Abstract Background For over a decade, growth‐oriented achievement goal constructs like potential‐based goals and personal best goals have remained relatively unnoticed. This empirical study aims to highlight that goal theorists might be limiting themselves by not incorporating potential‐based goals into their frameworks. Aims The primary objective of this research was to underscore the significant yet underappreciated role of potential‐based goals in empirical studies within the 3 × 2 achievement goal framework. Samples The sample comprises 10,079 international undergraduate students from a Dutch university, drawn from nine cohorts spanning academic years from 2015/2016 to 2023/2024. Methods To validate the eight‐factor measurement model of achievement goals, we employed first and second‐order confirmatory factor analyses. Correlational analysis and structural equation models were utilized to explore the relationships between achievement goal measures, various learning dispositions, and academic performance. Results Our analysis shows that all eight goal constructs clearly distinguish and confirm both first‐order and second‐order factor analysis models based on approach and avoidance factors. Further analyses include obtaining correlations and structural equation prediction models, where goal setting facets predict learning mindsets, such as intelligence theories, effort beliefs, autonomous and controlled regulation, motivation, engagement, learning approaches, and performance strategies. Conclusions Within a system of criterion‐referenced grading of courses, our findings indicate that potential‐based goals play a pivotal role in exploring relationships with other learning dispositions and predicting performance. It is therefore imperative to incorporate these goals into our measurement instruments for goal frameworks, even if it means prioritizing them over other types of intrapersonal goals.