Recently, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a Gates Foundation-funded report: Has Universal Access to Transfer-Level Courses Changed Student Outcomes at California Community Colleges? Many positive trends are noted in the report, including completion rates for transfer-level math courses, especially statistics and liberal arts math. The authors also point out that more students are earning their associate’s degree and transferring to four-year institutions. However, two underlying issues identified in this report could undermine these otherwise encouraging headlines: selection bias and grade inflation.

This report brings up the issue of selection bias in footnote #17. It points out that students post-AB 705 are earning a higher overall grade point average (GPA) in their first year in college. The authors go on to state: “This indicates possible selection effects—specifically, that lower-performing students were more likely to stop enrolling, which may explain the improved long-term outcomes.”

We already see evidence of selection effects in enrollment data. Last year, The RP Group's report on students with disabilities included an appendix showing marked declines in enrollment by disability type. Overall, cohort sizes of students in math classes without disabilities declined by 22% over the past nine years. For students with disabilities, the decline was 37%. If we reasonably assume that disabilities have not declined in the overall population, this trend indicates that students with disabilities are not enrolling in community colleges at the same rate as in the past.

This enrollment decline raises equity concerns and should prompt us to question overall throughput rates. If colleges are not meeting the needs of students with disabilities and causing them to leave the system at a faster rate, then we are doing society a major disservice. By looking more deeply into the reasons behind this enrollment decline—are students withdrawing from transfer-level math, enrolling in other classes, or not enrolling at all—we can formulate policies to better serve the entire community college student population.

Another factor likely skewing throughput rates is grade inflation. A previous PPIC study identified an increase in the number of As and Bs awarded in fall 2020 compared to fall 2019.  Other studies have also noted an increase in overall GPA during the pandemic on other college campuses. This research makes me wonder: Did grading standards change during the pandemic? If so, what would course completion rates look like today if grading standards had remained at pre-pandemic levels?

While it is clear how grade inflation can increase students’ success rates and graduation rates, there is also research pointing to its negative effects. A recent study from California and Maryland found that students with grade-inflating teachers earn less than those without once they enter the workforce. Other research has shown that as grade inflation has increased, students are learning less and experiencing greater stress. Imagine what it would be like to pass a class—believing you are prepared for the next step in your academic or career path—only to learn that you are not ready after all. 

PPIC’s focus on transfer-level course completion rates is understandable. However, we need to ensure that increasing completion rates does not come at the expense of serving all students and evaluating students’ performance rigorously and transparently. We need to look at additional metrics to quantify the impact of selection bias and grade inflation on completion rates. One metric never tells the whole story.