IT SEEMS the accountability push in education has finally reached the uppermost levels, and as the old saying goes, it has been promoted just beyond its highest level of competency. Though measuring the accountability and effectiveness of our institutions of higher learning is certainly important, doing so through standardized national or even state-wide testing is simply a bad idea. The wide range of schools, classes, professors and students makes standardized testing impractical at the collegiate level and would not be a feasible way of comparing schools.
At a December 2005 meeting of the National Commission on the Future of Higher Education, Geri Malandra of the University of Texas discussed her university's reasoning, plan and experience in trying to achieve accountability. The objective of Texas' system is to provide "information in a useable form for policy makers and for parents and students." To do this Texas, looked at a wide range of data, from retention rates, diversity, post-graduation careers, community impact, investments in faculty, etc. What the committee is now discussing is whether such a system would be possible on a national level -- the answer to which is a resounding no.
In an article on Inside Higher Ed, National Commission on the Future of Higher Education Chairman Charles Miller argues that such as system is not only feasible, but necessary. In a memo sent to the Commission in January, Miller notes that "there is gathering momentum for measuring through testing what students learn or what skills they acquire in college beyond a traditional certificate or degree." Specifically, he points to "critical thinking, analytic reasoning, problem solving, and written communications" as key areas on which to focus. The memo goes on to offer vague promises of a standardized testing system for college students, and though Miller stresses its feasibility he never actually offers any reason why.
The fact of the matter is that unlike K-12, all colleges and universities are not designed to serve the same function, nor do they often specialize in related fields. Quite the opposite, each school often has a strong tradition in one or, at most, a few particular areas. The University, for example, is well known for its Commerce School, for its History department's strong focus on Virginia and Southern history, for its many graduate schools and so on. For a more obvious example, you do not attend MIT to study architecture. You attend MIT to study math, science and (what a surprise) technology.
Though most colleges have general area requirements, beyond this it is up to the student's discretion which classes he or she wishes to take. No two students take the same classes over the course of their college careers, nor do they study with the same professors in the same environment or with the same backgrounds.
More importantly, students have an immeasurable number of different career paths open to them, all of which require completely different sets of skills and knowledge. There is no sense, then, in a testing system which attempts to standardize college educations because, by definition, they neither can nor should be equal. Such a test wouldbe a waste of time and resources.
What makes far more sense in measuring the quality of a college education is a system such as the Reports on Institutional Effectiveness first mandated by the Virginia General Assembly in 2000. Developed by the State Council on Higher Education for Virginia, the ROIEs address the same general areas highlighted by Miller. Critically, however, they "are not designed to certify individual students -- they are guides for the institutions, policy-makers and the public."
This is a key distinction if we want to develop a truly effective accountability system for higher education. Instead of focusing on individual students, the ROIEs "include 14 performance measures focused on operational efficiency and factors associated with academic quality," such as retention rates, class size, graduation rates, expenditures in various areas and how directly full-time faculty are involved in students' college experiences. In addition, the ROIEs identify and measure a variety of factors specific to each college or university.
A standardized test forced on each individual college student does not make sense in higher education, and ultimately can serve little purpose given the wide range of college experiences and the paths students choose. Instead of focusing on the individual students, attention should center on the institutions themselves and the opportunities they provide. Fortunately the state of Virginia has recognized this, and we can only hope that the National Commission on Higher Education follows suit.
Allan Cruickshanks is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at acruickshanks@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 4 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
PARTING SHOT: Confessions of a nepo baby
By Grace Thrush | 5 days agoWhile I can’t point to one specific “aha” moment where I finally started to dispel my self-consciousness and claim my pride for the paper, I got there gradually over the course of my term as managing editor.
