Some questions about and implications of S 2098, The Student Right to Know Before You Go Act

This bill, introduced by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) would require all institutions that are defined as higher education entities under the Higher Education Act of 1965 to participate in a new national data system that tracks:

• rates of remedial enrollment
• "Other information determined necessary by the Secretary [of Education] to address alignment and adequate preparation for success in postsecondary education"
• data on individual wages and earnings after graduation "disaggregated by educational program, degree received, educational institution, employment sector, and State" (13).

In other words, this is going to be a huge data collection job for states and individual institutions; so much so that the Act provides for a transition plan to put the act in effect.

In the name of “transparency,” Wyden's bill seeks to collect data nationwide to correlate 'future earnings' with costs for pursuing a certain major at a given institution. This will, of course, impose a great burden, but perhaps a burden that institutions have earned with their zeal for increasing tuition. This bill seems to operate on two assumptions: that education is primarily about individual economic advancement and that when you go college you are purchasing a product, rather than engaging in a community of practice.

Whatever one thinks of the language of "outcomes" and "economic value," the continued slow ecnonomy coupled with rising education costs points to the need—especially at state colleges—for a more mindful approach to higher education on the part of all, including students. Exploring classes and majors, and learning for the sake of learning used to be a lot of fun when tuition was affordable. It still can be. But perhaps more than ever, students need to think strategically even when they are not ready to do so.

As I have noted the rising cost of tuition, the relatively high attrition rates in undergraduate education, and the number of students who delay graduation to avoid repaying student debt, I tell my own students who are majoring or thinking of majoring in English: there probably isn’t a high-paying job waiting for you on the other end of your BA. English and other liberal arts disciplines demand that you create your own career path, either with graduate study or certification in a profession, or by thinking of yourself as a kind of intellectual entrepreneur. Employers across the board say they value and see too little evidence of critical thinking, creativity, and clear writing and communication among today’s graduates (see Arum and Roska, Academically Adrift)—presumably, this is the skill set you will develop while studying in this discipline. You will have to use your training in English for something, but you will have to figure out what that something is.

Even if most students knew this before they heard it from me, this sermonette has not won me any teaching awards, as you might imagine. 

Wyden’s Bill converges with larger state and national trends on data gathering in higher education, to make it more accountable. The Oregon Education Investment Board and its achievement compacts, while avoiding the rhetoric of accountability, will track similar data on graduation, remediation, and will also set as policy goals increasing the number of STEM and health graduates.

This Act does not seek to change educational outcomes, but rather ensure "transparency" in pricing. I'm all for transparency. I still wonder if we need all these data collected to know that humanities BA's, on average, earn less than graduates in business and finance. But it raises an interesting question about the possibility of tiered pricing, an idea that has been recently floated and rejected (on a supply/demand basis) at Santa Monica College. Should majors that expect to earn more for their graduates cost more per credit hour?

Should we incentivize certain majors in the public or economic national interest, like CS, or nursing? If we are headed toward a new regime where either states or the federal government will use their power as partial funders or subsidizers to affect educational and institutional outcomes, shouldn't we be thinking of, perhaps, subsidizing tuition (either through scholarships or tuition remission) for students to study STEM or health professions?

Or should we perhaps have a single tuition schedule for the core curriculum, and then tier the prices for majors based on expected earnings? If you enter a relatively high risk/low reward field like creative writing, should you be paying the same tuition as a higher paying field/major like engineering?

In other words, if education is a product, and not a process, shouldn't the price reflect the expected performance of the product?

Caveat lector: all opinions expressed are those of the author. May contain trace amounts of sarcasm or satire. Not to be mistaken for actual policy research or analysis. 

Comments

[Kevin]

I'm with you about the difficulties of collecting outcome data -- I've contributed voluntarily to several NSF surveys of STEM graduates, but I'd hate to be required to report all of that information to my alma mater.

At the same time, I think that the origin of all of this is pretty obvious. College presidents aren't telling legislators that college is about building better citizens or "engaging in a community of practice," they're telling them that funding higher education will result in more and better jobs. It's not surprising that folks are finally asking for some evidence of this. I would prefer that we be more honest about the advantages of an educated citizenry, and why we should fund higher education.

Good on you for trying to ensure that your students understand what they will and won't get from their education. It's far better to understand and plan for the future than to splatter on the windshield and wonder why.

[Sean]

Thanks for your comments Kevin.
I believe as you do, that an educated citizenry is good for democracy. I hope there's good evidence for that as well as for individual economic advancement (which is no small thing in itself).
The problem seems to be that the ideal of public higher ed as "free or nearly free" has been abandoned, and the high tuition/high debt model is failing. What will take its place?

[Kevin]

I wish I knew. Our future depends on an educated citizenry, but I don't see how we can afford it if we're going to pay full professors $200,000 a year (astronomy at UCB, CS at UF) and expect some folks to teach a 1/1 load so they can "concentrate on research." At the same time, the CalTech student cafeteria (perhaps an outlier) is considerably nicer than the Google cafeteria.

It's going to be tough to step back from that kind of excess. The capital is sunk into the infrastructure, it's not like we're gonna rip out that climbing wall.[*] It'll be tough to get people to give up salary.

Given the distortion in admission decisions and general outcomes (high scoring, low income students with few resources getting turned away or not finishing degrees), this all seems pretty undemocratic.

I suspect that things are going to come to a head and we're going to have a pretty radical change, but I have no idea what that radical change will result in. I just hope it's not much worse than what we have now. Maybe it wil be fairer.

[*] Dishing on the climbing wall has certainly gotten to be a cliche, but the fact remains that most college gyms are nicer than most corporate gyms. That seems a little backward.

[Sean]

Hey again Kevin,
I'm not worried about CalTech, MIT, or the Ivies. They'll survive anything short of an extinction level asteroid. I generally disapprove of conspicuous consumption in academia, but it's their money.
I'm a lot more concerned with the great middle of institutions. Buildings are usually financed with bonds, public/private partnerships. Schools feel they need fancy gyms and stuff to attract the best students. But tuition has probably reached its limits.