Measuring What Matters: Why Academic Pathways Need Shared Evidence, Not Just Good Intentions 

Across higher education, academic pathway programs play a critical role in widening access to degrees, research careers, and faculty positions for students who have historically been excluded from the academy. These programs exist at every stage of the pipeline, from K–12 engagement through postdoctoral and early career faculty development. 

Yet despite their longevity and reach, pathway programs often face a familiar challenge: how to demonstrate their value in ways that resonate with funders, institutions, and policymakers—especially in a policy environment increasingly focused on short-term outcomes. 

The problem is not a lack of impact. It’s a lack of shared evidence. 

Pathway programs are frequently asked to justify their existence using metrics that were never designed to capture how long-term, developmental interventions actually work. Outcomes such as persistence, progression, and career trajectories unfold over years, not semesters. When programs operate in isolation, they are left to navigate these pressures alone—often reinventing measurement frameworks that remain difficult to compare or scale. 

This is where collaboration becomes essential. 

In 2025, a group of long-standing academic pathway initiatives came together through the Council of Academic Pathway Programs (CAPP), launched in partnership with the Academic Pipeline Project. Rather than focusing on branding or advocacy, the council set out to tackle a more foundational challenge: how can pathway programs align around shared measures of success while respecting the diversity of their missions, institutions, and populations served? 

CAPP spans the academic continuum—from early exposure programs to faculty-level pathways—and represents tens of thousands of participants and alumni across disciplines. When program leaders convened in person for the first time in October 2025, the emphasis was on substance. Conversations focused on what outcomes matter most, how to measure them responsibly, and how collective evidence could strengthen the case for sustained investment. 

One result of this work is the THRIVE Index, a shared, evidence-based framework designed to evaluate pathway program outcomes over time. Rather than relying on narrow or short-term indicators, the framework prioritizes persistence, progression, and long-term career impact—dimensions that better reflect how pathways function and why they matter. 

Equally important, CAPP is creating space for collaboration across institutional boundaries. By sharing data approaches, lessons learned, and narratives of impact, programs are better positioned to speak collectively—without flattening the complexity of individual models. The council is also laying the groundwork for collaborative publishing and broader dissemination, ensuring that both participant scholarship and program-level insights reach audiences beyond the highereducation community. 

This kind of collective, evidence-based approach is especially important in a moment of heightened scrutiny. Pathway programs are often asked to prove their worth under conditions that favor simplicity over nuance. Shared frameworks and data-driven narratives offer an alternative—one that demonstrates impact at scale while acknowledging the long-time horizons and structural barriers these programs are designed to address. 

Supporting efforts like CAPP reflects a broader commitment to inclusive knowledge creation and responsible scholarship. Sustainable change in higher education does not come from isolated success stories. It comes from partnerships that invest in shared evidence, collective learning, and systems that make opportunity visible—and durable—over time. 

If academic pathways are to remain open for future generations, they must also be measurable, collaborative, and resilient. CAPP offers one model for how that work can happen—and why it matters now.