Key points:
- Higher-ed leaders must make outdated systems more effective and fair
- How higher-ed can benefit from the family navigator model
- Data-informed decision-making in education: A comprehensive approach
- For more news on innovation in higher ed, see eCN’s Campus Leadership hub
As the dust settles from the pandemic-era disruptions of higher education and as generative AI causes its own new disruption, one thing is clear: We cannot go back to business as usual. Enrollment patterns are shifting, technology is transforming instruction, and students are questioning the value of traditional degrees. For higher education to stay relevant, and more importantly, to be effective, we must take a hard look at the outdated structures we have long taken for granted.
That starts with rethinking how we grade, how we measure learning, and how we define student success. These aren’t just administrative tweaks. They are foundational shifts that require educational leaders, faculty, staff, and administrators alike to redesign instructional delivery from the ground up.
Grades should reflect mastery, not compliance
Traditional grading systems are deeply ingrained in our academic culture, but they are not sacred. Letter grades often reflect a mix of attendance, behavior, test performance, and participation. Many of those factors do not always correlate with actual learning. Worse, grading on a curve or using punitive late policies can demoralize students and perpetuate inequities.
A better alternative? Shift to mastery-based or standards-based grading. Let students revise and improve work. Emphasize feedback over finality. Align assessments with course outcomes, not arbitrary benchmarks. We need to stop grading like we are sorting students into winners and losers and start measuring what really matters: mastery of learning.
Is the Carnegie Unit obsolete?
The Carnegie Unit, originally designed to calculate pensions based on instructional time, still determines course credits, financial aid eligibility, and faculty workloads. However, to be honest, seat time, which is what the Carnegie Unit primarily measures, is a poor proxy for mastery of material. In today’s digital and personalized learning environments, seat time tells us little. A student might master content in three weeks, or struggle for 15. Asynchronous courses, microcredentials, and self-paced programs do not fit neatly into the credit-hour mold. It is past the time to decouple learning from time. Competency-based education allows students to progress based on what they know and can do, not how long they sat in a classroom. While scaling these models requires regulatory adjustments, the status quo is already holding us back.
Credentialing needs a reality check
The traditional degree remains a valuable credential, but it is no longer the only way to prove what you know. Employers increasingly value skills, portfolios, and real-world experience over transcripts. Meanwhile, students are demanding faster, cheaper, and more flexible pathways. This is where microcredentials, badges, and stackable certificates come in. They offer new ways to document learning in smaller chunks and make education more responsive to workforce needs. However, they need to be transparent, portable, and aligned with rigorous standards. Colleges need to consider these credentialing options as part of a broader learning ecosystem, not as a threat to the degree. Degrees will still matter, but they should evolve to include verified skills, not just completed credit hours.
Faculty roles must evolve
The stereotype of the professor as a lone sage lecturing from a podium is increasingly out of touch. In a world where students can stream world-class lectures online anytime, the value of faculty lies in delivering content and in designing rich learning experiences, mentoring students, and facilitating meaningful engagement.
Faculty need to engage in positive, proactive collaborative work with students. Individual faculty working alone is not as productive. Pairing more senior faculty with new instructors to collaborate can provide rich instructional dividends. Beyond faculty collaboration, a team must be engaged–that includes sustained instructional design skills, accessibility understandings, library expertise, and the ability to gather and review learning analytics.
Institutions should invest in ongoing professional development and revise promotion and tenure criteria to recognize teaching innovation and collaboration, as well as traditional research. Universities must address the precarious status of adjuncts and contingent faculty. A system built on underpaid, overworked educators cannot be expected to deliver the transformational learning experiences necessary to ensure a bright future.
Equity can’t be an add-on
Redesigning higher education without addressing equity is like renovating a house without fixing its foundation. Too many of our systems, curved grading, weed-out courses, and inaccessible advising create barriers rather than opportunities. Strong proactive advising models need to be considered. An equity-centered redesign means using data to identify opportunity gaps, rethinking course policies that disproportionately affect marginalized students, and embedding inclusive pedagogy across the curriculum. It means ensuring that support services–academic, financial, and emotional–are effective and accessible, not just theoretically accessible for those who know the system. Equity should not be a box to check. It should be a design principle, and strong differentiated instruction is a key path to equity.
What’s next?
Institutions across the country are already experimenting with bold ideas:
- Georgia State University uses predictive analytics and proactive advising to close graduation gaps
- Western Governors University and Southern New Hampshire University are leaders in competency-based, self-paced models
- Institutions like Arizona State University are pioneering stackable degrees and modular learning pathways
For innovation to scale, we need leadership that’s willing to challenge sacred cows. We need to stop asking how we can make outdated systems more efficient and start asking how we can make them more effective and more just.
The pandemic forced higher education to adapt quickly. Educational technology is impacting all aspects of the educational process. Now we have an opportunity to reflect, redesign, and rebuild. The question isn’t whether higher ed will change. It’s whether we will lead that change or be left behind.
Baule’s scholarly interests focus on online student engagement, educational technology-- particularly the impact of 1:1 implementations, social-emotional learning, and the history of education. Baule led several efforts to improve student emotional health and reduce discipline issues prior to moving into higher education. He also writes on aspects of early American history.
Baule has held memberships in the American Association of School Administrators, the American Library Association, the American Association of School Librarians, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, the Consortium for School Networking, the International Association of School Librarians, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Staff Development Council, and many of their state affiliates. He has served as a consultant in the areas of educational technology, facilities design, library program development, team building, and communications.
- 5 places to find dissertation topic ideas - June 12, 2025
- It’s time to rethink the foundations of higher education - June 2, 2025
- Finishing well: Leaving an academic role gracefully and professionally - May 8, 2025