A fascinating and timely commentary from Jenna Ashley Robinson and Jay Schalin of the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.
There is at least one place with huge potential for ending wasteful higher education spending: to stop subsidizing students who do not graduate and put their educations to good use. According to a forthcoming study by Harry Stille, the director of the Higher Education Research/Policy Center in Greenville, South Carolina, the key is admissions policy—the more qualified the students, the more likely (and sooner) they are to graduate. Schools that only admit students who are likely to graduate do not waste much money, while schools with only the barest minimal admission standards waste money excessively.
The idea is hardly new. Yet it’s good that Stille found occasion to bring the subject up again, for too many academics, politicians, and members of the media either deny or contest the cost of paying for non-graduates. Instead, they are still pushing more “access” to higher education to more marginal applicants as a major policy goal.
Stille’s data show that the relationship between admissions criteria and graduation rates is extremely strong. The ten state university systems that have the most difficult admissions criteria were all in the top 20 systems for graduation rates. Conversely, of the ten state systems with the easiest admissions criteria, only two—New Hampshire (6) and Rhode Island (15)—ranked higher than 37th best for graduation rates.
