Was this forwarded to you by a friend? Sign up, and get your own copy of the news that matters sent to your inbox every week. Sign up for the On EdTech newsletter. Interested in additional analysis? Upgrade to the On EdTech+ newsletter.

This morning Patrick Methvin of the Gates Foundation made the case for earnings-premium accountability—and acknowledged, as I've argued at length, that the details are hard and the current measures flawed. I haven't changed my mind about any of that. But I've spent most of my words on what's wrong with the rules and too few on something Methvin gets right: the need is real and not just as policy. As a person. My daughter trained for an in-demand career, and a year later she still can't get the job.

So let me set the metric debate aside for this one. I've covered it, my position hasn't moved, and Methvin is right that measurement is where the whole thing lives or dies. Today I want to talk about why the concept matters in the first place—because those of us who spend our time scrutinizing the rules can lose sight of the thing the rules are reaching for.

Betsy—my daughter, who does much of the data work behind this newsletter and produces the podcast—graduated last June from a private college in Phoenix with an associate degree in diagnostic medical sonography (Ultrasound tech). By every account an in-demand field (including the information from the school), and the program was not easy: twenty-plus hours a week of class, extra lab hours, two years of real work. She finished and then started looking for a job. That was eight months and nearly 200 applications ago. She still doesn't have one.

The interesting part isn't Betsy’s résumé—it's her explanation, because it isn't about her. Phoenix has three sonography programs, two of them graduating a fresh cohort every quarter. All programs in the state of Arizona are concentrated in the city. The local market can't absorb that many new technicians, even if the market is growing overall, so employers have started requiring two years' experience for entry-level roles, because they can. Supply outruns demand, and the people holding the credential are the ones who pay for the mismatch. Her cohort bears it out: of the dozen who started, only three or four have the jobs they trained for. One moved to Texas to get hers. Betsy has two young kids and can't.

This is the dimension the national earnings debate skips. We argue about whether graduates, in the aggregate, earn enough. We rarely ask whether anyone is accountable for matching how many students a program enrolls to how many a real, local labor market can hire. To the extent anyone weighs that, it tends to be the states, not Washington—the federal government has no direct role in local labor-market matching, and the blunt instrument it's now bringing may distort the field as much as it corrects it. The school, meanwhile, has every incentive to keep enrolling and none to stop.

Which gets at what the institution should be accountable means in practice. It isn't a formula. Betsy has gone back to the school for help more than once. What she gets is the occasional mass email of generic job-board listings sent to every graduate—postings she's already seen and already applied to. The warning signs were there during the program, too. There were no clinical externship sites left in the city, so the school ran its own, where six students shared the patient load meant for one. A program that can't place its students in externships is telling you something about the market it's sending them into.

The accountability that matters here is a relationship—a school owning what happens to the people it enrolled. That's the part the current conversation, mine included, tends to skip on the way to the math.

I asked Betsy whether her classmates talk about paying off their loans. Her answer stuck with me: people don't expect to pay them off anymore. They expect to have them forever—a payment you just make, working toward nothing. That resignation is exactly what accountability is supposed to answer. When the credential doesn't lead to the job, the debt doesn't go away. It just becomes the thing you carry.

Betsy and I talked through a lot more than fits here—including how the school passes the metrics with the most recent data with flying colors while also not providing any useful transparency in the College Scorecard. That gap is its own story, and we get into it in the full episode. (OET+ subscribers have the whole conversation, along with the rest of the season.)

None of this changes my view that the rules are flawed, that the data is stale, that the details Methvin flags are real and unresolved. I'll keep writing about all of it, but a flawed instrument is an argument for a better one, not for no instrument—the need being real is exactly what makes getting it right matter. Worth doing, and worth doing right.

And Betsy isn't the point here; she's the window. The other students who started with her, the new cohorts arriving every quarter, the students two and three programs deep into a market that can't hire them—they're who this is for, and they're why getting it wrong carries a cost. Betsy just let me see it from across the kitchen table.

The flaws are why the work is hard. The students are why it's worth doing right.

The main On EdTech newsletter is free to share in part or in whole. All we ask is attribution.

Thanks for being a subscriber.