Class Year Identity Politics

Or, how overemphasis on graduation rates benefits elite private institutions

To return to the topic of my first post, on “learning outcomes,” I started these posts to work out my dissatisfaction about what has happened in higher education over the past several decades. It is by now well documented that public confidence in higher education is low and getting lower. The reasons are legion and can’t easily be distilled or distinguished. There are a lot of little things that add up and one is the US News addition of “graduation rates” to its rankings, which began in the early 21st century, increased to about 25% of its formula in about 2010, and now accounts to for 22% of its rankings for national universities (with 6-year graduation rates accounting for 17% of an institution’s ranking.)¹

It almost goes without saying that this fetishization of 4- and 6-year graduation rates, which for students means the assumption of the year they’ll graduate, benefits elite private universities whose concept of “class year” is baked into their business model. As an alumna of some of the fanciest privates who has spent the past 6 years in public university systems I speak from experience when I say US News should stop this immediately.² I’ll spell it out here.

Elite private universities admit better prepared students with stronger achievement records and higher test scores, of course, but more importantly, many of these students come from families whose understanding of “college” is a four-year experience ratified by “class year” alumni structures. When you come from a home or prep school environment where you regularly see alumni magazines featuring people with apostrophes and dates next to their names you are more likely to graduate on time regardless of institutional support. Call it “class year identity politics.”

Yes, beyond the class year phenomenon, institutions have substantial endowments and higher per-student spending. They offer smaller class sizes, more personalized attention, generous financial aid that reduces the need for students to work while in college.

And yes, across America, the identity-making “Welcome Class of ‘XX” hoopla is a high school phenomenon. Why it should continue to matter so much for college is simply a matter of historic tradition of the “college experience” before students take their first class. Obviously it matters in ways that imprint on some students and may alienate others.

It’s all about tradition. Most students at elite privates are “traditional” full-time students living on or near campus. As the world learned over the past decade leading up to recent Supreme Court rulings, the “shaping” of these classes is part of what you’re paying for at elite privates. Obviously peer effects matter as you attach to your class year as a group. Elite privates expect bonding with your class peers. There’s prestige involved. Many won’t admit it out loud, but there’s a sense of failure if you enter an elite as the “Class of XX and graduate with the Class of XX +1” Elite private universities assumed 4-year graduate rates long before the 21^st century when they were baked into rankings. 

Elite privates have lower transfer rates, both incoming and outgoing. While I haven’t seen formal surveys of class attachment for students who transfer into an elite, anecdotally I haven’t seen the intense attachment I’ve seen with students whose identity was formed in a freshman dorm with the expected class year in banners over the quad. I love hearing stories of successful people who graduated in six years or more because they stopped to do interesting things or because life intervened.

The bottom line: if prioritizing graduation rate metrics effectively rewards elite private institutions for the advantages they already possess, rather than for the value they add or the challenges they overcome in educating a diverse student body, why do we do it?

The domination of 4- and 6-year graduation rates as a key metric of institutional quality at every institution of higher education is a problem that keeps us facing backward, that specifically disadvantages public universities with broader access missions, institutions serving part-time or working students, institutions with significant transfer student populations, institutions serving substantial first-generation or lower-income populations, and institutions in economically disadvantaged areas.

The intense focus on graduation rates may keep universities from trying something wholly new, which we need to allow higher ed to do in this AI ecosystem.

1. I’m happy to have others check my math, I’m drawing on sources such as https://www.usnews.com/media/best-colleges/graduation-rate-performance https://www.sparkadmissions.com/blog/major-changes-just-released-in-u-s-news-and-world-reports-updated-college-rankings/ https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/highest-grad-rate

2. There are many good reasons for keeping scores on graduation rates, particularly as a matter of comparing institutions and ensuring that institutions actually help students graduate. These institutions are *not* elite institutions but rather those who serve underserved students. I’ll write another time on whether there are better metrics.