Applying Normal Time to Completion Methodology to CDS Sections B.D–B.F

61 views

Skip to first unread message

Patrick Elliott

unread,

Jan 21, 2026, 1:21:41 PMJan 21

to Common Data Set (CDS), Wendy Bussure

Hello colleagues,

I’m seeking guidance from the group on how others are handling Common Data Set (CDS) Sections B.D, B.E, and B.F when an institution’s normal time to completion differs from the traditional four-year bachelor’s model.

By way of background, our institution has a required cooperative education model with a normal time to completion of 4.5 years. After consulting directly with the IPEDS Help Desk, we received confirmation that IPEDS graduation rate calculations may be adapted to an institution’s normal time to completion (e.g., treating 4.5 years as 100% and 6.75 years as 150%), with an important caveat: the IPEDS cohorts themselves cannot be altered, only how completion within those fixed cohorts is interpreted and reported.

In other words, IPEDS was clear that:

We may adjust percentage-based completion rates using our normal time to completion (4.5 years).
We may not change the cohort year used in GR or GR200; those are fixed by IPEDS.
Institutions are expected to report the best available data at the time of collection, with later revisions allowed where applicable.

We are now considering whether to apply the same methodology to the Common Data Set, specifically for:

B.D – Completion in four years or less
B.E – Completion in more than four but five years or less
B.F – Completion in more than five but six years or less

Unlike IPEDS, CDS does not appear to provide explicit definitions for these rows when an institution’s normal time to completion is not four years. Our goal is methodological consistency across IPEDS and CDS, using normal time to completion (4.5 years) as the basis for interpreting these completion windows, while keeping cohorts consistent with those requested in each survey.

Before moving forward, I wanted to ask the group:

Have others with extended or non-traditional program lengths applied a similar normal-time methodology to CDS Sections B.D–B.F?
Is there community consensus or informal best practice on this point?
Have you received any guidance (formal or informal) from CDS, peer institutions, or accreditors on how to approach these rows?

Any insight or shared experience would be greatly appreciated. Our intent is transparent, consistent reporting that accurately reflects student pathways while aligning IPEDS and CDS methodologies as closely as possible.