For Placement Rates
What is the difference between calculating placement rates on a Program Basis / Program Level versus calculating placement rates at the institutional level?
Some schools report placement rates for a combination of programs (all undergraduate level, and all graduate level for example). Some report a combined institutional placement rate for all programs. Does that answer your questions?
I would think the best way to report the statistical findings would be to report per Program by each institution. This would allow each program to be reviewed individually to determine job availability upon graduation.
Because demographics differ within each institution/region, having the individual institution information would allow a comparison per region to determine program need.
As a Program Director, this comparative information would be helpful.
At our institution, we have a Facial program and a Cosmetology program. Those programs are further subdivided into full-time (day) and part-time (night) programs.
Although we could report an overall placement rate for our institution as a whole, it would not accurately reflect the placement rate of a particular program a prospective student is considering.
Providing placement rates for each program helps the student make a more informed decision.
Reporting on a Program Basis allows the applicant to determine just how well the school performs in any given area. This would be preferable.
tHE DIFFERENCE MAY BE THE rate requirement. I believe at our institution we have an accreditating body that dictate the rates for each program based on specific cohort reporting periods. The institution have a different number which they require which is higher. The institution also have other specific requirements for reporting placement numbers that the accreditating agency does not require.
Placement rates on a program basis gives an accurate assessment of placement rates for a particular program. Grouping and calculating the placement rates together could lead to misleading prospective students.
Calculating placement rates on a program basis gives the perspective student an accurate idea of what the placement rates are for that program. To combine placements for the entire school could be misleading as some programs have higher placement rates than others. For campus level, it is good to see how the entire campus is doing, but also on an indiviual program basis.
Shannon - I think your point is one of the drivers behind new regulations around program-specific disclosures. I think the challenge for schools will be with new or small enrollment programs when rates may not meet statistical guidelines for accurate representation.
Our accrediating agency does require placement reporting by program. The use of CampusVue and the various reporting available allows us to evaluate the effectiveness of each schedule within a program.
Our placement rates in the past years have excluded anyone that did not become licensed for whatever reason. That will change as of the reports due this Fall based on 2010 graduates. Our state licensing requirement is a three part process with fees associated at each part.
We have had to really shift gears and change our strategy to meet these requirements. Unfortunately many of our graduates end up working for themselves since they now have the skill level and provide services to their clients without ever getting licensed.
I'm curious if there are other institutions with programs experiencing similar challenges.
Tracking placement is becoming more and more challenging. Some graduates self-report out of pride in their accomplishments and wanting to share good news; others report when contacted (and sometimes reaching them instead of their voicemail is the tricky part); and others will not report no matter what.
The issue of licensure is especially difficult - for some states, it is a matter of checking a state website for licensure information on an individual. Other states don't have an online source for checking. It would be wonderful if there were a uniform reporting requirement for all states' licensures through easily accessed websites. If licensure is required for practicing in the field of study but a graduate does not ever obtain licensure, we are responsible for assisting that graduate with finding employment that is related to their program (as opposed to "in the field of study"). One action we have taken to assist students through the multiple levels of licensure with fees at each part of the process is to reimburse them for the cost when they pass each part. However, for many students the problem is coming up with the money in the first place, and reimbursement doesn't really address that issue.
If a graduate was sponsored by an agency, sometimes a caseworker can be of assistance in obtaining employment information. As an institution we must often provide that information to a sponsoring agency, and if the graduate is not forthcoming, sometimes the caseworker is willing to get involved to help obtain the needed information. I would like to see sponsoring agencies be more aggressive in requiring recipients of their assistance to comply with our needs for information related to maintaining accreditation.
Martha - you bring up some important points. Even when students may share information about their employment, increased senstitivity to "privacy" make some details, such as salary, more difficult to obtain. This makes it challenging to gather the information required to meet reporting regulations.
If an institution is being evaluated solely on institutional placement rates this could shadow a problematic program. If program A has a 100% placement rate and program B has a 50% placement rate and you report your institutional placement rate at 75% (which is true and accurate) you are most likely meeting Accreditation standards but don’t lose focus on program B as it could get lost in the mix. If you report on program basis/program level, you must review each program separately and meet benchmarks according to standards. This is a comprehensive review of programs within an institution in which each program is a part of a sum.
Looking at the reverse of this situation, missing out that Program A is 100% in its placement. This is a great advertising tool and those involved with this rate need to be congratulated for their efforts. If all program could be at 100%, what a fantastic program.
At the same time, look at the retention/gratuation rate. In order to get 100% placement, if the retention/gratuation rate is only 30%, this is not a good situation.
All rates must be considered together and not separated. We must look at the whole picture and not focus in on only the good. Good & Bad go together.
Our institution expected rateds vary depending on the length of the program.
Each program should be reported individually, this assures that you are meeting the standard requirements for each program. If one program is not meeting standards and others are meeting standards, then the only one to be reviewed will be the program below standard requirements.
Regulations for reporting placement are the defining factor for our industry, and are intended to ensure that career colleges and schools of technology are training students for market needs, whether in a specific sector (such as healthcare or IT) or a specific geographical area. In the most basic, stripped-down terms, placement rates reflect the market need and the supply to meet it. A host of other factors play into that rate, like the economy, new technology, and changes in industry-specific regulations that necessitate training (for example, EMR or Environmental Health and Safety Training), but the bottom line on it, no matter what the reasons, is need and supply.
Perhaps the single characteristic that has been most advantageous to our industry is the ability to make "less than substantive changes" to enhance and adapt programs for maximum placement outcomes. It is a distinct advantage that we have had in contrast to public colleges and training centers that were often burdened with more cumbersome processes, and it enabled us to make relatively quick changes that produced positive results. This advantage was particularly suited to shorter program lengths, like certificate/diploma programs and associate degrees. However, local government-funded training centers especially, and in some cases public community colleges and universities, have accelerated their ability to function that way, retiring or limiting programs that don't have good outcomes or for which the demand is lessening, and implementing new programs or changing existing programs to meet and even anticipate specific industry needs in the way career colleges once did much more often and successfully.
Martha - thanks for your insight! You brought up a very valuable, and often overlooked, benefit that more nimble and agile institutions possess -current and relevant curriculum. Thank you for sharing as I think this is a point that the industry needs to emphasize when we are facing negative public scrutiny.
Reporting by program helps to evaluate each schedule within a program. To combine the program rates could give misleading info.
This is so true. Why would one chose to hide program specific stats? How can they be addressed if hidden?
