In its purest form, the purpose of assessment is to use evidence to give an account of and improve student learning, but assessment is rarely practiced in its purest form. For many staff and faculty in higher education, assessment is something they are asked or, more likely, required to do. The reason is because some external entity has required that their bosses document assessment practices at their institution. So more often than not, assessment is not practiced in its ideal form as collaborative inquiry into student learning. This means that when one considers the success of assessment as a means of improving student learning, the larger external forces that shape how it is practiced must be considered. A classic conceptual tool for project managers is the Iron Triangle. The thrust of the Iron Triangle is that the quality of any project is dictated by how three factors: scope, cost, and speed are prioritized. These factors constrain each another. In order to maintain the quality of a project, increasing the scope of the project will either lengthen the project timeline, increase the project cost, or both. Likewise, maintaining the quality of a project while cutting the project budget will lead to reduction of the scope or increase the timeline of the project. The Iron Triangle is a way of reminding clients that when it comes to implementing a project, one cannot have it all. Big, fast, or cheap--pick two. The authors think this analogy is an important reminder that also applies to assessment in higher education. They in fact, believe that external forces have already "picked two," expansive scope and low cost, for assessment at most colleges and universities and if the impact of assessment on student learning is going to be improved, higher education needs to acknowledge the constraints imposed by the two sides of the Iron Triangle that have already been chosen for higher education leaders.