|
 |
Inside Higher Education
Many Nonprofit College Programs Would Fail Gainful Test
Data in a new online tool raise questions about how well public and
nonprofit colleges and universities are doing in helping students earn
enough to repay their debt.
By Kery Murakami
January 16, 2020
Only about 60 percent of programs at private nonprofit institutions,
and 70 percent of those at public colleges and universities, would pass
the Obama administration’s gainful-employment test, if it were in place
and applied to them, according to an online tool developed by a
conservative Texas policy group.
Coming amid a stalemate over how to proceed with college accountability
after Education Secretary Betsy DeVos repealed the gainful-employment
rule in July, the tool made public by the Texas Public Policy
Foundation was aimed in part to further the idea that public and
nonprofit institutions -- and not just for-profit colleges -- should
face scrutiny for how well graduates do financially.
The Obama administration rule subjected colleges and universities to a
loss of financial aid funding if too large a share of their graduates
do not make enough to repay their student debt. While nondegree
programs at public and private nonprofit colleges were subject to the
rule, it was controversial for being aimed primarily at for-profit
institutions. In repealing the measure, DeVos said it unfairly targeted
colleges and universities based on their tax status.
“As a country, we’ve only really applied the accountability metrics
once, during the Obama administration,” Andrew Gillen, senior policy
analyst in the foundation’s Center for Innovation in Education, said in
a telephone interview. “What would happen if we applied the exact
income and debt measures to other institutions?”
“What was shocking [was] how many programs are failing and how many students are attending those programs,” he said.
Based on the Department of Education’s College Scorecard data, the tool
allows a search for the median income and debt of graduates at 40,000
college programs (one year out of college, controversially -- many
college officials argue that taking such a short-term view is
appropriate for vocational programs, but not for four-year degrees).
Using similar standards to those in the gainful-employment rule --
based on the percentage of graduates’ income compared to their debt --
it judges whether programs would pass or fail the test or be on
probation.
According to the web tool, private for-profit programs indeed do worse
than public and private nonprofit programs in getting graduates jobs
that pay enough so they are not overwhelmed by their student loans.
Only 5,646 of 10,147, or 55.6 percent, of private, for-profit programs
for which income and debt data were available would have passed the
standard. Another 2,071, or a fifth, would have failed. And 2,430, or
24 percent, of the programs would have been on probation. As with other
types of institutions, data were not available for a large number of
programs -- 10,633.
But private nonprofits didn’t do much better. Only 6,262 of 10,585
programs, or 59 percent, would have passed. Another 1,916, or 18
percent, would have failed. And 2,407, or 22.7 percent, would have been
on probation. No information was available for 56,965 others.
Public institutions fared the best, with 14,234 of 20,216, or 70
percent, passing. Only 1,463, or 7.2 percent, of the programs failed.
Another 4,519, or 22.3 percent, would have been on probation. Data were
not available for 103,283 programs.
This indicates that a lot of the people asserting that for-profits are
uniquely bad actors are wrong -- as a group, their performance is quite
similar to that of nonprofits. Publics do noticeably better than either
nonprofit private or for-profit colleges, no doubt because they
generally cost less to attend and therefore their graduates have less
debt.
In part, the tool is designed to make the Scorecard data accessible
enough to let parents and high school students choose what programs to
go to, Gillen said.
“If someone were to say they got into Harvard, should they go? People
would say they should,” Gillen said. But according to the tool,
Harvard’s dentistry program failed the test. A Harvard spokeswoman had
no immediate comment.
But the Harvard School of Dental Medicine said in a statement, "Tools
like this can be misleading when looking at gainful employment in the
field of dentistry. It’s concerning that the data does not provide a
comprehensive comparison of programs or take into account the career
paths of graduates. Harvard School of Dental Medicine graduates go on
to highly successful careers and residencies in competitive dental
specialty programs, achieving earnings well beyond gainful employment
requirements."
To Gillen, the tool would also help college administrators see how well
programs are preparing students to get adequately paying jobs. But he
said it could guide policy makers as well in withholding funding from
underperforming programs.
It’s also intended to guide policy makers to restore but expand the
idea of penalizing programs that leave students with too much debt, an
idea nonprofit colleges generally oppose.
Differences by Discipline
Some programs were particularly problematic. Only 14 percent of law
students graduated from programs that would pass, while almost 70
percent graduated from programs that would fail.
Because the College Scorecard data differ from what was used by the
Education Department in implementing the gainful-employment rule,
Gillen acknowledged making a number of technical adjustments.
Douglas Webber, director of graduate studies and an associate professor
at Temple University department of economics and Institute for Labor
Economics, and Robert Kelchen, an associate professor in Seton Hall
University’s department of education leadership, management and policy,
said in emails that Gillen’s methodology seemed “reasonable.”
For-profit colleges said the data showed they should not be singled
out. “There are problematic programs in all sectors,” Steve Gunderson,
president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities, the
association representing private for-profit institutions, said in a
phone interview. However, he didn’t expect a break in the stalemate.
“The partisanship that has divided the country has entered higher education,” Gunderson said.
The College Affordability Act passed by Democrats on the House
education and labor committee in October would restore the
gainful-employment rule -- but only for for-profit institutions.
Advocacy groups lamented that DeVos’s repeal of the gainful-employment
rule removed accountability from low-performing for-profit
institutions. "The gainful employment rule was a commonsense regulation
that held schools accountable for delivering value to federal student
loan borrowers. It applied to all career education programs, including
those at public and nonprofit schools, as well as to for-profit degree
programs where evidence demonstrated students had been suffering from
terrible loan outcomes while owners and shareholders got rich on
student loan dollars," Abby Shafroth, a National Consumer Law Center
lawyer, said in a statement.
Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Colleges and
Universities, said in a phone interview she’d be opposed to extending a
gainful-employment rule to public institutions. The focus of the rule
was on for-profit institutions because some misled students about being
able to get high-paying jobs. Other accountability regimes, including
boards of trustees and accreditors, at public and private nonprofit
institutions, already protect students, she said.
Placing rules on public institutions “would further exacerbate the
false narrative that the value of college relates only to employment,”
she said.
|
|
|
|
