College Comparison VIb: Minority Graduation Rates-BLACK STUDENTS

College Search & Selection
1

<p>In order to assist some in their college search process, I have prepared a series of threads that will compare colleges on a variety of measurements. In making these comparisons, I have created three broad groups (private national universities, public national universities and liberal arts colleges) and provide comparisons involving 117 colleges (national universities ranked in the USNWR Top 75 and LACs ranked in the USNWR Top 40). </p>

<p>Following is a comparison on GRADUATION RATES for BLACK STUDENTS. The results, using the 2008 NCAA Federal Graduation Rate data, are for the entering classes of 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 and their average six-year graduation rates.</p>

<p>6-year Graduation Rate Difference from All Students , Black , Private National University , , Overall 6-Year Grad Rate</p>

<p>10% , 100% , Caltech , , 90%
1% , 89% , Wake Forest , , 88%
-1% , 88% , Vanderbilt , , 89%
-2% , 96% , Harvard , , 98%
-2% , 94% , Yale , , 96%
-3% , 92% , Stanford , , 95%
-3% , 70% , U Miami , , 73%
-4% , 68% , SMU , , 72%
-4% , 92% , Princeton , , 96%
-4% , 90% , U Penn , , 94%
-4% , 86% , Johns Hopkins , , 90%
-4% , 87% , Rice , , 91%
-4% , 74% , Fordham , , 78%
-5% , 81% , Emory , , 86%
-5% , 89% , Dartmouth , , 94%
-5% , 90% , Brown , , 95%
-5% , 87% , Cornell , , 92%
-5% , 88% , Duke , , 93%
-5% , 87% , Wash U , , 92%
-5% , 74% , Boston University , , 79%
-5% , 75% , Syracuse , , 80%
-6% , 77% , USC , , 83%
-6% , 86% , Columbia-Barnard , , 92%
-6% , 87% , Northwestern , , 93%
-7% , 87% , Georgetown , , 94%
-7% , 88% , Notre Dame , , 95%
-7% , 72% , Pepperdine , , 79%
-8% , 81% , Brandeis , , 89%
-8% , 73% , U Rochester , , 81%
-9% , 80% , U Chicago , , 89%
-9% , 64% , Tulane , , 73%
-9% , 84% , MIT , , 93%
-9% , 69% , George Washington , , 78%
-9% , 82% , Tufts , , 91%
-10% , 76% , Carnegie Mellon , , 86%
-10% , 69% , Case Western , , 79%
-11% , 72% , NYU , , 83%
-11% , 65% , Worcester , , 76%
-11% , 80% , Boston College , , 91%
-12% , 70% , Rensselaer , , 82%
-18% , 56% , BYU , , 74%
-26% , 59% , Lehigh , , 85%</p>

<pre><code>, na , Yeshiva , , 80%
</code></pre>

<p>6-year Graduation Rate Difference from All Students , Black , State University , , Overall 6-Year Grad Rate</p>

<p>-3% , 66% , UC S CRUZ , , 69%
-5% , 88% , U VIRGINIA , , 93%
-5% , 71% , U TEXAS , , 76%
-5% , 69% , U GEORGIA , , 74%
-6% , 85% , WILLIAM & MARY , , 91%
-7% , 65% , RUTGERS , , 72%
-7% , 68% , CLEMSON , , 75%
-8% , 76% , UC SAN DIEGO , , 84%
-8% , 72% , UC IRVINE , , 80%
-8% , 72% , UC DAVIS , , 80%
-9% , 74% , U N CAROLINA , , 83%
-9% , 68% , VIRGINIA TECH , , 77%
-9% , 69% , UC S BARBARA , , 78%
-11% , 62% , U CONNECTICUT , , 73%
-11% , 66% , U MARYLAND , , 77%
-11% , 60% , U PITTSBURGH , , 71%
-11% , 69% , U FLORIDA , , 80%
-12% , 65% , TEXAS A&M , , 77%
-13% , 62% , U WASHINGTON , , 75%
-13% , 63% , U DELAWARE , , 76%
-13% , 54% , PURDUE , , 67%
-14% , 62% , GEORGIA TECH , , 76%
-14% , 74% , UCLA , , 88%
-16% , 68% , PENN STATE , , 84%
-16% , 52% , OHIO STATE , , 68%
-16% , 71% , U MICHIGAN , , 87%
-17% , 56% , MICHIGAN ST , , 73%
-17% , 71% , UC BERKELEY , , 88%
-18% , 64% , U ILLINOIS , , 82%
-19% , 41% , U MINNESOTA , , 60%
-20% , 46% , U IOWA , , 66%
-21% , 51% , INDIANA U , , 72%
-21% , 56% , U WISCONSIN , , 77%</p>

<p>6-year Graduation Rate Difference from All Students , Black , LAC , , Overall 6-Year Grad Rate</p>

<p>4% , 89% , Smith , , 85%
0% , 92% , Wellesley , , 92%
0% , 84% , Cl Mck-Mudd-Scripps , , 84%
-1% , 90% , Davidson , , 91%
-1% , 85% , Trinity , , 86%
-2% , 71% , Bard , , 73%
-2% , 90% , Swarthmore , , 92%
-2% , 82% , Furman , , 84%
-2% , 82% , Macalester , , 84%
-3% , 81% , Bryn Mawr , , 84%
-3% , 93% , Williams , , 96%
-3% , 93% , Amherst , , 96%
-3% , 81% , U Richmond , , 84%
-3% , 82% , Pomona-Pitzer , , 85%
-3% , 86% , Lafayette , , 89%
-4% , 78% , Oberlin , , 82%
-4% , 84% , Grinnell , , 88%
-4% , 77% , Occidental , , 81%
-4% , 87% , Wesleyan , , 91%
-5% , 86% , Holy Cross , , 91%
-6% , 80% , Whitman , , 86%
-6% , 75% , Mt. Holyoke , , 81%
-6% , 86% , Barnard-Columbia , , 92%
-6% , 84% , Vassar , , 90%
-9% , 81% , Colgate , , 90%
-10% , 77% , Hamilton , , 87%
-10% , 81% , Haverford , , 91%
-10% , 72% , US Military Acad , , 82%
-10% , 78% , Bates , , 88%
-10% , 79% , Bucknell , , 89%
-12% , 71% , Kenyon , , 83%
-12% , 76% , Colby , , 88%
-13% , 66% , Sewanee , , 79%
-14% , 69% , Colorado College , , 83%
-14% , 72% , US Naval Acad , , 86%
-18% , 72% , Carleton , , 90%
-18% , 73% , Bowdoin , , 91%
-19% , 73% , Middlebury , , 92%
-19% , 69% , W&L , , 88%</p>

2

<p>Does anyone know what percentage of CalTech students are African American?</p>

3

<p>Quick look at the Common Data Set from 2005 says 10.</p>

<p>That’s right, ten African American kids at Caltech.
<a href=“http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2005.pdf[/url]”>http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2005.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

4

<p>Caltech has about 230 kids per class, and generally less than one percent are black, meaning they have 2 or 3 black kids per class. So they make sure those two black kids(who magically appear in every piece of promotional material for the school) graduate.</p>

5

<p>

</p>

<p>CalTech doesn’t care much about race (and probably a tid tad bit more about sex), so I doubt the few African American students in each class are less qualified when compared to the rest of the student body.</p>

6

<p>IMO, if you see a school with a double digit deficit, that is a red flag. Either they’re admitting inferior students in order to reach a target or they’re not providing enough support or something less than good is going on. </p>

<p>Hats off to Caltech, Wake Forest, and Smith for their good comparisons. BTW, their percentage of Black undergrads are 1%, 7% and 7%, respectively.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>So it’s a good thing when non-black students are less likely graduate than black students? It’s interesting that you didn’t laud Wellesley for graduating both groups at the same rate. Maybe that’s because you don’t actually believe in equality, you believe in racism. Well played, hawkette, but you’ve been exposed for what you are.</p>

8

<p>Um, exaggeration much? I don’t think that’s what hawkette meant at all. In an environment where on average black students graduate at much lower rates - sometimes with double-digit differences - from university than their counterparts, hawkette was praising the efforts of schools that have made the effort to ensure that their African American students graduate at acceptable rates.</p>

9

<p>^^^
I think it was clear what Hawkette was saying. To interpret it as racism is to reveal your own agenda.</p>

10

<p>

</p>

<p>Not necessarily. Some of the numbers are so small at several of these schools that even the loss of only three or four students puts a huge dent in the percentages. There’s not enough critical mass for the graduation % to be a credible indicator of anything except that the number of Black students in each cleass is extremely small. I’m mostly referring to the LACs here.</p>

11

<p>

Berkeley and UCLA have graduation rates 16% lower than the average, yet neither practices affirmative action.</p>

<p>Odd, eh?</p>

<p>(Incidentally, modestmelody’s datum is outdated. Caltech currently has 7 black students.)</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>Not necessarily. Especially for the LACs, you are looking at some very small sample sizes. The year to year variations can be huge. I’ve seen grad rates for ethnic groups swing from 80% one year to 100% the next year at Swarthmore. The school didn’t do anything different. These are individual students with individual stories and the swing of just two or three can radically change the percentages. You’ve smoothed them out some with multiple years, but people should take small sample size data with a huge grain of salt.</p>

<p>I actually would be more concerned about any school graduating 98% of its students. The only way that could happen is that the school simply has a policy of graduating everybody no matter what. Is that a good thing? Or, do they need to move the tees back?</p>

13

<p>OK, so we’re supposed to believe that UC Santa Cruz, which graduates only 66% of its black students but only 69% of all students, is doing a better job than UCLA which graduates 74% of black students and 88% of all students—simply because the “differential” between graduation rates for blacks and the total student body is smaller at UC Santa Cruz (-3%) than at UCLA (-14%)? By what twisted logic could that possibly make sense? Clearly, black students attending UCLA have (statistically) a much better chance of graduating than black students attending UC Santa Cruz. I’d say UC Santa Cruz is, of the two, the one with the worse problem, where the “red flag” should be waving most urgently. Yes, the gap is bigger at UCLA, but only because UC Santa Cruz is lousy at graduating ALL students. It surely doesn’t merit praise for this. More statistical nonsense from hawkette.</p>

14

<p>“Clearly, black students attending UCLA have (statistically) a much better chance of graduating than black students attending UC Santa Cruz.”</p>

<p>5% is much better? All you can say about either of these schools (using the above stats) is that UC Santa Cruz does as good a job graduating it’s black students as it does with the rest of its students (which isn’t great), and UCLA is POSSIBLY “admitting inferior students in order to reach a target or they’re not providing enough support or something less than good is going on”.</p>

15

<p>FLVA,
I think you make a very valid point about the sample sizes at various campuses, particularly for the LAC universe of colleges. As with any data point, one needs to consider it in context. I do think that the 4-class averages smoothes out some of the rough edges, but your point is well taken.</p>

<p>My dear bc,
Did it occur to you that the student considering UC Santa Cruz likely does not have the option of going to UCLA? Your logic says that he/she might as well be comparing the UCSC numbers to Harvard’s. </p>

<p>I would suggest that the student considering UC Santa Cruz shouldn’t be looking at UCLA (or Harvard) as a comparison, but rather should be looking at schools of similar selectivity. </p>

<p>If I were a college administrator, I would also concerned about a large differential in graduation rates between Black students and the student body at large. Many have minority recruitment as a major goal and implicit in that would I think be a goal of a successful minority graduation rate. IMO, a 14% differential, such as you point out at UCLA, should not be dismissed so quickly and characterized as “statistical nonsense.”</p>

16

<p>

</p>

<p>Unfortunately, this metric could find explanations at many different levels. Just as there is NOTHING to learn from comparing yields among schools, this metric is basically flawed by the different methods that can be used to boost graduation rates, and especially ways to “overcome” the difficulty of the curriculum by offering fluff classes and easy grading to specific groups. </p>

<p>This should be clear when one list schools such as Caltech, Wake Forest, and Smith in one single example.</p>

17

<p>Before jumping to a lot of conclusions, know that graduation rate is largely a proxie for family income. The richer your students, the higher the graduation rate because things like having to go home and work to help support the faimily or earn enough to come back don’t enter the picture. So, a lot of the difference in graduation rates between racial groups is likely just a socio-economic issue.</p>

<p>The point is taken that some schools do a better job of making all racial groups stakeholders in the schools and putting in place the mechanism to support a diverse student body (deans from all groups, etc.). Rather than try to decipher all that by looking at graduation rates, I would sugguest looking at those issues directly (and in some detail). What do the deans look like? Are there role models for all students in the administration? What is the writing program like? What are the academic mentor programs. How widely are they used. Are there free study skills seminars? How widely are those attended?</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>True, albeit not as universally true as one might think! </p>

<p>Is a student whose family finances allow for a FULL Pell Grant and SEOG at a school that meets 100% of need not MORE sheltered from financial pressures than the sons and daughters of middle class families, especially when attending the multitude of schools that do not come remotely close to meeting need? </p>

<p>One could easily state “The richer and the more generous your school, the higher the graduation rates will be, regardless of the wealth of its admitted students” </p>

<p>In fact, the more one looks at it, the less valuable a metric the graduation rates at 4, 6, or the even more ridiculous at 8 years, it becomes. All it takes it compare the graduate rates at extremely rigororous engineering schools such as Caltech and Harvey Mudd with any of the “pay your fees and collect your Bees” type of schools around the country to understand that the graduation rates has very, very little to do with the quality of education.</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>But interesteddad makes a very good point:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>For kids from low-income families, sometimes it’s not the out-of-pocket cost of the school that’s the driving factor. Sometimes it’s the opportunity cost of not earning money while in school, money the family may desperately need to pay the rent and the light bill and to feed the younger siblings and pay for Mom’s pharmacy prescriptions. The opportunity cost of four years in school is a huge hidden cost of higher education that middle-class and affluent families simply assume away, and one that no financial aid program addresses. Yes, the poor too might benefit from investing in higher education and foregoing present earnings; but when the wolf is at the door, that investment may look like a luxury you can’t afford. </p>

<p>I think any discussion of graduation rates that doesn’t control for family income is only going to produce unhelpful disinformation.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>Check your math. I’d say the difference between a 74% graduation rate and a 66% graduation rate is pretty substantial.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>OK, fair enough—UCSC is different from UCLA, perhaps by as much or more than UCLA is different from Harvard. But if we can’t make these inter-school comparisons, then what exactly is the point of this thread? You set it up precisely to suggest that we SHOULD make exactly these kinds of inter-school comparisons, and then proposed that we applaud schools that have a low differential between black and general student graduation rates—even if the only reason for that negligible difference is that the graduation rates in both cases are atrocious, as in UCSC’s case. And you further suggested that we should raise “red flags” concerning schools with a higher differential—even if they’re doing a much better job at graduating both black students and students in general. YOU didn’t differentiate between schools on the basis of their selectivity in the way you presented the data. That would be a welcome addition. So would inclusion of data on the percentage and absolute numbers of black students in the student body, to give us some context for figures that might in some cases involve such trivial numbers as to be not worth considering seriously. So would inclusion of additional demographic data, such as household income. If Caltech is graduating on average 2 African-Americans per year and both are the offspring of tenured Ivy League professors, I’m not impressed. We’re then simply not talking about the same demographic as a large state school that may be admitting large numbers of highly talented but academically and economically disadvantaged graduates of impoverished inner-city or rural southern schools, most of whom are successfully navigating their way through the challenges of higher education. Those would be success stories, not failures. Without that additional context, the data you provide is worthless at best, profoundly misleading at worst. And I think you know better, hawkette.</p>