Publisher's Note: This post appears here courtesy of
The James G. Martin Center. The author of this post is
Reagan Allen.
Across the nation, public universities are under orders to move students across the graduation stage more quickly, but at what cost to the degree itself? Yes, graduation-rate targets are important tools for holding universities accountable for their performance, but can such pressures water down degrees and diminish, for some students, what college is supposed to be about in the first place?
Evidence and commentary from some states suggest that they can, particularly when university funding is partly tied to graduation-rate metrics. A 2016 book by education scholars found that
"colleges are tempted to resort to weakening academic quality" when presented with performance-funding initiatives. A 2014 study reported instances of
"grade inflation" and
"advising [students] into easier classes" in three states where performance funding had been tried. In 1997, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges urged the Board of Governors to
"reject any funding mechanism that would institutionalize pressures toward grade inflation and the reduction of academic rigor." Though hardly definitive, these findings and analyses suggest that states should tread carefully when incentivizing campuses to improve student performance.
Over the past decade or more, lawmakers and UNC System leaders have pushed a set of policies to speed up college.
North Carolina is no exception. Over the past decade or more, lawmakers and UNC System leaders have pushed a set of policies to speed up college: letting high schoolers bank UNC credits before they ever set foot on campus, tying campus funding to graduation-rate benchmarks, and touting strategic plans that promise more students will
"finish in four." Performance-based funding, whereby state dollars are tied to graduation rates and other outcomes, have become a part of this push. Though the N.C. General Assembly has not yet funded a performance-funding model green-lighted by the UNC System Board of Governors in 2022, UNC chancellors are financially motivated to improve graduation rates due to metrics in their own contracts. The question now is whether North Carolina can create more swiftly educated graduates without producing faster, thinner degrees.
UNC chancellors are financially motivated to improve graduation rates due to metrics in their own contracts.
As other states are discovering, such emphases can raise concerns that speed is being prioritized over substance. The university experience can start to feel less like an education and more like a conveyor belt, moving students along more efficiently but not necessarily more thoughtfully. Efficiency has become the guiding principle of higher-education policy. However, efficiency and depth are two different things. A faster degree is not always a better one.
UNC campuses have begun to be measured against ambitious graduation-rate targets. Under the System's 2022-2027 Strategic Plan, each university must hit performance goals tied to four-year graduation rates, with progress tracked on public dashboards. Lawmakers and System leaders use these benchmarks to hold campuses accountable for student success. As graduation targets tighten, universities may be tempted to ease academic demands. For example, the previous strategic plan's focus on five-year graduation rates coincided with the collapse of a
"contextualized transcript" initiative at UNC-Chapel Hill, a measure explicitly designed to fight grade inflation.
Of course, the on-time-graduation push does appear to be making a positive difference. According to UNC System data, more than 70 percent of undergraduate students graduate within five years, a rate that
"far outpaces the national average." System officials announced in 2020 that the five-year graduation rate had climbed to 71.1 percent, surpassing the previous strategic plan's goal. The steady rise suggests that initiatives like CCP and stronger advising may be nudging more students to the finish line on time. This is all excellent news.
Similarly promising are the state's dual-enrollment efforts. In 2011, when the General Assembly expanded a dual-enrollment program that let high-school students take college courses, an early bet was that speeding up the pipeline could save families money and boost on-time graduation. The Career & College Promise (CCP) program opened the door for thousands of juniors and seniors to graduate high school with a semester or more of college credit already in hand, all tuition-free. Supporters called it a win-win, noting that families cut down on college costs, while universities inherited students who were closer to the finish line. By 2023, more than 85,000 high-school students were enrolled in CCP courses through community colleges statewide, making it one of the most widely used accelerators in the UNC System's toolbox.
Yet, as stated, there can be drawbacks in the midst of all this success. Some states that have stressed on-time graduation and adopted performance-based funding have seen an inadvertent lowering of academic standards or the steering of students toward easier paths. In states such as Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee, performance-based funding was associated with weakening academic standards. Advisors sometimes steered students toward easier courses to meet graduation-rate targets. North Carolina should heed this as a warning as it emphasizes graduation speed and avoid doing likewise.
As previously stated, four- and five-year graduation rates are climbing in the System, helping students save money while the state builds a stronger workforce-at least theoretically. Yet pressure to hit such targets can easily lead to slimmer degree requirements, grade inflation, and fewer chances for students to double-major, study abroad, or accurately align their training with their talents.
As universities race to show progress on their dashboards, the risk is that education gets reduced to mere efficiency.
For students, the pressure to finish in four can feel like a never-ending race: If you divert from your academic plan, you'll fall behind. In many cases, advisors nudge students to pick a major early, stick to the plan, and avoid detours that might stretch out a degree. A semester abroad or a double major can turn into luxuries, not opportunities. As universities race to show progress on their dashboards, the risk is that education gets reduced to mere efficiency rather than the depth or breadth of what a student actually learns. Even switching majors, once seen as a normal part of exploring college, is now thought of as a red mark that delays graduation. The result is a campus culture where efficiency crowds out exploration, and where universities are judged less by the richness of the education they offer than by how quickly they can move students across the stage.
Universities should protect the spaces where students can wander farther.
At NC State, for example, academic planning tools are explicitly designed with efficiency and on-time graduation in mind. The Pack Planner degree-audit website lets students and advisors plot out every semester until graduation, using a
"Suggested Plan" of eight fall-spring terms tailored to specific degree requirements. Additional alerts flag unmet requirements, off-term course selections, and overly heavy or light credit loads. While this helps students map a smooth path to the finish line, it can also tighten the curriculum, making academic detours based on students' interests feel troublesome.
North Carolina's experiment with speed is transforming higher education in the state in ways that are undeniably efficient but that can raise questions about the purpose of college. Yes, graduation rates are climbing, and thousands of students are saving money through early credits and streamlined advising, but it's hard not to wonder if the push for speed risks hollowing out what makes college more than a credential. Other states have shown how performance-based funding can backfire, undermining students' educations and the academic strength of universities. Real gains come alongside the possibility that degrees will be compressed, that rigor may give way to deceptive results, and that students may lose the freedom to explore. For policymakers, the temptation is to double down on dashboards and performance targets. Yet universities should resist becoming factories pumping out diplomas and instead protect the spaces where learning can take longer, students can wander farther, and education matters more than credentialing. Let's all hope that the state heeds this warning and succeeds in producing stronger graduates, not just faster ones.
Reagan Allen is the North Carolina reporter for the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
poll#218
