How U.S. Plans to Recognize Colleges for Student Success

The Biden administration wants to recognize colleges that help students complete affordable credentials and increase their economic mobility, and it’s starting with a list of 200 institutions.

Colleges on the list, which was released earlier this month, are eligible to apply for the department’s new Postsecondary Success Recognition Program, which is aimed at identifying and celebrating the best practices to help more students, particularly those from low-income families, get to and through college.

“Imagine a world where schools with the most Pell Grant recipients are ranked highest in U.S. News and World Report, where ‘prestige’ is defined by preparing graduates well to enter the workforce and lead fulfilling lives and careers—sometimes right in their own communities,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in an April statement announcing the program.

Higher education policy analysts and lobbyists see the program as a positive opportunity to aggregate and share best practices, but some question the methodology of how institutions were selected, and others express ambivalence—uncertain of whether the potential benefits are worth the time and effort, particularly at the end of the Biden administration.

The first group of colleges selected to apply were picked based on several metrics, including access, completion and postgraduation outcomes. Of the 200 colleges, half are community colleges, while the other 100 predominantly grant bachelor’s degrees. A majority of the institutions are either minority-serving or serve a large proportion of low-income students.

“Too often, the conversation on higher education focuses on a handful of colleges and universities that were founded centuries ago, have huge endowments, sparkling facilities, and admit very few students,” Under Secretary James Kvaal wrote in a blog post. “While our country is lucky to have these institutions, we also need colleges and universities that are innovative, affordable, and inclusive.”

Kvaal added that the colleges on the list “have a story to tell that demonstrates what institutions do matters to ensure student success.”

The institutions that qualified have until Nov. 1 to apply. The application calls on institutions to further explain what practices and campuswide strategies they are using to ensure students receive “credentials of value.” An undetermined panel of peer reviewers will then score the applications and winners will be announced in early 2025, the department said.

‘Strong Vehicle’ or ‘Double Standard’?

Supporters of the program say recognizing some colleges like this could help to move the needle on stagnant student completion rates.

Tanya Garcia, vice president of the Institute for College Access and Success, noted that highlighting student success work at the national level is something that hasn’t been done before, and she believes the department’s new program is a “strong vehicle for spreading best practices.”

“This will give us a much better understanding of what they’re doing and what makes them stand out,” she said. “Federal leadership is vital in serving these bully pulpit roles to draw attention to what institutions are doing and then seeing what are the commonalities and what are the implications for federal and state investments.”

Jason Delisle, a nonresident senior fellow at the Urban Institute Center on Education Data and Policy, agreed that there are many institutions that should be highlighted. But though this is a “legitimate exercise,” he had questions about the program’s methodology.

To build the list, the department started with nonprofit institutions that admit at least 50 percent of applicants or are a historically Black college or university. They must also have a student body that’s at least half as racially and socioeconomically diverse as their state population.

From there, the department scored institutions based on 16 additional metrics, including the number of Pell Grant recipients and students of color, median earnings of graduates, and the percentage of students retained, graduated and employed. The 200 top-scoring institutions were invited to apply.

Delisle noted that while many of the program’s metrics seem similar to those included for other accountability programs, such as the gainful-employment rule, the criteria for recognition are less stringent. For example, median earnings were calculated 10 years after enrollment, compared to three years after graduation, as they are with the gainful-employment rule. Additionally, the recognition program only took into account earnings of employed students, whereas the gainful-employment tests include unemployed students.

“I couldn’t help but wonder how many programs that are at risk of failing the gainful-employment rules might pass the cutoffs if they were using the criteria in this exemplary list,” Delisle said. “I’m not necessarily accusing the department of playing fast and loose with the numbers or hiding the ball here. I just feel like there’s a hint of a double standard here.”

He did note that there were maybe “four or five” colleges on the list whose graduates didn’t earn more than adults with a high school diploma—one of the tests in the gainful-employment rule.

Wesley Whistle, project director for student success and affordability in the higher education initiative at New America, a left-leaning think tank, said that there’s a higher level of precision needed for accountability efforts tied to funding such as gainful employment.

“The metrics are fundamental because you need logical, clear lines if we’re talking about cutting off program eligibility,” said Whistle, a former policy adviser at the department during the Biden administration. “I hear [critics’] point, but if you’re looking at a whole matrix of metrics, I think it’s OK.”

Likewise, Diane Cheng, vice president of research and policy for the Institute for Higher Education Policy, said that the different goals of the gainful-employment rule and the recognition program justify the methodological differences.

“The gainful-employment metrics are designed to identify a minimum standard of performance for career education programs focused solely on postcollege outcomes, while the Postsecondary Success Recognition Program is intended to recognize standout institutions that provide economic mobility, considering both access and success,” she said.

Although IHEP was not directly involved in development of the methodology, some of the department’s recognition criteria was based on the research organization’s “Economic Return Framework.”

The Education Department said it sought to promote a more inclusive definition of student success and holistically measure performance in developing the methodology. A department spokesperson said the metrics represent a broad consensus from the field and are based on feedback from public comments.

“It is incorrect to say that the recognition program has looser standards,” the spokesperson added. “Only 200 institutions were deemed eligible to apply for the recognition program, while the vast majority of career programs pass the [gainful-employment] standards.”

Cheng noted that making the eligibility list is only the first step.

“Colleges that are on the list still have to submit an application to discuss what intentional strategies they’ve put forth to help support access and success,” she said. “So it’s not the end-all, be-all of the program.”

‘Ambivalence at Best’

And though some like Cheng and Garcia see the program as a valuable opportunity to celebrate institutions committed to equity, a lobbyist representing institutions questioned the benefits for applicants because there’s no funding attached.

The lobbyist, who asked to remain anonymous, said no institutions had reached out about the program on their own accord. But he knows of a few institutions that are considering applying.

“They wanted my perspective, and my perspective was I’m not really sure what’s in this for you,” he said. “I’d be surprised if anybody that you talk to, at least in the public higher education community, would say anything different than that there’s ambivalence at best.”

The lobbyist also questioned whether the federal government should even have a hand in student success practices, suggesting that the recognition program is in many ways a proxy for former president Obama’s failed plan to rank colleges—which institutions strongly opposed.

“In our guts, we don’t really like the idea of the federal government separating sheep from goats, as it were, highlighting one institution over another,” he said. “Is a sort of quasi ranking system an appropriate role for them?”

And even if colleges do participate, he wondered if the practices that are highlighted from one institution will truly be a guiding light for others.

“Even with the Aspen Prize, which is a much more rigorous process than this, I don’t know how many community college presidents say, ‘Oh, Valencia won the Aspen Prize. I’m going to look at what Valencia did by way of student success,’” he said. “[The department] put a lot of energy into this, and I’m not exactly sure what impact it had. But I do think they deserve credit for trying.”