Tag: proposals

Policy Proposals Lack Clarity About How to Evaluate Graduates’ Additional Degrees

Title: Accounting for Additional Credentials in Postsecondary Earnings Data

Authors: Jason Delisle, Jason Cohn, and Bryan Cook

Source: The Urban Institute

As policymakers across both parties consider how to evaluate postsecondary outcomes and earnings data, the authors of a new brief from the Urban Institute pose a major question: How should students who earn multiple credentials be included in data collection for the college that awarded their first degree?

For example, should the earnings of a master’s degree recipient be included in the data for the institution where they earned their bachelor’s degree? Additionally, students who finish an associate degree at a community college are likely to earn higher wages when they complete a bachelor’s degree at another institution. Thus, multiple perspectives need to be considered to help both policymakers and institutions understand, interpret, and treat additional degrees earned.

Additional key findings include:

Earnings Data and Accountability Policies

Many legislative proposals would expand the use of earnings data to provide further accountability and federal aid restrictions. For example, the House Republicans’ College Cost Reduction Act, proposed in 2024, would put institutions at risk of losing funding if they have low student loan repayment rates. The brief’s authors state that the bill does not indicate if students who earn additional credentials should be included in the cohort of students where they completed their first credential.

The recently implemented gainful employment rule from the Biden administration is explicit in its inclusion of those who earn additional credentials. Under the rule, students who earn an additional degree are included in both calculations for their recent degree and the program that awarded their first credential.

How Much Do Additional Credential Affect Earnings Data?

Determining how much additional credentials affect wages and earnings for different programs is difficult. The first earnings measurement—the first year after students leave school—is usually too early to include additional income information from a second credential.

Although the entire data picture is lacking, a contrast between first- and fifth-year earnings suggests that the number of students earning additional degrees may be very high for some programs. As an example, students who earn associate degrees in liberal arts and general studies often have some of their quickest increases in earnings during these first five years. A potential explanation is because students are then completing a bachelor’s degree program at a four-year institution.

Policy Implications: How Should Earnings Data Approach Subsequent Credentials?

In general, it seems that many policymakers have not focused on this complicated question of students who earn additional degrees. However, policy and data professionals may benefit from excluding students who earn additional credentials to more closely measure programs’ return on investment. This can be especially helpful when examining the costs of bachelor’s programs and their subsequent earnings benchmarks, by excluding additional earnings premiums generated from master’s programs.

Additionally, excluding students who earn additional credentials may be particularly valuable to students in making consumer and financial aid decisions if the payoff from a degree is extremely different depending on whether students pursue an additional credential.

However, some programs are intended to prepare students for an additional degree, and excluding data for students who earn another degree would mean excluding most graduates and paint a misleading picture.

To read the full report from the Urban Institute, click here.

—Austin Freeman

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

Source link

March 3, 2025
The higher education sector should welcome the new proposals on franchise provision but still act to hold the Office for Students and Ministers to account – by Professor Nick Braisby

The Regulation of Franchise Provision

The Government have opened a consultation on the regulation of franchise provision, proposing that all franchisees (delivery partners) with more than 300 students should be regulated by the Office for Students (OfS). Smaller providers will not need to be regulated; larger providers that the OfS does not register in time will not be able to access student finance.

Regulating delivery partners is a positive step forward and the sector should welcome the Government’s proposals. Indeed, my colleagues and I called for just such a move in a recent HEPI report. But whether these proposals will work in practice depends on at least three different aspects of implementation: registration; quality; and duplication of regulation.

Registration

The Government propose delivery partners will need to have successfully registered with the OfS by September 2027 for their 2028/29 courses to be designated for student finance. In theory, given the Government’s final approach will be confirmed in the summer of 2025, delivery partners ought to have two years in which to meet the OfS’s conditions of registration.

However, the practice is likely to be very different. The OfS advise its timescale for registering a new provider is in the range of 41-to-50 weeks, implying delivery partners would need to apply no later than September 2026. But controversially the OfS have temporarily closed applications for registration and changes to the category of registration, including acquiring Degree-Awarding Powers and University Title. Applications are expected to reopen in August 2025, but the OfS is keeping this under review. When applications do reopen, the OfS will stagger recommencing existing cases. It is likely to face an influx of new applications too. Moreover, the sector’s financial pressures, which forced the temporary closure in the first place, will not have gone away. So, there is a very real concern that the OfS will be unable to admit franchisees to the Register quickly enough.

The consequences of not registering a larger delivery partner in time are potentially catastrophic. Even though existing students would retain access to student finance, some delivery providers would simply be unable to continue operating. This kind of failure would be catastrophic for students and for some franchisors (lead partners). If implemented in the wrong way, the Government’s proposals would simply introduce new and equally serious concerns for the financial sustainability of institutions.

There is an alternative, and one which would give stability to students and institutions. The OfS could open a new section of the Register for delivery partners – a probationary register – with more limited initial conditions of registration. This would enable the OfS to meet the Government’s intended timeframe and, critically, start engaging with delivery partners early, setting and agreeing action plans, for example. Delivery partners would then need to move from the probationary register to the full Register within a defined period – two years, for instance.

Quality

Many delivery partners operate in geographic and demographic cold spots. As the Minister for Skills, Baroness (Jacqui) Smith, puts it in the consultation:

good quality franchising has the potential to help more students access higher education, reaching areas under-served by other providers and tailoring delivery models to meet diverse needs.

At my University, delivery partners typically recruit an under-served population segment: 95% are mature entrants; two-thirds are from IMD quintiles 1 or 2. These partners therefore serve a striking demographic intersection. We know that continuation rates across the whole sector are affected by these factors: the OfS data dashboard indicates they suppress continuation rates by 8 percentage points and 5 percentage points respectively. Assuming these factors are independent, the probability of a mature entrant from quintiles 1 or 2 continuing is around 71%, much lower than the OfS threshold.

Registering with the OfS rightly involves an assessment of quality and standards, but the OfS’s current model of quality is too rigid for those operating within such niche demographics. To assess delivery partners, the OfS will need to reconsider carefully how it approaches quality.

Duplication of Registration

The Government’s proposals also include another element which is welcome, that which seeks to remove duplicate regulation. Where a delivery partner is already regulated, state-funded schools or further education colleges, for example, the Government proposes they would not also need to register with the OfS.

There are questions here too about the detail of implementation. Is it right, for example, that those Police and Crime Commissioners who are also delivery partners, need no further regulation in respect of quality and standards? But mostly what is worrying about this aspect of the proposals is the suggestion that delivery and lead partners should both be accountable for delivery. This seems straightforwardly an area of duplicated regulation and it is not clear how it would work in practice. Instead, the OfS should consult with delivery and lead partners to identify those aspects of delivery appropriate for dual accountability and those to which either the lead or the delivery partner will be held accountable.

Summary

In sum, the sector should welcome these proposals. The Government has clearly listened to the argument that franchise provision, when done well, brings many benefits, and has endorsed that position. There is still a need for a robust, sector code of practice; and the implementation of the Government’s ideas will be critical. But if it continues to listen during the consultation phase we should have every expectation that good quality franchise provision will continue to be supported and the concerns of stakeholders properly addressed.

Source link

January 31, 2025
FIRE statement on legislative proposals to regulate artificial intelligence

As the 2025 legislative calendar begins, FIRE is preparing for lawmakers at both the state and federal levels to introduce a deluge of bills targeting artificial intelligence.

The First Amendment applies to artificial intelligence just as it does to other expressive technologies. Like the printing press, the camera, and the internet, AI can be used as an expressive tool — a technological advance that helps us communicate with one another and generate knowledge. As FIRE Executive Vice President Nico Perrino argued in The Los Angeles Times last month: “The Constitution shouldn’t be rewritten for every new communications technology.”

We again remind legislators that existing laws — cabined by the narrow, well-defined exceptions to the First Amendment’s broad protection — already address the vast majority of harms legislatures may seek to counter in the coming year. Laws prohibiting fraud, forgery, discrimination, and defamation, for example, apply regardless of how the unlawful activity is ultimately carried out. Liability for unlawful acts properly falls on the perpetrator of those acts, not the informational or communicative tools they use.

Some legislative initiatives seeking to govern the use of AI raise familiar First Amendment problems. For example, regulatory proposals that would require “watermarks” on artwork created by AI or mandate disclaimers on content generated by AI violate the First Amendment by compelling speech. FIRE has argued against these kinds of efforts to regulate the use of AI, and we will continue to do so — just as we have fought against government attempts to compel speech in school, on campus, or online.

Rather than compelling disclaimers or imposing content-based restrictions on AI-generated expression, legislators should remember the law already protects against defamation, fraud, and other illegal conduct.

Lawmakers have also sought to regulate or even criminalize the use of AI-generated content in election-related communications. But courts have been wary of legislative attempts to control AI’s output when political speech is implicated. Following a First Amendment challenge from a satirist who uses AI to generate parodies of political figures, for example, a federal district court recently enjoined a California statute aimed at “deepfakes” that regulated “materially deceptive” election-related content.

Content-based restrictions like California’s law require strict judicial scrutiny, no matter how the expression is created. As the federal court noted, the constitutional protections “safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered.” So while lawmakers might harbor “a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape,” the court explained, “this fear does not give legislators unbridled license to bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment.”

Artificial intelligence, free speech, and the First Amendment

Issue Pages

FIRE offers an analysis of frequently asked questions about artificial intelligence and its possible implications for free speech and the First Amendment.

Read More

Other legislative proposals threaten the First Amendment by imposing burdens directly on the developers of AI models. In the coming months, for example, Texas lawmakers will consider the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, or TRAIGA, a sweeping bill that would impose liability on developers, distributors, and deployers of AI systems that may introduce a risk of “algorithmic discrimination,” including by private actors. The bill vests broad regulatory authority in a newly created state “Artificial Intelligence Council” and imposes steep compliance costs. TRAIGA compels developers to publish regular risk reports, a requirement that will raise First Amendment concerns when applied to an AI model’s expressive output or the use of AI as a tool to facilitate protected expression. Last year, a federal court held a similar reporting requirement imposed on social media platforms was likely unconstitutional.

TRAIGA’s provisions incentivize AI developers to handicap their models to avoid any possibility of offering recommendations that some might deem discriminatory or simply offensive — even if doing so curtails the models’ usefulness or capabilities. Addressing unlawful discrimination is an important legislative aim, and lawmakers are obligated to ensure we all benefit from the equal protection of the law. At the same time, our decades of work defending student and faculty rights has left FIRE all too familiar with the chilling effect on speech that results from expansive or arbitrary interpretations of anti-discrimination law on campus. We will oppose poorly crafted legislative efforts that would functionally build the same chill into artificial intelligence systems.

The sprawling reach of legislative proposals like TRAIGA run headlong into the expressive rights of the people building and using AI models. Rather than compelling disclaimers or imposing content-based restrictions on AI-generated expression, legislators should remember the law already protects against defamation, fraud, and other illegal conduct. And rather than preemptively saddling developers with broad liability for an AI model’s possible output, lawmakers must instead examine the recourse existing laws already provide victims of discrimination against those who would use AI — or any other communicative tool — to unlawful ends.

FIRE will have more to say on the First Amendment threats presented by legislative proposals regarding AI in the weeks and months to come.

Source link

January 8, 2025