Parity Is a Great Idea: Responding to Kevin Carey

A few years ago, Kevin Carey proposed a new way to fund community colleges. I responded with a “no, thanks.” This week, he tried again.

Much better.

He divides the proposal into three parts: short-term training, undergraduate degrees and graduate degrees. For short-term training, he proposes using the gainful-employment guidelines to ensure that students only enroll in programs that offer a realistic shot at paying off. Of course, that presupposes really good data, which is a stretch at this point, but the basic idea makes sense. There have been too many boondoggles with short-term training.

I’d add some qualifiers. In the data, it’s important to distinguish students who already have degrees from students who do not. A fair number of students in certificate or training programs already have undergraduate degrees; they’re trying to change careers. Those students are in a different place educationally than the students who have no other college experience. Lumping them together in program outcomes may lead to misleading conclusions.

The part about graduate education is a bit more of a grab bag, but I was struck that the discussion focuses mostly on master’s degree programs that charge tuition. When I think about crises of graduate education, I tend to think about doctoral programs that lead to fields with weak job prospects. In those cases, the loans that students take out probably aren’t for tuition, much of which may have been waived anyway. They’re for living expenses. Most fellowships and teaching assistantships pay very little, and research universities are often in relatively expensive places. Putting too harsh a cap on borrowing for those could lead back to graduate school being a place only the wealthy can go.

Read the full article here