The call for a fundamental rethinking of how we measure student success, as articulated by Doug Lederman in "Showing What We Know: Rethinking How We Measure Learning," is a conversation long overdue. For too long, higher education has clung to traditional metrics—graduation rates, standardized test scores—that offer a limited and often misleading picture of what students actually learn and are capable of. These measures frequently fail to account for the diverse experiences, learning styles, and career trajectories of today’s students. The pressure to demonstrate value to the public, particularly amidst ongoing debates about affordability and return on investment, is intensifying, and relying on outdated indicators simply won't cut it. This need for a more holistic approach resonates strongly, especially when considered alongside challenges highlighted in articles like Tackling Time Poverty for Student Parents and Transfer Isn’t Supposed to Be This Hard, which underscore the systemic barriers many students face and the varied routes they take to achieve their goals.
Lederman’s piece rightly points to the need for a shift away from a singular, standardized assessment of learning and towards a more nuanced, multi-faceted approach. This includes incorporating measures of applied skills, critical thinking, problem-solving, and professional readiness—abilities that are arguably far more valuable in the modern workforce than rote memorization. The emphasis on "ways" forward, plural, is crucial. There’s no single solution, and institutions need to develop assessment strategies that are tailored to their specific programs and student populations. This might involve incorporating more project-based learning, authentic assessments, and competency-based education models. It also requires a willingness to embrace new technologies and data analytics to track student progress in more meaningful ways, moving beyond simply counting credits completed. The potential for innovative, personalized assessment tools is significant, but it requires investment in both infrastructure and faculty training. Considering the context of recent budgetary constraints, as discussed in August Cuts to Start the Academic Year, securing funding for these necessary changes will be a significant hurdle.
The implications of this shift extend far beyond institutional accountability. By embracing a more comprehensive view of student success, higher education can better prepare students for the challenges and opportunities they will encounter in their careers and lives. It can also foster a culture of continuous improvement, where faculty and staff are empowered to experiment with new teaching methods and assessment strategies. This aligns perfectly with the spirit of a community-first approach, encouraging collaboration and the sharing of best practices across departments and institutions. For a student like myself, navigating classes, a part-time job, and the general chaos of college life, the idea of an assessment system that recognizes the value of practical experience and real-world application is incredibly encouraging. It validates the effort put into internships, volunteer work, and extracurricular activities – things that contribute significantly to personal and professional growth, even if they don’t always show up on a transcript.
Ultimately, the question is not simply *how* we measure student success, but *why*. Are we measuring success to satisfy external stakeholders, or are we measuring it to help students reach their full potential? Lederman’s article suggests that the time has come to prioritize the latter. As institutions grapple with these changes, it will be vital to ensure that any new assessment systems are equitable, accessible, and genuinely supportive of student learning. A critical area to watch will be how institutions balance the need for data-driven assessment with the importance of preserving the intrinsic value of higher education – the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, and the cultivation of well-rounded, engaged citizens.
