<p>“Blue Bayou-- Are you suggesting that the data is available to compare 4 year graduation rates of full pay students with lots of APs at Berkeley to those at Williams? It would be interesting to see. Maybe you are right–the graduation rates would be similar. But unless that data is available, we have to make do with what is available.”</p>
<p>OK where is the data that shows what Bluebayou wrote isn’t true?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…and interpret it using our critical-thinking skills. :)</p>
<p>[Comparing</a> Colleges’ Graduation Rates - The Choice Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/rates/]Comparing”>Comparing Colleges' Graduation Rates - The New York Times)</p>
<p>In 2005, the grad rates for Amherst was 96% and Williams 95%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it might be financial aid.</p>
<p>School / % students w financial need / % whose full need is met / ave % of need met</p>
<p>Michigan / 46% / 90% / 90%
Wisconsin / 33% / 22% / 78%</p>
<p>Obviously, many factors go into the graduation rate. But clearly, Michigan provides a lot more financial aid to its undergrads. That’s got to be a big part of the explanation for why its graduation rate is so much higher. It’s relatively rare at Michigan for students to take a semester or a year off to work, or to reduce their course load to part-time to earn money. These practices are very common at many other public universities. That contributes to Michigan’s having a 4-year graduation rate (88%, according to the AEI study) that’s closer to leading privates (e.g., U Chicago, 90%) than to other top publics in its region (e.g, UIUC 82%, Wisconsin-Madison 79%).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said anything about the other students being adversely affected by the ‘athlete-centric’ majors. </p>
<p>I’m simply pointing out that it’s not that hard to graduate from most schools. Granted, it’s hard to graduate from certain majors such as engineering, and it is also hard to graduate with top grades. But if all you want to do is graduate, and you don’t care about which major, and you’re content with simply passing your classes (as opposed to earning top grades), that’s not particularly difficult to do at most schools. Most schools - UM and Harvard included - have relatively easy majors where you can pass your classes with relatively modest effort or academic ability. </p>
<p>Hence, the mere fact that somebody with a 650 SAT verbal could probably graduate from Harvard, as dstark contended, is not a particularly shocking statement in the least. Both George W. Bush and John Kerry have freely admitted to being unmotivated cads while at Yale, a school whose student body is a near replica of Harvard’s, yet both of them graduated - with mediocre grades to be sure, but they still graduated. </p>
<p>''I always told my Dad that D stood for distinction," Kerry said yesterday in a written response to questions, noting that he has previously acknowledged that he spent a lot of time learning to fly instead of focusing on his studies.</p>
<p>[Yale</a> grades portray Kerry as a lackluster student - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/]Yale”>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would contend that it is still relevant to you, simply from a sociological standpoint. Let’s face it: people tend to copy what they see around them. For example, one important reason that people take up smoking is because their friends or family members smoke. </p>
<p>Hence, if you attend a school where the students around you tend not to graduate in 4 years, then you may start to do the same. After all, those other students will become your friends, and if they choose to stay an extra year, then you may not feel any compunction to graduate faster, for another year of school means another year of hanging out with your friends. But if all your friends start graduating, then you will feel pressure to graduate as well, because if you don’t, then that means extra lonely years at school without anybody that you know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I find that argument to be a cop-out of the schools. If the problem of slow graduation can be attributed to finances, then the answer is to provide better financial aid to the students. Why bring in students and then not provide those students with sufficient financial resources so that they can graduate in a timely fashion, if they even graduate at all? These students are relatively poor, yet every year that their graduation is delayed is another year of which they cannot exploit their fulltime earning potential, which only damages their financial status even more. </p>
<p>If you’re not going to provide full financial support to certain students, then you shouldn’t admit them. Note, the support doesn’t even have to be particularly costly; it can simply take the form of loans. The goal is to simply provide the financial means for poorer students to be able to study full-time without having to delay their graduation by working. Sure, you may be consigning the students to greater debt upon graduating, but that’s still better than having them linger in school without graduating, for once they graduate, they can generate full-time earnings.</p>
<p>^ Poor students often have to support their families while in college. Even if they aren’t paying a cent for school, they still can have financial issues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then schools should provide sufficient loans so that those poor students can support their families as well. Those loans don’t have to be large - they just have to provide whatever after-tax funding the student would have generated for his family by working part-time, which probably isn’t a large sum. Let’s face it: most young people who lack college degrees don’t earn much through part-time work, and if they could, then that begs the question of whether they even need to go to college at all. </p>
<p>Look, don’t get me wrong. Nobody is minimizing the financial plight of the poorer students, whether because they need to support themselves, or their families. However, what better way for them to do that than to graduate and hence enter the full-time workforce as quickly as possible? Schools are not doing poor students any favors by forcing them to delay their graduation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a naive, sheltered, and class-biased view! Generations of hard-working Americans have earned their college degrees by going to school part-time while working to support themselves, and often their families. Others have done so by going to school intermittently. Many members of my own family did that a generation ago, including my own father who became a successful professional and sent six kids to college. One of my own siblings took six years to graduate because he went through school on an engineering coop program that allowed him to pay his own way through college while gaining valuable work experience. Heck, I took a semester off to work in a factory and save enough cash to pay for my last year-and-a-half of college, and I went on from there to a couple of pretty prestigious Ivy League graduate programs. There’s absolutely no shame in it, either for the student or for the school. It’s only a narrow class-bound view that would insist four years to graduation is the norm and any deviation from it a failure. Nonsense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes you have, and its a fair point. But it also appears that you concur that 4-year grad rates are not what they first appear, no? If in fact finances ARE a big factor in grad rates, than grad rate is just another proxy for student wealth (like many of the college criteria of a certain poster).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a naive, sheltered, and class-based view! If rich students can successfully graduate in 4 years - and according to this thread, they usually do - then what is so controversial about providing the mechanisms for poorer students to do the same? Are you saying that just because a student happens to be poor, he should be consigned to spend a longer time in school than somebody that is rich? That, I would argue, is clearly a highly class-based, sheltered naivete, and is, frankly, downright elitist. </p>
<p>Why is advancing the notion of a 4-year graduation as a standard norm somehow wrong? After all, we accept that a 4-year high-school program as a standard for both rich and poor. Rich kids, as a general rule, don’t get to sprint through high school at a faster rate than poor kids do, and if they did, a justifiable public outcry would erupt. So if poor kids are expected to finish high school at the same rate as the rich kids do, what is so outrageous of wanting the same sort of equity within a college system? </p>
<p>What’s fair is fair: that’s the bottom line. People shouldn’t be forced to delay their graduation simply because they’re poor, and schools should be willing to provide sufficient financial resources to ensure that that happens. If they can’t, then they should admit fewer students to ensure that the ones who are admitted do have sufficient resources to graduate quickly. Such a system may actually produce more total college graduates, as those students who remain will graduate faster, thereby vacating their spaces for incoming students. </p>
<p>If anything, if the chronological scales are to be tipped in favor of any one particular ‘social class’, then they ought to be tipped in favor of the poor. If a rich kid doesn’t graduate on time (or at all), oh well, he’s still rich, so who cares? But a poor kid that doesn’t graduate on time (or at all) has less opportunity to use the degree to earn more money - and, because he’s poor, that’s money that that kid really needs. </p>
<p>The bottom line is therefore simple and inescapable - it is indeed highly shameful for the school (but not the student) to not graduate a large percentage of poor students on time. Schools should be providing better sufficient support - financial and otherwise - to its poorer students as a matter of fairness, and to argue otherwise is quite the naive, sheltered, and class-biased view.</p>
<p>For those who disagree, I would love to hear the counterargument. By all means, lay down the rationale for why schools should not be trying to support its poorer students to graduate quickly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t deny, and never have, that student wealth does unfortunately currently play a role in determining graduation rates. </p>
<p>But my point is that that’s not an acceptable excuse. Just because your students are poor doesn’t mean that they all have to graduate at a slower pace. Schools can and should be providing the resources for students to graduate on time.</p>
<p>It’s expensive to educate the poor. Resources are not unlimited. If we are not only going to take care of a student’s educational needs, but his or her family’s needs too, the costs go up exponentially.</p>
<p>It would be great if we had a 100% grad rate everywhere, but stuff happens. We already have schools that graduate students from wealthy families. It’s good for society that we have good schools that try to educate the poor too. To get a grad rate closer to 100%, it will take more money, or the schools can take wealthier students. And it’s nice to see some schools take chances on students. Because if the schools don’t take a chance, that segment of society is going to have fewer students graduating, even if the percentages are better.</p>
<p>I’d rather see an 80% graduation rate for 2,000 poor students, rather than a 95% grad rate for 160 poor students.</p>
<p>And the 4-year number is nice. I took 5. Not the schools’ fault. Didn’t want loans.</p>
<p>
Except they don’t. High-school dropout rates are also a problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it really that expensive? Like I said, I’m not necessarily proposing grants (although that would be nice). The school can simply offer loans that would be equivalent to whatever the student would have earned had he worked part-time. Presumably, that’s not much, for otherwise if a particular student can earn a high wage without a college degree, one can question whether it is beneficial for society for that student to even have to go to college at all. </p>
<p>Consider a student who could earn $10 an hour and works 20 hours a week, 50 weeks a year. Subtract taxes, travel costs to the workplace and other work-related sundries and that’s probably only ~$7500 a year in takehome pay. Schools can’t provide that to students as a supplementary loan? Again, this is not a grant, it’s a loan - the students will (hopefully) pay it back. All the school will be losing is a small subsidy if the school charges interest at a below-market rate, plus a loss provision to cover those students who don’t pay back. I don’t think that costs much. </p>
<p>Compare that to the benefits. The school would at least appear, and probably become, a more desirable school, because the 4-year graduation rate would vastly improve. Students would learn more because they would be able to focus on their studies rather than having to worry about work, as well as not having to worry about having their education disrupted if they lose their jobs during a recession (such as now). Faster graduation means more alumni with more years of earning opportunities, which ultimately should translate into higher alumni donations. The costs seem to be well worth the benefits. </p>
<p>I might understand the arguments regarding cost if we were talking about SouthWest Missouri State or some other cash-strapped, no-name school. But, in this thread, we’re talking about schools ranked in the top 75. I doubt that many of those schools are so bereft of funds that they couldn’t offer sufficient aid to their poorer students such that they don’t have to work. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But the norm is that all students - rich or poor - will graduate from any given high school in 4 years. No doubt, the norm is not always realized, but at least the norm exists. We, as society, do not accept the norm that high school should take 4 years only for rich students, but 6+ years for the poor. So why do we accept such a norm for college? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You would? Keep in mind that college is not costless to the students, particularly to the poor. Poor students are forced to spend their time and, more importantly, their money - money that they don’t even have. Those poor students who never graduate are worse off, at least financially, than if they had never gone to college at all. </p>
<p>Look, the bottom line is this. Poor students are precisely the students who would benefit the most from graduating on time, for they are the ones who need to leverage the degree quickly to make money. Some people have argued here that poor students need to support their families. I agree, and the best way to do that by far is to graduate rapidly, and support your family through a loan system that I discussed above. That’s going to provide better long-term support for your family than working part-time and thereby spending extra years in school.</p>
<p>“I’d rather see an 80% graduation rate for 2,000 poor students, rather than a 95% grad rate for 160 poor students.” </p>
<p>“You would?”</p>
<p>Yes, I would. In a perfect world, I would prefer a 100% grad rate, but it’s not a perfect world.</p>
<p>I Prefer more poor people becoming educated rather than less. I don’t care if there are some “failures”. </p>
<p>I also don’t care about the 4-year grad rate. Well, I do if I’m paying $50,000 a year. But $25,000…I don’t care so much. :)</p>
<p>The students graduating today are going to live past 100. An extra year is not a big deal. $25,000 times 5 is still a lot less than $50,000 times 4. And if the student loses one year of work, $75,000 after taxes…the student who takes 5 years can still come out ok.</p>
<p>I’m not high on student loans. I understand the pluses and minuses. I understand for some people, it’s the best chance they have to afford a school.</p>
<p>Under your scenario, we’re talking another $30,000 worth of loans at graduation. That is in addition to any other loans outstanding. I don’t like the loans. Can limit future choices. But every case is unique so I don’t want to make a blanket statement against them. In general, I don’t like them and the $7500 might not be enough to support the student’s family and the student may have to quit school anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The ‘failures’ are stuck with educational bills without a degree in exchange, which means that those poor people are therefore worse off than if they had never even gone to college at all. After all, these are people who already lack money, and you’re going to take whatever little money they had without even granting them a degree in exchange? If a rich guy wants to waste money on a degree he never gets, who cares, he’s still rich. But we’re talking about the poor. </p>
<p>A system that I would prefer is one where students are charged only if they actually graduate (or a pro-rated charge if they transfer credits to another school and graduate there). Hence, if a poor student is admitted and never graduates, while he still wastes his time, at least he isn’t charged. But I’m not holding my breath waiting for that. Hence, the next best thing is to provide that generous loan system as I previously proposed, and barring that, to not admit those students at all. Again, students are rendered worse off if they attend a school and don’t graduate. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting - I thought we were talking about poor people, for which $25k would probably represent quite a bit of money. Heck, I’m not poor - or at least I don’t consider myself to be - and I still think that $25k is a significant chunk of change. </p>
<p>Put another way, if you don’t really care so much about $25k, perhaps you’d like to give it to me? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, you know what really limits your future choices? Being stuck in school for extra years because you needed to work part-time because you weren’t offered sufficient financial aid. </p>
<p>Put another way, I think that taking the $7500 in loans per year, as I proposed, in lieu of having to work 20 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, for $10 an hour will probably accelerate your graduation by at least 2 years. After all, 20 hours per week is a lot of time. Somebody working those hours is probably looking at graduating in 6 years rather than 4. </p>
<p>Which means that by year 4, a person under my proposed system would be graduating. Granted, that person would be carrying loans which may restrict his future career options, but at least he’d be graduating. He can move on with his desired career. However, a guy working part-time through college is, at year 4, still stuck in college with no degree. He can’t move on with his desired career because he has yet to graduate, which means that his career options are really restricted.</p>
<p>Now, let’s fast forward 2 years. The first guy should have paid back all the extra loans that I proposed. {Granted, he may have other school loans that covered regular tuition and living costs, but the second guy carries those loans as well, so that’s a wash.} More importantly, he’s accumulated 2 years of full-time work experience under his belt. The second guy is just now graduating, but with no full-time work experience, having only accumulated experience at his part-time job which will at best be only partially transferable to his post-college career. I would argue that he’s worse off. </p>
<p>To make the accounting more clear, let’s say that we’re talking about a school that charges $10k a year in tuition. We shall ignore living costs, because everybody has to pay living costs whether they’re in school or are working. In addition, I propose that somebody can take $7500 a year in additional loans to support his family in lieu of having to work for 20 hours a week during the school year which would delay one’s graduating by 2 years.</p>
<p>Costs of A (a person who takes the loans)
($10k of tuition + 7500k of ‘extra’ loans)* 4 years = $70k in debt, but graduates in 4 years</p>
<p>Costs of B (the person who works full-time)
($10k of tuition) * 6 years = $60k a year in debt, but graduates in 6 years</p>
<p>{Remember that the more years that you stay in school, the more tuition you have to pay. After all, most schools are not going to charge you less just because you’re taking longer to graduate. If you take 6 years to graduate, the school will charge you for 6 years of tuition. }</p>
<p>The difference is $10k a year, which I would argue is well worth 2 years of accelerating one’s career. Heck, even if person B graduates in 5 years, making the difference in outcome be $20k for a year’s worth of acceleration, I would still argue that the outcome is clearly worthwhile. The average newly minted college graduate make $35k a year, or ~$25k after taxes and work-related costs (ignoring living costs, because, like I said, everybody pays living costs whether they’re working or still in school).</p>
<p>Sakky, you can argue whatever you want.</p>
<p>As I told you, I prefer more successes with some failures than fewer successes with little or no failures. If some students are worse off, and more are better off, that is what I would choose. </p>
<p>And I told you I don’t like loans. Loans aren’t free. They aren’t a gift. They have to be paid back.</p>
<p>I chose to work instead. Others do too. I don’t like loans. I don’t like students graduating with much more than $20,000 in debt.</p>
<p>I see your numbers. Graduating with $60,000 or 70,000 in debt is not a great way to start an adult life. I don’t like either choice. For some people, maybe a person who graduates in 4 years with more debt is better off. Maybe. I worked 40 hours for a year and a half and 30 hours for another year and a half, and graduated in 5 years. I didn’t need 6. The numbers are a little different graduating after 5 years instead of 6. 5 years beats 4 years Sakky, using your numbers. And the differing loan amounts, those are paid with after tax dollars. And there is interest too. You didn’t add in anything for interest. That changes the numbers too.</p>
<p>Costs of A (a person who takes the loans)
($10k of tuition + 7500k of ‘extra’ loans)* 4 years = $70k in debt, but graduates in 4 years</p>
<p>Costs of B (the person who works full-time)
($10k of tuition) * 5 years = $50k a year in debt, but graduates in 5 years.</p>
<p>A person who graduates in 4 years and makes $25,000 in after tax income the fifth year…is not better off. That person will have more debt after the 5th year than the 5-year graduate.</p>
<p>We can play with the numbers and different scenarios, and some scenarios will work better for each case, but the bottom line is…
The person with the larger loan is taking on more financial risk and the returns better be higher with the larger loan or it is a bad bet.</p>
<p>And we haven’t even talked about the increased costs to the institution under your plans.</p>
<p>Maybe, in the future, you can run one of these institutions and enact your plans.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Demonstrably false. People with “some college” but no degree have average earnings about 20% higher than those who never attended college. I don’t have more recent figures but in 2003 the average full-time worker with some college but no degree earned around $36K per year v. $30K for those with HS diplomas only. At that rate, if you work half-time at the HS diploma rate and pay $10K to $20K total in pro-rated part-time tuition for 2 or 3 years of college (see below), you pay back that investment—on average–in 2 to 4 years. Add in the opportunity cost of working only half-time for those 2 to 3 years and it might stretch the full payback period to 10 years, but bottom line, you’re still much better off (on average) for having done some college. Those who earn an associate’s degree—a large fraction of which are earned through part-time attendance—do even better, earning on average about $8K more per year than HS-only
workers. And of course, a substantial fraction of those who attend college part-time DO earn their bachelor’s degrees, which pays off even bigger. Some go on to earn graduate or professional degrees, which pay off biggest of all–on average, of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Demonstrably false. Most public universities charge part-time students on a pro-rata, per-credit-hour basis. If you’re going to school half-time and working half-time (or, as is often the case, working a full-time job and going to school half-time), you’ll pay roughly half the tuition per semester; consequently, your total tuition bill will approximate what it would have been had you attended full-time. Not so at some elite privates, but that’s another matter. Because your foundational assumption is flawed, all your subsequent calculations are off-base.</p>