Today the Education Department released long-awaited details on a plan to hold colleges accountable for their performance on several key indicators, and officials said they'll be seeking public comment on the proposals through February. [...]
Two other possibilities on the list for outcomes are grad-school attendance rates, and loan-repayment rates. That last metric has already been put into place as the "gainful employment rule" for for-profit colleges, which are suing to stop it.
— npr.org
We'd like to hear from you: What predicted implications may the newly announced College Ratings System have on business, culture and education at Schools of Architecture in the U.S.?
1 Comment
I don't think for the most part this will directly impact architectural program quality - content isn't the focus of the rating. Concerns about how to balance the teaching of professional practice and theory are better addressed through the NAAB.
But the proposed measures of actual net cost and labor success could be very valuable in disillusioning prospective students who think an architecture degree is a golden ticket to opportunity. Unrealistic expectations seem to lead many students into a career that they end up dissatisfied with - or to take on unreasonable amounts of debt. I suspect that the employment outcomes of all but the worst programs are actually quite similar. If so, this would be good info to help students avoid overspending for prestige degrees.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.