Big Brother (AKA Uncle Sam) Strikes Again
By way of background, I teach at a relatively prestigious graduate school of management at a private university. I'm told that I'm not allowed to make public certain statistics, but suffice it to say that we have a large number of applicants for every "spot," and our offers of admission are accepted by "most" people to whom admission is offered. [Added after posting the first time: My picture seems to identify the institution. Oh, well. At least now I can boast about Peter Robinson as one of our most illustrious alumni.] We cultivate our reputation with prospective students and the larger business community. We depend on the very generous support of our alumni, support which is (generously) forthcoming. It would seem that this is a market in which privately ordered transactions are working well.
This morning, my colleagues and I received an email from one of the Senior Associate Deans proclaiming, among other things, that, henceforth, twice-weekly class sessions must last 105 minutes. The email went on with a lot more details about special cases of meeting times, lengths, and suchlike.
Why? Because (and here I quote) "Department of Education regulations issued in October 2010 require that one quarter unit of academic credit reasonably approximate not less than 'one hour of classroom or direct faculty instruction and a minimum of two hours of out-of-class student work for each week for ten to twelve weeks...or the equivalent amount of work over a different period of time.' " This regulation is, in turn, being enforced by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, our accreditation organization. And, accordingly, the university registrar has asked all schools and departments to "make necessary changes at this time."
I don't want to bore you with details, but let me stipulate: In a long career in this business (at this school), I have taught a variety of classes and, for some, complying with these regulations will lessen pedagogical quality. Different subjects, taught by different methods and at different levels, do not fit a "one size fits all" model of x hours in class per week, y hours at home.
Of course, government regulations, by their very nature, are often one-size-fits-all. I'm sure no one at Ricochet needs me to explain that this is among the reasons why, without a compelling public interest, it is best for the government to let private markets do their thing.
So....What is it about this particular private transaction that needs government regulation? What was in the mind of Congress when it passed a law (and which law?) that allowed this? (I assume there was a law, but that may be an unwarranted assumption.) Across the hall from me is a colleague who served on the Council of Economic Advisers in the Clinton Administration, and she is as mystified as am I. Anyone have a theory about how or why Big Brother thinks this is something else that needs regulation?
- Comment (27)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '10
Re: Big Brother (AKA Uncle Sam) Strikes Again
The rule is targeted primarily at online institutions, most of which are in private (for-profit) hands. The Obama administration wants to raise the cost of their doing business in an effort to push more students into public institutions. When the states cry foul, because they cannot fund the increased demand, the federal government will be forced to step in.
It all sounds a little crazy I know, but this is what keeps people from objecting while it takes place. It is the agenda of the Department of Education until and unless it is stopped.
Re: Big Brother (AKA Uncle Sam) Strikes Again
Trace Urdan: In the Higher Education Act, Congress...grants the Department of Education the responsibility for ensuring the "integrity" of the Title IV financial aid program, while granting the role for policing "quality" to accreditors...
The bureaucrats in the Department of Education have long chafed at this distinction... [and] would ideally like to federalize higher education completely and supplant the accreditors.
I think this nails it. "Follow the money" from the perspective of my presidential/provostial/decanal masters concerns access to government funded student loans. So they go along. (No doubt, the desire to regulate out of existence for-profit institutions plays a big role, too.) And the accrediting bodies, trying to protect their franchise from the DoE, enforce the nonsense.
Which means my colleagues and I spend our time (a) trying to figure out what the rules mean and (b) how to "comply" while minimizing the amount of effort expended plus (one can hope) damage done to the quality of instruction.
At least I have a nice new example of the heavy and clumsy hand of government regulation to cite, next time I teach microeconomics. And one that my students will appreciate, since it affects them!
Mar '11
Re: Big Brother (AKA Uncle Sam) Strikes Again
David Kreps
At least I have a nice new example of the heavy and clumsy hand of government regulation to cite, next time I teach microeconomics. And one that my students will appreciate, since it affects them! · 5 minutes ago
For the "out-of-class" work requirement, you can assign them a paper: "Why Governmental Micromanagement Sucks."
Nov '10
Re: Big Brother (AKA Uncle Sam) Strikes Again
Putting the online and/or for profits out of business would seemingly hurt a huge Obama ally, the Washington Post Company. I think 70% of the profits of this "fine" company come from its Kaplan subsidiary, a for profit educational business. Oh well, you cannot win a battle without some manuever damage.
Feb '11
Re: Big Brother (AKA Uncle Sam) Strikes Again
Regulators have three different type of standards they can apply in health care known as "Donabedian Standards of Care." The "Structure" standards are easily measured (such as a requisite number of beds). The "Process" standards are not so easily measured, these require certain procedures in the provision of care, and presumed within these are that hospitals will acquire the equipment to meet "structure" standards but they don't use them correctly. Finally there are "outcome" standards of care; these aim at the improved health of the patient, regardless of the means used to get there.
What you are dealing with is the "process" standard, where the regulators presume that they have the best possible process and it needs to be enforced uniformly. However, there are three problems with the "process" standards of care: (1) The weakness of the scientific basis for much of accepted practice. Therefore, dogmatism may help perpetuate error. (2) Emphasis on the need for technical interventions may lead to high cost care. (3) Interpersonal relationship between doctor and patient may be slighted because of increased focus on proficiency of doctor.
Continued....
Feb '11
Re: Big Brother (AKA Uncle Sam) Strikes Again
The soon to be implemented Value Based Purchasing program for hospitals enforced through Medicare, uses a lot of "process" standards. The hospitals have about 12 different "process" oriented criteria and a health assessment to be filled out by patients, with new criteria to be determined by the Secretary of HHS in the future. If a hospital falls below the newly created standards of care - for example in patients with a heart attack if fibrinolytic therapy is not received within 30 minutes of hospital arrival - they may receive a 1% across the board cut in medicare funding starting October of this year, and rising to 2% within 5 years.
This "one-size-fits-all" approach may raise the bottom performers, hopefully; but, whether it is in the hospital or in the classroom when government designates the requisite process to be used, we should not be surprised when we end up with a quality known as "good enough for government work." Innovation be damned.
Edited on March 13, 2012 at 9:59pmAug '11
Re: Big Brother (AKA Uncle Sam) Strikes Again
Making rules is a way to show voters you are doing something constructive. This inoculates politicians and bureaucrats from complicity when things go wrong as rules are broken; therefore more regulation equals less political accountability.