The winds of educational change are blowing. Tim Knowles is the 10th president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the 120-year-old organization that birthed the Carnegie Unit and the Educational Testing Service. Knowles is intent on steering into the teeth of that gale, working to retool the Carnegie Unit and intent on assessing the promise of innovations like the three-year college degree or micro-credentials. These reforms, especially micro-credentials, could open the door to dramatic changes in K–12 education. I caught up with him to discuss what’s on his mind and what it means for America’s high schools and colleges. Here’s what he had to say.
—Rick

Rick: Tim, last year you spoke about the need to rethink the Carnegie Unit, arguing it’s outlived its purpose. Along the same lines, you recently critiqued the traditional four-year college model. Can you say a bit about your thinking?

Tim: I’ve been thinking about achievable ways the nation can crack the $1.77 trillion student debt problem. As I’ve argued elsewhere, it’s fair to point the finger at the soaring cost of college tuition fueled by the widespread availability of student loans. However, there is another culprit that has escaped scrutiny—the 120-credit degree.

The main problem with the 120-credit requirement is it leaves nearly 40% of students who start college with some credits but no degree. That’s tens of millions of students who invest time, effort, and money in college but have little to show for it other than debt. Suffice it to say, a 60% success rate is a far cry from excellence. When I was in college—which was way back before grade inflation—60% wasn’t even passing.

Like many things in education that have outlived their shelf life, the 120-credit degree was created with good intentions. In 1906, to address the poor pay of college professors, Andrew Carnegie established the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, where I now serve as president. The first trustees of the foundation established the 120 “Carnegie Unit” standard to quantify the amount of teaching required for college professors to earn a pension. It was a tidy, time-based metric that quickly became an attractive tool for measuring student effort toward earning a degree. To this day, it dictates how much time and money students must invest to obtain one. Fixing the college-debt problem requires acknowledging that outmoded, time-based measures of learning have shaped secondary and postsecondary schooling for far too long.

Rick: What kinds of changes do you have in mind?

Tim: In the longer term, we need more effective and ubiquitous models of competency-based education that radically alter the design and cost of higher education and award “credit” based on what students know and can do. But that’s a conversation for another day—let’s focus on things we can do now.

I see two immediate ways to reduce the cost of college and lower student debt. I’ll start with the easy one. We should shorten the undergraduate degree.

Moving from a 120- to a 90-credit degree would require reexamining how many credits are actually needed to establish proficiency in a field. The good news is there are plenty of places to learn from, as most of the world is already doing it. In the U.K., for example, students complete the vast majority of undergraduate programs in three years—computer science, chemistry, economics, history, creative writing, biomedicine, electrical engineering, finance, and accounting, to name a few. The degrees that extend to four years often include a professional practicum designed to build skills and prepare students for the workplace.

The distinction between 90- and 120-credit hours has profound implications for a labor market that currently requires a four-year degree for most high-paying jobs. Shifting to a 90-credit degree would reduce the cost of college by 25%, lower student debt, and likely make a significant dent in poor college-completion rates. Clearly, if we go in this direction, we’d want to carefully track outcomes like completion rates, employment, and earnings. But given the current state—and the fact that many well-tested models of three-year degrees exist—it seems incredibly shortsighted not to embark on this path.

Rick: There’s been a lot of discussion about micro-degrees. Where do they fit into all this?

Tim: That’s more complicated. In essence, micro-degrees break the traditional college degree into smaller, more manageable chunks. Some colleges experimenting with this approach call them micro-pathways. They are flexible, short-term programs that can be completed in under a year, provide immediate job opportunities, and serve as the foundation for an associate or bachelor’s degree. The basic idea is that students can convert sets of courses and work experience into industry-recognized credentials and ultimately “stack” them into full degrees. So, a student studying data science who has 30 credits in the field, completes a relevant internship, and meets an established bar on a reliable assessment could receive a credential. The micro-degree model reduces the burden of paying for college since students can earn more as they learn, leading to less student-loan debt. Importantly, they also recognize that many Americans step in and out as resources and life circumstances allow. So micro-degrees ensure students get something in return, even if they never complete a full degree. However, there are real challenges. For example, these opportunities exist at the margins of the sector, and they are not mainstream. Even more problematic is that we are swimming in a sea of junk credentials.

Rick: I find micro-degrees intriguing, even if I’ve got some practical concerns. Here, though, I’m mostly curious about what you think they mean for high schools. What’s your take?

Tim: You’re right. Since you wrote about micro-degrees in 2023, the number of “recognized” credentials has grown from 46,000 to 104,000. As you suggested, that should raise very red flags about quality and coherence.

To answer your K–12 question, if I were a high school principal or superintendent, I would identify a very modest number of credentials, maybe five or so, that create legitimate paths to meaningful, wealth-generating careers in my regional economy. I would find employers who are willing and able to co-create courses and work-based experiences and establish pathways to those careers for students who want to pursue them. I would also pay very close attention to outcomes: the number of students earning the credentials, success in postsecondary school, and employment and earnings over time. Unless credentialing efforts are tethered to real outcomes, they become another pyrrhic victory in the pantheon of failed reforms.

Rick: OK, so how would you encourage policymakers and educators to think about so far as getting from here to there?

Tim: Here is a short list of things that need to happen.

First, the federal government must maintain a central role collecting high-quality performance data spanning K–12 education, postsecondary education, and the workforce. Jettisoning that role—or spinning it off to the states—could be catastrophic for the economy and educational progress. Second, accreditors must allow for shorter and more flexible paths to degrees tied to meaningful outcomes. Third, employers must help to establish a short list of viable credentials and be willing to hire those who earn them. Fourth, testing companies must create fulsome, competency-based assessments aligned to the short list of viable credentials. Finally, colleges and universities need permission from accreditors and incentives from government and philanthropic groups to establish three-year degrees and micro-credentials.

Of course, one result of these shifts is that students will have to decide which field of study they want to pursue earlier, as shorter degrees will mean less time to learn requisite material. The good news is that hasn’t been a problem across the globe—and none of the above should suggest we need to eliminate four-year degrees for the students who can afford or want one.

Big picture, I am convinced the benefits here far outweigh the costs. These approaches will make college more affordable, reduce student debt, increase the number of students who earn a bachelor’s degree or another postsecondary credential, and build public confidence in higher education at a moment in history when it is in terribly short supply.

Rick: Last question. Given how big a lift this represents, what’s the one policy change that’s essential to make it possible?

Tim: Modernize the postsecondary sector so it is focused on outcomes, not inputs.