Is it a good idea to extend college completion rate benchmarks?

Towards the end of last year there was some discussion amongst the higher education community about extending the degree completion rate measurement—the maximum number of years that are taken into account when calculating the rate at which students complete their degree from an institution—from 150 percent of the intended four years (six years) to 200 percent (eight years). The argument for doing so was that it would better demonstrate how many students graduate either from their first-attended institution or, if we use added data from the national clearinghouse, from another institution.

I am all for measuring student progression and watching progression trends. This information should help campuses assess their current retention-based systems and identify potential gaps for specific majors. However, if we begin to use this as a standard to measure time lines for degree completion, it may prove to be a colossal mistake with massive student completion and cost consequences.

I believe this change would further lower our campus expectations and exacerbate rising barriers to both college access and student success while simultaneously increasing the financial challenges facing college-goers and their families. The six-year standard established decades ago has led to a campus culture that says that graduating in six years is expected and an established norm. For first-time, full-time entering students, our standards should instead be improved to three years for associate’s degrees and five years for bachelor’s degrees. The tougher standard could be critical in encouraging students to focus during this shorter period, complete their degrees, relieve some of their financial burdens, and, most importantly, allow for more students to have the same opportunity.

Likewise, setting these higher standards, rather than lowering standards, would help shift institutional culture in favor of accommodating and encouraging expedient college success.

According to a recent Lumina study, 63 percent of all jobs will require a two or four year degree by 2018. In addition, according to a recent poll by Public Agenda, 55 percent of all American’s consider higher education absolutely necessary for success. In other surveys, when prospective students were asked how long they planned to take to complete their degrees, a majority believed they could finish their degrees on time. If we continue to further extend completion rate benchmarks, our measurement will slow our progress as well as course sequencing and delivery systems. Moreover, our supply of well-educated graduates is likely to dwindle, lessening our chances of reaching expected employment needs. While the measure is of concern, there is also great concern for this type of mentality to increase student debt. Incurring two, three, or four more years of enrollment costs plus a lack of income by not working creates even larger concerns for our economic stability.

Campuses need to work more diligently to create the vehicles and systems for students who enter with a variety of abilities to complete their degrees in a more timely fashion. I hope that as we consider extending completion rate benchmarks, we exclude first-time, full-time students and allow any extended measure to focus on those populations where extra time is needed. Thus, enrollment and completion patterns can be measured and used for campus completion rate improvement comparisons, without creating a culture that encourages student apathy and does little to combat underachievement.