<p>Um…how do you keep politics out of a discussion that by its very nature is rooted in politics?</p>
<p>When the government is taking action, it is directly political. </p>
<p>Regardless of one’s partisan feelings on this, there is a real risk that depending upon who is in charge at any given moment, this type of system could be used to bully colleges into conforming to the ruling party’s political viewpoints.</p>
<p>There are many ways to ‘score’ colleges and they do not involve government. What is important to some people is not always important to others. For instance, some people look at spending or salaries. Personally, I don’t think those are as telling as things like retention (what % of students from prior year are still with the college or graduated).</p>
<p>I think you are reading too much into it Torveaux…if anything, the hospital compare rankings only expect to improve customer satisfaction and make hospitals look harder at basic practices such as - hand washing and infection rates, fall rates, readmission rates, surgical complications. If ranking colleges and unis forces those institution to take a look at best practices like graduation rates, net costs, and outcomes then I hardly see where it is a negative. If you needed (expensive surgery) would you not want to go to a hospital that would likely give you the best possible outcome? How are colleges any different? You can pick your hospital and doctor and you can pick your college. </p>
<p>You can travel for hospitalization, stay in your home town or stick to your region -just like colleges. The "government’ isn’t telling you where to go or where to spend your money or how much money to spend - and both healthcare and college educations are expensive propositions, and there are both big hospital systems and little community hospitals just like colleges and unis - the government in these cases are giving you inputs and outputs from which you, the consumer, make the ultimate decision. </p>
<p>Sure one could argue government is not impartial, but do you really believe that USNWR is totally impartial - and believe me USNWR ranks the hospitals, also and while their rankings of hospitals have similarities that mirror the government data there are also some big differences…just like colleges.</p>
<p>“You can travel for hospitalization, stay in your home town or stick to your region -just like colleges.”</p>
<p>Actually under the new health care law this is no longer true for a whole lot of people. So, yeah. details. And fine print.</p>
<p>It seems at best a waste of taxpayers funds. The data is available and I don’t mind one bit if people have to ferret it out on their own. We are not children. </p>
<p>What? You think taxpayer funds aren’t already involved? </p>
<p>It is precisely because these schools are receiving billions of taxpayer dollars that they should be subject to some minimum standards of stewardship. There are a lot of first generation families who don’t even know what they don’t know. These families are prey.</p>
<p>As a taxpayer, I’d like to see more accountability.</p>
<p>I don’t see this as a partisan issue. Increasing transparency and data so that potential students will be better informed seems to be good for everyone.</p>
<p>PPACA did little with respect to this – most people (pre-PPACA or post-PPACA) who receive medical insurance from their employers have little choice in what plan they get, and the plan often determines what providers are in-network for them.</p>
<p>I am still trying to understand how this could be viewed as a partisan issue. </p>
<p>It may not be good for certain colleges and majors that have been successful in hiding the fact that graduates are not finding many jobs, but it has to be good for potential students who are choosing colleges and majors. </p>
<p>It also makes sense that since the government does not have unlimited funds, it should prioritize funding and student loans to schools and provide more to colleges where more students are graduating successfully and finding jobs that allow them to repay their student loans, and consequently increase the number of student loans that can be made to other students.</p>
<p>This should be good for most colleges and only be negative for colleges with very low graduation rates and poor job placement. The only negative I see for many colleges is that it could shine a spotlight on the fact that many of them report very high employment percentages that hide the fact that many of those employed students are underemployed.</p>
<p>That is clearly true UCB. By way of explanation though for those who truly don’t get this, it’s politics. </p>
<p>If a politician starts talking about something that has no chance of passing a few months before an election there is a reason for it that has nothing to so with the dead on arrival proposal. </p>
<p>I hear you, but it seems like this is beneficial for both parties. Something they could do together, that would look good for all of them and benefit many if it is done well.</p>
<p>It does not seem to me that it is an issue that either party would be opposed to conceptually. </p>
<p>No one (on either side) has an issue with the scorecard or with making more information available to parents and students. The issue is in what actions should the federal goverment take, based on these results? How much of a role should the goverment take in picking winners and losers? How much control does it take away from the states (with the new Race to the Top for Higher Ed initiative)?</p>
<p>A compromise could be reached with Congress, as many members of both parties support this in concept. However, it doesn’t look like anyone is serious about compromise, so nothing will happen before the November elections (or possible until after the 2018 elections). </p>
<p>I agree, but when something is proposed by a member of one party, members of another party seem to be automatically inclined to view it with suspicion.</p>
<p>If the government just sets a reasonable “finish line” (e.g. sufficiently high graduation rate, sufficiently low student loan default rate), then it is up to the colleges to win or lose. For example, see the Cal Grant eligibility criteria and list of eligible and ineligible schools.</p>
<p>Ah, but what if the administration started to hand out “waivers”? </p>
<p>They kept the Cal Grant eligibility criteria “simple”:</p>
<p>
The administration is proposing much more complicated criteria, that includes “outcomes”. This will lead to even more “waivers” and the potential for abuse. </p>
<pre><code>I see so many problems with this new rating system. I get what they are trying to do, but I see a lot of perfectly fine schools being hurt by this, namely HBCUs, and schools that serve rural areas. HBCUs often have lower graduation rates, loan defaults due to demographics, however many of them are great institutions, and serve a great purpose. When you have a population that is 90% minority, money is always an issue. Many of the students are first generation college students, so they dont come from wealthy or even middle income families. When they do graduate, unfortunately, there are a host issues that play a role in them paying back student loans.
Also, what happens to the schools that cater to liberal arts majors? Should they be ranked lower because they graduate teachers and social workers? Why is it fair that an RPI or technical school be ranked higher because its graduates get higher paying jobs, allowing them to pay off student loans? I find this whole idea from the government laughable, because one the MAIN reasons tuition, room, and board are soaring is the AVAILABILITY OF STUDENT LOANS! If the government would stop making it so easy to get money, then kids would go to schools they can afford. Because kids can get so much money, the schools are building state of the art buildings, presidents salaries are sky high, kids have WAY TOO MANY AMENITIES. Now I know they have limited the amount a student can take out in his name, which is reasonable, pretty much 25k is the limit. However, the parent plus loan is SO easy to get. Basically if you have decent credit you are approved! I can pay all of my credit cards on time, and be in debt up to my eyeballs. They dont check your debt to income ratio. If parents couldnt get a plus so easily they would steer kids to affordable options, and these schools wouldnt be raking in the dough. I think its awful that kids now have, cable in rooms, sushi options, 4 star restaurants on campus, maid service, etc. You need a desk, closet and a bed and reasonable dining options. All of the aforementioned, causes the tuition to be so high.
</code></pre>
<p>With so many conventional schools demonstrating a commitment to racial diversity & social justice, it begs the question whether HBCUs are still relevant today if the bottom line is that the HBCUs are not graduating their students. </p>