Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Gainful Employment Rule

Gainful Employment Rule

David vs. Goliath

In 1986, I graduated from Penn State University. My costs to attend for four years are about the same it costs to attend there today for one year. In a little over two decades, the cost of higher education has skyrocketed; and what has occurred at Penn State is the norm. And in today’s job market, many students are unable to find employment in their chosen field – if they can find a job at all.

In an apparent effort to protect students from incurring high student debts, while at the same time not being able to pay them off, the Obama administration has enacted the Gainful Employment Rule (DOE Press Release). This rule is designed to punish institutions whose students graduate and their salary to loan-debt ratio is too high. In other words, too much of their income is going to pay back their student loan and these students are at a higher risk of defaulting on their loans.

The punishment for wayward institutions is a corresponding reduction in student loans. An institution that cannot extend student loans cannot survive. In theory it seems that the federal government is looking to protect unsuspecting students from predatory institutions; but upon closer inspection, this rule is designed for the federal government to seize control of higher education is this nation.

The major problem with this proposed rule is that it will only affect for-profit or vocational colleges. These institutions play a major role in developing young people to learn a skill and enter the workforce. These institutions fill a void left by traditional colleges and universities as they reach out to those who are not prepared for a four year school either financially, emotionally or otherwise.

Since this rule will only affect for-profit schools, its unfairness can easily be demonstrated. A criminal justice major at a vocational school will incur less than half the debt a criminal justice major will incur at a four year school; yet their earning potential in their chosen field are essentially the same –  a police officer earns the same pay whether coming from a two-year program or a four-year program. Thus the distinction of whether or not you came from a vocational school (thus subject to the loan-debt ratio) or a traditional college is illogical.

Far from actually helping students, this rule will hinder their educational prospects as over time, many private institutions will be forced to close their doors as scarce funding will be funneled to public institutions to the detriment of the private institutions. With the closing of these vital private institutions, students who are not a good fit for a traditional higher education system will have their choices for college eliminated.

And the message will be sent to those schools not yet subject to this rule, do not stray from the chosen path or else.

The Gainful Employment Rule is just another example of the federal government controlling our lives. With this rule, the federal government can dictate who gets to educate our next generation. Eventually, not only will it dictate who can teach them but what can be taught.

November cannot come fast enough.

A good blog analysis of the financial impact of the Gainful Employment Rule:  RegBlog

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

They want to shut down these for profit institutions because they fail to do one thing – brainwash as many university profs do.

Criminal this is. This upcoming election is so important to undue the killing fields of socialism that is presently attacking on all fronts: religious freedom, free speech, our American way of life.

Certo to the death!

    WarEagle82 in reply to NewtCerto. | March 4, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    No, that is not the case. These for-profit “institutions” are full of left-wing instructors filling heads full of liberal mush as long as the students can secure their loans for the next semester.

Hope Change | March 4, 2012 at 4:22 pm

All your education options are belong to us.

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.'” Ronald Reagan

“Far from actually helping students, this rule will hinder their educational prospects as over time, many private institutions will be forced to close their doors as scarce funding will be funneled to public institutions to the detriment of the private institutions.”

For the Bambi Admin, that’s a feature, not a bug. >:-(

Hope Change | March 4, 2012 at 4:34 pm

The actual future of life-long learning, the actual explosion of options for how we will learn in the near future is so exciting, so paradigm-changing, it is truly transformative.

In the near future, the whole landscape of education will have changed profoundly.

This is another example of the socialist, statist, control-freak, crypto-communists in the current regime trying to get out in front of the unfolding FREEDOM, to make THE FREEDOM stop, to shut THE FREEDOM down, to control WHAT we know and WHEN AND HOW we know it, to make sure everyone must attend THIER statist schools or no school at all.

this is the show-down, my friends. NOW UNTIL THE ELECTION AND BEYOND.

Because they’re losing their grip. Their losing control of the gatekeeping of the narrative. WE talk to each other on the intertubes!!! They know they are about to lose control of us because of social media and the internet.

This is their last-ditch effort to take away our beautiful, exciting FREE future that is unfolding.

Oh, you may say, seeing the link below, oh, here is another link to another Newtie NEwt Newt interview, quel boredom, quel ennui!

But if you care about education, you will love this interview.
“THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION”
  http://mrctv.org/videos/newt-gingrich-college-board-october-27-2011 Brilliant. With Paul Gigot and Joel Klein, The College Board – Oct. 27, 2011

All this is why you will see…very soon…a lot of push to “deregulate” professional programs.

Certification will become much more common-place than licensure. WHAT you learned will be emphasized over WHERE you learned. It actually used to be that way in the U.S. until the Progressive Era homogenized and institutionalized professions. (Not that that was all bad.)

I love the fact that Government fails to recogize that it was the injection of Government money into the system that precipitated the high cost of college education. Schools keep prices high because the higher they are the more Government grants roll in.
Subsidizing the student loan market pretty much made it worse.

    Exactly what I wanted to say.
    This is no different than the government giving out “freebies” so that the takers will line up for them and then vote to keep the “freebie givers” in office so that the takers can have more “freebies”, That YOU AND I ARE PAYING FOR!

A four year degree isn’t for everyone. There are lots of jobs out there that require education or training beyond high school, but don’t require a 4 year degree. I think their is only one state operated trade school in my area that will teach you how to be an auto mechanic. Is the federal government trying to close down its private competitors?

I think two more real problems with higher education in the United States today are trying to get everybody to get a four year college degree and letting students finish high school without an adequate knowledge of English and math to prepare them for higher education.

    Ragspierre in reply to A Classical Liberal. | March 4, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    That…and the totally elitist idea of a “core curriculum” which makes most bachelor’s degrees a five year proposition…combine to make a lot of colleges “super high schools”.

    There are exams from the little red school house of the 1940s and before that would tax most college grads.

    …letting students finish high school without an adequate knowledge of English and math to prepare them for higher education.

    Forget “higher education”, make that:
    …without an adequate knowledge of English and math to prepare them for life as an adult!

myohmymanatee | March 4, 2012 at 4:58 pm

This administration have no clue what they are doing. Just spreading paper money around to get votes or rewarding their cronies. *sigh*

    Milwaukee in reply to myohmymanatee. | March 4, 2012 at 7:24 pm

    Nothing justifies your optimism. Just as the plan is to undermine the country by pumping more and more people on the social welfare benefits, so too education is being destroyed by pushing more people into college. By allowing so many in, standards have fallen, and an undergraduate degree is more useful to future employers as a way to separate backgrounds, not to identify talent. “You graduated? You must have a positive family support network.” For years and years we have had too many, like half, our high school students in need of remedial courses once they entered college. Colleges charge full tuition for non-credit courses, a great money maker.

    We could improve high school education by restricting access to college. Let’s say a state admits 40,0000 high school graduates to college in a year. Tell this years 8th graders that by the time they graduate, there will be just 10,000 seats for high school graduates. Those 8th graders who believe you will either pick up their game, or make other plans, such as learning a trade. Nothing dishonorable about being a craftsman or having a skilled trade. You can bet they would work harder in high school if they knew that would be their last stop.

In their pursuit to educate everyone, they will actually educate no one. This isn’t is so different from the current model, but in its progressive departure from reality, it can only be compared to “health care reform”. Both, incidentally, do not address underlying causes or propose solutions that bear even a striking semblance of reality.

The evidence suggests that the cold war never ended. While it has mutated in appearance, we are still operating on the MAD (mutually assured destruction) principle. This would also explain their escalating confrontation with approximately 80% of this nation’s population. They may have already passed the point of no return.

I served in the military from 1964 to 1968 and then, after being shot at and missed… (you know the rest) the government put me through college on the G.I. bill. Same for my father. He served from 1942 to 1945, only he was shot at and hit. Still the G.I. bill got him through a Masters degree.

There are ways…

Fair exchange.

Why doesn’t Obama care about student loans when he calls those making 200k “rich”?

Many went through years of schooling to obtain a job with that kind of income.

That’s a lot of student loan debt PLUS years of NOT being in the workforce in order to obtain a better position. (i.e. Higher debt + years of income sacrificed in order to become nominally “rich”)

Cassandra Lite | March 4, 2012 at 8:59 pm

You want education inflation, Louis? I graduated from UC Berkeley in 1973. Paid my own way. For four years, in order to live with a roof over my head, eat, buy books, and pay my tuition…I had to make $200/month. In toto! True, I didn’t have a lot of spare change, as we used to say, but I don’t remember feeling either deprived or stressed (by money).

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend