The fixation with the graduation rate in higher education

Politicians are increasingly fixated with examining attrition and completion rates (or graduation rates) in higher education and regularly accuse education agencies of neglecting their mandate to ensure the cost-effective delivery of government services.

- POPOY DE VERA

During the annual budget hearings, legislators repeatedly stated that the high attrition rate (39 percent) data from the EDCOM II report, titled “Fixing the Foundations,” is unacceptable and argue that action must be taken to address this problem.

I agree that something must be done. But let us put the proper context.

Completion rates in higher education show how well education systems help students finish their studies. They offer insights into the system’s efficiency, indicating whether students can complete their programs in a reasonable timeframe.

Policymakers should take this indicator seriously because studying for long periods or failing to complete a degree program has substantial financial and social costs for individuals and society.

High attrition and low completion rates may also indicate a mismatch between student needs and program offerings, deficiencies in academic preparation or insufficient student support services.

It may also suggest that access to college education is not fully developed, preventing students from rural areas from traveling to and from the university, accessing online courses and maintaining continuity of learning during and after disasters.

This may also reflect a mismatch between new students’ expectations and skills and the actual academic demands of degree programs.

But what is the problem?