article full of suggestions for "improving" college education in order to magically increase graduation rates. Here's what the fresh thinkers at third way tell us we need:
But not the kind of data that show that graduation rates can be reliably predicted by student characteristics. Or the kind that show that where someone went to school explains only around 5 percent of the variation in their earnings (p. 49).
Better Teaching & Supports: Every school with a graduation rate of less than 67% should develop and implement a plan to increase student completion, including improving classroom teaching by professors and adjuncts .That's right, "improve" classroom teaching. Never mind how, exactly. Do we have to tell you everything? What's that, up to 87% of the variance in graduation rates is explained by the student, not the institution? Pfft. Show your fancy numbers to someone who cares.
Pell Floor: High-performing schools should be encouraged and incentivized to accept and educate far more low-income students.
Open Data: We must end the opacity of college-specific outcomes data to help students, parents, and policymakers discern whether schools are succeeding or failing.
This article is from 2016. As is this one, damning nonselective public universities as "dropout factories" and demanding to know why, say, Alabama State University (average ACT 18) doesn't have the same graduation rate as UCSC (average ACT 27). (Hey, guess what: No school with Alabama State's student academic profile has a 6 year graduation rate higher than 48%.)
I don't have some jar of Magical Teaching Dust hidden away, to be deployed only after I have been sufficiently hectored by fresh-thinking disruptopreneurs. I am already, believe it or not, doing my best.
Here's an idea: How about disrupting poverty?