The Clock and the Compass: Deconstructing the Carnegie Unit and Charting the Future of Educational Measurement

For twenty years, I’ve worked in the heart of the American university system, first as a registrar and now as a provost.

For most of that time, I saw myself as a steward of academic standards.

But in my more honest moments, I felt like an accountant.

My days were governed by a single, unyielding currency: the credit hour.

I managed the intricate ledger of higher education, ensuring every student’s transcript balanced, that the right number of units were logged, transferred, and tallied toward a degree.

It was a system of remarkable efficiency, a common language understood by every high school, college, and government agency in the country.

Yet, a deep and persistent frustration grew within me.

I was managing the clock, but I was losing sight of the compass—the actual learning we were meant to be cultivating.

This feeling crystallized into a sharp point of failure on the day I met a U.S. Army veteran who wanted to enroll in our business school.

He had spent a decade as a logistics officer, managing complex, multi-million-dollar supply chains in the most demanding environments on earth.

He possessed a level of expertise our MBA students would spend years trying to acquire.

But the ledger was unforgiving.

His military transcript, a record of profound real-world experience, could not be neatly translated into our currency of 120-hour blocks of “seat time.” To earn our degree, he would have to sit through “Introduction to Supply Chain Management.” He looked at me from across my desk, his frustration barely concealed, and said, “It seems you value your bureaucracy more than my expertise.” He walked out and never came back.

That encounter was a gut punch.

It laid bare the absurdity at the heart of our system.

We were honoring the schedule but dishonoring the knowledge.

We were so focused on the neatness of our accounting that we were failing the very people we were meant to serve.

The system I had spent my career upholding was not just inflexible; in his case, it was insulting.

The real epiphany, the moment the entire problem reframed itself in my mind, came from a seemingly unrelated field: aviation.

I was in a tense curriculum meeting for a new nursing program.

The clinical director, exasperated by the challenge of fitting complex clinical training into rigid credit-hour blocks, slammed her hand on the table.

“We are doing this all wrong,” she said.

“We don’t certify a pilot because she’s sat in a flight simulator for 120 hours.

We certify her because she can demonstrate the ability to land the plane in a 20-knot crosswind.

We need a pilot’s logbook for our students—a verified record of demonstrated competencies—not an accountant’s timesheet.”

A pilot’s logbook versus an accountant’s timesheet.

That analogy was the key.

It unlocked everything.

For over a century, American education has been run on a timesheet.

It meticulously tracks inputs—hours spent in a seat, weeks in a semester—and assumes that learning is the output.

But what if we had the wrong tool all along? What if we were meant to be flight instructors, not accountants? What if our primary job was not to track time, but to certify capabilities? This question sent me on a journey deep into the history of our educational currency, to understand the origins of the timesheet, to diagnose the full extent of the damage it has caused, and to find the pioneers who are already building the logbook of tomorrow.

This report is the culmination of that journey.

It is an examination of the clock that has governed us and a search for the compass that can guide us forward.

Part I: The Accidental Architect – Genesis and Solidification of a Time-Based Standard

To understand the profound inertia of the credit hour system, one must first grasp its origin story.

It was not born of pedagogical insight or a grand vision for learning.

It was an administrative fix to a financial problem, an accidental innovation whose convenience far outstripped its educational merit.

Its very DNA is that of a tool for standardization, not a measure of learning, a fact that explains both its century-long dominance and its inherent conflict with modern educational goals.

An Unintended Legacy: From Professor Pensions to National Standard

At the dawn of the 20th century, the American educational landscape was a chaotic and fragmented frontier.

The very concepts of “high school” and “college” were ill-defined, with no uniform standards for curriculum, duration, or quality.¹

A diploma from one institution held no guarantee of equivalence to another.

This chaos presented a practical dilemma for the newly established Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (CFAT).

Founded in 1905 with a $10 million endowment from industrialist Andrew Carnegie, its primary mission was to create a pension system for college professors—a radical idea at a time when such benefits were virtually nonexistent.²

Before the Foundation could pay out pensions, however, its first president, Henry Pritchett, had to solve a fundamental problem: who, exactly, qualified as a “college professor”? Which institutions were legitimate “colleges” and which were simply glorified high schools? Without a clear standard, the pension fund was impossible to administer.⁶

The solution was not pedagogical, but pragmatic.

The Foundation needed a simple, measurable yardstick.

It adopted and codified a concept already being developed by organizations like the National Education Association: a “standard unit” of instructional time.¹

This became the “Carnegie Unit,” formally defined in 1906 as 120 hours of contact time between a teacher and a student in a single subject over the course of an academic year—typically one hour a day, five days a week, for 24 weeks.¹

Armed with this metric, the Foundation established its eligibility criteria.

To participate in the highly coveted, free pension program (the precursor to the modern TIAA), universities had to require entering freshmen to have completed a minimum of 14 Carnegie Units of high school preparation.¹

The power of this financial incentive was transformative.

Colleges and universities, eager to offer their faculty the security of a pension, rapidly aligned their admissions standards with the Foundation’s requirements.

High schools, in turn, redesigned their curricula and graduation requirements to ensure their students would be eligible for admission to these universities.

By 1910, a mere four years after its introduction, the Carnegie Unit had been almost universally adopted as the de facto standard for secondary education across the United States.⁷

What is most critical to understand is that the Foundation was explicit about the unit’s purpose.

It was a measure of time, an administrative convenience, and nothing more.

The Foundation’s 1906 annual report stated unequivocally that “the fundamental criterion was the amount of time spent on a subject, not the results attained”.³

Modern analyses have repeatedly affirmed this point: the unit was “never intended to function as a measure of what students learned”.¹⁰

That responsibility was left entirely to individual teachers and institutions.

This non-pedagogical origin is the unit’s defining characteristic.

It was designed for interchangeability and administrative simplicity, valuing uniformity over the nuanced and variable reality of human learning.

The conflict that has plagued educational reform for a century was encoded at its creation.

Any attempt to replace the unit based on arguments of superior learning models, such as competency-based education, often misses this crucial point.

The resistance is not necessarily a rejection of better pedagogy; it is a defense of an entrenched administrative system that was built to value, above all else, the elegant simplicity of a timesheet.

The Currency of an Empire: How the Credit Hour Colonized American Education

The Carnegie Unit’s influence did not stop at the high school gate.

The same logic of standardization and the same powerful financial incentives that reshaped secondary education quickly permeated higher education, transforming the unit into the collegiate “credit hour”—the foundational currency of the entire American academic empire.

It evolved from a simple admissions metric into the central organizing principle of the system itself, dictating everything from budgets and buildings to the very definition of a degree.

The pension system that drove the unit’s adoption in high school admissions also spurred universities to apply the same time-based logic to their own operations.

To determine faculty eligibility for the pension, institutions needed a way to define and measure workload.

The credit hour became the natural tool.

A professor’s teaching load was quantified in credit hours, and a “full load”—often around 12 credit hours per semester—was required to qualify for full pension benefits.³

This administrative utility was supercharged by the “scientific management” movement of the era, which sought to apply principles of industrial efficiency to all sectors of society, including education.

A 1910 report underwritten by the Carnegie Foundation, Morris L.

Cooke’s “Academic and Industrial Efficiency,” explicitly advocated for this approach.

Cooke developed the concept of the “student hour” as a way to conduct unit-cost analysis, measure institutional productivity, and compare faculty workloads across departments and universities.⁵

Higher education was to be managed like a factory, and the credit hour was its essential unit of production.

Over the ensuing decades, this time-based currency became deeply and inextricably woven into every critical system of American education.

Its influence is so pervasive that it is often invisible, like the air administrators breathe.

The credit hour is the basis for:

• Degree Requirements: The modern bachelor’s degree is almost universally defined as the accumulation of 120 credit hours. A student’s progress is measured not by what they know or can do, but by how many units they have banked.¹⁶
• Federal Financial Aid: This is perhaps the most powerful force maintaining the status quo. A student’s eligibility for billions of dollars in federal aid, including Pell Grants and student loans, is directly tied to their enrollment status (e.g., full-time, half-time), which is defined by the number of credit hours they take per semester. This regulation makes it exceedingly difficult for institutions to adopt non-time-based models without jeopardizing their students’ ability to pay for their education.¹⁰
• University Accreditation: Regional accrediting bodies, which serve as the gatekeepers of quality and eligibility for federal funds, use the credit hour as a core metric. Their standards require institutions to have clear policies ensuring that a credit hour awarded “reasonably approximates” the minimum amount of student work defined by the original Carnegie Unit.¹⁸
• Credit Transfer: The credit hour acts as the “common currency” that facilitates the transfer of students between thousands of disparate institutions. It provides a standardized, though often flawed, way to translate coursework from a community college to a four-year university, for example.⁸

The true resilience of the Carnegie Unit lies in this systemic entanglement.

It is not a standalone pillar that can be easily removed; it is the reinforcing bar within the concrete foundation of the entire educational structure.

To change the credit hour is to demand a simultaneous and coordinated overhaul of the Department of Education’s financial aid regulations, the standards of all major accrediting bodies, the student information systems of every college, and the articulation agreements governing transfer between them.

This creates a colossal collective action problem.

No single institution can unilaterally abandon the credit hour without risking its accreditation, its students’ financial aid, and the portability of its degrees.

The unit survives not because of its merits, but because the cost and complexity of replacing it are astronomically high.

Part II: Cracks in the Foundation – A Critical Analysis of the Time-Based Paradigm

For all its administrative utility, the Carnegie Unit rests on a fundamentally flawed premise: that time is an adequate proxy for learning.

For decades, critics have chipped away at this foundation, revealing deep cracks in the logic of a time-based system.

The unit’s original sin—its creation as a tool of accounting rather than pedagogy—has led to a host of pathologies that devalue credentials, perpetuate hidden inequities, and stifle the very innovation our students and economy desperately need.

Measuring the Clock, Not the Learning: The Core Critique of “Seat Time”

The most persistent and damning critique of the Carnegie Unit is that it measures exposure, not knowledge.

By awarding academic credit based on “seat time,” the system creates a dangerous illusion of learning.

It allows for the accumulation of credits and the awarding of degrees that may be disconnected from any verifiable evidence of student mastery.³

This “proxy problem” is the source of endless frustration for educators and employers alike.

It masks vast differences in learning outcomes under a veneer of standardization.

A student who earns an “A” in a rigorous course receives the same three credits as a student who barely passes a less demanding section of the same course with a “D”.⁷

The transcript records the accumulation of time, but it is silent on the acquisition of competence.

Empirical research has given weight to these long-standing criticisms.

The landmark 2011 study Academically Adrift found that 45 percent of college students demonstrated no significant improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning, or writing skills during their first two years of college, and 36 percent showed no improvement over four years.¹⁴

They had dutifully logged their seat time and collected their credits, but the educational promise had gone unfulfilled.

The ultimate irony is that the Carnegie Unit’s most prominent critic today is its own creator.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching now leads the charge for reform, acknowledging that its century-old invention is, at best, a “crude proxy for student learning”.¹¹

The Foundation’s current leadership has declared that the unit’s reliance on “seat time” is “increasingly inadequate for the 21st-century economy” and is actively working with partners like the Educational Testing Service to “dethrone” the very metric it made ubiquitous.⁵

This widespread acceptance of the unit’s core flaw leads to a deeper, more troubling conclusion about the system it undergirds.

When the unit of currency is time, not learning, it creates a set of perverse incentives for everyone involved.

Students, rationally, may engage in a “credit chase,” seeking the path of least resistance to the 120 units required for graduation rather than the path of greatest learning.¹⁰

For institutions, particularly those facing enrollment and budget pressures, the credit hour is the billable unit.

This can create an implicit pressure to lower standards, inflate grades, and ensure students pass and re-enroll, because the financial health of the institution depends on the continuous sale of these time-based units.

In this way, the system can devolve into a form of “credit laundering,” where time and tuition are converted into credentials, with the actual learning left as a variable and often unmeasured byproduct.

The Equity Paradox: How Standardization Both Helps and Hinders

The Carnegie Unit’s relationship with educational equity is deeply paradoxical.

It was born from a desire for standardization that, on its face, seems equitable: ensuring that a high school diploma represents a common baseline of instructional time for all students.

Yet in practice, its rigid, one-size-fits-all nature now serves to perpetuate and mask the very inequities it was meant to address.

The argument for the unit as a tool of equity rests on the concept of “opportunity-to-learn”.¹⁰

In a vast and unequal system, the unit provides a minimum guarantee.

It ensures that students in under-resourced schools are, in theory, exposed to the same amount of instructional time as their peers in wealthier districts.

This can be seen as a crucial safeguard against a system where disadvantaged students might be short-changed on basic access to education.²⁶

The initial impulse to standardize was, in this sense, an attempt to level the playing field by ensuring everyone played for the same number of minutes.²⁸

However, this focus on equal time ignores the profound inequalities in the quality of that time.

The central critique from an equity perspective is that the time-based system holds the wrong variable constant.

It fixes time while allowing learning to be wildly variable.

A truly equitable system would do the opposite: it would hold the learning outcome constant—demanding mastery from every student—and allow time to be the variable that adjusts to meet individual student needs.¹³

The current model is a one-pace-fits-none system that systematically disadvantages diverse learners.

Students who enter with educational gaps, often from under-resourced backgrounds, need more time and support to reach mastery.

The fixed clock of the semester pushes them forward regardless, cementing their disadvantages and creating a cumulative deficit.¹³

Conversely, students who grasp concepts quickly are held back by the pace of the cohort, their potential stifled by the rigid schedule.³⁰

This system, by its very design, is ill-suited to serve the needs of a diverse student body, disproportionately failing those who do not fit the mold of the “average” student for whom the standardized schedule was designed.³¹

This reveals the unit’s most damaging illusion: it provides a superficial, easily measured “veneer of equity” that conceals profound underlying disparities.

The system’s logic equates 120 hours of chemistry instruction in a state-of-the-art lab in a wealthy suburb with 120 hours in an overcrowded, under-resourced classroom in an impoverished urban or rural district.²⁵

This is a demonstrable falsehood.

The quality of the teacher, the availability of materials, the level of student support, and the overall learning environment are vastly different.

By focusing on the easily quantifiable input—time—the system conveniently avoids confronting the much more complex and damning inequities in resources, processes, and actual learning outcomes.

It allows policymakers to point to a standardized metric as proof of a fair system, while that same metric serves to obscure the deep achievement gaps that persist and fester beneath the surface.

The Carnegie Unit standardizes the container, but it says nothing about the quality or quantity of what is inside.

The Innovation Bottleneck: Stifling Pedagogical and Structural Reform

Beyond its pedagogical and equity-related flaws, the Carnegie Unit’s systemic dominance acts as a powerful brake on educational innovation.

Its rigid, time-based accounting structure creates what the historians David Tyack and Larry Cuban called a system that has “frozen schedules, separated knowledge into discrete boxes, and created an accounting mentality better suited to a bank than to a school”.³⁴

This banking model of education actively discourages and constrains the very pedagogical and structural reforms needed to prepare students for the 21st century.

Educators have long sought to implement more dynamic and effective learning models, such as interdisciplinary studies, project-based learning, internships, work-based learning, and community-based projects.

These approaches are widely recognized as high-impact practices that foster deep learning, critical thinking, and real-world problem-solving skills.

Yet they all share a common enemy: the credit hour.

These rich experiences do not fit neatly into 50-minute blocks or 15-week semesters.

The administrative question—”How many credit hours is this internship worth?”—often overrides the pedagogical one, forcing innovative programs to contort themselves to fit the old measurement system.¹³

The system’s rigidity inherently discourages the flexibility that is the hallmark of personalized learning.¹⁰

It struggles to accommodate a student who masters a full semester of algebra in six weeks, or one who needs twenty weeks to achieve true proficiency.

The former is held back, while the latter is labeled a failure.

This structure is fundamentally at odds with the reality that different students learn at different paces and through different pathways.

This creates a powerful “pedagogical gravitational well.” New and innovative educational models can be launched like satellites, full of promise and potential.

But they are inevitably pulled back into the orbit of the massive, time-based planet at the center of the system.

To be legible and viable—to receive funding, to be accredited, to grant transferable credits—these innovations must learn to speak the language of the old regime.

They must translate their dynamic, non-linear learning experiences back into the static currency of credit hours.

A project-based program is forced to calculate the “equivalent” number of seat hours its students have completed.

A self-paced online course must still be tethered to the start and end dates of a traditional semester for financial aid purposes.

This act of translation fundamentally compromises the innovation.

Instead of breaking free from the time-based model, the new approach is simply assimilated by it.

Its transformative potential is blunted as its structures and philosophies are bent to conform to the demands of the old accounting system.

In this way, the Carnegie Unit ensures that even when we try to build something new, it ends up looking remarkably like the old.

Part III: Beyond the Clock – The Movement Toward a New Educational Currency

The persistent and multifaceted failures of the time-based paradigm have catalyzed a powerful movement toward a new vision for educational measurement.

This movement, broadly captured under the umbrella of “competency-based education,” seeks to fundamentally invert the traditional educational equation.

Instead of holding time constant and letting learning vary, it holds learning constant—demanding mastery from all—and allows time to become the variable.

This represents not merely a change in metrics, but a profound philosophical shift from an institution-centric model of managing schedules to a learner-centric model of certifying capabilities.

The Competency-Based Horizon: Principles of a New Paradigm

To navigate the landscape of reform, it is essential to understand the core principles and terminology of the emerging alternatives.

While often used interchangeably, terms like Competency-Based Education (CBE), Mastery-Based Learning, and Direct Assessment describe distinct but related concepts that together form the foundation of a new, learning-focused paradigm.

The following table provides a comparative framework to delineate the core differences between the traditional model and the competency-based approach.

Table 1: A Comparative Framework of Educational Models

Feature	Traditional (Carnegie-Based) Model	Competency-Based Education (CBE) Model
Unit of Progression	Time (“Seat Time” / Credit Hour)	Verified Mastery of a Competency
Pacing	Cohort-based; Fixed Term (Semester/Quarter)	Individualized; Flexible and Self-Paced
Assessment	Primarily Summative (Midterms, Finals); Graded (A-F)	Formative & Authentic; Performance-Based; Pass/Fail or Mastery/Not Yet Mastered
Role of Instructor	“Sage on the Stage” (Lecturer, Content Deliverer)	“Guide on the Side” (Facilitator, Coach, Mentor)
Credit Awarding	Based on hours of instruction	Based on demonstrated mastery of competencies
Handling of Failure	Receive failing grade; Must repeat entire course	Re-attempt assessment after more learning/practice
Learning Focus	Content Coverage	Skill Application and Knowledge Mastery

This framework clarifies the fundamental shifts proposed by the reform movement.

The core concepts are defined as follows:

• Competency-Based Education (CBE): This is the overarching framework. CBE is a system where the emphasis is on the outcomes, not the process. Students advance by demonstrating that they have acquired and can apply specific, clearly defined knowledge, skills, and abilities, known as “competencies”.³⁶ These competencies are often designed in collaboration with industry experts to ensure they are relevant to real-world performance and workplace needs.³⁷
• Mastery-Based Learning: This is a core instructional strategy within a CBE model. It requires students to achieve a high level of proficiency on a given concept or skill before they are permitted to move on to the next, more advanced topic.⁴⁰ This approach is designed to eliminate the learning gaps that accumulate in a traditional model where students can pass with a C or D. If a student does not demonstrate mastery on an assessment, they are not failed; instead, they are provided with additional instruction, practice, and support, and then given another opportunity to demonstrate their understanding.³⁰
• Direct Assessment: This is a specific regulatory and funding model of CBE recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. A Direct Assessment program is one that awards degrees and disburses federal financial aid based solely on the direct assessment of student learning, completely decoupling the credential from any measure of credit or clock hours.⁴³ This is the most radical departure from the Carnegie system and represents a true “pure” form of CBE, where time is entirely removed from the academic equation.

Taken together, these concepts represent a fundamental shift in the locus of control within education.

In the traditional model, the institution controls the calendar and the pace of instruction; the student’s responsibility is to keep up.⁴⁰

In a CBE model, the student controls the pace of their learning journey; the institution’s responsibility shifts from delivering lectures on a fixed schedule to providing a flexible ecosystem of resources, coaching, and on-demand support to help the learner achieve and demonstrate mastery.³⁷

This redefinition of roles—from lecturer to coach, from passive recipient to active agent—is both the greatest promise of CBE and the source of the most significant cultural resistance to its implementation, as it challenges the deepest structures of institutional authority and practice.⁴⁶

Pioneers and Pathways: Case Studies in Post-Carnegie Education

The shift from a time-based to a competency-based system is no longer a purely theoretical exercise.

Across the country, a growing number of pioneering states, school districts, and universities are actively building and implementing post-Carnegie models.

Their experiences provide a valuable, real-world look at both the transformative potential of this new paradigm and the formidable challenges that accompany such a fundamental change.

State-Level K-12 Reform:

• New Hampshire: As the undisputed trailblazer, New Hampshire began its journey in 2005, becoming the first state to pass legislation aimed at replacing the Carnegie Unit with competency-based graduation requirements in its high schools.⁴⁷ This bold policy move opened the door for significant innovation. Schools like
  Manchester School of Technology have leveraged this flexibility to create project-based, career-focused curricula where students engage in cross-disciplinary work aligned with real-world skills. North Country Charter Academy, an alternative high school, uses a competency-based model to serve dropouts, allowing them the flexibility to work at their own pace and re-engage with their education. However, New Hampshire’s journey also serves as a cautionary tale. The state’s strong tradition of local control has led to highly uneven implementation. While some schools have fully embraced the new model, others have struggled to move beyond superficial changes, creating competencies on paper without fundamentally altering their time-based teaching and grading practices. The state has faced persistent challenges in providing clear guidance and technical support, highlighting the difficulty of driving systemic change through policy alone.⁴⁸
• Other States: Inspired by New Hampshire’s lead, a majority of states now have policies that allow for or encourage competency-based approaches.⁴⁹ States like
  Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming have established pilot programs, grant funding, and networks to support districts in making the transition. Utah, for example, has seen about half of its districts begin the shift through its Personalized, Competency Based Learning program. Vermont passed its Flexible Pathways Initiative in 2013, requiring high schools to move toward proficiency-based graduation requirements.⁴⁹

Innovative K-12 Models:

Beyond statewide initiatives, individual schools and districts have become laboratories for innovation.

Kettle Moraine School District’s High School of Health Sciences in Wisconsin operates as a public charter, giving it the flexibility to use a competency-based model that integrates deep, experiential learning with healthcare partners—opportunities that would be constrained by a traditional, seat-time-based schedule.⁵⁰

Higher Education Pioneers:

In higher education, where the credit hour’s entanglement is deepest, the pioneers have often been institutions designed from the ground up for a different kind of student.

• Western Governors University (WGU): Founded in 1997, WGU is the most prominent and scaled example of a fully competency-based university in the United States. Serving over 100,000 students, WGU operates almost entirely on a direct assessment model. Students, who are often working adults, pay a flat-rate tuition per six-month term and can complete as many courses as they can master in that time. Progress is measured by passing a series of rigorous assessments, not by logging credit hours. WGU’s success has demonstrated the viability of the CBE model at scale and has become a blueprint for other institutions.⁵¹
• Other Institutions: A growing number of universities are launching their own CBE programs, often housed within larger, traditional institutions. Purdue University-Global, the University of Massachusetts-Global, and Southern New Hampshire University’s College for America have all developed successful competency-based offerings. These programs typically target non-traditional adult learners, leveraging the flexibility and potential for acceleration that CBE provides to serve a population for whom the traditional, residential, time-based model is a poor fit.²³

The collective experience of these pioneers reveals a clear and consistent pattern.

The transition from a time-based to a competency-based system is not a simple switch of metrics; it is a complex, resource-intensive process of institutional transformation.

There is a significant “implementation dip,” where initial enthusiasm confronts the difficult realities of redesigning every aspect of the educational enterprise: curriculum must be deconstructed into competencies; faculty must be retrained as coaches and facilitators; new assessment systems must be built and validated; and student information systems must be reconfigured to track mastery instead of time.

The institutions that have succeeded, like WGU, have often had the advantage of building their entire infrastructure around the new model from scratch—a luxury most existing schools and universities do not possess.

For those legacy institutions, the path is far steeper, requiring immense will, investment, and a tolerance for the messy, challenging work of fundamental change.

The Challenge of De-Throning a King: Systemic Hurdles to Widespread Adoption

Despite the compelling logic of competency-based education and the success of its pioneers, the Carnegie Unit remains firmly on its throne.

Its replacement is not a simple matter of demonstrating a better alternative; it requires dismantling a deeply entrenched infrastructure that actively resists change.

The hurdles to widespread adoption are not primarily pedagogical but systemic, rooted in the complex web of finance, regulation, and culture that the credit hour has spun over the last century.

The Four Great Barriers:

1. Federal Financial Aid: This is the Gordian knot of CBE implementation. The multi-trillion-dollar federal student aid system is built on the architecture of the credit hour. A student’s aid package is calculated based on their enrollment intensity, measured in credits per term.¹⁰ While the Department of Education has created a pathway for “Direct Assessment” programs to be eligible for aid, the approval process is rigorous and the model does not fit all programs. For many institutions, experimenting with CBE models that deviate from the standard credit-hour structure means putting their students’ financial aid—and thus their own enrollment and revenue—at risk.¹⁰
2. Accreditation and Transferability: The credit hour is the lingua franca of American higher education. It is the currency of transfer. A student with a competency-based transcript, which details mastered skills rather than courses completed for credit, faces a significant translation problem when trying to transfer to a traditional institution or apply to graduate school.⁸ How does a traditional admissions office equate a “demonstrated mastery of object-oriented programming” with “CS 101: 3 credits”? Until a robust, trusted exchange rate is established, students in innovative programs risk having their credentials devalued or misunderstood, creating a powerful disincentive for both students and institutions.
3. Infrastructure and Capacity: The operational lift required to transition from a time-based to a competency-based system is monumental. It demands a complete overhaul of institutional infrastructure. Student information systems, designed to track semesters and credits, must be replaced or radically reconfigured to track individual student progress through hundreds of competencies. Learning management systems must be able to support self-paced, personalized pathways. Faculty, accustomed to the role of lecturer, must be retrained through extensive professional development to become mentors and coaches. And, most critically, institutions must invest heavily in the design and validation of thousands of high-quality, authentic assessments.⁴⁸ For most institutions, especially those already facing budget constraints, the upfront cost and required expertise are prohibitive.
4. Assessment and the Specter of Rigor: Perhaps the most legitimate intellectual challenge to the CBE movement is the question of rigor. While “seat time” is a poor proxy for learning, it is, at the very least, a clear and consistent one. A key concern is that, without rigorous design and external validation, competency-based assessments could be gamed, leading to a “race to the bottom” where credentials are awarded for superficial performance.³⁴ Designing authentic, reliable, and scalable assessments for complex “21st-century skills” like critical thinking, collaboration, and creativity is an incredibly difficult psychometric challenge.²⁵ Critics rightly worry that replacing one flawed proxy (time) with another, potentially more malleable one (poorly designed assessments) would not be progress, but a step backward that could further erode the value of an academic credential.

These barriers create a significant risk that, even as CBE expands, it could lead to the emergence of a two-tier educational system.

Elite, well-resourced, traditional institutions have the least incentive to abandon the time-based model, as their prestige and brand value are deeply intertwined with it.²³

Meanwhile, competency-based models are being most aggressively adopted by institutions that serve non-traditional, adult, and often lower-income students for whom the flexibility of CBE is most appealing.²³

Without a universally accepted currency and a shared standard of rigor, this could result in a dangerous bifurcation.

The most privileged students would continue to earn degrees valued for their traditional prestige, while less privileged students are funneled into a new, more flexible system that, despite its pedagogical advantages, is perceived as less valuable by employers and graduate schools.

In this scenario, a reform movement born from a desire for equity could inadvertently end up reinforcing the very social and economic stratification it sought to dismantle.

Part IV: Synthesis and Forward Outlook

Conclusion: Reconciling Time, Learning, and the Future of the Credential

The story of the Carnegie Unit is a powerful lesson in unintended consequences.

Born over a century ago as a brilliant administrative solution to an industrial-age problem of standardization, it succeeded beyond its creators’ wildest dreams.

It brought order to a chaotic system, creating a common currency that enabled the unprecedented growth and mobility of American education.

Yet, in its very success, it embedded a fundamental flaw into the system’s DNA: it enthroned time, not learning, as the measure of educational attainment.

This report has traced the arc of that story, from the unit’s accidental origins in a professor’s pension fund to its colonization of every critical administrative, financial, and regulatory process in modern education.

Its non-pedagogical roots explain both its remarkable resilience and its inherent shortcomings.

Its deep entanglement with the machinery of financial aid and accreditation has created a powerful inertia, making it extraordinarily difficult to dislodge.

The consequences of this time-based paradigm are now clear and undeniable.

It has created a system that often measures the clock while ignoring the learning, fostering perverse incentives that can devalue the very credentials it is meant to certify.

It provides a fragile “veneer of equity,” masking deep disparities in quality and outcome beneath a standardized measure of time.

And it acts as a powerful gravitational well, pulling even the most promising pedagogical innovations back into the orbit of its rigid, time-bound structure.

In response, a powerful counter-movement has emerged.

Competency-based education represents a necessary and compelling paradigm shift—a move from the accountant’s timesheet to the pilot’s logbook.

It seeks to re-center the educational enterprise on its true purpose: ensuring the mastery of essential knowledge and skills.

This shift represents a fundamental transfer of agency from the institution to the learner, empowering students to progress at their own pace and take ownership of their educational journey.

However, the path forward is not a simple revolution.

The pioneers of this new model have shown that the “implementation dip” is steep and treacherous.

The systemic hurdles—from financial aid regulations to the immense challenge of developing scalable, high-quality assessments—are formidable.

A rushed or poorly managed transition risks not progress, but chaos, and could inadvertently create a two-tiered system that deepens existing inequities.

Therefore, the abolition of the Carnegie Unit is not the immediate goal.

A sudden removal of the system’s core operating currency would cause the entire structure to collapse.

The future lies not in a revolutionary overthrow, but in a strategic, evolutionary transition.

We must build the new system alongside the old, proving its value, strengthening its infrastructure, and establishing its currency until it is robust enough to become the new standard.

Recommendations for the Path Forward:

• For Policymakers: The most critical role for federal and state governments is to create space for innovation. This means establishing regulatory “sandboxes” that provide greater flexibility in financial aid and accreditation rules, allowing institutions to experiment with high-potential CBE and direct assessment models without putting their students or their institutional viability at risk. Furthermore, public investment is needed to support the research and development of the next generation of high-quality, authentic assessment tools that are essential for ensuring rigor and building trust in the new models.
• For Institutional Leaders: The most prudent path for most existing institutions is a dual-track strategy. Leaders should champion and invest in the development of high-quality, well-resourced pilot programs in competency-based education. These programs can serve as “on-ramps” for students who are best served by their flexibility—particularly adult and non-traditional learners—while the traditional, time-based system continues to operate for the majority. This requires a serious, long-term commitment to faculty professional development and the technological infrastructure necessary to support a fundamentally different mode of teaching and learning.
• For Educators and Researchers: The primary task for the field is to build the evidence base and the practical tools needed for the new paradigm to succeed. This involves rigorous research to identify what works, for whom, and under what conditions in competency-based models. It requires a collaborative effort to develop and validate authentic assessments that can be scaled reliably. And it demands the creation of networks and communities of practice where educators can share knowledge and support one another through the immense challenges of implementation.

For a century, we have managed education like accountants, meticulously tracking the hours logged.

The time has come to begin thinking like flight instructors, focusing not on the time spent in the simulator, but on the demonstrated ability to fly.

The task is to build a new currency for learning—a new logbook—that is as trusted, portable, and universally understood as the old timesheet, but which measures what truly matters: not the time a student has served, but what they are capable of doing.

Works cited

1. The Carnegie Unit: What is it? – SUNY System Administration, accessed August 14, 2025, https://system.suny.edu/media/suny/content-assets/documents/faculty-senate/ugrad/TheCarnegieUnit.pdf
2. Carnegie unit | Standardized Testing, Education Reform & Curriculum – Britannica, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Carnegie-unit
3. The Curious Birth of the Credit Hour – New America, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.newamerica.org/higher-education/higher-ed-watch/the-curious-birth-of-the-credit-hour/
4. The Origins of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Birth of TIAA-CREF : News, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.carnegie.org/news/articles/origins-carnegie-foundation-advancement-teaching-and-birth-tiaa-cref/
5. The High School Credit-Hour: A Timeline of the Carnegie Unit – Education Week, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-high-school-credit-hour-a-timeline-of-the-carnegie-unit/2022/12
6. Foundation History | Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about-us/foundation-history/
7. Carnegie Unit Definition – The Glossary of Education Reform -, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.edglossary.org/carnegie-unit/
8. Carnegie Unit and Student Hour – Wikipedia, accessed August 14, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Unit_and_Student_Hour
9. ED554803 – The Carnegie Unit: A Century-Old Standard in a Changing Education Landscape, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 2015-Jan – ERIC, accessed August 14, 2025, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED554803
10. The Carnegie Unit: A Century-Old Standard in a Changing Education Landscape – Lumina Foundation, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/carnegie-unit-report.pdf
11. Carnegie Foundation Releases Results of Two-Year Study on the Carnegie Unit, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/newsroom/news-releases/carnegie-foundation-releases-results-two-year-study-carnegie-unit/
12. S3E3: The Carnegie Unit, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.aacrao.org/resources/newsletters-blogs/for-the-record/for-the-record/2020/07/08/the-carnegie-unit
13. 2023- White paper on the Credit Hour – Macalester College, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.macalester.edu/strategic-plan/wp-content/uploads/sites/348/2023/02/2023-White-paper-on-the-Credit-Hour.pdf
14. Cracking the Credit Hour – ERIC, accessed August 14, 2025, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540304.pdf
15. files.eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu, accessed August 14, 2025, https://files.eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3725/2013/04/15233337/History-of-the-credit-hour.pdf
16. What is the Carnegie Unit?, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about/faqs/the-carnegie-unit/
17. The Carnegie Unit: A Century‐Old Standard in Changing Education – Lumina Foundation, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.luminafoundation.org/resource/the-carnegie-unit/
18. The Credit Hour – Academic Programs and Planning – Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, accessed August 14, 2025, https://academicprograms.calpoly.edu/content/academicpolicies/policies-courses/carnegie-unit
19. Credit Hours policy statement – sacscoc, accessed August 14, 2025, https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2019/08/Credit-Hours.pdf
20. ED470030 – Brief History of American Academic Credit System: A Recipe for Incoherence in Student Learning., 2002-Sep – ERIC, accessed August 14, 2025, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED470030
21. Transfer Credit – The HUB – Office of Enrollment Management – Carnegie Mellon University, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.cmu.edu/hub/registrar/registration/transfer-transcripts.html
22. New Emphasis on Learning – Ohio School Boards Association, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.ohioschoolboards.org/sites/default/files/State%20BOE%20CF%20Plan%207.31.09-1.pdf
23. Let’s Replace the Carnegie Unit – The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, accessed August 14, 2025, https://jamesgmartin.center/2023/08/lets-replace-the-carnegie-unit/
24. The Carnegie Unit: A Century-Old Standard in a Changing Education Landscape, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/resources/publications/carnegie-unit/
25. It May Be Time to Retire the Carnegie Unit. Are There Better Measures of Learning? – Education Week, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-it-may-be-time-to-retire-the-carnegie-unit-are-there-better-measures-of-learning/2024/05
26. Beyond the Carnegie Unit – Aurora Institute, accessed August 14, 2025, https://aurora-institute.org/cw_post/beyond-the-carnegie-unit/
27. Research: Ripping Out Carnegie Unit Won’t Guarantee Education Reform Success, accessed August 14, 2025, https://campustechnology.com/articles/2015/01/29/research-ripping-out-carnegie-unit-wont-guarantee-education-reform-success.aspx
28. The Carnegie Unit Is Exposed: A Systems Approach to High School Redesign – ALP, accessed August 14, 2025, https://alplearn.com/story/the-carnegie-unit-is-exposed-a-systems-approach-to-high-school-redesign/
29. The end of the Carnegie Unit. In this article, Ken O’Connor and James… | by The International Schools Network | Medium, accessed August 14, 2025, https://medium.com/@isnetwork/the-end-of-the-carnegie-unit-fe69253a151c
30. Understanding Mastery-Based Learning | Edmentum, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.edmentum.com/articles/mastery-based-learning/
31. A Framework for Scaling for Equity | Carnegie Foundation, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Framework-for-Scaling-Equity.pdf
32. Equity in Education: Understanding Equity in the Classroom | NU – National University, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.nu.edu/blog/equity-in-education/
33. Criticism of credit scoring systems in the United States – Wikipedia, accessed August 14, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_credit_scoring_systems_in_the_United_States
34. Is It Time to Ditch the Carnegie Unit? | American Enterprise Institute – AEI, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.aei.org/op-eds/is-it-time-to-ditch-the-carnegie-unit/
35. Let’s Move Beyond the Carnegie Unit | AASA, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.aasa.org/resources/resource/beyond-carnegie-unit
36. Competency-Based Education – Aurora Institute, accessed August 14, 2025, https://aurora-institute.org/our-work/competencyworks/competency-based-education/
37. The Complete Guide to Competency-Based Education – D2L, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.d2l.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-competency-based-education/
38. Competency Based Education: What is it, And How Your School Can Use it – Prodigy, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.prodigygame.com/main-en/blog/competency-based-education
39. Competency-Based Education Guide: Benefits & Differences To Traditional Education for 2025 | Research.com, accessed August 14, 2025, https://research.com/education/competency-based-education
40. How Does Mastery-Based Learning Work? – CT.gov, accessed August 14, 2025, https://portal.ct.gov/sde/mastery-based-learning/how-does-mastery-based-learning-work
41. What is Mastery-Based Learning? – Modern Classrooms Project, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.modernclassrooms.org/blog/what-is-mastery-based-learning
42. Mastery learning – Wikipedia, accessed August 14, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastery_learning
43. Direct Assessment Competency-Based Education | California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.cccco.edu/About-Us/Chancellors-Office/Divisions/Educational-Services-and-Support/da-cbe
44. DIRECT ASSESSMENT COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS – Policy Statement – sacscoc, accessed August 14, 2025, https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2019/08/DirectAssessmentCompetencyBased.pdf
45. The relationship between competency-based education and direct assessment – Capella University, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.capella.edu/blog/competency-based-education/relationship-between-competency-based-education-and-direct-assessment/
46. What is Competency-Based Education? – American Association of Colleges of Nursing, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.aacnnursing.org/essentials/tool-kit/competency-based-education
47. Credit Hours Are a Relic of the Past. How States Must Disrupt High School — Now – The 74, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.the74million.org/article/credit-hours-are-a-relic-of-the-past-how-states-must-disrupt-high-school-now/
48. New Hampshire’s Journey Toward Competency-Based Education …, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.educationnext.org/new-hampshires-journey-toward-competency-based-education/
49. All States Allow Competency-Based Learning. Will It Become a Reality in Schools?, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/technology/all-states-allow-competency-based-learning-will-it-become-a-reality-in-schools/2024/09
50. Redesigning High School Around Competency-based Education and Pathways at Kettle Moraine – KnowledgeWorks, accessed August 14, 2025, https://knowledgeworks.org/resources/high-school-competency-based-education-healthcare-wisconsin/
51. Competency-Based Education | A New Way to Learn | WGU, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.wgu.edu/about/story/cbe.html
52. The Coming Transformation of the Credit and Degree System in American Higher Education: An Historical Perspective – Parchment, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.parchment.com/wp-content/uploads/Levine-IssueBrief.pdf
53. The Carnegie Unit – Revisited, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/blog/the-carnegie-unit-revisited/
54. Moving Away from Credit Hours in Higher Education – Center for American Progress, accessed August 14, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/moving-away-from-credit-hours-in-higher-education/
55. Navigating the Pitfalls of Competency-Based Learning – The Core Collaborative, accessed August 14, 2025, https://thecorecollaborative.com/navigating-the-pitfalls-of-competency-based-learning/
56. Tackling Challenges While Adopting Competency-Based Education – Newlane University, accessed August 14, 2025, https://newlane.edu/challenges-while-adopting-competency-based-education-2/