Quality and an Open Door
A great number lack the academic preparation necessary to college success, especially in composition and math. Many see these as “high risk” students. In the past, such luminaries as Mayors Giuliani of New York and Daly of Chicago have sought to end open enrollment by the community college of their cities, citing the high cost of attempting to remediate such students.3&4 The presidents of two historically black colleges have recently proposed becoming more selective as a way to enhance their respective graduation rates.5 Given the pressure to increase such rates at community colleges6, it will be tempting to think about following suit. However, before taking such a step, there are questions that need to be considered – 1) What constitutes quality? 2) Are graduation rates the only metrics that matter? and 3) What is the likely long-term cost of restricting access to only those we think will graduate? Traditionally, such factors as high numbers of terminally qualified faculty, low student-faculty ratios, large numbers of books in the library, substantial computer and lab facilities and, as noted above, an academically select student body have all been seen as indicators of a quality institution. Yet, these are all inputs. What is it that students know and can do after earning a credential from such an institution? This, is the question of today. Perhaps the time has come to measure quality in new ways – through a comparison of learning outcomes, and not from either inputs or graduation rates alone. If institutional quality is determined by the learning achieved by graduates, measured against such standardized criteria as the Lumina Foundation’s proposed “Degree Qualification Profile,”7 we might well gain an entirely new perspective as to what constitutes a “quality” institution or program. To focus only on inputs is to avoid the issue of knowledge attainment and what the available resources have produced. To focus only on graduation rates is to risk the unintended consequences that have been seen as schools distort data or engage in other undesired behavior in an attempt to gain or maintain a top ranking or, perhaps, in the not too distant future, maintain access to Title IV financial aid. New grading criteria or selective “adjustments” to curricula might well increase graduate rates without any concomitant increase in learning. It may also be time to recognize that open access institutions are not in the same sector of higher education as Ivy League schools or public research universities. While we share commonalities, those serving the audiences described above are not in the same “industry” as those educating 18-24 year-old, full-time students that now comprise but 15% of degree seeking students. Open institutions serve different populations, with different instructional models, using different instructional resources. They are in a distinct segment of higher education with uniquely different missions and values.8 As such, measurements of quality, including graduation rates, might be better made between like institutions. Shouldn’t we compare graduation rates between colleges of similar circumstance and mission rather than against those of the Ivy League, or even public four-year schools? For the moment, graduation rates, rightly or wrongly, are seen as an indicator of institutional quality. While waiting for agreement around standard benchmarks and means of measuring, those at open access institutions can take comfort in knowing that, “The largest gains in graduation rates over the past decade have been accomplished at open-access or nearly open access colleges and universities,” according to research conducted by William Doyle and colleagues at Vanderbilt University. He states that, “[our research] challenges a commonly held notion that the best way to increase graduation rates is to make colleges more selective—-.” “Nonselective colleges and universities (those that accept at least 80% of applicants) are leading the way in improving graduation rates. These [institutions] account for most of the increases in completion rates in 33 states. In 16, these institutions account for 75% of the increases”9 41