November 23, 2015

I’ve been reading several articles that discuss the pros and cons of the new College Scorecard, developed by the federal government as a way to help parents and students make better decisions on the choice of a college education. Most of the articles I read note that while the Scorecard offers a vast amount of information, it has some limitations (Rothwell, 2015; Nichols & Santos, 2015). The data only cover students who received federal aid, which tends toward those who come from less advantaged backgrounds. This has been linked to future salaries. Another limitation is that the data is for an entire college system, thus, limiting its use for determining the performance of branches. Other limitations are that some salary data could be the result of institutional influence (Stewart, 2015), that data exclude institutions that do not accept federal aid (Chiaramonte, 2015) and data exclude students who do not receive federal funding. Considering these limitations, it would appear that only students who seek federal funding at the specified schools would benefit from including this data among other data in selecting a college or university to attend. I had to wonder if the Occupational Outlook Handbook had gone out of print. This book, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/), lists salary data for career fields and predicts the hiring climate. I highly recommend it as a resource.

When I heard about the federal government’s intention to publish a scorecard on our nation’s colleges and universities, I had to wonder if it was not only getting information into the hands of those who need it, but also a way for the government to say, “I’ll show you I mean business, so get your act together or I’ll shame you!” We know that the financial loans that student take out are causing a burden on them because they cannot afford to pay them back without depriving themselves of participation in their American dream of owning a home, car, enjoying a prosperous life, etc. We also know that this came to a head after we were plummeted into a recession that affected many people and caused hiring freezes and layoffs. So, the combination of these factors figure into the picture.

I’ve been wondering for a long time if the federal government would like to choose the careers of students for them so that they can go out and earn the kind of salary that would be acceptable to them. Is this a way, among others, of doing that? We’ve heard about the prospects for graduates in certain fields of study. The question becomes, should students choose a career based on how much money they will make or on how much passion they have for it? Take teaching, for example. Teachers do not get paid well, but may collect benefits that grow as their time in that field increases. Should we discourage students from wanting to be teachers by not funding that area of study? Should someone treat teaching like a regular job by firing underperformers and making room for potential good performers? Should someone breakdown career data – salary, tenure, college background, etc. – and present this to students as well? Should information on the potential influences be provided? We know that we can throw out data by itself, but that leaves out the proper context in which to view it. Is that fair?

If we were to list the most profitable careers for students, how long would it take that field to become saturated so that difficulty in hiring yet again surfaces? What do we do then? This is extreme, of course, and it’s meant to be. We have to ask ourselves if we are looking at the whole picture. Or are we looking at selective data and handicapping ourselves to yet another inadequate way of measuring college performance?

When I mentioned that I had done a dissertation on “tuning” early on, I knew that it would continue to be an important asset for colleges and universities. But not all of them have adopted this way of developing learning outcomes for their academic programs. The effort continues, however. This might not answer the salary debate, especially when it comes to choosing a career, but it helps answer the quality question. Are students receiving a quality education? What will they be able to do, understand, and know upon exiting college with their specific degree? While the learning outcomes are subject-specific, there are valuable transferable skills that students gain. So, just because a student studies subject A does not mean that she cannot follow a career in subject B, utilizing her knowledge and following her interests. She might decide to put off working in her field for now and pick it up later. There are too many scenarios to capture.

We can’t know every story that contributes to the data collected. So, sometimes we miss the hidden facts. Colleges and universities should focus primarily on educating students to the highest level. And they should help students understand the chosen field, what it has to offer, the positives, and potential drawbacks. This is probably the same old tune, sung by a new singer, but it bears repeating. Most of all, colleges are where students learn to become better thinkers and doers. They get to interact with a host of individuals who they might otherwise never meet. We could turn them into bare career colleges, but life is more than waking up and going to work. It is about opening ourselves to what we don’t know and didn’t know was possible. It is about exploring boundaries. Students learn how to learn. So, any attempt to shrink the experience down to money to be made should be resisted. Use as many sources of information as possible regarding career choice, with individual interest being an equal factor.

Resources

Chiaramonte, P. (2015, September 22). White House ‘College Scorecard’ shuts out conservative schools. Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/09/22/white-house-college-scorecard-pitches-shutout-conservative-schools/

Nichols, A. and Santos, J. L. (2015, September 29). Obama’s College Scorecard: Too little, too late? The Hechinger Report. http://hechingerreport.org/obamas-college-scorecard-too-little-too-late/

Rothwell, J. (2015, September 28). Understanding the College Scorecard. Bookings Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2015/09/28-understanding-the-college-scorecard-rothwell

Stewart, J. B. (2015, October 1). College rankings fail to measure the influence of the institution. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/02/business/new-college-rankings-dont-show-how-alma-mater-affects-earnings.html?_r=0

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Education department updates college affordability and transparency lists. USDOE http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-department-updates-college-affordability-and-transparency-lists

Whitehurst, G. J. and Chingos, M. (2015, October 15). Deconstructing and reconstructing the College Scorecard. Brookings Institution. Evidence Speaks Reports, Vol. 1, #5. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/10/15-deconstructing-reconstructing-college-scorecard-whitehurst-chingos