During the 2016 Presidential Election, voters found themselves on the receiving end of two very polarizing figures. Hillary Clinton, a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State, was the embodiment of political prowess. As an experienced government official, Clinton had come into the race with her reputation preceding her. Known for her involvement in healthcare reform, the Benghazi Incident, and middle-eastern foreign policy, Clinton was more than experienced in the political arena.

Her education? A Juris Doctorate from Yale Law School.

Donald Trump, was a business tycoon, making his fortune by buying and renovating various properties across the world. His infamy resulted in the creation of his own reality television series “The Apprentice” propelling him into an even larger spotlight. Throughout the years Trump became known for his bluntness, a trait that would carry forward into his presidential campaign.

His education? A Bachelors from the University of Pennsylvania.

So why were these candidates viewed so differently and at what point did their education become influential?

The Pew Research Center stated that in the last election

“College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980”

Those numbers are very telling, showcasing the impact of higher education on each candidate’s persona. Whether it is the voter that is educated or the candidate, there appears to be a noticeable distinction between those who have attended college and those that have not.

For many voters, the titles associated with higher education were not the concern, as Trump’s educational history was never questioned. It instead, comes down to the linguistics of each candidate, something that is generally equivalent to the candidate’s level of education.

When electoral candidates use advanced word choice, they isolate themselves from the “average” American. Because of this, they often times dilute their own vocabulary. During the electoral race, there was a noticeable grammatical contrast between the candidates. On average, Hillary Clinton spoke publically at a high school level, while her competitor, Donald Trump spoke with the grammatical equivalency of a middle schooler.

Despite President Trump’s many grammatical failures, his nationalist fan base, both pre-and post-election, has failed to critique his public speaking.

Trump framed himself as the “people’s president” expressing blunt sentiments that many Americans agreed with. These opinions, many of which were formed without factual support, allowed Trump to connect with his core supporters, uneducated white America. This group, which has failed to accept factual statements in the past, felt as though their views had finally been acknowledged by a presidential candidate.

In addition, the prolonged use of the term “fake news” by Trump and his administration, has furthered the divide between uneducated and educated voters, with the former believing that they can no longer trust the academic community.

As America jumped from president to president uneducated Americans began to appear left out of the conversation. With more and more voters obtaining a college degree this group became isolated and henceforth ignored by traditional political frontrunners. As the Obama administration attempted to maneuver through a complex maze of economic, environmental and foreign policy, uneducated white America felt ignored. This group, which had become unwilling to understand issues outside of the national spotlight, was demanding direct intervention, something that Donald Trump claimed he would provide.

With the victory of Donald Trump, these anti-academic sentiments were validated, fueling the nation’s largest critique of higher education in the 21^st century.