A different sort of ranking

College Search & Selection
21

<p>Thanks for your research, Carolyn. </p>

<p>However, mini's point about income is relevant -- the UC's accept significantly more Pell Grantees (2x, 3x?) than do other top state U's. Obviously, these kids are poor coming in, and a Pell does not even cover tuition. Thus, working PT/FT is mandatory.</p>

<p>How about another way to look at these colleges...how many of them rank "Extracurriculars" and/or "Service" as Important or Very Important in the app process? (It takes middle class or wealthy families to be able to participate in those things.)</p>

22

<p>well, 20% of UVA students come from family of over 20K income, so i'm not surprised.</p>

23

<p>Mini, To a certain extent you are right. HOWEVER, there are schools with high rates of low income students (as measured by Pell grants) that do a decent job of getting kids out in 4 years so I don't think it is solely a matter of income as much as it is where the school sets priorities in terms of supporting those low income students. Here's an interesting article that looks at several of these schools, all of which, Blue, have higher graduation rates than the UC's. See, in particular, Alcorn State, with something like 70% pell grant recipients.
<a href="http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/80202D18-D1DF-4897-9360-F33C16DF88F3/0/Choosing_to_improve.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/80202D18-D1DF-4897-9360-F33C16DF88F3/0/Choosing_to_improve.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

24

<p>I don't think cross-comparing privates vs. publics is reasonable in this regard. As individual groups, fine. >></p>

<p>Rogracer, that's exactly why I separated the two out. I don't think it is fair to compare publics and privates.</p>

25

<p>Yep. Like many measures, you really have to compare only among similar colleges. It's really unfair to compare graduatation rates among wealthy private college student body to that of a state university.</p>

<p>There's also the flip-side of the argument. Do we really want academically-rigorous schools where everyone graduates in four years? As someone aptly pointed out the other day, this would be Lake Wobeegon College, where all of the students are "above average".</p>

<p>The former Pres. of Stanford pointed this out in his letter to USNEWS blasting their rankings. He suggested that Caltech got killed in the rankings because of a relatively low graduation rate. But asked whether Caltech would really be a "better" school if it weren't so demanding?</p>

26

<p>ID - the issue to me isn't 4 year, 5 year or 6 year graduation rates. It's how MANY actually graduate at all. I used 4 year because that is the cultural expectation for graduation, but if we looked at 6 year rates, the results would still be similar. And, certainly in Wobegon college all students would have 4 year full scholarships. :)</p>

<p>Regarding Pell grants. I looked up the numbers for the schools on the two lists -- Amherst, Haverford and Wellesley all have over 10% pell grants, relatively high for private schools. All are in the top ten for 4 year grad rates. Yet, schools like Northwester, Cornell, Columbia, Hamilton and Swarthmore that have similar pell grant rates are significantly lower in 4 year grad rates. Additionally, many schools, such as U of Penn. are significantly lower in pell grants yet are not in the top 10. </p>

<p>The story is the same in publics - no real correlation in the pell grants and graduation rates. SUNY Binghamton makes the top 10 and has 31.9 percent pell grants. UCB and UCLA have similar numbers of pell grants yet aren't anywhere near the top ten. And, many publics have lower numbers of pell grants than these three schools yet are not any better in terms of graduation rates. </p>

<p>So, I do not see the direct correlation between pell grants and graduation rates that Mini and Blue would like to believe is there.</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That might be true for 6-year, but not necessarily for 4-year. I mean, I think you're onto something important, and you're right that it may be a big factor. However, I disagree with the idea that the rates "simply reflect" socioeconomic factors. It's not that simple.</p>

<p>Any school with no professional programs and no practicum requirements will have an edge over one with, say an engineering school, when measured by 4-year rates.</p>

28

<p>
[quote]
Yet, schools like Northwester, Cornell, Columbia, Hamilton and Swarthmore that have similar pell grant rates are significantly lower in 4 year grad rates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know Hamilton that well, but the other four schools all have signficant engineering programs -- a particularly demanding field that tends to throw "x" number of kids for a loop right out of the blocks.</p>

<p>Swat's grad 4-year rate last year was 86.1%, so I don't know that it is 'significantly' lower than, say, Wellesley at 86.4%. Especially when you consider that it is very tough academically. I don't have a feel for the numbers, but there is no question that they lose a slug of freshmen and sophmores who either can't, or don't care to, work that hard. It's a difficult place to "just slide by".</p>

<p>They've been averaging about 86% for the last seven years or so, except for a two-year dip in 2001 and 2002 following the euthanasia of the football team. The college worked to arrange transfers for a quite a few members of the team. The most recent USNEWS used the 2001 senior class for 4-year rate. The new Common Data Set uses the 2002 senior class. Both of these year were down about 4% from the average (14 students, or about the number of football "tips" per academic class -- likely the kids who transfered out). These two classes also represented the final two recruiting classes with increased numbers of "low-band" football admits in a last-gasp attempt to turn the football program around. The problem with that effort was that Swarthmore doesn't really offer a "low-band" athlete academic track and doesn't really have a constituency interested in implementing one. </p>

<p>What I find interesting is that graduation rates have been going through the roof. Back in the 1970s, Swat averaged somewhere under 75% 4-year graduation rate. I suspect that this increase is due primarily to the student support, mentoring services, and safety nets installed along with affirmative action. My impression is that, if you go to all the classes, turn in something for each assignment, and are willing to stick it out, you'll graduate. I think all of these colleges used to "invite" more students to leave.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/institutional_research/GradRates.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/institutional_research/GradRates.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>BTW, I didn't mean to imply that the Pell Grant explanation applied to Swarthmore. Like most big endowment schools, not many kids are failing to graduate for financial reasons. I do think that factor makes it difficult to compare disparate types of schools (wealthy private vs state u.). It's not just the Pell Grants, it's readily available discretionary funds to step in and keep a kid going who has run out of money.</p>

29

<p>Graduation in 4 years depends on the student, his or her ability to keep up academically, and the ability to not be a screw-up. Also, some schools like Yale FORCE you out after 4 years so it's either you graduate or you don't. Other schools (like cornell's arch program) are 5 years long. Another factor is double majoring. I have brilliant friends at state schools that are double/triple majoring over a 5 year period. Unless a school has an abysmally low 4 year graduation rate, that's a pretty useless set of rankings with all due respect.</p>

30

<p>Carolyn, I think your list is very useful to determiner what school serves its undergraduate better, especially for state universities. I heard about stories that state U students can't get the classes they need to graduate on time. Can you list 4-year graduation rates of all major state universities? Thanks.</p>

31

<p>One of the interesting bits of research that has come out of the higher education community is the "expected" graduation rate. </p>

<p>That is, with many of the elite colleges discussed here, a high graduation rate isn't just a function of the school's attention to undergraduate education. </p>

<p>Some of these kids would succeed anywhere. These colleges recruit driven, ambitious students who were bound to graduate and do so on time.</p>

<p>That's where the expected graduation rate comes in. They've calculated the graduation rate you'd expect given the calibre of student recruited. US News employs this and compares it to the actual graduation rate. If the graduation rate is higher, then the college is doing an exceptional job keeping students enrolled and getting them to graduate. If their graduation rate is lower, then they're losing/delaying more students than predicted, either by transfer, drop out, stop out, or lack of progress. Factors like the college environs and the adequacy of financial aid may play a role (in either direction). It may also have to do with how well (or not) the college has communicated itself, its workload, its social life, etc, to students before they enroll. </p>

<p>In that light, Holy Cross is even more impressive. Hamilton, Trinity, and Colgate are also way up there. Not only do they have a high graduation rate, but they outperform what would be expected. My own alma mater (small woman's college) doesn't look so hot--clearly they're losing a lot of students to transfer. Swarthmore and Harvey Mudd are some of the top-ranked colleges which don't measure up as well, either.</p>

32

<p>Thank you, Carolyn for pointing out that there are many ways to look at published numbers to develop individual rankings. The key word being individual! The ONLY value of the US News report is that they simplify the task to find all the numbers. Once the numbers are listed, it is easy to toss out the elements that ONE considers ludicrous and keep what is important. </p>

<p>In this case, graduation rates in four years may be important for some students. Further, for some, high graduation rates indicate a level "education excellence", but for some it also indicates a serious issue of grade inflation - a term that seem to have been invented at the Seven Sisters! The reality is that it is easier to graduate from many prestigious schools than to "get in". Thus, everyone ought to weigh the different criteria. In equating graduation rates to education excellence, one should notice that schools such as Caltech or Cornell Engineering won't ever show up in the higher levels of graduation lists. Why would the best of the best be penalized for maintaining high standards and grading integrity be penalized and schools with profound aversions for anything lower than a B be rewarded? That is something to ponder. </p>

<p>As far, as the correlation with income level, once more with hit the difference between correlation and causality. If we believe the theories advanced by some, there is a direct realtion between SAT scores, GPA and income ... so it would be almost expected that students who entered schools in the lowest quartile would be among the graduation victims. </p>

<p>Also, it is quite disingenuous to imply that ONLY the Pell grantees hhave to worry about working to earn money. Actually, as fas as EDUCATION expenses, the situation is easier for people with very low EFC. There is an abundance of scholarships or school policies that will convert most loans and work study into full grants. On the other hand, many students of low and middle class families are in a real pickle to comply with the terms of the finaid package that contain summer eraning expectations, work study AND ALSO need to cover the part of their EFC that parents cannot contribute. </p>

<p>The argument that some of the poorest students need to send money home is entirely irrelevant to a discussion of financing HIGHER education. Simply stated, it is NOT the role of financial aid nor the role of the government to repackage a welfare assistance into the form of education funding. </p>

<p>When reading the lamentations of middle class families that have not prepared very well for the growing college expensesm, we are very quick to point out that attending very expensive shools is not an ENTITLEMENT. Why would there be two weigh and two measures. The reliaty is that if the trend of rising tuition and expenses is not curbed back to levels espousing inflation, the most expensive schools will become populated by the very rich ... and the very poor in quasi-exclusivity.</p>

<p>I am not diminishing AT ALL the fact that the road to higher education is very difficult for low income families. However, many of the hurdles they have to overcome are not germane to education financing per se. </p>

<p>The neighboor's grass is indeed always greener.</p>

33

<p>Carolyn:</p>

<p>perhaps you have other data, but the posted article specifically fails to show Alcorn State's 6-yr grad rate. (note its absence in the summary data box, and its 25% 1st yr dropout rate). </p>

<p>Xiggi:</p>

<p>Your point about grade inflation cannot be overlooked. Schools that grade on a C curve, are gonna give out D's and F's. Other inflation schools (we know who they are LOL), grading on a B+ curve, may give out a few Ds to go with a lot of C minuses. Obviously, much easier to stay in under that scenario.</p>

<p>while you are correct that lower middle income also face daunting bills to finance higher education, hopefully you are aware that public schools do not offer the similar packages than do privates, i.e.., free at H and Y if income less than $40k. A similar student applying to a UC could likely expect that tuition will be covered by a Cal grant & Pell Grants, but not room and board, books, nor travel. Thus, loans will be required, or part-time work, or attend jc for two years where life is much less expensive, and then transfer back. </p>

<p>(btw: I'm not suggesting that colleges and universities become another social assistance program, just stating the situation as it is today.)</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
perhaps you have other data, but the posted article specifically fails to show Alcorn State's 6-yr grad rate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe it's 45%</p>

35

<p>"Simply stated, it is NOT the role of financial aid nor the role of the government to repackage a welfare assistance into the form of education funding."</p>

<p>Hey, that's how my parents went to college. It was called the GI Bill. (Too many unemployed veterans walking around the streets with guns and time on their hands is a dangerous thing!)</p>

<p>And the reason they do it is obvious - it is CHEAPER for government to try to ensure an educated workforce than to provide direct assistance, and it is actually a form of welfare to large corporations, which would otherwise have to foot the worker training bill.</p>

36

<p>If anyone wants to look up specific colleges/universities, a good source is <a href="http://www.collegeresults.org%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.collegeresults.org&lt;/a>. You can sort by various factors, including SATs, public or private, etc.</p>

37

<p>Mini, you are indeed correct, but you also know that I am 100% behind supporting the STUDENTS. Unless I am mistaken, the GI Bill and current programs for Veteranss are meant to help people attending college. </p>

<p>I was addressing the issue of students hoping -or having - to support their parents or others while being full-time students.</p>

38

<p>Bluebayou, your point is well taken ... and duly noted. </p>

<p>I think that for the overwhelming majority of families with students in college, the situation is never easy. The range must vary from almost impossible to very hard, and the sacrifices are very real and last much longer than the four years in college.</p>

39

<p>Student income definitely affects graduation rates. See</p>

<p>Ralph Stinebrickner and Todd R. Stinebrickner, “Understanding Educational Outcomes of Students from Low-Income Families: Evidence from a Liberal Arts College with a Full Tuition Subsidy Program’, Journal of Human Resources 38 (Summer 2003): 591-617
16</p>

<p>and </p>

<p>Do Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Matter?
by
Ronald G. Ehrenberg and Liang Zhang*
<a href="http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/wp/cheri_wp53.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/wp/cheri_wp53.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>SAT scores also predict graduation rates.</p>

<p>"the situation is easier for people with very low EFC"</p>

<p>The claim that life is easier for poor students than for middle class is hard to reconcile with the fact that middle class families rarely give away what money they have to become poor, and make college easier.</p>

40

<p>Hoedown:</p>

<p>It was the USNEWS "predicted graduation rate" that Stanford's Pres. took the magazine to task for. Specifically, he thought it was absurd to "predict" a 99% graduation rate for Caltech and then hammer them because their ultra-demanding curriculum results in an 85% grad rate. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Let me examine an example in "Value added": The California Institute of Technology offers a rigorous and demanding curriculum that undeniably adds great value to its students. Yet, Caltech is crucified for having a "predicted" graduation rate of 99% and an actual graduation rate of 85%. Did it ever occur to the people who created this "measure" that many students do not graduate from Caltech precisely because they find Caltech too rigorous and demanding - that is, adding too much value - for them? Caltech could easily meet the "predicted" graduation rate of 99% by offering a cream-puff curriculum and automatic A's. Would that be adding value? How can the people who came up with this formula defend graduation rate as a measure of value added? And even if they could, precisely how do they manage to combine test scores and "education expenditures" - itself a suspect statistic - to predict a graduation rate?

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>