virtue of libertarian-leaning conservatism isn’t wanting for others the same freedom you would like. It’s resisting the temptation to take all your best learned wisdom, ideas, compassions, and convictions, and work to have them promoted and enforced with legislation, recognizing that you’re applying to yourself the same standard of not imposing ideas that could possibly be faulty and dangerous (as much as you’d hate to admit that possibility) that you so often see in the others who disagree with you, who you feel seek to impose ideas that are just that– faulty and dangerous. There are a lot of good intentions out there, but there are so many other ways to promote them.
I’ll be first to admit conservatism hasn’t held to that standard of late. Utah conservatives are even worse.
I honestly haven’t found conservatism to be any more fear-based than much of what I seen in liberalism. It’s just a different brand.
@Eli I, too, was tempted toward a libertarian viewpoint as a younger man. I think it’s common for an analytical, engineer type, because, on paper, it seems the most fair.
Two things led me away from that:
1) Power Vacuums. There will always be a strong-man looking to get in power. Weakening the federal government makes this easier. Instead of “just” having a trillion dollars at his command, Elon Musk would now also have a private army. Without a strong justice system and labor laws, slavery would come back in the form of a life-long work contract, enforced by a private military. It seems the only way to prevent this is to encourage a balance of power; between states, fed, corporations, for example, or judicial, legislative, and executive. Maintaining this balance is hard! and I think that’s why libertarianism can look so appealing, it seems like a way to side-step the work of maintaining this balance of power. I just don’t think it would work. The stories we have of it “working” in the past are mostly fantasy, one-sided tails from those in power that ignore the problems.
2) Libertarianism might work great if everyone is a 20-40 year old, straight, able-bodied man, but we’re not. When I *was* those things, libertarianism made the most sense, but as I learned more about myself and others, it started to fall apart. There’s a fantasy attached the libertarian mindset that we can all mostly take care of ourselves, and just need a little assistance here and there when we twist an ankle or have a smaller crop than last year. This just doesn’t hold up to reality. We need each other more than this.
* Life is difficult for disabled folks. ADA makes it somewhat easier, at minimal cost to the overall economy. It’s a fantasy to think anything like ADA would be implemented without some weight behind it.
* When societies don’t incentivize over production of crops, famines can demolish entire groups of people. This happens over and over and over through history, and successful societies are generally the ones that have figured out how to over-produce as a practice. Libertarianism doesn’t offer a solution for this.
* Desperate men take desperate measures, including signing their lives away to work in the mines. Contract law alone cannot create a fair society.
Humans are social creatures, and we’ve always thrived when we’ve done the hard work of building and maintaining governance structures. That’s not to say what we have now is perfect, it’s the opposite – that the work we’re doing of constantly participating in civic life, responding to a changing world, is both hard and necessary.
Finally, I’ll echo your sentiment that today’s Conservative/Republican movement is not at all libertarian. The libertarians I know seem to be as angry about ICE as the liberals are. I think there’s an argument that liberals (the people, not the Dem establishment) are closer to libertarians on many issues (abortion, immigration, military spending, funding foreign wars in Israel, etc) than Rs are.
One diploma effect I observed with the church is that in places where members are sparse, many or most of those gathered in some wards are transplants from the west, and the kinds of jobs people move across the country for go to people with college degrees. When I moved to Livonia, Michigan west of Detroit, the universal greeting to a newcomer was “You work for Ford?” Half question, half probable fact. My elders’ quorum was mostly BYU graduates working in engineering, finance, or management. One person I home taught was a maintenance electrician in a factory, and he said he was the only member of the church he knew working in an assembly plant.
I wonder about the effect of this sort of thing for the post author, and how it may have factored in the shift of his writing style over the past couple decades. Some time after the beginning of DMI, he relocated to an extremely affluent and presumedly well-educated enclave in Wyoming. I suppose that the people who are productive enough to afford to live there are nearly all transplants like the author. In a reverse of the Michigan situation described in the previous paragraph, latter-day saints are a native species on the Wyoming/Idaho border, so the author finds himself interacting in his enclave mostly with well-educated transplants like himself, but at church he is surrounded by less educated natives. An astronomer studying James Webb data to describe a planet circling a star 900 light-years away has more to work with and to better effect than I do with my speculation, but since the Diploma Divide was raised, I throw it out there.
Charles, libertarians only seem to come out when Democrats are in power. When Republicans are in power they seem to go silent. It is as if they have disappeared now.