How EQUIP Affects Higher Education

I’ve talked a lot about alternative forms of education in this space, and I firmly believe that higher education needs to innovate to stay relevant in the 21st century. Two weeks ago, the government made a big step in this direction. The recent EQUIP initiative is legitimizing different kinds of education, but some of the decisions involved are problematic.

A Brief Overview of EQUIP

Recently, the government announced the first eight partnerships of the EQUIP (Educational Quality Through Innovative Partnerships) initiative, which aims to help low-income students access new kinds of education. Federal financial aid will now be able to be used for these eight partnerships, which previously had not qualified for the financial aid.

Criteria for the partnerships include:

• Innovating to improve outcomes
• Providing equitable access to high-quality postsecondary education
• Quality assurance
• Affordability
• Student and taxpayer protections

Every partnership must be reviewed and monitored by an independent third-party quality assurance entity, which will assess student outcomes, including what students learn, outcomes after the program and how the program is managed.

Partnerships range from coding bootcamps to accelerated bachelor’s degrees to certificates. Approximately half of the programs are focused on computer programming, but programs for business, management and liberal arts also are included.

Interestingly, no MOOCs are participating in this initiative, perhaps because they are already so focused on being low- or no-cost. Alternatively, it could be that the brands that support MOOCS have no interest in creating a federally funded solution that is separate from their on-campus offerings, which are typically expensive.

The Benefits

Look, I love innovation, and I’ve been talking about the need to track outcomes for what seems like forever. I applaud that outcomes was one of the criteria for being chosen to be part of this program. I also think this is a significant opportunity to demonstrate the power of these vocational programs to students and employers alike. These programs have the promise of delivering high-quality education at affordable prices where outcomes are clear. This is the triumvirate of affordability, accessibility, and ROI.

The Drawbacks

There’s always a but, isn’t there? While I do think there are some benefits to this program, I have some serious concerns.

(I should say here that Learning House owns The Software Guild, which applied to be one of the partnerships chosen. I promise, however, that I had these reservations even during the application process.)

Regulation

First, the “quality assurance process” is…unusual. These programs are not being overseen by accrediting bodies, but rather by a number of different agencies, many of them for-profit. Why not have selected at least one regional accrediting agency to oversee a program? I appreciate going outside of the current structure, but we also have a vested interest to fix higher education from the inside.

Entangled Ventures, for example, invests in companies in the higher education industry. They bring valuable experience, but it also feels a little bit like having the fox guarding the chicken coop. If we learned nothing else from the housing crash of 2008, it should have been the importance of regulators who do not stand to profit from the success of the programs they are regulating.

Unfair Advantages

Picking favorites is another issue. By choosing these eight to be eligible to receive financial aid, the government is inherently giving these partnerships a leg up, both in the size of the talent pool they can attract and in publicity. The government is giving legitimacy to these programs over other similar programs. This has happened before with the Distance Education Demonstration Program back in the late 1990s, so there is precedent.

Breaking Higher Education

A lot of the hype around alternative education has focused on MOOCs and coding bootcamps. As mentioned above, MOOCs are not really represented in this initiative, although I would argue that “MOOC-like substances” (to use Scott Jaschik’s phrase) are. I would put the partnership with Study.com and Thomas Edison State University, as well as the partnership with StraighterLine and the Dallas Community College system, in this category. Here is what is so exciting but also terrifying about these kinds of programs: if they become scalable, they have the potential to break our entire higher education system. Programs that offer 3-credit general education courses for $200 instead of $1,200 (which works out to $400 per credit hour, which is fairly low compared to an elite university), and provide the same quality as that $1,200 course, represent a huge win for consumers, who can access education significantly more affordably. But that also means that colleges and universities will no longer be able to sustain themselves with higher priced courses that typically provide good margins and cash flow. Some will adapt but I predict the majority would have to close their doors. I am not going to opine on the efficacy here because I simply don’t know. Clearly, education would become more homogenized and I am not sure if that is a bad thing if outcomes are met.

That of course doesn’t even address the part where for the short-term vocational programs, financial aid shouldn’t even really be necessary. If these programs provide the skills they claim they do, students should easily be able to see the ROI of paying upfront, because they will end up with a better job at the end. If those outcomes hold true, private lenders will be willing to take the risk of giving loans as they are doing already today to new students as needed, because they will know their chances of being paid back are high. The free market will help regulate costs. Why mess with this right now? Lenders will make their decisions on who to lend to mostly by judging the outcomes of the coding bootcamp, not the background of the incoming student.

How I Think It Should Work

Coding bootcamps are already popular and growing. Colleges and universities should start offering these as well, either through partnering with a bootcamp like The Software Guild or the ones participating in EQUIP or by developing the curriculum themselves. Concordia University, St. Paul and The Software Guild, for example, have partnered so that graduates of The Software Guild can take that credit and apply it toward a computer science degree at CSP. I think in the next five years, we are going to see dozens of these popping up on college campuses across the country.

The MOOC-like substances, I think, represent a more significant threat, but also opportunity, for colleges and universities. As mentioned above, if companies like StraighterLine ever crack the code of scalability, that could represent a significant financial burden to colleges, which will no longer be able to compete on price. But these kinds of programs also play to the lowest common denominator, so the same courses would be offered at schools across the country. Universities that identify what sets them apart (whether it’s teaching style, having expert faculty, having a strong alumni network, or something else) will have a competitive advantage. It’s not that students will never choose the more expensive option, it’s that colleges must prove to students that the more expensive option has benefits. I think that at least some colleges will have to close, but those that can prove their worth and that are able to adapt will survive.

No matter what happens, higher education needs to become more effective, outcomes-based, affordable and flexible. Do you think the EQUIP initiative will help us get there?