WSU has the same graduation, retention and efficiency targets as the UW, yet, as a land grant institution, it serves a different student population. For example, its five-year graduation rate is 55 percent, compared to the UW's 61.7 percent. But both universities have to hit a goal of 65 percent by 2004-05.
"The measures that passed the Legislature won't hold us accountable, because they are unattainable goals," WSU's government relations director, Larry Ganders, told the press during the legislative session.
Associate Dean Friedman says that legislatures often see all universities as one piece. "They look for a common metric for different kinds of institutions," she warns. The search for the least common denominator is "the first place that accountability goes wrong."
International Studies Director Jere Bacharach, who headed the UW's accountability task force last year, is more blunt. "There is no magic number," he declares.
Linking funding to some set of magic numbers is a new wrinkle. Provost Huntsman says there used to be two levels to accountability. First, it meant the proper stewardship of the public dollars the UW receives. It also meant that the UW must answer to the public for what it does with those dollars.
Today a new, third level focuses on improving performance. Lawmakers are setting specific targets, with financial penalties if these targets are not met. But officials at the UW, WSU and other universities are concerned about goals set in the heat of a budget session.
Public Affairs Professor Zumeta calls the goals "somewhat arbitrary." In many cases, he says, lawmakers "chose a round number that is better than what we have now" without considering the long-term consequences.
Take, for example, retention rates, which measure how many students stay each year rather than drop out. While the UW already has a high freshman retention rate, transfer students from community colleges and other universities have a lower rate. To reach the target of 95 percent, the UW might have to reject more transfers, since their rates "pull down" the overall average. For a Legislature concerned about access to higher education, this may be the opposite of the lawmakers' intent.
Another goal is graduation efficiency measured by a special index. Once students graduate, the UW computes their index by dividing the minimum number of credits required for their degree by the number of actual credits taken (including credits from courses that were later dropped). If the minimum to get your degree was 180 credits but you took 200 credits, your index would be 90.
In seven years, the Legislature wants UW students who begin as freshmen to score a 95. Transfers must average 90. Currently the index for graduates who enter as freshmen is 89.1 and for transfers 80.4.
These efficiency goals are too high, says Bacharach. Students need time to explore disciplines and test their majors. "It would be worse if we had 100 percent efficiency," he states.
Even reaching a 95 efficiency index could cripple undergraduate education, he warns. "Since full-time students graduate more efficiently than part-time students, you'd have to cut back on part-timers.
"You'd also have to force students to make decisions earlier. They would have to decide on a major earlier than they do now and they'd have to stick with it," he says. Floundering students would not be given time to get back on their feet since that would bring down efficiency ratings. "You'd also have to have a higher failure rate. It would be a university with no second chances," he adds.
Some Goals Could Backfire
By the Numbers: Chart of UW Accountability
Goals
Send a letter to the editor at columns@u.washington.edu.
