Guccifer casts out Hillary

[Hammerskjold]

Yes. I feel in many ways the UNCHR is more comprehensive, and built upon various western nations constitutions. My unspoken premise being that the US has not determined basic education (or others like health care) as a acknowledged right, while many, many other nations have included basic education within the legal rights of their citizens.

If you're using a UN charter as a springboard for comparison and analysis, sure ok. But again, for practical purposes I find it better to look at the local, state, federal law of said nation. You cited some examples, so let's head on over there.

The system of accountability in higher ed in the US is a bit convoluted. The states authorize the higher ed institutions to educate in their state. They base their authorization on national accreditation bodies, like the Higher Learning Commission, to review each institutions commitment to program quality and sound fiscal operations. They provide the backbone to rooting out the bad actors by withholding or revoking accreditation. The federal government doubles down by denying loans and grants to students pursuing unaccredited programs. On the one side then you have the masses of consumer demand for programs, and on the other you have the institutions building that product, within the oversight of the HLC and similar accrediting bodies. We are required to submit comprehensive fiscal and academic information to the HLC annually, and once you are in "good standing" they only do a very detailed review of operation once every 10 years, although if anything of substance occurs they will intercede in the interim. If they discover anything of concern in their review, the institution is put onto probation until the concerns are addressed to their satisfaction. If the concerns are not addressed adequately, the institutions accreditation will be revoked. When in a probationary state, the detail reviews are more frequent until you again are considered to be "in good standing" (i.e. doing it the way they want you to do it.)

That said, in the US, we sort of let students choose where, and how much, higher education they will consume, whether it is good for them, or not. The federal and state government has limits on the number of years you can get financial aid, but has not stepped in (much yet) to evaluate their ROI, so currently, student are "free" to choose what they want to learn in higher ed.

Sounds relatively similar in concept to what I've heard from some college profs here. The fly in the ointment is always striving for a balance and vigilance.

I'd agree, especially if the bulk of general education can be accomplished in grades 11-12, instead of their college freshman, sophomore years. In Minnesota, we have a statewide program (called PSEO, paid for by the taxpayers of MN. Also, called Dual Enrollment) that allows students in grades 11-12 to attend college courses for credit, instead of a high school course. Our university is seeing many new enrolled student entering as sophomore, or juniors. It's becoming normal to see the bulk of new students entering with 16-48 college credits completed. We had one musical prodigy last year who at 16 years old, entered as a Senior, and graduated 18 months later at 18. Then began her MFA, which I've no doubt she'll get before she's 20.

That young student sounds inspirational. She sounds like she's absolutely dedicated to learning and honing her craft.

You are spot on though in focusing on the 2nd class nature of "trades" educational programs. My opinion is they need to be shaped, and held more accountable by the industries they serve. One of the more renowned around here is Dunwoody, which is non-profit, and accredited like other colleges and universities. They have a post program placement rate of 97%.

Now, being the biggest provider of loans and Pell grants, the government is flexing their muscles with Gainful Employment rule making. In essence, the direction this is taking will squeeze out the arts and humanities, in favor of programs that are very vocational (higher earnings) in nature (e.g. business, education, sciences, engineering, etc). If you had your heart set on being a philosopher, or archaeologist, then in the future, you'll be hard pressed to find any institution that can offer you that type of program. I'm guessing that the government will not stop at "for profit" institutions once they've kicked some behinds for awhile (2-3 years). All institutions need to report Certificate level programs, and for profit institution must report on ALL program levels (Certificate, Associate, Bachelors, Graduate, Doctoral).

The unstated goal of the government "force" in this gainful employment law is to deny federal funding to "for profit" institutions that offer a plethora of simply obtained and expensive Certificates for everything from Applied Animal Behavior, to Welding. The governments measure will be the wage rate increase of the graduated student, compared with the loan default rate for every program. In this case, if the preponderance of students are making bad choices, it is the institutions programs for which funding will be cut. If people were getting sick by insisting on eating meat raw, you'd resolve the problem by shutting down those vendors who sell to the ones who get sick. Not so fair to the people who are just selling a product. In this regulatory change, an institution will not want to have low completion rates, nor would they want low employment success for students after completion. It will do two things; 1) schools will be more selective in to WHOM they sell (able to complete, and employable), and 2) they will modify their programs to enable more "success" which may be detrimental to the trade skills required. The intention is to shut down this type of education, but I don't think all the consequences of the impact have been thought through. For example in Truck Driving, maybe the programs DO create an educational standard that employers rely upon to determine qualification. Without this type of program setting an education standard, perhaps it will require employers to hire more people without any credentials, resulting in more accidents.

It's definitely a bit of a bind. I understand the need for government oversight and accountability as well as from industry. Especially in either high tech trades, or a field that can have dire consequences for ignorance \ incompetence. Too much extremes in either direction can create a mess. There was an investigation a few years back in my city with some diploma mills, and it's almost hilarious if wasn't for the type of papers they were handing out. IIRC it was nursing and security certificates. Not something I want to be carelessly handed out.

In other on topic news, how much will the TPA / TPP play in Democratic candidacy?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership? I asked about that in pg.2, though in the general election sense. Personally, not a big fan of it at all from what I've seen so far.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...e24378924/

I thought NAFTA was a bad deal all around, and the TPP is at least twice as bad. If it does get any airplay, I expect it will be couched in JOBS JOBS JOBS. Or fighting some thinly veiled boogeyman, something something countering China's economic influence.