<p>Anyone who reads the boards here knows that I am not a big fan of rankings. But, I’ve been doing research on graduation rates at various colleges and universities and thought I’d share the top 10 schools for 4-year graduation rates, both public and private. This is one “ranking” measure that I think really matters: at which school are you most likely to graduate in 4 years?</p>
<p>Top 10 Private School 4-Year Graduation Rates</p>
<li>Williams (91.7% 4 year graduation rate)</li>
<li>Princeton (91.5)</li>
<li>Georgeton and Yale (tied at 89.5)</li>
<li>Amherst (88.9)</li>
<li>Davidson (88.7)</li>
<li>Haverford (88.6)</li>
<li>Duke (88)</li>
<li>Holy Cross (Par, this one’s for you!) tied with Harvard (87.5)</li>
<li>Boston College (87)</li>
<li>Wellesley College (86.4)</li>
</ol>
<p>Top 10 Public School 4-Year Graduation Rates
(I have excluded the service academies which all make the list, and in fact would take up the first several positions if they were included)
<p>I think that is the most idiotic set of rankings I have ever seen. Gtwon, Haverford, BC do not belong in the top 10 or 15 in any overal set of rankings.</p>
<p>Well, if you have money and time to spare, sure, getting out in 4 years or not doesn't matter. Most people, however, would rather finish their undergraduate degree in a relatively short time span and move on to other things like graduate school, working, etc.</p>
<p>The 4-year graduation rate is also an indication, although not perfect, of how well a particular school serves its undergraduates: Can they get the classes they need to graduate on time? Do they have adequate support and advising? etc. Obviously, some people will drop out or transfer for other reasons but when you see a school with a 39% 4-year graduation rate, you have to wonder about the overall quality of the school.</p>
<p>Obviously, like all rankings, this isn't a perfect measurement, but I find it interesting and useful. By the way, in case anyone says "but of course all of those schools make the list! They are all schools with top students!" I have broken this down by SAT medians and found that while there is some correlation, individual schools at various SAT medians vary greatly.</p>
<p>Wait, now that's not fair. The OP was merely exploring which schools had the best 4-year-graduation rates. If those are the schools that kick butt, those are them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, if you have money and time to spare, sure, getting out in 4 years or not doesn't matter. Most people, however, would rather finish their undergraduate degree in a relatively short time span and move on to other things like graduate school, working, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And here we have my biggest gripe with most college students. They can't wait to go and rush into 6 more years of school, or get ready for their lives in a cubicle. It's too bad that perspective is wasted on the old.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The 4-year graduation rate is also an indication of how well a particular school serves its undergraduates: Can they get the classes they need to graduate on time? Do they have adequate support and advising? etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This may or may not be true. Some students stay because they have a lot of opportunities to explore. I stuck around for a fourth year (almost finished in 3) because I wanted to go abroad. I'd do it again in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>Collegekid. I am talking about a person's chances of graduating in 4 years. If you want to know which schools will give you the best chance of graduating in 4 years are, these are them. And, yes, Georgetown, Haverford, Holy Cross, and Boston College are among the top ten schools if you want to have the best chance of graduating in 4 years. Simple as that.</p>
<p>UCLA, I hear you, and I understand. The flip side of this would be to look at schools where the highest percentage of students transfer out --- that would be quite telling, I think. Unfortunately, most schools refuse to give out that data, although I do have information on quite a few that would surprise many folks here.</p>
<p>College Kid (and others), one of the reasons I started looking at this is because I personally find the methods used in computing overall rankings to not really be a solid measure of the undergraduate experience at most colleges and universities. Sometimes, it is informative to break things down into smaller chunks of one-point data to see how various schools compare on individual variables that relate more to actual undergraduate experience. Often, the results are surprising. This is a perfect example of why relying too heavily on overall "rankings" in making your college choice can be misleading.</p>
<p>If money is an issue, or you are anxious to go on to graduate or professional school, or you just want to get out into the work world, knowing the schools where you will have the best chance of graduating in 4 years is, indeed, important.</p>
<p>One of the reason to go to a State school is to keep costs down. That allows the student many chances to explore his options. My S is majoring in engineering, but is taking all the classes required of Math and Business majors as well. At his present rate, he will have about 200 credits, two degrees and a minor, by the time he graduates. This will take him 4-5 years, plus some summer work.</p>
<p>I would argue that he is getting a superior education because of this...all because I can afford to send him to school and take all these extra classes...and spend the extra time he needs to accomplish it. If he was in an expensive private school....he would be fast-tracked to get out in 4 years..period. And, I would argue, his undergraduate education would be inferior as a result. </p>
<p>So, for students like my son at least, the "rankings" shown above are meaningless.</p>
<p>At some schools (mostly state U's) lots of kids work part-time and pretty much pay their own way. Many of those students take more than four years to graduate. There is some overlap between the wealth of the students family and graduating in four years.</p>
<p>And there are probably kids that attend one of the schools on this 4-year graduate rate ranking list that take 5 or 6 years to graduate! I just hope the heck mine isn't one of them. The buck stops at 4 years. Any additional time spent would definitely be "priceless" (to us that is). :)</p>
<p>Carolyn...agreed. But I don't think cross-comparing privates vs. publics is reasonable in this regard. As individual groups, fine. You just won't find too many kids at Privates just hanging around and taking a bunch of classes unrelated to their major....it's just too expensive.</p>
<p>Four years is no longer the norm for some programs.</p>
<p>Due to practicums, extensive requirements (some imposed by outside agencies as much as the college itself), co-op programs, and other factors, many engineering, education, and pharmacy majors are simply not 4-year programs. </p>
<p>Thus, the ranking unfairly punishes any school which graduates a significant number of students in these areas. The school may do a bang-up job getting students out the door in time in every program it offers, yet look weak in a 4-year measure when compared against peers without those programs.</p>
<p>Thanks for the rankings, carolyn! Considering how rabid high school students are about AP credit so they can "graduate early," I'm surprised more people aren't interested in graduation rates (especially considering how many students are so anxious to get into medical/law school!). Students show increasing interest in double majors, major/minor combinations, etc. These often take more than the traditional 4 years. One of the schools I applied to offered a special program so that you could double major but graduate in 4 years instead of 6! Since I'd rather not spend 5 or 6 years in college, or have to apply for a special program to graduate on time, I think graduation rates are important...Schools like Duke have students studying abroad (often for a year) that still manage to graduate on time. Yes, believe it or not, study abroad can count for graduation credits! I do think it's interesting that all of the schools "ranked" have a reputation for having an undergraduate focus-none of the larger schools, like the UCs, made the list, and many of the schools are LACs. "Pressure cooker" schools like MIT, Caltech, and U Chicago are missing from the list. These schools provide fine educations- but how many drop out? </p>
<p>I see a few problems, though. Schools with rigid cores like U Chicago and Columbia are less flexible, so it's understandable if a student takes an extra year to graduate. Another problem is accelerated programs. Many schools offer a BA/MA or BS/MS after 5 years- this reflects poorly on the graduation rate, but it is good for the student.</p>
<p>For all the reasons people have noted, 6-year rates seem more meaningful. Not everyone who takes 5 or 6 years was enrolled all that time. So the lower rates may reflect students taking advantage of opportunities, perhaps some brought to them by the colleges.</p>
<p>Of course, higher rates require either a wealthier student body, or more financial aid. Many state schools have low rates because students leave college to work. The rich schools with relatively well-off students have much less of this going on.</p>
<p>Six-year rankings would look somewhat different. Quite a few places would beat Williams 96%, and even more would beat Georgetown's 93%. Harvard, at 97.8, is no longer tied with Holy Cross (89.8)</p>
<p>At the extremes (high and low graduation rates), the rates simply reflect wealth and poverty, the degree to which students have to drop out for financial reasons. If it were to be indicative of anything, one would have to run it against average family income (of the bottom half of the student population) to see which ones were truly "outperformers".</p>