The Proposed "Gainful Employment" Rule: A Necessary Step in Education Reform
EssayChat / Jul 3, 2017
The "gainful employment" rule poses a question of whether an education at a particular institution can be expected to lead to, "gainful employment in a recognized occupation" (Soars, 2010). The purpose of this rule is to prevent a kind of exploitation. In a suffering economy, the education industry can often thrive, because people go back to school in order to boost their competitiveness. When this happens and students enroll with schools that produce many graduates who do not find gainful employment, a very real form of exploitation is taking place. Soars writes:
There are now more than 4,800 institutions offering two- and four-year degree programs in the United States. [. . .] This diverse grouping is regulated in a decentralized fashion with states certifying who can operate within their borders [. . .]. Quality control is maintained largely through a voluntary accreditation system whereby privately run accrediting agencies review member institutions' qualifications. (paragraph 10)
With American education lagging behind education in other nations, it is crucial to raise standards, and a hot topic is the concept of "accountability." Where is the accountability in the decentralized, privately regulated system we have in place? It is absolutely essential to take an outcome based approach and require educational institutions to produce real results.
Birkland explains that agenda setting is always problematic because no policy makers can consider all possible alternatives or possible problems associated with a policy (p. 109). Furthermore, he explains that all stakeholders represent particular interests and particular perspectives, so it is difficult to achieve policy that reflects public interest in general. Therefore, it can be expected that this proposed rule will continue to meet with much opposition. Opponents of the rule can argue that economic forces are at work to limit the number of students that are able to find gainful employment and thrive in society. It can be argued that when the economic situation is grim, the government should not be taking funding away from educational institutions, because quality education has to be part of the solution to economic problems. However, the institutions that provide the highest quality education will not be affected by this rule. Moreover, the same problems in the economy that make jobs scarce also interfere with the government's ability to spend money; therefore, it is appropriate to impose this rule that raises standards and focuses government funding where it belongs: on funding educations that actually pay off for the student and for society.
It is probable that this rule will be effective in changing the landscape of the education industry such that student a higher percentage of funds will support educations that are likely to be effective, which in turn will improve the economy of the country. However, in Birkland's discussion of distributive policy, he expounds the inevitable "horse trading" that takes place when policy issues are negotiated. In a way that sometimes can become disingenuous, the various interest groups need to compromise on issues that are completely unrelated, often choosing the "lesser of two evils" or compromising on an important issue as a means to an end. In the case of the gainful employment rule, many stakeholders in the education industry are vehemently opposed to the rule, and their influence is something that right minded policy makers will need to contend with if they are to succeed in implementing this necessary reform. While considering the appropriateness of the issue, it is important to remember that much of the resistance comes from people who have money to lose but who have no real interest in improving American education.
A high level of efficiency in the effort to improve education can be enjoyed by the entire nation of this rule is imposed. Rather than improving American education by spending enormous sums of money, we can improve American education by cutting costs while simultaneously raising standards. In most respects, the raising of standards requires increases spending, but not in this case. At the same time, no efficiency is lost while money is being saved; the funds that would otherwise be spent to subsidize ineffective educations could be redirected to better activities and more effective institutions.
Equity is maintained in the sense the all educational institutions will have the same opportunity to maintain the highest possible standards. However, one criticism that can be expected is the argument that equity is undermined when educational institutions in regions of the country where the economy is hurting the most will be less likely to produce graduates able to earn gainful employment and that regional factors can therefore unfairly interfere with the schools' ability to receive funding.
It absolutely is appropriate to withhold government funding from educations that are shown to be ineffective. This may seem like a harsh action to take, because many educational institutions will indeed be closed; without government funding individuals will have to foot the bill themselves, and when the public aware of the fact that funding for a particular institution is not available due to the institution's poor track record for producing competitive graduates it is unlikely that many consumers of education will want to pay for it out of pocket.
As a way of affirming the appropriateness of the rule, it is useful to consider the fact that both Kant and Mill could agree with it. Kant's deontological ethics are normally opposed to Mill's utilitarian ethics, but in this matter the two philosophers could indeed agree. Kant's absolute deontological ethics call for us to take actions only that we could do "as a rule" so that categorically our actions will always be aligned with doing what is right. We could, as a matter of moral principle, make a rule that the government should only fund educations that are likely to be effective. Likewise, Mill's utilitarian ethics allow for this rule to be put in place as a way to achieve the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people. Because the gainful employment rule is acceptable no matter which ethical system we apply, it is easy to conclude that the resistance to this rule is coming from the special interest groups that profit from the government's willingness to fund ineffective educations.
A question arises, however, about what exactly it means to have a high quality education. The rule might be critiqued by stakeholders who argue that the purpose of education involves more than just preparation for employment. No one wants to suggest that the purpose of education should be limited to preparing students for entering the job market. Education is also intended to transmit culture, train young people to think critically, and instill moral values. Therefore, it can be rightly argued that the proposed rule is inappropriate because of its heavy focus on only a single purpose of education.
Other factors must also be considered, however. Turning our attention away from philosophical debates about the purpose of education, it is easy to see that dire economic circumstances are present and that some groups of citizens are being treated particularly unfairly. Fraser (1994) discusses the antipoverty principle and the anti-exploitation principle of her vision for a welfare state that gives attention to the goal of achieving gender equality.
Another ethical theorist who would support the proposed rule is Iris Young, who writes extensively about the forms that can be taken by oppression. She discusses the subtle ways that various cultural groups and other groups can be marginalized and have their needs undermined. Additionally, she gives a discussion of how exploitation can take place when groups are treated unequally. In this regard, it is important to notice that a sizable group is represented by those students who are taking their educations at institutions from which they can graduate without being likely to have gainful employment. In a suffering national and global economy, there is only so much wealth to go around, and if there is no limit to the amount of money that can be spent on education we are bound to be left with a situation in which people are spending large portions of their income to repay student loans. If this gets out of control, it will indeed meet the description of exploitation given by Young, who discusses it in terms of labor vs. profit. If educational institutions are profiting disproportionately while their graduates work harder than appropriate to repay student loans, a form of exploitation is taking place in an indirect way. The proposed rule attends to this problem: "the gainful employment rule would require for-profit programs to demonstrate that graduates' annual loan payments don't exceed 8 percent of their starting salaries" (Lillis).
This policy initiative represents two main values: the value of high quality education, and the value of citizens who are able to contribute to the American economy. Furthermore, it is a policy that represents an American ideal: letting the free market determine success and failure of institutions. These values are indeed aligned with my own values, and the government has a responsibility to uphold them while also troubleshooting problems that arise. By trial and error, we determine the best ways to handle various situations, and in this case we know that the time has come to adjust the policy used to fund education. Such adjustment must be part of the effort to improve American education.
Other ways of addressing the problem of ineffective education would be to provide financial incentives for institutions that produce the most successful graduates. Schools can be rewarded with additional grants and resources when their graduates statistically become high achievers able to pay back their loans. Such methods are already in place, but because they require spending they are not as efficient as the rule being proposed. The most efficient approach is to approve the rule and use the money saved to provide even more incentives to institutions that prove to be effective.
In conclusion, the "gainful employment" rule is likely to result in the closure of several educational institutions, but this is a necessary step in the process of American education reform. Reform cannot be expected to be successful if no stakeholders are being inconvenienced. This is the way that the ideal of the free market can use "tough love" to raise standards. The institutions that do not produce competitive professionals after graduation are not institutions that strengthen America economically, socially, or otherwise. The rule is also likely to cause stakeholders in the education industry to take action that improves students' chances of gaining employment. It will provide real incentive for educational institutions to make focused efforts to help students become competitive in the job market.
There are now more than 4,800 institutions offering two- and four-year degree programs in the United States. [. . .] This diverse grouping is regulated in a decentralized fashion with states certifying who can operate within their borders [. . .]. Quality control is maintained largely through a voluntary accreditation system whereby privately run accrediting agencies review member institutions' qualifications. (paragraph 10)
With American education lagging behind education in other nations, it is crucial to raise standards, and a hot topic is the concept of "accountability." Where is the accountability in the decentralized, privately regulated system we have in place? It is absolutely essential to take an outcome based approach and require educational institutions to produce real results.Birkland explains that agenda setting is always problematic because no policy makers can consider all possible alternatives or possible problems associated with a policy (p. 109). Furthermore, he explains that all stakeholders represent particular interests and particular perspectives, so it is difficult to achieve policy that reflects public interest in general. Therefore, it can be expected that this proposed rule will continue to meet with much opposition. Opponents of the rule can argue that economic forces are at work to limit the number of students that are able to find gainful employment and thrive in society. It can be argued that when the economic situation is grim, the government should not be taking funding away from educational institutions, because quality education has to be part of the solution to economic problems. However, the institutions that provide the highest quality education will not be affected by this rule. Moreover, the same problems in the economy that make jobs scarce also interfere with the government's ability to spend money; therefore, it is appropriate to impose this rule that raises standards and focuses government funding where it belongs: on funding educations that actually pay off for the student and for society.
It is probable that this rule will be effective in changing the landscape of the education industry such that student a higher percentage of funds will support educations that are likely to be effective, which in turn will improve the economy of the country. However, in Birkland's discussion of distributive policy, he expounds the inevitable "horse trading" that takes place when policy issues are negotiated. In a way that sometimes can become disingenuous, the various interest groups need to compromise on issues that are completely unrelated, often choosing the "lesser of two evils" or compromising on an important issue as a means to an end. In the case of the gainful employment rule, many stakeholders in the education industry are vehemently opposed to the rule, and their influence is something that right minded policy makers will need to contend with if they are to succeed in implementing this necessary reform. While considering the appropriateness of the issue, it is important to remember that much of the resistance comes from people who have money to lose but who have no real interest in improving American education.
A high level of efficiency in the effort to improve education can be enjoyed by the entire nation of this rule is imposed. Rather than improving American education by spending enormous sums of money, we can improve American education by cutting costs while simultaneously raising standards. In most respects, the raising of standards requires increases spending, but not in this case. At the same time, no efficiency is lost while money is being saved; the funds that would otherwise be spent to subsidize ineffective educations could be redirected to better activities and more effective institutions.
Equity is maintained in the sense the all educational institutions will have the same opportunity to maintain the highest possible standards. However, one criticism that can be expected is the argument that equity is undermined when educational institutions in regions of the country where the economy is hurting the most will be less likely to produce graduates able to earn gainful employment and that regional factors can therefore unfairly interfere with the schools' ability to receive funding.
It absolutely is appropriate to withhold government funding from educations that are shown to be ineffective. This may seem like a harsh action to take, because many educational institutions will indeed be closed; without government funding individuals will have to foot the bill themselves, and when the public aware of the fact that funding for a particular institution is not available due to the institution's poor track record for producing competitive graduates it is unlikely that many consumers of education will want to pay for it out of pocket.
As a way of affirming the appropriateness of the rule, it is useful to consider the fact that both Kant and Mill could agree with it. Kant's deontological ethics are normally opposed to Mill's utilitarian ethics, but in this matter the two philosophers could indeed agree. Kant's absolute deontological ethics call for us to take actions only that we could do "as a rule" so that categorically our actions will always be aligned with doing what is right. We could, as a matter of moral principle, make a rule that the government should only fund educations that are likely to be effective. Likewise, Mill's utilitarian ethics allow for this rule to be put in place as a way to achieve the greatest possible good for the greatest number of people. Because the gainful employment rule is acceptable no matter which ethical system we apply, it is easy to conclude that the resistance to this rule is coming from the special interest groups that profit from the government's willingness to fund ineffective educations.
A question arises, however, about what exactly it means to have a high quality education. The rule might be critiqued by stakeholders who argue that the purpose of education involves more than just preparation for employment. No one wants to suggest that the purpose of education should be limited to preparing students for entering the job market. Education is also intended to transmit culture, train young people to think critically, and instill moral values. Therefore, it can be rightly argued that the proposed rule is inappropriate because of its heavy focus on only a single purpose of education.
Other factors must also be considered, however. Turning our attention away from philosophical debates about the purpose of education, it is easy to see that dire economic circumstances are present and that some groups of citizens are being treated particularly unfairly. Fraser (1994) discusses the antipoverty principle and the anti-exploitation principle of her vision for a welfare state that gives attention to the goal of achieving gender equality.
Another ethical theorist who would support the proposed rule is Iris Young, who writes extensively about the forms that can be taken by oppression. She discusses the subtle ways that various cultural groups and other groups can be marginalized and have their needs undermined. Additionally, she gives a discussion of how exploitation can take place when groups are treated unequally. In this regard, it is important to notice that a sizable group is represented by those students who are taking their educations at institutions from which they can graduate without being likely to have gainful employment. In a suffering national and global economy, there is only so much wealth to go around, and if there is no limit to the amount of money that can be spent on education we are bound to be left with a situation in which people are spending large portions of their income to repay student loans. If this gets out of control, it will indeed meet the description of exploitation given by Young, who discusses it in terms of labor vs. profit. If educational institutions are profiting disproportionately while their graduates work harder than appropriate to repay student loans, a form of exploitation is taking place in an indirect way. The proposed rule attends to this problem: "the gainful employment rule would require for-profit programs to demonstrate that graduates' annual loan payments don't exceed 8 percent of their starting salaries" (Lillis).
This policy initiative represents two main values: the value of high quality education, and the value of citizens who are able to contribute to the American economy. Furthermore, it is a policy that represents an American ideal: letting the free market determine success and failure of institutions. These values are indeed aligned with my own values, and the government has a responsibility to uphold them while also troubleshooting problems that arise. By trial and error, we determine the best ways to handle various situations, and in this case we know that the time has come to adjust the policy used to fund education. Such adjustment must be part of the effort to improve American education.
Other ways of addressing the problem of ineffective education would be to provide financial incentives for institutions that produce the most successful graduates. Schools can be rewarded with additional grants and resources when their graduates statistically become high achievers able to pay back their loans. Such methods are already in place, but because they require spending they are not as efficient as the rule being proposed. The most efficient approach is to approve the rule and use the money saved to provide even more incentives to institutions that prove to be effective.
In conclusion, the "gainful employment" rule is likely to result in the closure of several educational institutions, but this is a necessary step in the process of American education reform. Reform cannot be expected to be successful if no stakeholders are being inconvenienced. This is the way that the ideal of the free market can use "tough love" to raise standards. The institutions that do not produce competitive professionals after graduation are not institutions that strengthen America economically, socially, or otherwise. The rule is also likely to cause stakeholders in the education industry to take action that improves students' chances of gaining employment. It will provide real incentive for educational institutions to make focused efforts to help students become competitive in the job market.