Today’s world requires people to earn college credential for financial success. American colleges ensure successful students, but only 56 percent earn a degree in a period of six years. Legislators across the country have realized the problem and are acting to increase college completion rates (Korn & Belkin, 2014). Furthermore, the proportion of adults with college credentials is not keeping pace with other industries countries. The US has an education deficit rate that threatens global competitiveness and the future of country’s economy (Messick, 2013). This paper propose education policies that will promote college completion goals through college rating plan.
Increasing overall educational attainment and college degree is a legislative priority by the end of 2016, with the concomitant implementation of institutional strategies and state policy (Levich, Majnoni & Reinhart, 2012). Studies reveal that there will be a shortage of people with college credentials to fill employment position by the end of 2020. The unambiguous relationship between the level of educational attainment among citizens and state per-capita income will beckon legislators to set multi-year degree attainment plan. There are approaches that can be used to increase the proportion of American citizens with college credentials, including setting aside funds for colleges (The survey of American college students: Use of the college bookstore, 2009). Currently, institutions of higher education receive funding based on full-time students enrolling at the beginning of the semester. The model provide students with incentives to get into the class rather than promote success among students (Sizemore, 2012. Thus, the government should reconsider funding model and allocate funds to colleges on the basis of the number of students who complete degrees (Froy, Giguère, Local Economic and Employment Development (Program), & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2010). States need to change fund allocation procedure for the purpose of providing incentive based on performance indicators such as transfer rates, course completion and number of degree awarded (Primary Research Group, 2008).
There are potential argument likely to be encountered in the introduction and implementation of the program. First, there are people how believe that rural and urban colleges can not be compared on their basis of income among alumni (Bogue & Hall, 2003). Also there is no comparison between public and private universities because different preparation and teaching approaches are used among students. Individual contribution in the community cannot be measured by their level of income (Edwards, 2014). College rating policy may incentivize college to motivate students to take majors such as computer science over education. Rating policy will have a negative impact on institution of higher education (FIELD, 2015).
There is the need to speed up time used to earn a degree because it cost the states more and the chances of students completing a college degree decreased as time spent in school increases (LEWONTIN, 2014). State government should encourage students to earn college credit through programs such as dual enrollment and advanced placement. College should deliver education in different ways such as the use of technology to offer online courses (BLUMENSTYK, 2014).
Conclusion
The government should reconsider funding model and allocate funds to colleges on the basis of the number of students who complete degrees to promote equality.
Reference
BLUMENSTYK, G. (2014). 'Risk Adjusted' Metrics for Colleges Get Another Look. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 60(33), A10.
Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. B. (2003). Decision and discovery: Developing an integrated and strategic vision of quality assurance. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Botelho, S. (2015). And rankings for all: Questioning national college rating framework. University Business, 18(2), 15.
Edwards, H. S. (2014). Should U.S. colleges be graded by the government?. Time, 183(16), 32- 35.
FIELD, K. (2014). No Question: Federal College Ratings Could Hurt Minority Students. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 61(2), A10.
FIELD, K. (2015). Obama's College-Ratings Plan Arrives, but Most Details Are Still to Come. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 61(17), A4-A6.
Froy, F., Giguère, S., Local Economic and Employment Development (Program), & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). Breaking out of policy silos: Doing more with less. Paris: OECD.
Korn, M., & Belkin, D. (2014). Obama Administration Further Dials Back College Rating Plan - WSJ. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-administration-further-dials-back-college-rating-plan-1435237358
Levich, R. M., Majnoni, G., & Reinhart, C. (2012). Ratings, rating agencies and the global financial system (Vol. 9). Springer Science & Business Media.
LEWONTIN, M. (2014). 4 Key Questions Experts Are Asking About Obama's College-Ratings Plan. Chronicle Of Higher Education, 61(4), A14.
Messick, S. J. (2013). Assessment in higher education: Issues of access, quality, student development and public policy. Routledge.
Primary Research Group. (2008). Survey of student retention policies in higher education. New York: Primary Research Group.
Sizemore, C. G. (2012, January 1). An Analysis of Institutional Policies and Practices Critical for Effective Leadership in Developmental Education Programs. ProQuest LLC,
The survey of American college students: Use of the college bookstore. (2009). New York, N.Y: Primary Research Group.
