The American Association of Community Colleges is urging its members to weigh in on the Education Department’s “gainful employment” proposal, warning that the draft rule could “negatively affect some certificate programs.” In a letter sent to community-college leaders today, George R. Boggs, the association’s president, acknowledged that the proposed rule—which would cut off federal aid to institutions whose students carry high debt-to-income ratios and have low loan-repayment rates—would have a “limited” impact on community colleges, but added: “Our goal in shaping these regulations is not just to ensure that community colleges remain eligible for federal aid, but also that clearing the bar will be simple and straightforward as possible.” The letter suggests that colleges ask the department to clarify that the rule would not apply to one-year certificate programs that lead to associate degrees and to exempt from the rule programs in which fewer than 35 percent of students borrow federal loans, among other changes.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
6 Responses to Community Colleges Want Changes in Proposed ‘Gainful Employment’ Rule
haohtt - August 25, 2010 at 10:31 am
I have clicked the “report abuse” link for post #1. Now about the article: Although the “gainful employment” is aimed at for-profit colleges, this is another evidence of what many of us already know–non-profit institutions engaged in the same types of programs (and many of the same behaviors) as the for-profits. Reactionary legislators and regulators come up with rules and laws that often have unexpected (and hurtful) consequences. Students with degrees in areas with poor job prospects or low paying careers will often have a high debt-to-income ratio. Many friends with degrees from presitgious non-profit private universities in various “area studies” programs, classical literature, ancient languages, and other disciplines, will take many years before they can pay off their educational debts.
betterschools - August 25, 2010 at 1:50 pm
The Community Colleges would have serious problems if they were required to comply with the rule changes being imposed on the for-profits to meet Gainful Employment (GE) tests for their career degree programs.Fortunately for them, the Department’s goal was to fulfill its tacit biases by punishing successful businesses in a way that attempts to force students into public institutions. It will not work, however, because there is no capacity.The Department knew all along that most of the variance in completion and loan default problems (65-80%) are accounted for by income and other social/demographic variables and, specifically, not by institutional charter. Because they knew this, they exempted community and independent colleges (few programs would fail GE as badly as a teaching degree at almost any private college). The requirement that community colleges meet GE requirements for certificates is not grounded in empirical reality. It was the Department’s token political act to support a claim that they were not executing the anti-business agenda they are in fact executing.The Department’s strategist behind this foolish move should have his head examined! Watch closely over the next three years. The Department has created a disaster that should concern us all and will adversely affect the entire postsecondary education industry and, much worse, will push the neediest half million students out on the street in the next 12-18 months!It is already unlikely that we can meet the President’s higher education goals, even with the help of a rapidly growing for-profit sector. It is impossible that they could be met if the Department of Education gets its way in applying the internally inconsistent, contradictory, opaque, and lopsided rules regarding Gainful Employment. To meet the President’s goal that every (capable) american complete at least one year of college would require that the infrastructure expand to accommodate 50 million students. Can anyone envision the underfunded and bureaucratically sluggish publics doing that?This entire move on the part of the Department of Education is yet another unfunded mandate being pushed on the states. They need to push back. What in the world could the President have been thinking to create this factual house of cards that will immediately punish the most needy.
akprof - August 25, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Sorry naysayers – I have a relative who completed a certificate program that prepared him for a health career that doesn’t really exist – he was taught a single skill only and one that requires supervision by a licensed RN – cheaper to just hire the RN to carry out this skill as well as other related skills. Clearly, he’s not working in the field and I doubt that he has paid back his student load – which was hefty! Such certificate programs SHOULD NOT be exempted!
frinehart - August 25, 2010 at 4:27 pm
There is a response to akprof, of course. No institution should be offering certificates unless they lead to gainful employment or ladder to a degree that does. It is unethical to students and a waste of institutional resources.
peggy875 - August 26, 2010 at 9:43 am
Whether or not these programs are taught by for-profit, non profit or public institutions is really immaterial in doing the right thing for our students. All institutions should be held to the same accountability.
merchant222 - August 31, 2010 at 11:08 pm
@frinehart: “No institution should be offering certificates unless they lead to gainful employment or ladder to a degree that does. It is unethical to students and a waste of institutional resources.”Unethical? If I want to learn something, I can only learn it if it will lead to gainful employment? What, we can’t learn something just for the sake of learning? It has to always lead to gainful employment? Sometimes a certificate, while not leading to employment, or promotions, can still help a person do their job better. And sometimes a certificate is just for the person’s own pleasure, edification, or to assist in a hobby. In a free country, a person should be free to study what they want to study – even if its just for the heck of it.