<p>^^ Even if there’s a valid explanation behind the number, this still affects student experience. If I’m a BYU student and I decide not to go off to mission, I should expect many of my friends to disappear from campus for two years.</p>
<p>I notice that the Catholic schools (Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College, Holy Cross) do quite well on this metric. I wonder why?</p>
<p>
One reason is that G’town/BC/HolyCross have no engineering … thus no extra credits required for graduation, extra time for co-op; no drop-outs from engineering (% dropping out from rigorous engineering program can be quite high); no incentive to transfer from pre-med to engineering, etc. These are certainly unique factors for schools with serious engineering programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Many students at Stanford can enroll the co-term program and get BS and MS in the 5th year. This could never happen at Yale, Harvard and Princeton. I am not sure about the percentage (10%?), but I know that my S will not graduate in 4 years.</p>
<p>"One reason is that G’town/BC/HolyCross have no engineering … thus no extra credits required for graduation, extra time for co-op; no drop-outs from engineering (% dropping out from rigorous engineering program can be quite high); no incentive to transfer from pre-med to engineering, etc. These are certainly unique factors for schools with serious engineering programs. "</p>
<p>Notre Dame is first in this metric, and does have an engineering program.</p>
<p>Princeton, Yale, UPenn, and Duke all have excellent grad rates, and engineering programs.</p>
<p>“The data is worthless. Big schools that have to average in soft and hard majors look far worse. Try not to just think in terms of “extremes”. Schools without engineering programs are artifically bumped up for having only easier majors or majors with less class requirements”.</p>
<p>hawkette specializes in worthless data. At least the worthless data that makes her favorites schools look better than others.</p>
<p>
How many of these are serious engineers pursuing a career in engineering? Why would you be interested in co-op if your goal is law, medicine or Wall Street?</p>
<p>Several of the schools with very high graduation rates-Holy Cross, Davidson, ND, Princeton, Duke also have some of the strongest alumni giving rates.</p>
<p>And there are plenty of exceptions:</p>
<p>School / Alumni Giving Rank / 4-year graduation rate</p>
<p>USC / #7 / 69%(#37)
MIT / #11 / 82%(#20)
Emory / #12 / 82%(#20)
Stanford / #15 / 79%(#24)
G’town / #29 / 90%(#4)</p>
<p>I’d like to add a bit to the criticism-- some schools may have a lower four-year graduation rate because they supply more resources than other schools to fund opportunities abroad and for research that would require taking some time off. Hardly anyone would fault a school for having more paid fellowships and funds available to send students to once-in-a-lifetime opportunities that will delay college a semester or two.</p>
<p>There are just too many things, many mentioned in this thread, which could easily hurt four-year graduation rates, whereas IMO, the six-year rate is far less likely to have to worry about these fluctuations. That is why we should use six-year grad rates-- as a protection from some major factors that cannot be controlled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, right. And what percentage of the student body at these schools is in engineering? Let’s see, Harvard has 114 undergrad engineering students, comprising 1.7% of the undergrad student body. Michigan has 5,270 engineering undergrads, comprising about 20% of the undergraduate student body. That’s about an order of magnitude difference.
Please. </p>
<p>Not only that but a fair number of Michigan engineering students are in dual degree programs with the business school or Literature, Science & the Arts—programs that will almost always require more than 4 years to complete. You just can’t assume the traditional LAC/Ivy single-major 4-and-out model is the norm in American higher education. Lots of people are in programs that are going to take more time. Their schools should not be punished by ill-informed criticism that fails to recognize the diversity of American higher education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The majority of MIT’s undergrads major in engineering, yet MIT boasts of a significantly higher 4-year graduation rate than does Michigan. Care to explain that? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Similarly, plenty of MIT students will double. Nevertheless they seem to be able to graduate a higher percentage of their students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would actually turn that logic on its head and ask: why exactly do certain majors have to be harder than others, as well as why does a school admit those students who are going to enter difficult majors and perform poorly? Don’t admit those students in the first place, or if you do, let them transition to one of the easy majors seamlessly. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid I, like hawkette, don’t see how that matters, for these factors should be true of any school. Every school has some students that are stricken with illness. Every school has some students who look to transfer out. Every school has some students who decide to temporarily withdraw to work, and in the case of those like Bill Gates, never return. Many schools have 5-year bachelors-master’s programs. </p>
<p>Hence, the central question remains: why do some schools consistently produce higher graduation rates than others? This points to school-specific characteristics.</p>
<p>For example, if the problem is that students at some schools have to temporarily drop out in order to make money, then that begs the question of why the school doesn’t offer better financial aid? The top private schools will offer full rides to anybody whose parents make less than a surprisingly high income threshold, and strong support to those above that threshold. How many lesser-ranked schools can say the same? </p>
<p>I remember two guys of rather modest means who had dreamed of attending their state flagship school as the first members of their families to attend college, but then were then offered ungenerous financial aid packages. So they both went to Harvard on full rides instead. I’ll always remember one of them acidly joking that because he couldn’t afford his beloved state school, he had “no choice” but to go to Harvard. And yes, they both graduated in 4 years, debt-free. </p>
<p>Since you brought up UM, let’s talk about that. UM is one of the richest schools in the country, with an endowment that vastly exceeds that of most other schools. I think it’s fair to ask why a school with such a surfeit of resources doesn’t provide better financial support to its poorer students such that none of them have to temporarily withdraw in order to make money to pay for school, if that is in fact the reason behind the lowered graduation rate. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If anything, this should disfavor the top-ranked schools and therefore exacerbate the trends shown in the chart, for the top schools are generally the ones that have the most resources per capita and can therefore afford to provide such opportunities, compared to the less wealthy schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe you’ll grow up one day and understand that schools that have low ratings on this are often simply serving a different student body, one that’s often less wealthy and has other things to contend with, such as supporting a family. Your ire is misplaced.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, data is never worthless (unless it is false, but then it’s not really data but just lies). It is the interpretation of the data that is at issue and can be worthless, but data itself always have some value. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. MIT is about as ‘serious’ of an engineering school as there is in the entire country. Nevertheless, MIT boasts of an 82% graduation rate. Why can’t other engineering-oriented schools do the same? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I can’t speak for hawkette, I’ll tell you that I hold 3 engineering degrees (undergrad + grad), and while my undergrad school shall remain unnamed, it is considered one of the most prestigious engineering schools in the world. Yet I have always been appalled at the relatively low 4-year graduation rates at my old school and many others similar to it. Why aren’t engineering students provided with better support? Why does the grading and culture within engineering need to be so harsh, such that so many students flunk out, and relatedly, why does the school insist on admitting so many students into the engineering program who will flunk out? These are problems that are specific to engineering programs that ought to be remedied.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That begs the question of why so many of the original (freshman-admit) students are transferring out? Why can’t the school retain those students? Are those students transferring to another school that offers better opportunities? If so, then why can’t you offer those same opportunities? </p>
<p>I’ll put the issue more starkly: why is it that so few students transfer out of, say, Harvard? Lots of people would like to transfer into Harvard, but very few look to transfer out. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would then ask why exactly did Caltech admit those kids who can’t handle the rigor? Why admit students who you can reasonably predict, through retrospective statistical analysis on former student records, are going to perform poorly? </p>
<p>Caltech is an interesting example, for that’s where my brother went. He performed well, graduating with honors, but he also knows people who were unable to graduate and would have been better off at an Ivy where they would have successfully completed their degrees. Now, as it stands, whenever a job application or any sort of background check asks whether they have ever been placed on academic probation or were dismissed from college, they have to answer ‘Yes’. That’s an albatross they have to wear around their necks for the rest of their lives. Those guys would have been better off had Caltech never admitted them in the first place. </p>
<p>The problem then becomes one of ex-ante forecasting. If you’re admitted to Caltech, you don’t know whether you will be one of the successful students like my brother, or whether you’re going to flunk out, for the admission letter is a relatively unreliable indicator of whether you’re actually capable of succeeding. The risk-averse choice is to therefore choose a safer school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is something that (some) public schools can do: provide better financial support. Some public schools have giant endowments. Use them. </p>
<p>Many schools can probably also greatly expand their work-study programs. Let’s face it - plenty of university staff jobs can be performed just as easily, and probably at a lower cost, by students working part-time. For example, I’ve worked with many university IT staffs, and I’m convinced that many of the simpler tasks such as basic software development and server/network maintenance could be performed by students. Heck, some of the better CS students is almost certainly more skilled than the university IT staff is. For example, I remember one university server that was completely corrupted in a manner that confounded the entire IT staff, but was eventually fixed in less than an hour by one of the undergrads who just happened to be a friend of one of the staffers (I think they lived in the same apartment complex) and who used to play with that server system as a hobby. Begs the question - why can’t that guy be made a member of the staff, at least on a part-time basis? Similarly, why can’t much of the faculty secretarial/assistant work be offloaded to students working part-time? All of these factors could help provide sufficient financial resources to students such that they don’t feel they don’t have to withdraw to make money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It did admit those who can handle the rigor, but lost them to HYPS. :)</p>
<p>As a comparison, let us say that the time spent for lunch is about 30 minutes, if a normal adult takes about 25-35 minutes, we would say it is okay. But if the person takes more than 2 hours everyday, we may guess that the person has something to do during the lunch time. But, if a 3-year old kid eats for two hours, we all know that the kid is…</p>
<p>
MIT(82%) is a full 9% behind Notre Dame. It’s 21st on the list, behind G’town, BC, Tufts, Brandeis, Vanderbilt and Wake Forest. There is something wrong with this metric, don’t you think?</p>
<p>Stanford is 12% behind ND, 26th on the list. Care to explain that?</p>
<p>Why do some schools have higher graduation rates than others? Statistically speaking, 80-90% of the reason is selectivity. Higher SAT scores => higher graduation rates. The remaining 10-20% of the explanation is associated with such things as religious affiliation and percent engineering. A host of “intangibles” contribute to the remaining 10-20% such as climate (weather), quality of classroom instruction, academic standards, campus culture, and so on but these things are hard to quantify.</p>
<p>Academic standards in engineering have to be more rigorous so our buildings don’t fall down and our computers don’t stop working. The consequences of certifying incompetent engineers are serious. The consequences of certifying an incompetent historian are not as serious.</p>
<p>Expectations are higher in the sciences, engineering, computer science, economics but these fields also attract the most capable students so the differences in graduation rates are not more pronounced than they are.</p>
<p>
Not true. Schools without engineering don’t have engineering students participating in co-op. Schools without engineering or business don’t have pre-med students transferring to engineering or business. Schools without architecture don’t have 5-year architecture programs. Schools without pharmacy don’t have 6-year PharmD programs …</p>
<p>Based on about 800 doctoral universities and masters universities, the correlation between 4-year graduation rate and percent engineering is about .14 while the correlation between 6-year graduation rate and percent engineering is about .27 (higher). The 6-year graduation rate takes better account of the engineering factor.</p>
<p>I think MIT is about 38% engineering, actually, which may partially explain its higher graduation rate.</p>