By Spencer Schneier, Staff Writer

Published in print Jan 14, 2015.

As part of a larger initiative in which the Obama administration has aimed to improve the American university system, a new federal rating system that will evaluate universities based on affordability, access and value has been proposed.

The new system should be released before the start of the next academic year.

Per a report from the Wall Street Journal, the system will look to rate universities based on metrics such as: “graduation and retention rates; the ability of their graduates to pay back their student loans; and the schools’ accessibility to low-income and first-generation students.”

Mike Tarrant, UNC-Greensboro’s director of strategic initiatives, stated, “We know that the UNC system as a whole continues to be a great value in terms of both cost and quality, thanks to a strong historical commitment to supporting higher education from the people of North Carolina.”

He explained that in comparison to UNCG’s 18 national peer institutions— universities across the country that carry similar attributes to UNC-Greensboro —UNCG remains one of the most affordable universities.

A part of this, which Tarrant alludes to, is UNCG’s strength in providing opportunity for first generation college students.

He addressed the benefits of the system, noting, “College is a big investment for students and their families, so it makes sense that stakeholders, including students, parents, employers and legislators, are seeking more information on cost, academic quality and outcomes.”

However, Tarrant’s main concern is “implementation.”

UNCG Provost Dana Dunn echoed Tarrant in an email to The Carolinian, saying, “Providing information to the public is helpful to inform decision-making.”

Many of the more vocal opponents of the system come from those at small, private schools.

One such school is Randolph College in Virginia, which is a small school.

It boasts an excellent student life and a 9:1 teacher-student ratio, but students graduate with an average debt of between $35,000-$40,000, per a report by National Public Radio (NPR).

In the NPR article, however, Luke Weierbach, a senior at Randolph, argued about the proposed metrics, “Those are fair things to look at, but really what makes a college experience are the intangibles.”

It is the constant balance between the intangible elements and the tangible ones that spurs this debate.

Many at schools similar to Randolph are resisting the system, fearing that the metric cannot possibly measure the value of intangibles that go into an education.

The U.S. Department of Education addresses these fears on its official website, saying, “The American higher education system has some of the finest institutions in the world and the diversity of institutional missions is key to its strength.

“While there will never be a way for a rating to capture the full spectrum of an institution’s contributions to an individual or society,” the website continues, “the department will develop a ratings system that will identify colleges that provide good value aligned with three key principles that President Obama articulated: access, affordability and outcomes.”

Being that the official rating system hasn’t been released yet, it is hard to tell how UNCG will fare in the new system.

UNCG is renowned, as Tarrant noted, for its success in “closing access and success gaps.”

This, combined with UNCG’s relatively cheap tuition compared to its peer institutions, means it could rank relatively well in the new system.

However, in terms of long-term institutional effects, it’s hard to pin exactly how this system will impact UNCG.

Looking at the UNC system as a whole, Tarrant noted that the UNC board of governors has discussed varied “performance metrics.”

This legislation from the Obama administration should allow the metrics to “remain a priority when it comes to higher education.”

Tarrant also explained that he “expect[s] additional proposals on these topics at both the state and federal level.”

The performance metrics have caused many to question the changing factors that students will face, which past students have not necessarily had to handle.

Provost Dunn noted this specifically when she argued, “I do have a concern that the metrics are not sufficiently sensitive to the fact that students today do not resemble the traditional student of the past, and as such, have many life issues that impact time to graduation, for example.”