This is a great change. When I went to college, I came out with a certain amount of debt, as one does. The college I attended used the idea that graduates made more once they graduated. When I got done colleging, I asked the Alum organization several times what they had in terms of jobs--particularly when it came to paying back loans. I even asked the student loan people eventually if they were hiring. Not a single person from any of those institutions, who sold the idea of college education resulting in higher paying jobs, answered me. Not once.
The system is not accustomed to having any kind of accountability for the stuff it says. It is only interested in ensnaring people to its terms, and capturing its capital. Once that is finished, it is "done" with you. This flips that script, potentially.
Given that it requires failing to do in 2 of 3 years, I assume this will be moot when the next administration reverses the rule before it can ever be applied
This is a great example of a ham-fisted regulatory response to a real problem. Colleges have no control over what graduates earn. Presumably, applicants evaluate colleges based on their career choices, and the successful track record of former graduates. But the job market is a moving target, and it's the student's responsibility to choose the right courses and majors to fit their goals.
Furthermore, as other people have said way better than me, any time you measure performance using a single metric, performers start optimizing for that metric alone. That's what leads to a trade school, not a college. Maybe colleges are obsolete, but there's a breadth of knowledge you can't get in a trade school.
From Dept. of Education itself:
https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of...
https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fact-sheet-trump-administr... [pdf]
This is a great change. When I went to college, I came out with a certain amount of debt, as one does. The college I attended used the idea that graduates made more once they graduated. When I got done colleging, I asked the Alum organization several times what they had in terms of jobs--particularly when it came to paying back loans. I even asked the student loan people eventually if they were hiring. Not a single person from any of those institutions, who sold the idea of college education resulting in higher paying jobs, answered me. Not once.
The system is not accustomed to having any kind of accountability for the stuff it says. It is only interested in ensnaring people to its terms, and capturing its capital. Once that is finished, it is "done" with you. This flips that script, potentially.
Given that it requires failing to do in 2 of 3 years, I assume this will be moot when the next administration reverses the rule before it can ever be applied
This is a great example of a ham-fisted regulatory response to a real problem. Colleges have no control over what graduates earn. Presumably, applicants evaluate colleges based on their career choices, and the successful track record of former graduates. But the job market is a moving target, and it's the student's responsibility to choose the right courses and majors to fit their goals.
Furthermore, as other people have said way better than me, any time you measure performance using a single metric, performers start optimizing for that metric alone. That's what leads to a trade school, not a college. Maybe colleges are obsolete, but there's a breadth of knowledge you can't get in a trade school.