
Opportunity Colleges: Measuring What Truly Matters
The redesigned Carnegie Classifications aim to shift the focus from inputs to outcomes, from ... More prestige to performance and from exclusivity to opportunity.
At my house, we are deep in the college search process. A bewildering array of glossy brochures arrive in our mailbox each week. My son, a high school junior, repeatedly shares rankings of colleges that he's found online or sourced through internet influencers. We receive weekly 'college counseling' updates from our high school layered with deadlines, details about local college fairs, invitations to webinars about saving for college, and articles highlighting trends in college-going.
Even this higher education policy wonk and university trustee mom is left asking: 'Which college will actually give my son a good shot at success?'
It is a question that swirls around kitchen table conversations across America. As college costs continue to climb and student debt makes headlines, families are right to ask whether their investment will pay off. Will this college open doors for my child? Will my student, upon graduation, find a good job? Will they be welcomed and supported if they come from a family without financial means?
These practical questions matter far more to the majority of American families than the prestige factors that have traditionally dominated college rankings. There has been no systematic way to identify institutions that excel at both providing access to diverse student populations and delivering strong economic outcomes for their graduates.
Until now.
In a significant shift for how we understand and evaluate America's diverse higher education landscape, the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Carnegie Foundation) have unveiled a redesigned classification system that promises to better reflect what truly matters in higher education today: student success.
This latest announcement represents the culmination of years of work to reimagine the Carnegie Classifications, a process I highlighted in my January 2024 Forbes article, Rethinking Higher Education Classifications for Today's Institutions. As I noted then, the effort aimed to create "a more dynamic and contemporary perspective" on how we categorize and understand America's colleges and universities.
The timing couldn't be more critical. As Timothy Knowles, president of the Carnegie Foundation, recently characterized it at the ASU+GSV Summit, higher education finds itself in a "Dickensian moment"—the best of times and the worst of times. "Without question, [we have]
Yet at the same time, the nation's higher education system faces troubling trends: soaring student debt, insufficient access for low-income students, 60% completion rates, declining public confidence, an overemphasis on inputs not outcomes, enrollment challenges, and shrinking funding.
Ted Mitchell, president of ACE, put it bluntly in response to Knowles at the Summit: "It's no secret that higher education is facing an existential crisis," one with profound federal and political implications.
For nearly five decades, the Carnegie Classifications—long considered the gold standard for categorizing U.S. colleges and universities—have shaped how we view higher education. But as institutions have evolved to serve increasingly diverse student populations, the traditional classification system struggled to capture this complexity, often reducing institutions to simplistic categories based primarily on the highest degrees they awarded.
The 2025 update to the venerable Carnegie Classifications includes both a revision of the historic Basic Classification (now titled the Institutional Classification) and a groundbreaking new Student Access and Earnings Classification (SAEC).
The updated Institutional Classification now organizes colleges and universities according to multiple characteristics—including size, types of degrees awarded and fields of study in which students receive their degrees—creating a more nuanced view of institutional identity and mission.
But perhaps the most consequential change is the introduction of the SAEC, which focuses squarely on outcomes. This new framework evaluates institutions on two critical metrics: access and earnings.
The access metric examines whether peer institutions enroll students who reflect the communities they serve, specifically looking at Pell Grant recipients and underrepresented student groups. The earnings metric measures how much former students earn compared to their peers in the job markets they entered. Importantly, the metric tracks both students who complete their degrees and those who do not, so institutions are accountable for all students, not just those who graduate.
These 479 Opportunity Colleges and Universities represent a diverse cross-section of American higher ... More education—public and private, large and small, urban and rural—demonstrating that excellence in providing access and fostering economic mobility is possible across institutional types and settings.
This approach directly addresses two of the most pressing concerns in today's higher education debate: is college accessible to all Americans regardless of background? And does a college degree still deliver meaningful economic mobility? At a time when many Americans are questioning whether higher education remains a pathway to the middle class, these metrics provide concrete data to evaluate institutions' performance on these critical dimensions.
"The majority of students apply to college with the expectation it is a legitimate path to opportunity, and a job they've dreamt about," says Knowles. "This work is about ensuring that institutions are recognized and incentivized to empower students to reach their goals and succeed."
In a notable innovation, the new classification has designated 479 institutions as "Opportunity Colleges and Universities"— schools that meet specific thresholds on both access and earnings metrics and can serve as models for studying how all campuses can foster student success.
For baccalaureate-plus institutions to earn this designation, they must achieve at least a score of "1" for access (meaning their student population reflects the demographic makeup of their service area) and a score of "1.50" for earnings (indicating that their graduates earn 50% more than comparison groups eight years after enrollment).
Associate degree-granting institutions face a modified threshold, requiring the same access score but a slightly lower earnings score of "1.25," acknowledging the different nature and missions of these largely two-year degree-granting institutions.
These 479 Opportunity Colleges and Universities represent a diverse cross-section of American higher education—public and private, large and small, urban and rural—demonstrating that excellence in providing access and fostering economic mobility is possible across institutional types and settings. They serve as proof points that colleges and universities can simultaneously serve all students and prepare them for economic success.
The new SAEC has designated 479 institutions as "Opportunity Colleges and Universities"— schools ... More that meet specific thresholds on both access and earnings metrics and can serve as models for studying how all campuses can foster student success.
'We want this to be seen as holding higher education and our institutions accountable,' says Mitchell. 'Are they constructing a campus that reflects the community around them and are they providing those students with the essential tools and skills needed to go out into the world and succeed in a chosen career? It is time for a new social contract between higher education and the American people, and that contract has a 'job one' focusing on student success.'
The redesign arrives at a pivotal moment when families face difficult decisions about college affordability, legislators scrutinize public funding for higher education, employers question the job-readiness of graduates and institutions grapple with enrollment challenges and public perception issues. By focusing on tangible outcomes, the new classifications offer a more relevant lens through which to view institutional quality—one that aligns with what students and taxpayers actually want from higher education.
The redesigned system aims to shift the focus from inputs to outcomes, from prestige to performance and from exclusivity to opportunity. This new classification also has the potential to drive institutional improvement, facilitate learning from successful models, build upon existing research and equip various stakeholders—from state agencies to accreditors to funders—with better tools for decision-making. Most importantly, for students and families navigating the complex landscape of college choice, the new SAEC provides a valuable lens that aligns with what most are seeking: institutions that will open doors and create pathways to success.
'The institutions that are high access and high earnings—the Opportunity Colleges and Universities—warrant recognition, understanding and investment,' says Knowles. 'For if we create more places like them, and ensure the postsecondary sector is accountable for student success, we create more opportunity for everyone. And that, I think, is something Americans will rally behind.'
What makes this approach distinctive is its simplicity and focus. Rather than creating another complex ranking system, the SAEC is designed to be straightforward for institutions to understand what to improve and where to focus their efforts. By including associate degree-granting institutions and incorporating geographic context, the classification provides a more comprehensive and nuanced view of higher education's role in fostering opportunity.
The transformation of the Carnegie Classifications didn't happen overnight. When ACE and the Carnegie Foundation announced their partnership to reimagine the classifications in 2022, they embarked on an extensive process of stakeholder engagement, consulting with thousands of institutional leaders, researchers, policymakers and higher education experts. This inclusive approach ensured that the new classifications reflect the diverse perspectives and needs of the sector.
Perhaps most significantly, this reimagination moves beyond the theoretical to provide practical tools for institutional improvement in areas that are increasingly central to public policy debates: greater access, economic mobility and workforce development. As state legislatures tie funding to performance metrics, as Congress contemplates reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and as employers seek graduates with demonstrable skills, the new classifications provide a common framework for evaluating how well institutions are meeting these contemporary challenges.
'Higher education is facing numerous and serious challenges, some of our own making that have been building for years, such as too low completion rates, a too high barrier for granting credit and easing the time to degree for transfer students and those with prior learning experiences, and providing a clear picture of exactly what a college degree will cost,' says Mitchell. 'Now we are facing an existential threat from many of the actions being taken by the current administration, including the attempted gutting of our world-leading research. With the new Institutional and Student Access and Earnings Classifications, we are playing offense and demonstrating the evidence of what so many higher education institutions do well and challenging others to do better.'
But the collaboration between ACE and the Carnegie Foundation aims higher than just measuring current performance.
Knowles envisions the initiative as a catalyst for genuine innovation in higher education, one that might even "crack the Carnegie unit"—the time-based standard that has defined American education for over a century. By shifting focus to actual learning outcomes rather than seat time, the new classifications could spur new models, emerging from incumbent and new institutions that increase access, outcomes, and make postsecondary much more affordable, including options like three-year degrees and stronger pathways from high school to college.
As higher education continues to evolve in response to changing student needs, workforce demands and technological disruptions, having classification systems that reflect these realities becomes increasingly important.
For those families sitting around kitchen tables, weighing college options and worrying about cost, the Opportunity Colleges designation offers practical insights into college value. Now, students and families can look to these 479 institutions as examples of colleges and universities that have proven their ability to serve students of all backgrounds and prepare them for prosperity.
At a time when so many are questioning whether higher education is still 'worth it,' the Opportunity Colleges and Universities stand as a testament that when done right, a college education remains one of the most powerful tools for creating a more equitable society and opening doors to opportunity for all learners.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
‘Canada is not the problem': Canadian official reacts to Trump's new steel tariffs
US tariffs on steel and aluminum doubled from 25% to 50%, a move cheered by the beleaguered American steel industry but worrisome to sectors that heavily use the metals, from car makers to can manufacturers. Ontario Premier Doug Ford reacts to the latest development in President Donald Trump's trade war.


Axios
29 minutes ago
- Axios
Republicans scramble to avoid a war with Elon Musk
House Republicans, dismayed by Elon Musk's harsh criticism of President Trump's "One Big, Beautiful Bill," are now trying to talk their erstwhile ally down from the ledge. Why it matters: With over $400 billion at his disposal, the Tesla and SpaceX owner could drown Republicans in opposition cash. And he's saying GOP lawmakers who voted for the bill should be "fired." House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he called Musk on Tuesday but that the recently departed Trump lieutenant "didn't answer," adding that he hopes to "talk to him today." What we're hearing: Coming out of their closed-door conference meeting, House Republicans projected optimism they can get Musk back on side. "There's a sense that Elon is still learning about the full number of wins in the One Big, Beautiful Bill," another House Republican, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations, told Axios. The lawmaker said House Republicans have "talked to him in the last 24 hours" and "have helped him understand the big picture." Another House Republican told Axios: "I think he'll recognize maybe more than most the challenge that we face when we're trying to cut spending. He simply wants more spending as I understanding. He should know how hard that is." State of play: Musk slammed the bill as a "disgusting abomination" on Tuesday, writing in a post on X, "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it." In another post, Musk responded to another user's criticism of the bill writing, "In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people." All but five House Republicans voted for the reconciliation bill last month. Between the lines: Johnson said he had a "great conversation" with Musk on Monday morning, before his social media rampage, and that "it's curious to me what happened this week." The House speaker said Musk told him in that conversation that he would lend support to Republicans in the 2026 elections. Zoom in: There is also simmering anger behind the scenes, with Johnson telling colleagues in the conference meeting that Trump is "pissed off" at Musk, according to a source familiar with his comments. A third House Republican argued that the bill benefits "middle class families and taxpaying, working-class people" and that "maybe that upsets the billionaire class, I don't know." "I think he's flat wrong," Johnson said at his press conference. "I think he's way off on this and I've told him as much."
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk ghosted me, House Speaker Mike Johnson admits after ‘Big Beautiful Bill' blowup
House Speaker Mike Johnson admitted during a press conference on Wednesday that billionaire Elon Musk did not take his phone call amid the blowup over the Republican spending package. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk posted on X Tuesday. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' A reporter asked Johnson during his press conference on Wednesday, 'What do you think changed? Why do you think he's coming out against it now? And have you spoken to the president and Elon since the infamous tweet?' 'I called Elon last night and he didn't answer, but I hope to talk to him today,' replied Johnson. 'It's very friendly ... and we've laughed about our differences on policy before.' Johnson claimed that he's not upset about the situation, adding that Musk has 'acknowledged to me before that this is so serious that we can't fool around with it.' The speaker went on to say that the 'debt cliff is approaching very quickly,' and he argued that everything in the bill would serve as 'jet fuel' for the American economy. 'All boats are going to rise, and the sooner we do that, the better,' he added. 'And the risk of not getting it done is enormous, not just for the Republican Party, but for the country.' The Congressional Budget Office found that the legislation would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over a decade and cut taxes by $3.7 trillion. The office also found that 10.9 million people would lose health insurance under the bill. 'We're going to have the largest tax increase in US history at the end of the year if we fail,' said Johnson. '... I think Elon understands the weight of that, and I hope he comes around.' The speaker said he hopes to speak to the billionaire this week and that President Donald Trump is 'not delighted that Elon did a 180.' Musk has continually criticised the spending package. "I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing," he previously told CBS News. 'I don't know what happened in 24 hours. Everybody can draw their own conclusions about that, but I look forward to talking to my friend about it again, and I'm not upset about it,' said Johnson on Wednesday. The speaker faced mockery for his comments on X, the social media platform owned by Musk. Podcast host Brian Allen said Johnson 'getting ghosted by Elon Musk after bending over backwards to carry water for him is chef's kiss poetic. You sold your spine for a retweet and now you're out here begging for callbacks like a side character in a bad HBO drama.' 'Elon got what he wanted and now he's treating you like every Tesla recall: ignoring it until the damage is public,' he added. 'So the extremely obvious prediction that Musk and Trump would last 3-4 months before they got into a huge fight and broke was, in retrospect, pretty much 100 percent correct,' said Jeremiah Johnson. 'Poor Mike Johnson. He's crying about getting rejected by Elon Musk,' Ed Krassenstein added.