Published on 2012/11/06

Quality and an Open Door

Higher education institutions and governments have a shared responsibility to ensure that adult learners have access to the educational opportunities necessary for them to achieve the career and life they want to reach.

Access to higher education is increasingly seen as a right. Yet, while 90 million adults are without a degree, and our standard of living is falling, barriers are being erected which impede prospective students’ access to colleges and universities.

The largest obstacle is that of cost. Four years of tuition can exceed the new home price of just ten years ago ($207K, 11/03 – U.S. Census Data). At the same time, state and local governments are reducing their allocations for education.

But cost is not the only barrier. Institutions are limiting access in other ways. Increased admissions selectivity is seen as a way to increase an institution’s reputation and national ranking. By limiting admissions to those with the highest GPAs, colleges position themselves as more prestigious. Additionally, strong students are easier to teach and more likely to graduate.

Higher graduation rates appease politicians, regulators, and accreditors while drawing plaudits from the media. This approval is important, as the federal government asks what it is getting for its billions of dollars spent on financial aid. Recruiting is also easier for a selective institution. Private institutions see less resistance to high tuition as students associate selectivity and high price with quality.

If prestige is the enemy of access, does it follow that those offering access to returning adults are compromising quality? No!

My institution is one of open access. Its mission is to provide educational opportunities to students not well-served by traditional higher education. Our students tend to be older, with children, working, from lower socio-economic circumstance, and, often, the first member of their family to attend college. Many are minorities. Some lack the academic preparation necessary for college success. These are “high risk” students.

Some public institutions have sought to end open enrollment, citing the high cost of remediation.[3&4] Two historically black colleges have recently proposed becoming more selective as a way to enhance graduation rates.[5]

Before taking such a step, we need to ask ourselves three questions:

1) What constitutes quality?

2) Are graduation rates the only metrics that matter?

3) What is the long-term cost of restricting access to only those we think will graduate?

Perhaps the time has come to measure quality in new ways – through a comparison of learning outcomes, and not from graduation rates alone. If quality is determined by graduate learning, measured against standardized criteria[7], we might gain a new perspective as to what constitutes a “quality” institution.

It may also be time to recognize that adult-serving, open-access institutions are not Ivy League schools or public research universities. While we share commonalities, those serving adults differ from those educating 18-24 year-olds. We are a segment of higher education with a uniquely different mission and values.[8]

For the moment, graduation rates—rightly or wrongly—are seen as an indicator of quality. While waiting for agreement around benchmarks, those at open institutions can take comfort knowing that “the largest gains in graduation rates over the past decade have been accomplished at open-access or nearly open-access colleges and universities,” according to research by William Doyle at Vanderbilt University. He states that, “[our research] challenges a commonly held notion that the best way to increase graduation rates is to make colleges more selective.”

“Nonselective colleges and universities (those that accept at least 80 percent of applicants) are leading the way in improving graduation rates,” he goes on to say. “These [institutions] account for most of the increases in completion rates in 33 states. In 16, these institutions account for 75 percent of the increases.”[9]

There is no question that institutions need to focus greater attention on degree completion. However, this should not be a reason for less rigor or quality. Neither do we want performance measured through comparisons to very different, traditional institutions.

The final question is: What is the cost of not maintaining open access?

  • Can we meet the goal to increase degree completion if we turn more students away?
  • Will our country be able to remain competitive without a more educated workforce?
  • What are the employment prospects for those we turn away, and what will this mean for social stability?
  • Without an educated workforce, how do we sustain our economy and standard of living?

Then, there is the issue of societal assimilations. With one-third of the nation’s population expected to be Hispanic by mid-century[10], we should recall the “moral purpose” of education that John Dewey wrote about. “Access to education is pivotal to preserving democracy in a multicultural society,” he noted.[11] With open access, workers from different backgrounds are acculturated and integrated into society. They gain knowledge and skills necessary to civic engagement and employment. Without such opportunity, there is a danger that new arrivals will become a drain on social services and the economy. This can create social tension and unrest.

America’s adults must have the opportunity to participate in higher education if we want to preserve our democratic way of life and our standard of living. Access is not just about who gets into college. It is also about who gets the knowledge and skills necessary for individual and national well-being.

Not all will succeed, but all should have a chance.

– – – –


  1. Tuckman, G. (2012). Pressured and Measured: Professors at Wannabe U. The Hedgehog Review, Spring 2012, V14, No1.
  2. Dizard, J. (2012). Lessons to be learnt as student debt soars higher than Hungary’s. Financial Times, 3/17/12, p.13
  3. Adams, C. (2010). Community Colleges rethink “open door” admissions as remedial costs rise. Education Week, 8/13/10
  4. Sandham, J.L. (1998) New York mayor wants CUNY to drop remedial courses. Education Week, 2/18/98
  5. Powers, E. (2008) Reconsidering open enrollment. Inside Higher Ed, 2/27/08
  6. Editorial Board (2010). Raise the community college graduation rate. The Christian Science Monitor, 4/26/2010
  7. Lumina Foundation (2011). Lumina Foundation releases degree profile: A new framework for defining the learning and quality that College degrees should signify. Lumina Foundation Press Release, 1/25/11
  8. Magretta, J. (2012). Understanding Michael Porter. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, p.56
  9. Doyle, W.R. (2010). Open access colleges responsible for greatest gains in graduation rates. Policy Alert. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2/10
  10. U.S. Census Press Release (2008). An older and more diverse nation by midcentury. US Government, 8/14/08
  11. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. The Free Press, New York
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Impact of Online Shopping on Higher Education

Learn to implement eCommerce best practices and create a positive learning experience.

Read here

Readers Comments

WA Anderson 2012/11/06 at 9:35 am

Open access as synonymous with a loss of quality is a gross and pervasive misconception.

I think elite institutions and public research universities are going to increasingly find that limiting admissions to boost their image of “prestige”, justify high tuition, and guarantee certain graduation rates is a one-sided and inadequate strategy to recruit and meet the needs of their students. Further, to encourage a change in this system, the measurements for this system need to change.

I fully agree that graduation rates are an insufficient measure of quality, and don’t reflect not only the student’s learning experience, but also don’t reflect anything about the demographic of student enrolled and the many factors that might contribute to them graduating or not graduating. These are important questions to ask that get taken for granted and need to be shaken up more often, as they are in this article.

Zandra Thomas 2012/11/06 at 9:37 am

Love the invocation of John Dewey- his insightful and common-sense thoughts on education are spot-on here. Especially with regards to the “new arrivals” to the USA and how should they fit into the higher education landscape. The US faces a huge but unavoidable challenge with illegal immigration, and if, as Mr. Ebersole points out, this population of undocumented arrivals is excluded from the higher education system (not to mention many other citizen rights), they will increasingly become a burden on the system instead of being given the pathways to become productive, engaged citizens.

The current federal government has already worked to remedy this (despite anti-immigrant backlash from states such as Arizona and Georgia) by giving 2-year reprieve to certain illegal immigrants. In my opinion, it would do the US and higher education very well to finally embrace the DREAM Act–a legislative proposal allowing illegal immigrants who meet certain standards to work toward permanent residency–that has been proposed over the years and never accepted.

Rennee Smith 2012/11/06 at 2:54 pm

John points out that Ivy Leagues and open access institutions are entirely different beasts, with radically different sets of values and missions, and therefore shouldn’t be compared. I would go even further: as open access institutions develop, especially if they develop, as proposed here, in line with such principals of societal good and democratic spirit as those of John Dewey, does the need remain for Ivy League universities? Of course I am being extreme– a country needs research institutions and innovations in order to stay competitive and safeguard a high quality of life. But for the general population, not that miniscule percentage who enter the world of academia, why not a shift toward open access, leaving behind the walls of the elite institution? Often people are wary of this because they are afraid that with open access, the university loses some of its’ “soul”, dignity, or higher moral purpose.

But as the author shows us, in many ways, if run thoughtfully and in a focused way, open access institutions are more in line with what many consider the higher moral or societal purpose of higher education within a democracy. Access for all, raising citizens up through education, integrating newcomers into a more harmonious society and community. It is time for Ivy Leagues to stop claiming their moral superiority, and embrace the potential of open access.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *