> If a program cannot show that it leaves its graduates financially better off than if they had never enrolled, it should not be underwritten by federal taxpayers

Wouldn't this punish a huge number of students who struggle academically, by comparing them against better-achievers who simply skipped school?

The two populations being compared are entirely different for a lot of schools. Just because the average student skipping college does better than the average student attending a particular college, that doesn't mean the average one that attended college would've done as well as the average one that skipped.

▲

bruce511 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's much more complicated than that.

>> If an undergraduate program's graduates don't earn more than workers who never went to college,

Lots of things affect earnings. Obviously education is one of them, but it's not the only one.

Location, economic environment, social status, personal network - all are factors. In other words comparing unequal things leads to unequal results.

For example, a first-generation college attendee gets a solid job working at a non-profit helping others. Someone else in the same town goes straight into Dad's profitable factory as a manager.

Of course those might be outliers. We can use statistics to smooth things. But equally we can use statistics to show anything we want.

Yes, there are lots of really crap colleges. There are colleges that specialize in nonsense degrees in useless subjects. (English Poetry you say? Hah. Poets never made any money...)

But equally there are lots of community colleges, taking in marginal students, giving them opportunities where others won't. Some, maybe most, of those students won't make it. But some will.

The effect of a rule like this is that colleges are forced to game the system. To exclude those who might fail. To reduce social mobility.

A cynic might even suggest this is the real goal of the rule to begin with.

▲

3eb7988a1663 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Also unclear how it works for the PhD pipeline. If you roll straight from bachelor's to a doctorate program - you have abysmal earnings for the next 5-6 years of your life.

▲

bruce511 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Indeed. Equally the person who has 4 Years experience in the workplace probably does better than a first year grad.

In other words, when trying to measure value outcomes, what time period should one consider?

And does the rule apply at the college level or the program level? If I churn out 100 people in my law school, can I average their prospects with 50 from my Archaeology degree? Or with 50 from my "music in movies" degree?

▲

dataflow 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unless a program has a habit of sending the majority of its undergrads into PhDs, that part might not be so hard to resolve -- just exclude everyone who does that from the measurement sample.

	▲	bruce511 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Who decides who should be included or excluded from the statistics? The govt? In this era of open hostility to institutions that won't toe the line? Who are looking for ways to punish what they don't like? Or perhaps the college? If they decide then can they pick and choose who goes into what statistic? Does a drop-out (like say Bill Gates) get included or excluded? Do we even accept the premise, that education's sole goal is higher salaries? This whole rule is performative. It merely gives power to the powerful to exercise in whatever way they like.

▲

WalterBright 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You're right that getting a PhD comes with a vow of poverty. Unless your doctorate is in AI.

▲

sieabahlpark 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

quadrifoliate 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Wouldn't this punish a huge number of students who struggle academically, by comparing them against better-achievers who simply skipped school?

Why would it not just compare them to the average person who skips school, which can be a combination of better and worse achievers? Is there some part I'm missing where the academically struggling are selectively compared to elite school-skippers?

▲

tbrownaw 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I read the parent comment as claiming that some colleges select student bodies that are on average worse than the average of people who don't go to college at all.

	▲	5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

nashashmi 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It would definitely punish hosting degree programs that have poor career prospects and outcomes.

▲

riddlemethat 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do those students deserve lifelong debt they cannot discharge?