In 2013, the US Department of Education issued a template for reporting of gainful employment disclosures. The template contained a field that could not be modified: "The job placement rate for students who completed this program in 2012 - 2013 is..." However, many accrediting agencies report placement based on entering cohort. For example, take a look at the gainful employment disclosures at YTI Institute for medical assisting (http://www.yti.edu/aboutYTI/docs/ALT-MA/Gedt.html). They report on the US DOE template that job placement rates for 2012 - 2013 program completers is 86%, yet when you click on the link for more information, it is revealed that the rate is for students who started the program in 2009 - 2010, which is ACCSC methodology. How can the US DOE level charges against CCi for misrepresenting placement, when their own template requires institutions to do exactly that? Who is monitoring the US Department of Education? Does anyone else see the irony?
11 replies (most recent on top)
(should be "tracking students from 2009-10")
OP doesn't understand how things work. (1) reporting structure is the same for all schools, so you're comparing apples to apples. If the data you enter doesn't seem intuitive (such as what's called "2013-14" data actually being based on tracking students from 20119-10) then so what? All of the schools are required to report that way. (2) ED isn't going after all schools, or even ANY schools for failing to fill out a form properly. CCi reported certain data and the feds want to know how they came up with the numbers they did. CCi has given no response. So, yes, complying with regulations is a PITA, but everyone has to do it. Deciding they aredifficult or that they interfere with your profit margins does not make them voluntary.
845, your statement that cci problems are more about falsification depends on what the definition of "is" is.
I report information daily that is not recorded accurately. "Is" that falsification?
OP, I appreciate your concern for the regulatory nightmare that exists. Inconsistent, ambiguous, and contradictory rules certainly encourage random, if not fraudulent, reporting. Many people cannot understand this.
Why is OP lecturing us about this? I'm not sure he or she knows what board this is. CCI has nothing to do with this. And why the heck would we care about reporting at DOE for colleges and universities in 2009? Think you need to find a board. The one called 'we give a crap.'
Who the f*** cares either way? I have nothing to do with DOE and neither do employees of CCI. What's your point and why are you even telling us this?
It's a violation because the the USED only allows you to enter a placement rate for the graduates of the 2012-2013 academic year, when many of these rates are based on different student cohort groups. In the example, the school was forced to fill in the blank with placement rates for the 2009- 2010 starting cohort, but the template made it appear this was the placement rate for the 2012-2013 graduates. How is that providing accurate information to the public?
I have no idea what this proves. If it's fill in the blank, you fill in the blank. How is that a violation?
Useless info troll says what?
Blah blah blah. Who gives a shit?
CCi's problems have nothing to do with forms, but rather falsification of documents. Also US DOE and accreditation bodies do have different reporting standards, but so what? Just because yti.edu doesn't report correctly does not suggest that CCi did report correctly, and remember, CCi's problems are more about falsification.