How College Leaders Can Play Offense On Value

Forbes

5 days ago

The new the Carnegie Classifications now include a more central focus on value and economic ... More mobility, turning them into a highly impactful tool in college leaders' arsenal.
There is as much variety among the nearly 4,000 degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States as in the nation itself. From tiny liberal arts colleges to massive universities with student populations as large as a major city—and everything in between—it's important to understand the differences among them. This is especially true as questions about the value of higher education continue to grow louder.
Fortunately, one of the primary systems for differentiating colleges just got a major overhaul.
A few weeks ago, the American Council on Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching unveiled a long-awaited update to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education—colloquially known as the Carnegie Classifications—which are the main way that American colleges and universities are categorized and compared. Initially developed in 1973 to support research and policy analysis, the classification system has been updated every few years to reflect the changing higher education landscape.
This year's changes, which marked the 10th update overall, were significant.
Most notably, the Carnegie Classifications now include a more central focus on value and economic mobility, reflecting the growing shift of the higher education field in this direction. In addition to reimagining the basic classification types, the system now includes a new category to capture the institutions that improve student access and earnings. This means that the system now explicitly identifies the extent to which institutions provide access to underrepresented students and the degree to which students go on to earn competitive wages.
This evolution is a noteworthy move for a system that has substantial influence over colleges' behavior and the options students and families consider to ensure the best possible outcome from investing in higher education.
Historically, certain Carnegie categories have served as somewhat of a status symbol for colleges and universities. The 'R1' designation, for instance, came with a high degree of prestige and was often sought after by institutions looking to grow their national prominence. But those designations were primarily driven by the amount of funding spent on research and the highest-level degree types that different colleges awarded rather than factoring in student outcomes. While research is an important function of higher education, earning an R1 designation didn't indicate much about how well a particular institution actually served its students.
Redefining the drivers of these classifications can help rewrite the markers of prestige for American colleges. And in a challenging postsecondary landscape and unpredictable political environment, this new system can help college leaders play offense—not defense—when it comes to proving their value.
Those leaders who embrace the access and earnings information and use it to drive improvements will be directly responding to the questions and concerns that many are raising about value. Colleges and universities that can show that their graduates have strong career outcomes—especially those who admit a broader range of students from different socioeconomic backgrounds—will be distinguishing themselves in ways that are truly worthy of praise.
In addition, the classifications' new consideration of regional economic context in measuring graduate earnings is a significant step. It recognizes that earning $40,000 per year in a small, rural community means something very different than earning $40,000 per year in a major city. The consideration of labor market and demographic differences as part of the overall evaluation of how well colleges are serving their students allows for a more nuanced understanding of an institution's value proposition within its specific community, economy and state.
Regional context also incentivizes institutions to better serve their local economies. Allowing institutions with similar demographics and economic conditions to compare themselves to one another enables those who are excelling to inspire and inform other 'like' institutions. And if how well graduates do in the labor market is now a key driver of excellence, that should translate into greater economic mobility for students and a more prepared talent supply to fill key jobs in local economies.
The new system also has the potential to be useful to consumers. Previous versions of the classification structure had limited meaning to students or families; the majority of students weren't concerned with going to a school that had achieved a particular Carnegie classification. Instead, they were (and are) interested in attending accessible colleges that are known to help their graduates achieve their goals and find success.
A system that incorporates measures that matter to students and families and contextualizes colleges within their local communities has the potential to be a useful tool for helping people to understand their options and make informed choices. And in addition to the importance of delivering value to students, greater confidence among potential consumers is likely to help address the enrollment challenges that many institutions across the country currently face.
The shift to a central focus on value in higher education requires leadership on multiple fronts. It requires demand from consumers, which has undeniably come to the fore in recent years. It requires states to set the right policies and incentives to drive their colleges and universities in the right direction. And, critically, it requires college leaders themselves to make changes in what they prioritize at their institutions.
Given their traditional significance among higher education leaders, the evolution of the Carnegie Classifications marks an important change for one of the essential groups who can influence postsecondary value. The fact that demand for new classifications came from institutions themselves is a positive indicator of the field's willingness to make the tough changes necessary to deliver on higher education's promise. When paired with a shared vision and a smart state strategy, these new classifications can be a highly impactful tool in college leaders' arsenal. The great reorienting of higher education around value continues to move forward; and it's time for college leaders to play offense.