<p>Sticky post instances that the important factors in selecting colleges are prestige or ranking, academic strength, costs, social scene, location, climate and etc.</p>
<p>After your selection, however, check graduation rate. </p>
<p>U.S. Dept. of Education (2011) [<a href="http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011230.pdf%5D%5B/url">http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011230.pdf][/url</a>] said
4-year graduation rate (4-year institutions): 36.7%
public: 30.7%, private non-profit: 51.5%, private for-profit: 12.7%</p>
<pre><code>5-year graduation rate (4-year institutions): 52.8%
public: 50.2%, private non-profit: 62.1%, private for-profit: 17.7%
6-year graduation rate (4-year institutions): 57.4%
public: 55.7%, private non-profit: 65.1%, private for-profit: 20.4%
</code></pre>
<p>If you want to check highest 4-year grad. rate colleges, visit
Highest</a> 4-Year Graduation Rates | Rankings | US News</p>
<p>If you want to check grad rates for all colleges,
visit Table</a> | College Completion</p>
<p>Much of the grad and retention rates are due to the type of students a school attracts rather than how well funded a school is. I transferred from an institution with a roughly 83% four year grad rate to a school with a 36% four year grad rate. Is this lowish grad rate due to students being unable to get classes? Is it because students just absolutely hate the school?</p>
<p>Well no. Most students, particularly those in sequential majors have little difficulty getting into their needed classes. But, this school tends to attract less serious students, and has to gap aid for all but those at the top of the applicant pool. That means that many students can’t handle college level work, which causes them to drop out. Others can’t afford the school so they either drop out or take a year off to work and save up money. Some at this school can’t afford to take a full load so they’ll take <12 credits a semester, thus delaying their graduation time.</p>
<p>If Harvard and Southwestern Oklahoma State switched student bodies, Harvard’s four year grad rate would probably drop to around 20%, while Southwestern’s would skyrocket to well over 85%.</p>
<p>whenhen: </p>
<p>Its difficult to find your main point. In my understanding, your argument seems to be (1) or/and (2), even though these two are NOT my intent or point AT ALL.
(1) Low grad rate is not due to the how well funded a school is but to the ACADEMICALLY (and economically) diversified student body. Thus, there is no relationship between a grad rate and the schools endowment condition.
(2) top students of a low-grad-rate school are equally wise with students of high-grad-rate schools. </p>
<p>For (1):
When two specific schools in the same league are considered, argument (1) might be correct or wrong. This depends on different compositions of student bodies as you said, like your example of Harvard and the other. (Then, my recommendation is Harvard! What is wrong with me?) This also depends on other factors like schools orientation towards college or grad school (e.g. Dartmouth vs. CAL) and schools requiring academic rigorness (like Caltech). In this case, each student would prefer one to the other and grad-rate information can be useful.
When two specific schools in the different league are considered, composition of student body as well as the amount of endowment tends to be different at the same tome, and show different grad rates. Thus, no matter.</p>
<p>For (2):
Roughly, I agree with argument (2). Evidences: (a) most of high-performing students with economically disadvantaged students go a community college or state university near home whereas the only negligible percent of the students go top schools; (b) alma maters of roughly 50% of the Nobel laureates are not top schools. </p>
<p>However, my concern here is the other students that cant handle college level work at a low-grad-rate school. These students have to know, before the entrance into a college, the fact that studying at college is HARD job and there is high chances of failure in completion of degree, and the fact that they have to check/prepare their readiness to college-level study, readiness to interaction with others and readiness to controlling feelings and time. </p>
<p>This is the my implicitly expressed intent or point of this thread at CC, full of top-student orientation and of discussion talking bright sides and rosy prospects.
Thanks for your comment giving me a chance of externalizing my purpose.</p>
<p>The point is that graduation rate is closely related to the selectivity of the school. Most people appear to prefer more selective schools (if they get in) anyway, so adding graduation rate to the criteria tends to be redundant.</p>
<p>Graduation rates can be interesting but also misleading. For example, schools that require or encourage co-op have lower 4-year grad rates because it takes 5 years to graduate. And STEM-focused schools sometimes have lower than expected (relative to quality of school) rates because some kids decide they don’t really want to be a rocket scientist after all and will often leave since the school doesn’t have the basket-weaving major he has now decided on…
So, look at the rates, but ask questions of any institution about their grad rates before making too many assumptions. It needs to be put into context.</p>
<p>I think that they’re only relevant and interesting for schools in the same category. For example, take two lower ranked (fourth tier) regional schools in the South with the same rough selectivity and student profiles, Georgia Southern has a 20% graduation rate and Radford has a 38% graduation rate. While neither rate is worth writing home about, there’s clearly a problem that Radford’s managed to semi-solved whereas it’s dragging Georgia Southern down. In the same way, engineering schools have widely different 5-year graduation rates: while comparing them to liberal arts colleges or business schools is irrelevant, asking why students quit/leave/can’t make it at one school whereas they make it at another with the same rough selectivity is an important question. It may point to fewer tutors, less disability support, less clear professors, more crowded classrooms, more adjuncts with fewer office hours, no writing center, etc, etc.</p>
<p>Thanks MYOS1634 for concrete explanation.
MYOS1634 clarified the important point using the concrete example of two low-tier schools with the roughly same selectivity but with different quality of education (various student-support services, student-faculty ratio, class size…).</p>
<p>I think this logic can be extended to the comparison of schools not only with the roughly same selectivity but also with students equipped with sufficient academic intelligence (that can handle college level work). Even in this case, a schools graduation rate might be higher than another because of stronger student-supporting services. Why? Controllability of time and feelings and capability of work together (constructive interactions with others) also matters for college success, some intelligent students have problems in these skills, and each school provides different-level care services for them. My point is that graduation rate is one indicator of quality of education of each school. </p>
<p>Minors: on selectivity and graduation rate
According to the sticky posts poll, dependent variable should be selection of college (selectivity) and explanatory (independent) variables are prestige/ranking, academic strength, costs, social scene, location, climate and etc.
Thus, if ucbalumnuss point [graduation rate is closely related to the selectivity of the school] is right,
graduation rate should be included in explanatory variables and his or her argument [adding graduation rate to the criteria tends to be redundant] should be wrong,
or
adding graduation rate to the criteria tends to be redundant not because of the correlation between selectivity (dependent var) and graduation rate (exp var) but because of the correlation between graduation rate and other explanatory variable such as prestige/ranking.</p>
<p>One more. Selectivity depends not only on quality of education but also on other factors like college’s marketing efforts and studnets’ bandwagon decisions. Thus, high selectivity do not automatically means high quality of education.</p>
<p>Here is a research paper describing characteristics that can be used to predict graduation rate: <a href=“http://heri.ucla.edu/DARCU/CompletingCollege2011.pdf[/url]”>http://heri.ucla.edu/DARCU/CompletingCollege2011.pdf</a> . A related press release is here: [Colleges</a> can better predict graduation rates by looking more closely at the types of students they enroll, report finds](<a href=“http://heri.ucla.edu/pr-display.php?prQry=80]Colleges”>http://heri.ucla.edu/pr-display.php?prQry=80)</p>
<p>[Higher</a> Education Research Institute (HERI)](<a href=“http://heri.ucla.edu/GradRateCalculator.php]Higher”>Higher Education Research Institute) shows an estimator with a few of the characteristics, plus a link to a spreadsheet estimator with more of the characteristics.</p>
<p>So perhaps what may be a more relevant comparison is to compare a school’s actual graduation rate to the one predicted by the model.</p>
<p>It is also possible to make a hypothetical school that is 100% students like the student in question, which may give some hint on that student’s individual likelihood of graduating on time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree that it correlates with selectivity, per se, but it does correlate well with SAT/ACT scores and GPA. </p>
<p>Selectivity is just a measure of supply and demand… it doesn’t really say anything (on its own) about the college readiness level of the student body.</p>
<p>“Selectivity” in this case means the threshold for admission, not the percentage admitted.</p>