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.
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.
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.
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.
Suzanne,
Very well said. This will continue to be the focus as long as regulatory bodies continue to uncover fraudulent practices.
Cindy Bryant
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Joanie,
Welcome to the forum. As you mentioned in this repressed market students have suffered significantly while seeking employment. However, I believe that the "traditional" college graduates have had a bigger challenge than skilled graduates. The good news is reported in a Bloomberg article, there is an expected 10.2% upturn in the employment market this year which will be very helpful. Another factor that will increase employ-ability is the fact that last year the oldest members of the Baby Boom generation celebrated their 65th birthday. In fact, every year, and for every day for the next 19 years, 10,000 baby boomers will reach age 65. This will open the door to massive opportunities for our graduates. Thank you for reminding us of what our sector does so well.
Cindy Bryant
While employment has always been one of the top three focuses of our accrediting body – yes, it has been intensified due some agendas in the political arena.
This is another chance for me to say THANK YOU to our regulating and accrediting agencies for even having or expecting a standard level of employment. As you may have gleaned from my previous answers – I fully support the goals of career colleges (and not just because I work here). This is yet another opportunity for our colleges to differentiate ourselves from other institutions and colleges. Continued career service support – from enrollment to beyond graduation gives us the opportunity to build a strong working relationship with the student and ideally, their employers.
Having an expected level of employment proves that we have an overall goal of being a career college – not just trying to profit from a student’s interest while not having their best interest in mind. We recently had to teach-out a program due to the economy. Our local community college still offers the program. While yes, they may profit from that student’s initial enrollment – what about when the student realizes that there are far more qualified applicants that have already saturated the industry and willing to work for similar wages? This leads to a potential drop or worse – a potentially disgruntled graduate that can’t get employed. If they choose not to or can’t pay their loans, this could lead to potential default on the student (ruining their chance for future education until they catch up) or bad debt on the schools financial reports. Consequently, this could lead to “negative advertisement†for the college or institution. While my example is truly a slippery slope of false logic – it can (and probably has) happen(ed). I feel that these standards of employments enable career colleges to show students that we do have their best interest in mind. I have an associate’s degree from a community college, a bachelor’s degree from University of Phoenix, and two masters’ degrees from Webster University. NOT ONE of those schools have, has nor ever will inquire on my employment or career progression. That’s okay with me – it just gives schools such as mine a leading edge for those that are career driven.
I believe it has intensified as it should. It is important to know that your graduates are able to find jobs, even with the downturn to the economy. Unfortunately there are schools that have had very low placement numbers and making other proprietary schools look bad.
Becky,
I am sure that your institution appreciates your viewpoint and the fact that you take ownership of not only admissions but the entire process through graduation.
Cindy Bryant
Bridgette,
I believe that accreditors and states have always had a vehicle in place to focus on employment outcomes. I agree, the attention given those outcomes have definitely magnified for two reasons; 1) Program Integrity 2) The state of the economy, where there has been diminished employment leading to poor employment percentages.
Cindy Bryant
I do believe that they aremore focused on employment outcomes, especially state regulatory bodies. I think this is in large part to the DOE gainful employment driver.
With our focus for students being "success" as defined in not just starting school, but more importantly, graduating, becoming employed, graduating with less debt, etc. I believe that for some institutions and employees in the industry it would be defined as "more instense". However, within my own belief, no. I have always belived and trained my admissions teams with the focus to be just that, Graduation and beyond.
I believe the intensity has increased in the aspect of what we are required to provide to students in regards to "their rights to know" and that some have felt the impact of now insuring that they play a major role in student retention from the very beginning versus simply focusing on getting students to start school. As admissions representatives, we are equally accountable for retention, graduation, and all other areas of success for our students, therefore, some admissions employees may feel the pressure if they have not practiced ethical practices for enrolling students in the past.
