<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/business/economy/09leonhardt.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/business/economy/09leonhardt.html</a> </p>
<p>"At its top levels, the American system of higher education may be the best in the world. Yet in terms of its core mission turning teenagers into educated college graduates much of the system is simply failing."</p>
<p>So just let everyone pass and give them money and then the colleges would be perfect? Mediocrity in the extreme again! A friend of mine is a college prof and you wouldn’t believe how many times a student came to him and said that an A was deserved because he’she “tried.” He says that the drive for excellence in turning out a product lessens each year. And I see this in my high school classroom, as well. (Not all of them, but a larger percentage each year.) When I went to school in the Dark Ages, there were no Honors Colleges - everyone had to meet the same standard. Now, there are Honors Colleges for the scholars and college for anyone who doesn’t want to try for Honors College or is not qualified. So we should water this down even more? Enough already! Let college mean something. If someone really wants to complete it and money is an issue, they may take longer to finish, or they may do whatever it takes, but the opportunity is there. Because some don’t finish within 6 years doesn’t mean the system has failed. In fact, I would venture to say that those individuals probably are more ambitious and driven and will be very successful in life, because they show tenacity and a drive to succeed.</p>
<p>From todays Chronicle of Higher Education on the same topic: [For</a> Some Students, an Ever-Receding Finish Line - Student Affairs - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/For-Some-Students-an/48331/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en]For”>http://chronicle.com/article/For-Some-Students-an/48331/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en)</p>
<p>I have no problem with people failing. Not everyone who is in college should be there or is ready to study at that level. A worse case scenario is watering down carricula and bumping people through, while inflating grades. I fear that is happening and the value of the BA/BA degree is becoming diluted.
[National</a> Trends in Grade Inflation, American Colleges and Universities](<a href=“http://www.gradeinflation.com%5DNational”>http://www.gradeinflation.com)</p>
<p>The Chronicle article that Sally posted pointed out that there is still some uncertainty with ‘why, exactly, are graduation rates stronger at selective colleges?’ even when controling for SATs and income…and pointed to the possibility of peer effects (good stuff rubbing off from high achievement students.) For the curious, the Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education has produced some research that support such a notion…check out report DP64 (and some others) on their website:
[WPEHE</a> Publications](<a href=“http://www.williams.edu/wpehe/research.html]WPEHE”>http://www.williams.edu/wpehe/research.html)</p>
<p>[The</a> Associated Press: Research: Pupils don’t aim high enough for college](<a href=“http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g6ds2PoAZ0MnHX-coFnKpULuWbAgD9AJIHAG0]The”>http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g6ds2PoAZ0MnHX-coFnKpULuWbAgD9AJIHAG0)</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>^ The link just submitted above is related to the same study, and focuses on this finding of the study: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is purely anecdotal but according to their SAT’s, GPA’s etc…two of mine attended colleges that were “beneath” them. One graduated on time (4 years) and the other is doing very well and loving her school.
Until the past 4-5 years, the vast majority of kids from their high school attended colleges that were “beneath” them and did well and graduated.
A close friend of my daughters is attending a college “beneath” her against everyone’s advice and she will graduate in 3 years.</p>
<p>As for the article - they only looked at North Carolina and college expenses are very cheap at the State colleges. However, there still could be a socio-economic reason - even with cheap tuition there is still the cost of room and board which may force many kids to stay home.
The reason, I think, that graduation rates are higher at selective colleges is that there are not as many “high risk” kids and they can and do give them the support that they need.
Less selective state colleges have many kids who are socio-economially high risk and they just can’t give them the attention they deserve.</p>
<p>The threat of failing out teaches a person to work harder. A college’s job is to teach. It’s up to the students to learn. No need to cater to the lazy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wish they had quantified “surprisingly well”.</p>
<p>I agree - enough of this "honors’ stuff. Before long, Harvard will have an honors program. This is getting as bad as youth sports. Kids always used to shoot for “A” hockey and now “A” has become “beneath” them and they are trying for the newest league called super selects.</p>
<p>I also think that most colleges with high 4 year grad rates are able to make sure that kids get into the classes they need in order to graduate on time.</p>
<p>I think that many professors don’t care about their students. I know there are some kids that grade grub, make excuses and rarely put in the time needed to do well- but then there’s the kid who does all of the work and gets a decent grade but needs research opportunities, advice, etc. Advising has become almost a “mundane” task for teachers- you do small talk, you sign the paper, and you repeat. Also, just because there’s a honors college, doesn’t mean its “better” than the regular college. I’ve seen honor colleges that I’ve disliked not because of all the work I have to put in, but because I didn’t agree with the honor college’s rhetoric.</p>
<p>The claim in the article does not match with the following claims:</p>
<p>[CSU</a> | Public Affairs | Graduation Rates Report](<a href=“http://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/2005/gradrates.shtml]CSU”>http://www.calstate.edu/pa/news/2005/gradrates.shtml)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/9889[/url]”>http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/9889</a></p>
<p>[06.04.97</a> - Four-year graduation rate soars as UC Berkeley undergraduates complete their degrees faster](<a href=“http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/rates.html]06.04.97”>06.04.97 - Four-year graduation rate soars as UC Berkeley undergraduates complete their degrees faster)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way - that’s precisely what medical schools do. It’s practically impossible to actually flunk out of medical school. You may not get top grades or assessments, but you’re not going to fail either. The attrition rates of med-school are vanishingly low. The hardest part of med-school is simply getting in. Yet does anybody accuse medical education of proffering ‘mediocrity in the extreme’.</p>
<p>Like I’ve always said, the best way for schools to combat low graduation rates is to simply become more selective. I’ve never understood why schools insist on admitting students who are going to perform poorly. Nobody benefits from that. Those students would be better off going to easier schools that are more suited for their abilities.</p>
<p>Actually, the articles also say “living on campus” is a big part of success. It sounds like the authors should redo their study and compare commuter students with resident students. They should also consider that commuter students are much more likely to be balancing a heavy work schedule with their studies. And it sounds as if many of these students may be dropping out for financial reasons. One, poorer students are not sophisticated about financial aid, but two, they may be need to skip classes to work to support themselves – like for food, housing, basic needs. It can become a downward spiral. I am sure it is all much more complicated than these articles make out. But to get the right answer one needs to ask the right questions. The under matching discussion is potentially a red herring here.</p>
<p>^ Exactly. The “less selective” colleges are proxies for commuter-schools. Kids live at home to save money…they get jobs…they have friends not in school…in short, they develop a life style that is not as college-centric, and hence they are more likely to drop out regardless of their personal scholastic aptitude.</p>
<p>"Like I’ve always said, the best way for schools to combat low graduation rates is to simply become more selective. I’ve never understood why schools insist on admitting students who are going to perform poorly. Nobody benefits from that. Those students would be better off going to easier schools that are more suited for their abilities. "</p>
<p>Well said and I agree 100%. The fact that everyone should be college educated is bunk and deminishes the value of the BA/BS degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s why I disagree with your logic. Just because on paper you were a “mediocre” student at high school doesn’t mean you can’t learn from your mistakes. I think the biggest mistake schools can make in my opinion is making admissions a bigger deal than it is. When I first found out that newly graduated students were admissions officers- I was shocked. I thought that some sort of specialists pick out students. But then I realized that it doesn’t matter that much. Simply raising the admissions standards just to lower the admissions rates makes little sense to me. There’s always a better way.</p>
<p>Colleges that accept almost anyone are more likely to have dropouts? I am shocked, deeply shocked!</p>
<p>/sarcasm
/thread</p>
<p>What should be done is more analysis on the K-16 graduation rates. At a time when a college degree has become a de facto minimum standard for full employment, our attrition numbers after middle school are nothing short of alarming.</p>
<p>In a few years, we will be celebrating the 30th anniversary of the unveiling of “A Nation at Risk.” All we have done is going downhill in the past 30 years … and the 30 years before that. And this in lockstep since we decided it was a good idea to abdicate the control of our education system to people who never thought the interest of students were more important than protecting the beneficiaries of the “system.”</p>