How College Leaders Can Play Offense On Value
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Now we know just how useless Trump's Alaska summit really was ... to everyone but Vladimir Putin
Before President Trump's tête-à-tête with Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, press secretary Karoline Leavitt was already downplaying the stakes. Wednesday morning, she described the summit as a 'listening exercise' — which is, frankly, a relief. After all, when you're a time-poor autocrat juggling a Monday invasion, a midweek labor camp opening, and a weekend of jailing political opponents, it's easy to feel unheard. Sure, Putin invaded Ukraine. And yes, countless people have suffered ... on both sides. But perhaps — and I think we can all agree this is the real tragedy here — no one has taken the time to validate his feelings. So it was heartening, then, to see Vlad and Donald touch down on Alaskan soil midday Friday and greet each other with warmth: a smattering of applause from Trump, a weirdly prolonged handshake, and then the two friends sliding into the same back seat — a notable break in protocol — for the drive to their meeting. Waiting for them on the tarmac was a stage emblazoned 'ALASKA 2025,' festival-style, primed for the photo-op. Meanwhile, at least seven civilians had just been killed in Ukraine by Russian missiles. When they emerged again for a post-meeting press conference, earlier than expected, it was clear a good time had been had by all. They had agreed on 'most points,' said Trump. He was going to 'call up NATO,' he added, saying, 'I will, of course, call up President Zelensky and tell him about today's meeting." Very good of him. They should meet, Putin added, but 'next time in Moscow.' Trump laughed at that point, calling his suggestion 'an interesting one.' 'I'll get a little heat on that one,' the American president added, 'but I could see it possibly happening.' The two men leaned in toward each other and smiled, like they were sharing an inside joke. The bottom line: a nebulous amount of 'progress' made, some 'headway,' stuff to talk about, but 'there's no deal until there's a deal.' Ah well. Maybe Vlad just needs more time. I'm pretty sure, however, that he already got what he came for — and that the joke is on America. Contrast the kid-gloves treatment of everybody's favorite dictator with the treatment of Volodymyr Zelensky a few months ago, when he visited the White House. Indeed, it is hard to recall another Oval Office meeting where an allied head of state was treated quite like the Ukrainian president was in February. Lest we forget, Zelensky had arrived to discuss a minerals deal that might have bolstered his country's three-year fight for survival. He left having been publicly chided, mid-meeting, for 'disrespect' and insufficient gratitude. Trump accused him of 'gambling with World War III', while JD Vance, in full Wormtail mode, jumped in to ask: 'Have you even said thank-you once?' It was both difficult and embarrassing to watch. This is the asymmetry at the heart of Trump-era foreign policy: allies get the tongue-lashing, rivals get the literal red carpet. Zelensky's reward for resisting an existential threat was a televised scolding. Putin's reward for creating it has been years of deference and flattery. Recall the Helsinki summit, where Trump sided with the Russian leader over his own intelligence agencies, or the warm praise for Putin's 'genius'. Too self-satisfied to realize he's been manipulated, The Donald simply keeps walking into the same trap, over and over again. Trump himself seems to have realized how poor his own negotiating skills are in the past few weeks. Putin's not a blowhard like his American counterpart; he just does what he feels like, and everyone else be damned. Indeed, it was Donald himself who put it best in a press conference earlier in July where he described his ongoing efforts to help broker an end to the war in Ukraine thus: 'I get home, I say to the First Lady, 'I had the most wonderful talk with Vladimir. I think we are finished,'' to which Melania will apparently respond in kind: 'That's funny, because they just bombed a nursing home.' Therein lies the entire issue. Trump is brittle and easily manipulated; Putin talks him round again and again. Trump leaves those conversations utterly convinced of both Putin's integrity and his own genius. Then Putin goes on dropping bombs and killing people. It's a familiar story that's played out not just in Russia, and that we can expect to play out anywhere where there's a strongman leader with a penchant for basic flattery. And really, where better to stage this utterly redundant spectacle than Alaska — the state Trump accidentally referred to as Russia earlier this week, and which, of course, once belonged to the Russian Empire. After all, isn't the whole point to start returning old territories to their former owners? Alaska, a place that is currently arranging citizen evacuations because of an uncontrolled glacier flood due to the effects of climate change, where water is thundering toward a dam called Suicide Basin. (Anchorage is on the other end of the state to where all that is happening in Juneau, meaning that Trump was able to fly right over Suicide Basin and shutter his Qatari-gifted Air Force One windows to the sight of climate catastrophe before he landed at a military base to meet with the man who started a war to talk about ending it.) Alaska, the perfect place to propose — as leaks have suggested — that Russia has a 'West Bank-style occupation of Ukraine,' since all available geopolitical sources suggest that solution has already played out so well for everyone involved. And so the dance goes on, and tangible progress is not made but cameras and microphones and spotlights are perpetually trained on two geriatric egomaniacs. This kind of time-wasting theater always works in Russia's favor. The war will rumble on in Ukraine. The deal will never be made. Trump will get a few nice words, Putin will get his headlines. And the rest of us are left with just the images of Donald and his little band of spray-tanned comrades marching about in the Alaskan summer, isolated together in a cold state in the middle of nowhere, with only a friendly dictator to keep them warm.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Melania Trump sends letter to Putin about abducted children
By Steve Holland ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump's wife, Melania Trump, raised the plight of children in Ukraine and Russia in a personal letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, two White House officials said on Friday. President Trump hand-delivered the letter to Putin during their summit talks in Alaska, the officials told Reuters. Slovenian-born Melania Trump was not on the trip to Alaska. The officials would not divulge the contents of the letter other than to say it mentioned the abductions of children resulting from the war in Ukraine. The existence of the letter was not previously reported. Russia's seizure of Ukrainian children has been a deeply sensitive one for Ukraine. Ukraine has called the abductions of tens of thousands of its children taken to Russia or Russian-occupied territory without the consent of family or guardians a war crime that meets the U.N. treaty definition of genocide. Previously Moscow has said it has been protecting vulnerable children from a war zone. The United Nations Human Rights Office has said Russia has inflicted suffering on millions of Ukrainian children and violated their rights since its full scale invasion of Ukraine begun in 2022. Trump and Putin met for nearly three hours at a U.S. military base in Anchorage without reaching a ceasefire deal in the war in Ukraine. (Reporting By Steve Holland; Editing by Trevor Hunnicutt and Sam Holmes)
