logo
Opportunity Colleges: Measuring What Truly Matters

Opportunity Colleges: Measuring What Truly Matters

Forbes24-04-2025
The redesigned Carnegie Classifications aim to shift the focus from inputs to outcomes, from ... More prestige to performance and from exclusivity to opportunity.
At my house, we are deep in the college search process. A bewildering array of glossy brochures arrive in our mailbox each week. My son, a high school junior, repeatedly shares rankings of colleges that he's found online or sourced through internet influencers. We receive weekly 'college counseling' updates from our high school layered with deadlines, details about local college fairs, invitations to webinars about saving for college, and articles highlighting trends in college-going.
Even this higher education policy wonk and university trustee mom is left asking: 'Which college will actually give my son a good shot at success?'
It is a question that swirls around kitchen table conversations across America. As college costs continue to climb and student debt makes headlines, families are right to ask whether their investment will pay off. Will this college open doors for my child? Will my student, upon graduation, find a good job? Will they be welcomed and supported if they come from a family without financial means?
These practical questions matter far more to the majority of American families than the prestige factors that have traditionally dominated college rankings. There has been no systematic way to identify institutions that excel at both providing access to diverse student populations and delivering strong economic outcomes for their graduates.
Until now.
In a significant shift for how we understand and evaluate America's diverse higher education landscape, the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Carnegie Foundation) have unveiled a redesigned classification system that promises to better reflect what truly matters in higher education today: student success.
This latest announcement represents the culmination of years of work to reimagine the Carnegie Classifications, a process I highlighted in my January 2024 Forbes article, Rethinking Higher Education Classifications for Today's Institutions. As I noted then, the effort aimed to create "a more dynamic and contemporary perspective" on how we categorize and understand America's colleges and universities.
The timing couldn't be more critical. As Timothy Knowles, president of the Carnegie Foundation, recently characterized it at the ASU+GSV Summit, higher education finds itself in a "Dickensian moment"—the best of times and the worst of times. "Without question, [we have]
Yet at the same time, the nation's higher education system faces troubling trends: soaring student debt, insufficient access for low-income students, 60% completion rates, declining public confidence, an overemphasis on inputs not outcomes, enrollment challenges, and shrinking funding.
Ted Mitchell, president of ACE, put it bluntly in response to Knowles at the Summit: "It's no secret that higher education is facing an existential crisis," one with profound federal and political implications.
For nearly five decades, the Carnegie Classifications—long considered the gold standard for categorizing U.S. colleges and universities—have shaped how we view higher education. But as institutions have evolved to serve increasingly diverse student populations, the traditional classification system struggled to capture this complexity, often reducing institutions to simplistic categories based primarily on the highest degrees they awarded.
The 2025 update to the venerable Carnegie Classifications includes both a revision of the historic Basic Classification (now titled the Institutional Classification) and a groundbreaking new Student Access and Earnings Classification (SAEC).
The updated Institutional Classification now organizes colleges and universities according to multiple characteristics—including size, types of degrees awarded and fields of study in which students receive their degrees—creating a more nuanced view of institutional identity and mission.
But perhaps the most consequential change is the introduction of the SAEC, which focuses squarely on outcomes. This new framework evaluates institutions on two critical metrics: access and earnings.
The access metric examines whether peer institutions enroll students who reflect the communities they serve, specifically looking at Pell Grant recipients and underrepresented student groups. The earnings metric measures how much former students earn compared to their peers in the job markets they entered. Importantly, the metric tracks both students who complete their degrees and those who do not, so institutions are accountable for all students, not just those who graduate.
These 479 Opportunity Colleges and Universities represent a diverse cross-section of American higher ... More education—public and private, large and small, urban and rural—demonstrating that excellence in providing access and fostering economic mobility is possible across institutional types and settings.
This approach directly addresses two of the most pressing concerns in today's higher education debate: is college accessible to all Americans regardless of background? And does a college degree still deliver meaningful economic mobility? At a time when many Americans are questioning whether higher education remains a pathway to the middle class, these metrics provide concrete data to evaluate institutions' performance on these critical dimensions.
"The majority of students apply to college with the expectation it is a legitimate path to opportunity, and a job they've dreamt about," says Knowles. "This work is about ensuring that institutions are recognized and incentivized to empower students to reach their goals and succeed."
In a notable innovation, the new classification has designated 479 institutions as "Opportunity Colleges and Universities"— schools that meet specific thresholds on both access and earnings metrics and can serve as models for studying how all campuses can foster student success.
For baccalaureate-plus institutions to earn this designation, they must achieve at least a score of "1" for access (meaning their student population reflects the demographic makeup of their service area) and a score of "1.50" for earnings (indicating that their graduates earn 50% more than comparison groups eight years after enrollment).
Associate degree-granting institutions face a modified threshold, requiring the same access score but a slightly lower earnings score of "1.25," acknowledging the different nature and missions of these largely two-year degree-granting institutions.
These 479 Opportunity Colleges and Universities represent a diverse cross-section of American higher education—public and private, large and small, urban and rural—demonstrating that excellence in providing access and fostering economic mobility is possible across institutional types and settings. They serve as proof points that colleges and universities can simultaneously serve all students and prepare them for economic success.
The new SAEC has designated 479 institutions as "Opportunity Colleges and Universities"— schools ... More that meet specific thresholds on both access and earnings metrics and can serve as models for studying how all campuses can foster student success.
'We want this to be seen as holding higher education and our institutions accountable,' says Mitchell. 'Are they constructing a campus that reflects the community around them and are they providing those students with the essential tools and skills needed to go out into the world and succeed in a chosen career? It is time for a new social contract between higher education and the American people, and that contract has a 'job one' focusing on student success.'
The redesign arrives at a pivotal moment when families face difficult decisions about college affordability, legislators scrutinize public funding for higher education, employers question the job-readiness of graduates and institutions grapple with enrollment challenges and public perception issues. By focusing on tangible outcomes, the new classifications offer a more relevant lens through which to view institutional quality—one that aligns with what students and taxpayers actually want from higher education.
The redesigned system aims to shift the focus from inputs to outcomes, from prestige to performance and from exclusivity to opportunity. This new classification also has the potential to drive institutional improvement, facilitate learning from successful models, build upon existing research and equip various stakeholders—from state agencies to accreditors to funders—with better tools for decision-making. Most importantly, for students and families navigating the complex landscape of college choice, the new SAEC provides a valuable lens that aligns with what most are seeking: institutions that will open doors and create pathways to success.
'The institutions that are high access and high earnings—the Opportunity Colleges and Universities—warrant recognition, understanding and investment,' says Knowles. 'For if we create more places like them, and ensure the postsecondary sector is accountable for student success, we create more opportunity for everyone. And that, I think, is something Americans will rally behind.'
What makes this approach distinctive is its simplicity and focus. Rather than creating another complex ranking system, the SAEC is designed to be straightforward for institutions to understand what to improve and where to focus their efforts. By including associate degree-granting institutions and incorporating geographic context, the classification provides a more comprehensive and nuanced view of higher education's role in fostering opportunity.
The transformation of the Carnegie Classifications didn't happen overnight. When ACE and the Carnegie Foundation announced their partnership to reimagine the classifications in 2022, they embarked on an extensive process of stakeholder engagement, consulting with thousands of institutional leaders, researchers, policymakers and higher education experts. This inclusive approach ensured that the new classifications reflect the diverse perspectives and needs of the sector.
Perhaps most significantly, this reimagination moves beyond the theoretical to provide practical tools for institutional improvement in areas that are increasingly central to public policy debates: greater access, economic mobility and workforce development. As state legislatures tie funding to performance metrics, as Congress contemplates reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and as employers seek graduates with demonstrable skills, the new classifications provide a common framework for evaluating how well institutions are meeting these contemporary challenges.
'Higher education is facing numerous and serious challenges, some of our own making that have been building for years, such as too low completion rates, a too high barrier for granting credit and easing the time to degree for transfer students and those with prior learning experiences, and providing a clear picture of exactly what a college degree will cost,' says Mitchell. 'Now we are facing an existential threat from many of the actions being taken by the current administration, including the attempted gutting of our world-leading research. With the new Institutional and Student Access and Earnings Classifications, we are playing offense and demonstrating the evidence of what so many higher education institutions do well and challenging others to do better.'
But the collaboration between ACE and the Carnegie Foundation aims higher than just measuring current performance.
Knowles envisions the initiative as a catalyst for genuine innovation in higher education, one that might even "crack the Carnegie unit"—the time-based standard that has defined American education for over a century. By shifting focus to actual learning outcomes rather than seat time, the new classifications could spur new models, emerging from incumbent and new institutions that increase access, outcomes, and make postsecondary much more affordable, including options like three-year degrees and stronger pathways from high school to college.
As higher education continues to evolve in response to changing student needs, workforce demands and technological disruptions, having classification systems that reflect these realities becomes increasingly important.
For those families sitting around kitchen tables, weighing college options and worrying about cost, the Opportunity Colleges designation offers practical insights into college value. Now, students and families can look to these 479 institutions as examples of colleges and universities that have proven their ability to serve students of all backgrounds and prepare them for prosperity.
At a time when so many are questioning whether higher education is still 'worth it,' the Opportunity Colleges and Universities stand as a testament that when done right, a college education remains one of the most powerful tools for creating a more equitable society and opening doors to opportunity for all learners.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The S&P 500 Has Reached an All-Time High: Should You Invest Now or Wait for a Correction?
The S&P 500 Has Reached an All-Time High: Should You Invest Now or Wait for a Correction?

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The S&P 500 Has Reached an All-Time High: Should You Invest Now or Wait for a Correction?

Key Points Market indexes have been reaching new heights, and right now is an incredibly expensive time to buy. Some investors are worried a correction or recession may be looming, making it smarter to wait. However, history suggests that there's never necessarily a bad time to invest. 10 stocks we like better than S&P 500 Index › The S&P 500 (SNPINDEX: ^GSPC) has been breaking records over the last few weeks, officially reaching a new all-time high in July. As of this writing on Aug. 1, it's up by about 25% from its low point in April. However, not everyone is optimistic about the market right now. In fact, one-third of U.S. investors say they are feeling "bearish" about where stocks will be in the next six months, according to the most recent weekly survey from the American Association of Individual Investors. With stock prices near record-breaking highs, some investors may be tempted to wait until the next downturn to buy at a discount. Here's what history says about whether you should buy now or hold off. Is it safe to invest now? Nobody can predict where stocks will be a few months or a year from now, and new policies out of Washington could change things on a dime. However, several scenarios are possible. For one, stock prices could continue soaring like they have over the past few months. If that happens, right now would be a fantastic time to buy to see immediate gains. Scenario two is that the market takes a sharp turn for the worse, like it did earlier this year amid tariff uncertainty. Between February and April, the S&P 500 fell by close to 20%, leaving many investors panicked and eager to sell. But those who stayed the course and held their investments reaped the rewards when the market quickly rebounded. A similar situation played out in March 2020, when the S&P 500 experienced one of the fastest crashes in history at the start of the pandemic. The short term was rough, but the S&P 500 has since earned total returns of nearly 112%. The third scenario may be the one that concerns investors the most: a prolonged recession. But even if that is on the horizon, investing at record-high prices doesn't necessarily mean you'll lose money. A market downturn may result in your portfolio losing value. But if you hold your investments until the rebound without selling, you likely won't experience any actual losses. Say, for example, you invested in an S&P 500 index fund in December 2007. The market was reaching record highs at the time, but it was about to slip into the Great Recession, which would last until 2009. In that time, your investment would have plunged by more than 50%. Selling at any point during that recession could have locked in significant losses, since you would have likely been selling your investments for far less than what you paid for them. However, if you simply stayed in the market, you would have earned total returns of around 75% after 10 years and 312% by today -- more than quadrupling your money. In other words, even if you had invested at the seemingly worst possible moment -- at record-high prices immediately before one of the most severe recessions in U.S. history -- you would still have made a significant amount of money over time. Now, could you have earned more if you had waited until the market was at its lowest point to buy? Definitely. But hindsight is 20/20, and nobody knows when the next correction or bear market will begin. Timing the market accurately is next to impossible, and if your timing is even slightly off, you could potentially lose a lot of money. Rather than waiting for a chance to "buy the dip," it's often wiser to invest consistently. You can always increase the amount you invest during the next slump, when stocks are at a discount. But in the meantime, continuing to buy can ensure you're not missing out on immediate gains if stock prices stay on the rise. One major caveat to remember The key to ensuring your portfolio survives a downturn is to only invest in long-term quality stocks. Sometimes weak companies can thrive in the short term, earning exponential growth in a matter of months. But those investments are far less likely to pull through tough economic times. Healthy companies with strong business foundations have a much better chance of seeing long-term growth despite short-term hiccups. When a company has a solid competitive advantage, a competent leadership team, robust financials, and a long-term plan for the future, it's much more likely to survive even the worst recessions or bear markets. The most important thing you can do right now, then, is double-check that every stock in your portfolio deserves to be there. Once you're certain that all of your investments have healthy fundamentals, you can rest easier knowing that you're well prepared for whatever may lie ahead. Should you buy stock in S&P 500 Index right now? Before you buy stock in S&P 500 Index, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and S&P 500 Index wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $624,823!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,064,820!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,019% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 178% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 Katie Brockman has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The S&P 500 Has Reached an All-Time High: Should You Invest Now or Wait for a Correction? was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Sen. Padilla on BLS chief firing: ‘I think an investigation is certainly in order'
Sen. Padilla on BLS chief firing: ‘I think an investigation is certainly in order'

The Hill

time16 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Sen. Padilla on BLS chief firing: ‘I think an investigation is certainly in order'

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said on Sunday he would support an investigation into President Trump's firing of the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 'I think an investigation is certainly in order,' Padilla said in an interview on NBC News's 'Meet the Press.' Padilla noted he recently called for an investigation into potential violations of the Hatch Act related to the White House's involvement in the GOP redistricting effort. 'The example after example of Donald Trump weaponizing, no longer just the Department of Justice, but he's trying to weaponize the Bureau of Labor Statistics,' Padilla said. Trump on Friday directed his team to fire the BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer following a large jobs data revision that he blamed squarely on the appointee of former President Biden. The jobs report released Friday showed a significant downturn in May and June of this year, suggesting the U.S. added 258,000 fewer jobs over those months than had initially been reported. Trump said McEntarfer 'faked the Jobs Numbers' before the 2024 election in order to boost former Vice President Kamala Harris's White House bid, citing labor statistics revisions during the Biden administration that boosted job numbers ahead of the election. Padilla said Trump's decision to fire the commissioner reveals their anxiety about the economy. 'That tells you a lot about their insecurity about the economy and the state of Economic Affairs in America because everything that they're claiming to be true is not true,' he said. 'Prices are still going up. This is from a president who promised to bring prices down. And so the American people are feeling it. The impact of tariffs, $2,400 a year for working families across the country. That's the reality of tariffs.'

Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.
Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.

Boston Globe

time16 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Trump's tariffs are making money. That may make them hard to quit.

Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The good news is that Tariffs are bringing Billions of Dollars into the USA!' Trump said on social media shortly after a weak jobs report showed signs of strain in the labor market. Advertisement Over time, analysts expect that the tariffs, if left in place, could be worth more than $2 trillion in additional revenue over the next decade. Economists overwhelmingly hope that doesn't happen and the United States abandons the new trade barriers. But some acknowledge that such a substantial stream of revenue could end up being hard to quit. Advertisement 'I think this is addictive,' said Joao Gomes, an economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. 'I think a source of revenue is very hard to turn away from when the debt and deficit are what they are.' The Port of Baltimore on June 30, 2025. ALYSSA SCHUKAR/NYT Trump has long fantasized about replacing taxes on income with tariffs. He often refers fondly to American fiscal policy in the late 19th century, when there was no income tax and the government relied on tariffs, citing that as a model for the future. And while income and payroll taxes remain by far the most important sources of government revenue, the combination of Trump's tariffs and the latest Republican tax cut does, on the margin, move the United States away from taxing earnings and toward taxing goods. Such a shift is expected to be regressive, meaning that rich Americans will fare better than poorer Americans under the change. That's because cutting taxes on income does, in general, provide the biggest benefit to richer Americans who earn the most income. The recent Republican cut to income taxes and the social safety net is perhaps the most regressive piece of major legislation in decades. Placing new taxes on imported products, however, is expected to raise the cost of everyday goods. Lower-income Americans spend more of their earnings on those more expensive goods, meaning the tariffs amount to a larger tax increase for them compared with richer Americans. Tariffs have begun to bleed into consumer prices, with many companies saying they will have to start raising prices as a result of added costs. And analysts expect the tariffs to weigh on the performance of the economy overall, which in turn could reduce the amount of traditional income tax revenue the government collects every year. Advertisement 'Is there a better way to raise that amount of revenue? The economic answer is: Yes, there is a better way, there are more efficient ways,' said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and a former Biden administration official. 'But it's really a political question.' Workers welded steel components together at a Thomas Built Buses plant in High Point, N.C., on July 21, 2025. TRAVIS DOVE/NYT Tedeschi said that future leaders in Washington, whether Republican or Democrat, may be hesitant to roll back the tariffs if that would mean a further addition to the federal debt load, which is already raising alarms on Wall Street. And replacing the tariff revenue with another type of tax increase would require Congress to act, while the tariffs would be a legacy decision made by a previous president. 'Congress may not be excited about taking such a politically risky vote when they didn't have to vote on tariffs in the first place,' Tedeschi said. Some in Washington are already starting to think about how they could spend the tariff revenue. Trump recently floated the possibility of sending Americans a cash rebate for the tariffs, and Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., recently introduced legislation to send $600 to many Americans. 'We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,' Trump said last month of the tariffs. Democrats, once they return to power, may face a similar temptation to use the tariff revenue to fund a new social program, especially if raising taxes in Congress proves as challenging as it has in the past. As it is, Democrats have been divided over tariffs. Maintaining the status quo may be an easier political option than changing trade policy. Advertisement 'That's a hefty chunk of change,' Tyson Brody, a Democratic strategist, said of the tariffs. 'The way that Democrats are starting to think about it is not that 'these will be impossible to withdraw.' It's: 'Oh, look, there's now going to be a large pot of money to use and reprogram.'' Of course, the tariffs could prove unpopular, and future elected officials may want to take steps that could lower consumer prices. At the same time, the amount of revenue the tariffs generate could decline over time if companies do, in fact, end up bringing back more of their operations to the United States, reducing the number of goods that face the import tax. 'This is clearly not an efficient way to gather revenue,' said Alex Jacquez, a former Biden official and the chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal group. 'And I don't think it would be a long-term progressive priority as a way to simply collect revenue.' This article originally appeared in

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store