This article was posted was posted today in the Chronicle of Higher Education:
Here’s my question – what about tracking the success of traditional students? Why is tracking non-traditional students the best thing since sliced bread? I understand that non-traditional students have a lower success rate, but it’s not like traditional students have it easy.
Also, while I’m ranting – what exactly is a “traditional student?” Maybe they should use the phrase “stereotypical student” instead. It’s my opinion that “traditional students” are a thing of the past.
Am I the only one bothered by this?