To a certain degree because of the state of the current economy. None of us want a student to take out loans for tuition and not be able to pay them back because they are unable to find work, resulting in a bad default rate. All of us prefer the graduate gain employment in their chosen field, but as the jobs have decreased so much, it is a struggle for them. I think it may not be a bad idea for programs that have filled the local job force to be capped for enrollment to increase placement rates.
Also, as gainful employment regulations increase, so will the responsibility of the Career Services deptartment to get the salary information of the employed graduate.
Externally, the intensity has definitely increased in terms of the interest in gainful employment and program integrity by political committees. Even though the "three-strikes you're out" GE rules have been overturned, the driving force behind the regulatory agenda is still going strong.
Student loan debt has been growing at an exponential rate, which coincides with the increase in the student loan default rate. This shift has been felt across all of higher education, though the political interest is focused on the for-profit colleges and non-profit certificate programs.
Internally, student success has always been a priority to us, as educators, and to our accreditors. Collecting and assessing our gainful employment data provides us the opportunity to review our programs and make changes where needed. The goal is to always improve student outcomes and graduate success, with or without the expanding regulations. An effective institution must make this a priority.
Melissa,
Welcome to the forum. You response was well thought out and eloquently spoken. As we get ready for negotiated rule making we should prepare ourselves to embrace additional changes and or modifications that may occur. There is a possibility that we will see gainful employment redefined with revised metrics.
Cindy Bryant
I agree that the focus on outcomes always has been there. However, in regards to intensified efforts I believe this is in the data collection rather than in the numbers. Our accrediting body has recently reduced the expected lowest outcome for employment rates and even though the number might have been reduced this doesn't mean the significance of the metrics has.
Driving force I believe is politically motivated. As many new challenges and obstacles have been in the works for our sector I believe the regulatory bodies are looking for substantial and accurate data in order to further support and motivate the continued efforts by our sector to produce highly skilled and trained employees. By focusing on accurate and documented data we are able to show the need for our schools if questioned which I believe will become increasingly important for the sector in general.
I believe employment outcomes have become an intensified focus--partly due to the high unemployment rate and the increased percentage of student loan defaults. This accountability factor encourages continuous review of our programs and their relevance in saturated markets, as well as it promotes the creation of new programs to meet new career demands, and it provides disclosure information to assist prospective students in their decision to enroll in specific programs. Until there is a better understanding of the benefits of career training programs in comparison to traditional postsecondary training, regulatory bodies will continue to have different focuses and implement policies to keep accountability measures at expectation levels that are not required of traditional postsecondary institutions, which is okay. This allows us to make the continuous improvements and reviews to make sure we offer high quality programs to our students, thus meeting our goal of producing highly skilled and employable graduates in programs where we know there are career opportunities.
Jeanette,
Thank you for sharing your opinion in the forum. I agree that we will not understand our true value until we are able to measure ourselves against traditional colleges and universities. As for now we continue to improve our methods and strategies for assisting students.
Cindy Bryant
Gainful Employment regulations certainly increased the intensity and awareness of employment data, which is driven by the increasing student loan debt. Americans want graduates to be able to go to work, whether they obtain a degree or a certificate/diploma, since that is what keeps the economy going.
The focus has intensified and placed organizations under closer scrutiny. The driving force underpinning this initiative is the increase in emerging cases of fraud in this particular area.
Obviously, any discovery of unlawful activities on the part of any organization raises the suspicion on the part of regulatory agencies for all organizations.
Suzanne,
Very well said. This will continue to be the focus as long as regulatory bodies continue to uncover fraudulent practices.
Cindy Bryant
I do believe the focus on employment has intensified. I think it is a great measure of a good enrollment and a good educational experience that is working. Our students are coming to us as a novice and placing great trust that the skills we are teaching them and the information we are requiring them to learn will lead to employment upon graduation. If they are unemployable because of a poor enrolment and educational experience it should reflect on the school and enrolling students are entitled to know what the schools ratios are. It should also discourage the big schools from flooding the market with more graduates than employment opportunities.
In the past we needed to know our graduate's employment rates and it was something we worked on in our "spare" time, but made sure was done yearly. Now it is something we work on daily.
I do believe that the focus has intensified and that the driving force behind it is the economy, trying to be have students be responsible with loan debt and the knowledge that their is a job available to them and how to apply for it.
Yes, I do believe this focus has intesified since student loans have come under increasing scrutiny. This actually puts all parties involved in a very precarious position. The federal government wants schools to take responsibility for the increasing amount of federal funding students are applying for and receiving; however, this places the burden on the school to possibly begin denying admission based on loan/debt ratio which is another form of discrimination. While institutions are combating these impending changes, students are continually baffled by the fact that they earned a degree, have students loans, but were unable to find employment. Earning a degree does not guarantee employment, but provides students with the best opportunity to be prepared to enter a specific field. Students also need to realize that educational debt incurred is not bankruptable and that money needs to be paid back. In the midst of all these views the federal government has to answer to job rates and scrutiny of individual student loan debt. However, all the finger pointing and shifting of responsibility has not provided a solution.
I think that the focus has been intensified because of the current lack of jobs in our area. Regulatory bodies are probably fearing that schools may try to sell students on false job placements rates because most students are out of work and desperate to get employment.
Nicole,
In the past there may have been admissions personnel that engaged in misrepresenting employment info. With the onset of Program Integrity (CFR 34)this is less likely to occur on a regular basis. This does not mean that there aren't isolated incidents.
Cindy Bryant
I do beleive the the focus on employment outcomes have intensified over the past couple of years; and for good reason! Some schools in the past have created programs where students have been given unrealistic expectations regarding their employability after they graduate from such programs as Video Game Design, Animation, etc... I have worked at some schools where students were told that they could be expected to be paid to play video games all day long and earn up to $300,000.00/year. Obvisously, this does not serve the school or, more importantly, the student! Due to the new gainful employemnt rules that have come out, now schools are required to be realistic about employment outcomes where they may not have been scrutinized as closely in the past.
Sterling,
Thank you for sharing your experience. This is a perfect example of how schools manage to become the featured story on the evening news. It never hurts to be reminded how easily that this can occur.
Cindy Bryant
Employment outcomes have intensified because in our profession of massage therapy, it's real easy for a graduate to say they have a private practice, but without proper documentation, the graduate may actually be doing nothing which negates the true percentage of graduates that are actually working in the field.
Yes, the focus has intensified. Most likely, the reason behind this is that the government, regulators and Congress believe that private educational institutions fail to properly educate students for employment in the fields in which they studied. In addition, many students drop out of their programs with government loans and are unable to pay them back. My school posts its employment figures in a public area quarterly so that they are visible to our students and potential students.
I believe the focus has intensified due to high student loan debt along with higher default rates. Verifying that a students are employed in the field they attended school for, should reduce the default rate and lower the student debt.
Carol,
Posting employment figures in a public area indicates to the students that you have confidence in what you are doing and that you are proud of your accomplishments.
Cindy Bryant
