College Gainful Employment Rule
-
All schools of higher education will face stricter requirements proving certain certificate programs lead to better employment opportunities
I have a problem with the bolded part there.
Our higher education systems in absolutely no way prepare students to enter the largest expanse of opportunity we've seen this century, but it's not employment, it's working for themselves.
Distribution systems, marketing, tech, software, hell even a lot of industrial processes and factory work has been completely democratized. There's no reason not to teach students how to self-employ and yet we don't.
The higher education students who would be the most open to this, have skills most adapted to this form of work and have the most immediate opportunities to do so are also the least instructed on how to do it.
-
All schools of higher education will face stricter requirements proving certain certificate programs lead to better employment opportunities
I have a problem with the bolded part there.
Our higher education systems in absolutely no way prepare students to enter the largest expanse of opportunity we've seen this century, but it's not employment, it's working for themselves.
Distribution systems, marketing, tech, software, hell even a lot of industrial processes and factory work has been completely democratized. There's no reason not to teach students how to self-employ and yet we don't.
The higher education students who would be the most open to this, have skills most adapted to this form of work and have the most immediate opportunities to do so are also the least instructed on how to do it.
@Aqua-Letifer , a more complete reading would be like this:
All schools of higher education will face stricter requirements proving certain certificate programs lead to better employment opportunities to retain access to federal student aid
I think it's a good policy. Sure, a self-funded student can study whatever he wants. But the tax payers are well within reason to refuse funding courses of studies that are unlikely to lead to positive economic returns.
-
@Aqua-Letifer , a more complete reading would be like this:
All schools of higher education will face stricter requirements proving certain certificate programs lead to better employment opportunities to retain access to federal student aid
I think it's a good policy. Sure, a self-funded student can study whatever he wants. But the tax payers are well within reason to refuse funding courses of studies that are unlikely to lead to positive economic returns.
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Aqua-Letifer , a more complete reading would be like this:
All schools of higher education will face stricter requirements proving certain certificate programs lead to better employment opportunities to retain access to federal student aid
I think it's a good policy. Sure, a self-funded student can study whatever he wants. But the tax payers are well within reason to refuse funding courses of studies that are unlikely to lead to positive economic returns.
Yes, I read that part too, thank you.
It's not a good policy because "positive economic returns" ≠ "have an employer" anymore. If that's the only future higher education prepares students for then they're doing both the students and the economy a disservice. There are plenty of ways to measure the extent to which self-employed graduates are successful, there's no need to use a job as a metric.
Please love yourself.
-
I agree with Aqua. While the goal is worthwhile, there needs to be more nuance in the policy. I haven't been a standard employee for 30 years, yet my economic results are superior to most all employment.
Still, defunding a lot of these private commercial operations that essentially steal money by selling students their dream would be a good thing.
-
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Aqua-Letifer , a more complete reading would be like this:
All schools of higher education will face stricter requirements proving certain certificate programs lead to better employment opportunities to retain access to federal student aid
I think it's a good policy. Sure, a self-funded student can study whatever he wants. But the tax payers are well within reason to refuse funding courses of studies that are unlikely to lead to positive economic returns.
Yes, I read that part too, thank you.
It's not a good policy because "positive economic returns" ≠ "have an employer" anymore. If that's the only future higher education prepares students for then they're doing both the students and the economy a disservice. There are plenty of ways to measure the extent to which self-employed graduates are successful, there's no need to use a job as a metric.
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Aqua-Letifer , a more complete reading would be like this:
All schools of higher education will face stricter requirements proving certain certificate programs lead to better employment opportunities to retain access to federal student aid
I think it's a good policy. Sure, a self-funded student can study whatever he wants. But the tax payers are well within reason to refuse funding courses of studies that are unlikely to lead to positive economic returns.
Yes, I read that part too, thank you.
It's not a good policy because "positive economic returns" ≠ "have an employer" anymore. If that's the only future higher education prepares students for then they're doing both the students and the economy a disservice. There are plenty of ways to measure the extent to which self-employed graduates are successful, there's no need to use a job as a metric.
@Aqua-Letifer and @Mik,
Also read the actual policy document linked in the article. The metrics for "gainful employment" center around "debt-to-earnings rate" and "earning premium test" -- there is no bias in the policy for "having an employer," no bias against being "self-employed." It's all about "earnings" and "debts." It's good policy.
-
It really is quite simple. For the first two years of schooling, Pell Grants must be used at Community Colleges or 2 year Trade Certification schools. It will eliminate half of these students debts and also allow them to mature some before accruing debt in higher amounts as they pursue their bachelor’s degrees. You also require any recipient of financial aid to attend career/investment counseling with a financial aid officer to go over their plans and have a full understanding of what their debt vs expected income will look like in a few years,
-
It really is quite simple. For the first two years of schooling, Pell Grants must be used at Community Colleges or 2 year Trade Certification schools. It will eliminate half of these students debts and also allow them to mature some before accruing debt in higher amounts as they pursue their bachelor’s degrees. You also require any recipient of financial aid to attend career/investment counseling with a financial aid officer to go over their plans and have a full understanding of what their debt vs expected income will look like in a few years,
@LuFins-Dad said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
It really is quite simple. For the first two years of schooling, Pell Grants must be used at Community Colleges or 2 year Trade Certification schools. ...
Not that simple; your proposal creates incentives for Community Colleges and 2-year Trade Certification schools to jack up their tuitions to soak up Pell Grants.
Artificial bias for certain types of schools incentivize those types of schools to game the system. Better to use a uniform set of performance requirements to evaluate all schools.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Aqua-Letifer , a more complete reading would be like this:
All schools of higher education will face stricter requirements proving certain certificate programs lead to better employment opportunities to retain access to federal student aid
I think it's a good policy. Sure, a self-funded student can study whatever he wants. But the tax payers are well within reason to refuse funding courses of studies that are unlikely to lead to positive economic returns.
Yes, I read that part too, thank you.
It's not a good policy because "positive economic returns" ≠ "have an employer" anymore. If that's the only future higher education prepares students for then they're doing both the students and the economy a disservice. There are plenty of ways to measure the extent to which self-employed graduates are successful, there's no need to use a job as a metric.
@Aqua-Letifer and @Mik,
Also read the actual policy document linked in the article. The metrics for "gainful employment" center around "debt-to-earnings rate" and "earning premium test" -- there is no bias in the policy for "having an employer," no bias against being "self-employed." It's all about "earnings" and "debts." It's good policy.
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Aqua-Letifer , a more complete reading would be like this:
All schools of higher education will face stricter requirements proving certain certificate programs lead to better employment opportunities to retain access to federal student aid
I think it's a good policy. Sure, a self-funded student can study whatever he wants. But the tax payers are well within reason to refuse funding courses of studies that are unlikely to lead to positive economic returns.
Yes, I read that part too, thank you.
It's not a good policy because "positive economic returns" ≠ "have an employer" anymore. If that's the only future higher education prepares students for then they're doing both the students and the economy a disservice. There are plenty of ways to measure the extent to which self-employed graduates are successful, there's no need to use a job as a metric.
@Aqua-Letifer and @Mik,
Also read the actual policy document linked in the article. The metrics for "gainful employment" center around "debt-to-earnings rate" and "earning premium test" -- there is no bias in the policy for "having an employer," no bias against being "self-employed." It's all about "earnings" and "debts." It's good policy.
How do they define earnings and how do they measure it?
-
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves. We're already working hard to get back to a landed gentry, might as well add this to the list.
-
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves. We're already working hard to get back to a landed gentry, might as well add this to the list.
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
EDIT
Nahh I'll just amend to say I think you're very wrong about this. -
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
Apply that argument to learning a musical instrument and see where it leaves you.
I was only joking
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
-
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years.
You're saying gender studies can wait until after age 8, is that it?
I believe most democrats would disagree.
@Copper said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years.
You're saying gender studies can wait until after age 8, is that it?
Gender studies can wait, but alas some aspects of biological sex need to be confronted as soon as one starts “toilet training,” for the urination system is inextricably intertwined with a primary sexual organ for most people. :man-shrugging:
That said, some aspects of gender studies are usually addressed very early in most families. Fairy tales and Biblical bed time stories commonly read at bedtimes to young children often have built-in elements of gender studies, with gender neutrality generally being an exception rather than the norm.
-
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Aqua-Letifer said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
@Mik said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Sounds like a death knell for federal government subsidies for liberal arts education.
Fixed it for you.
Oh great so we go back to the aristo model where only rich kids can afford to spend the time to educate themselves.
Yes if you take a narrow view of "educating oneself." When we complain about tax payers funding "useless" studies like underwater basket weaving or majors that ends with "*** Studies," that's the direction we are heading. Only rich kids have the luxury to study subjects with low prospects for near-term economic returns.
A broader view of "educating oneself" would also acknowledge that learning an economically productive craft is also a form of education, and the "gainful employment" policy being discussed here does not preclude poor kids from gaining this sort of education with public tax payer support.
Liberal arts education need not be rushed in one's younger years. It's OK to first focus on developing economically valuable skills while one is younger, then after one accumulates savings to pursue less economically productive activities (presumably the "poor kids" would by this time be "older" and "richer"), devote more of one's time and attention to study liberal arts. Tax payer support not needed.
Apply that argument to learning a musical instrument and see where it leaves you.
@Doctor-Phibes said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Apply that argument to learning a musical instrument and see where it leaves you.
Much fewer people will attain proficiencies with musical instruments. If a society wants more people to attain proficiencies with musical instruments, increase tax payer funding to subsidize lessons for musical instruments for the children.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Apply that argument to learning a musical instrument and see where it leaves you.
Much fewer people will attain proficiencies with musical instruments. If a society wants more people to attain proficiencies with musical instruments, increase tax payer funding to subsidize lessons for musical instruments for the children.
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Much fewer people will attain proficiencies with musical instruments. If a society wants more people to attain proficiencies with musical instruments, increase tax payer funding to subsidize lessons for musical instruments for the children.
Alternatively, wait until they're gainfully employed as accountants, and then they can start paying for themselves to learn an instrument. Because that will work, right?
-
@Axtremus said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Much fewer people will attain proficiencies with musical instruments. If a society wants more people to attain proficiencies with musical instruments, increase tax payer funding to subsidize lessons for musical instruments for the children.
Alternatively, wait until they're gainfully employed as accountants, and then they can start paying for themselves to learn an instrument. Because that will work, right?
@Doctor-Phibes said in College Gainful Employment Rule:
Alternatively, wait until they're gainfully employed as accountants, and then they can start paying for themselves to learn an instrument. Because that will work, right?
Either the poor kids wait until they can afford it to learn an instrument, or the tax payers subsidize their lessons. Take your pick.
Private charities won't be able to subsidize them all.
