The federal government has just radically changed the way it measures higher education outcomes. Now for the first time, all programs that participate in the federal student loan program will be held accountable for the earnings of their graduates.

Framed as a “do no harm” provision, the new Student Tuition and Transparency System and Earnings Accountability rule amounts to a relatively low bar. Although earnings are a convenient metric to assess initial program outcomes, this new one-dimensional standard fails to measure what truly matters over the long term.

We have known for years that simply preparing someone for a first job is not enough. Artificial intelligence, automation and other global forces are rapidly changing jobs, the economy and the skills that workers need more rapidly than ever.

Today, employers are losing faith in degrees as a signal of workforce readiness. According to one recent survey, 7 in 10 employers now use skills-based hiring approaches. As job functions shift, employers are finding it more efficient to fill job vacancies by reskilling and upskilling incumbent workers.

Because the tools and systems needed to assess skills and aptitudes are finally coming into their own, employers can more easily find the right talent, and learners can demonstrate what they know and can do without fixed time constraints.

Learners are also using credit for prior learning and innovative online approaches that validate their skills and knowledge as they work toward a degree. But still too often, the public narrative focuses on the idea that a degree should be based on straightforward metrics such as class time or immediate earnings.

The current focus on skills presents our nation an opportunity to rethink how we measure quality. Rather than calculate the value of postsecondary education by simply glancing at what recent graduates are earning, we should measure the mastery of skills.

Until recently, the quality of college graduates was measured by inputs such as institutional prestige, or through proxies of seat time and credit hours. Completion assumes that students have gained certain knowledge and skills, but it never clearly spells out what graduates really know or can do. Without an accurate measure, policymakers embraced wage thresholds as a blunt-force way to assess college graduates.

Read the full article here: