Last week I began this topic by discussing the issue of the potential for "gainful employment" requirements in higher education. These requirements would demand that the incomes of graduates cover the costs of the education students receive. The emphasis so far is on for-profit colleges and universities, but they may well trickle down to those of us in the non-profit education business. As promised, today I will look at some possible ways gainful employment might be measured.
Option A: Average income of the institution's graduates - The simplest option, this would spread out the highs and lows of degree cost over the entire student population. So long as the average income is acceptable, high cost degrees in the STEM fields would be covered by the lower cost degrees in other fields. This will encourage forming larger institutions where income averages can remain more steady. Of course this will do little to improve smaller individual programs which are shielded from the gainful employment standard by the mass of student outside the program.
Option B: Global average income per specific degree - This would involve determining the average pay of the newly minted degree holder nationally, regionally, or state and then assessing the cost of the degree at the particular institution. If the tuition/income ratio is acceptable funding would be made available for that program. The advantage would be that schools would be encouraged to get rid of degrees that really don't pay for themselves. Of course, since in some fields boom and bust cycles are common some leeway would be be needed so that programs are not opening and closing with the boom and bust of the economy.
I am sure there are other options, but I think my point is made that the practical issue of "gainful employment" standards is worth considering and discussing before it is imposed on higher education.
T.S. Hall
Option A: Average income of the institution's graduates - The simplest option, this would spread out the highs and lows of degree cost over the entire student population. So long as the average income is acceptable, high cost degrees in the STEM fields would be covered by the lower cost degrees in other fields. This will encourage forming larger institutions where income averages can remain more steady. Of course this will do little to improve smaller individual programs which are shielded from the gainful employment standard by the mass of student outside the program.
Option B: Global average income per specific degree - This would involve determining the average pay of the newly minted degree holder nationally, regionally, or state and then assessing the cost of the degree at the particular institution. If the tuition/income ratio is acceptable funding would be made available for that program. The advantage would be that schools would be encouraged to get rid of degrees that really don't pay for themselves. Of course, since in some fields boom and bust cycles are common some leeway would be be needed so that programs are not opening and closing with the boom and bust of the economy.
Option C: Institutional average income per specific degree - The Option A funding scheme does not allow for assessment of the value added by a specific school's program. If my school's graduates are highly sought after and earn above average salaries post graduation, my tuition/income ratio should not be evaluated based on average income in a specified geographic region. Of course this means that tracking of individual students would have to be accomplished. Those of us involved in student development grants know how difficult this can be. Schools would need to add to their costs by hiring people to track students. The advantage of this option would be that the individual program would reap the rewards of producing a higher valued product.
I am sure there are other options, but I think my point is made that the practical issue of "gainful employment" standards is worth considering and discussing before it is imposed on higher education.
T.S. Hall
No comments:
Post a Comment