<p>Only about 25 to 30 percent of the population has an IQ above about 115 which is the minimal level of intelligence needed to complete a higher education program and still have the degree be a meaningful mastery of knowledge. With a current four year graduation rate of 27% I think America has achieved its goal of educating everyone capable of higher learning. We should not, therefore, be concerned in the least about the current graduation rate.</p>
<p>What we should be concerned with is having meaningful jobs with benefits for the bottom 73% of the population. To this end, we need to revize our free trade policies such that we only trade with nations with comparable work standards and tax/tariff rates to rebuild our manufacturing base. We also need to promote apprenticeships to the skilled trades in the communtiy college system.</p>
<p>It is not the colleges that are failing. They have to work with the students they enroll. High schools are failing, middle schools are failing, elementary schools are failing. Why? Because families are failing to raise children properly. Fifty percent of the problem is bad genes and 50% is bad parents. Why are there so many bad parents? Because they had bad parents.</p>
<p>It is a “chicken and egg” problem.</p>
<p>Our culture and economic system are inherently “anti-family”.</p>
<p>All of the articles you posted are incredibly dated. </p>
<p>They are measuring 6 year graduation rates of entering frosh. If they are writing an article in 1997, that means they are looking at frosh who entered 1990/1991. Writing in 2003, you are looking at frosh from 1998. </p>
<p>An updated source is UCOP’S STATFINDER</p>
<p>At the UC, <em>Six year</em>graduation rates fall along selectivity:</p>
<p>Yes, screw those people who don’t have the fortune to be able to drop everything and afford to live on a college campus. Screw those people who have families who can’t afford to provide the “full college experience.”</p>
<p>or they could do a better job of educating their students.
the idea that colleges are suppose to help develop their students, and not simply polish already found gems, is a large driving force behind the “Colleges that Change Lives” movement.
In the list, the schools are characterized by low admissions standards (so no swarthmores or harvards) and turn out high graduation rates/students who go on to do exceptionally well (med students, law students, scientist, etc). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The idea that you can simply crank up the admission criteria doesnt fight the actual problem: some of these schools, just maybe, suck at teaching/developing their students. the students who do well may be students who would do well at any school that isn’t completely horrible. to a degree, we have to realize that 18 year old kids aren’t really adults and do not have the same abilities and maturity as such. in my view, a large reason we go to college is to develop those abilities- ease the transition from child to adult and avoid causalities alone the way.</p>
<p>although i do agree, the idea that everyone should be in college is bull. ive met plenty of people who simply shouldnt be in college…</p>
<p>If we had a 50% 4 year college graduation rate, the credentital of the four year degree would simply diminish in value to almost nothing, since the work completed would not be of a complex enough nature to indicate true intellectual attainment. It would not solve the problem of preparing a strong work force. All we would end up doing is making our mail carriers 50% college graduates instead of the 12% they are now.</p>
<p>We don’t do anyone a favor by giving them a college degree when the person really can’t function as a doctor, accountant, nurse, engineer etc. The biggest workforce problem we have today is the large group of students who spend two years at a community college or a four year school and then eventually drop out because they really shoud not be there to begin with. If you aren’t capable of getting a four year degree, two years in college does someone a lot less good than if the person obtained a carpenters or plumbing license or a specific software repair credential. We have to be responsive to the workforce we have not the idyllic one where half the population will read the Scientific American or Harpers each month.</p>
<p>As for advising, yes, my H has become very discouraged with advising and it has become a “mundane” task for him. This is because many of his advisees literally don’t care what they take. They come to him with no choices of classes, no idea what they want or need. So it is his job to search through the class list and find something - anything. Their only request is that it meet at a certain time. He has now said they must have a preliminary schedule filled out or he will send them away. Unfortunately, the time, effort and attention he has to spend on the students that don’t care takes away from the focus he can put on the good students. I hear much more about the poor students than the good students and I have been trying to point this out to him. I would love to see him shift the focus.</p>
<p>His complaint is that their prior education has not prepared them well for college level work. They have not been pushed nearly hard enough and not enough has been demanded of them. They can’t follow instructions (he asks for a 3 page paper and the student turns is 1 1/2 pages). They can’t stay off their cell phone for 1 hr. and 15 minutes. They are offended that he does not let them use their laptop in class (since they are either surfing, IMing or playing games). They have no respect for professors. </p>
<p>So my H and most of his colleagues DO care, they just need some reciprocity on the part of the students.</p>
<p>‘Mediocre’ high schools students may still be able to go to college - just not to a college that is too difficult for them. It’s better to graduate from Cal State Los Angeles than flunk out of Caltech. By admitting those students who are just going to flunk out, colleges are simply wasting people’s time and money. Those students would have been better off at some other school, or in the case of some students, not even going to college at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s where we disagree: I think that admissions is the most important decision a college can ever make. Note, that’s not to defend some of the admissions practices that colleges implement now, as I agree with you that colleges should not be hiring newly graduated students as admissions officers. Nevertheless, the guiding principle should be that colleges should only admit those students who will succeed in the program. </p>
<p>Now, obviously, nobody can ever know for sure who will succeed in the program and who won’t. However, colleges can mine their databases from past students to build a dossier of students who succeeded in the past, and then only admit students of that type. Perhaps more importantly, colleges can also build dossiers of past students who had failed, and then not admit similar students in the future. Admitting students who don’t fit in the program and are unlikely to succeed helps nobody. </p>
<p>Nor does that necessarily imply simply lowering admissions rates. An even better solution would be to have those students who don’t fit in the program not even apply at all. Caltech’s vaunted science and mathematics oriented reputation deters those students who don’t possess that sort of aptitude from even applying at all, and rightfully so, for those students are unlikely to succeed anyway. Schools should therefore provide more information about what sort of student fits in the program - and more importantly, what sort of student does not - and then allow students to sort themselves appropriately.</p>
<p>Toast Eater, I know what you mean and I agree with probably 90% of what you say. We should be providing better vocational training to the majority of people for which a college education is not appropriate. They can have a fine career as plumbers, electricians, IT workers, and so forth - in many cases being paid more than many college graduates earn. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with a 50% 4-year graduation rate - or even a 90+% rate - as long as we are careful about who is admitted to college in the first place. If colleges admit only those students who will succeed, then we can enjoy a 90+% rate. {Note, some students will get sick, some students will drop out of school for other opportunities such as entrepreneurship, so you’ll never hit a 100% rate. But you can get close.} The rest of the people who were never admitted to college at all would be able to build perfectly acceptable careers in the aforementioned skilled trades and so forth.</p>
<p>I would argue that it is precisely those students who are right now being screwed most of all under the current system. These people don’t have money - but then you want to charge them money and then not even grant them a degree in exchange? These are precisely the people who can afford that the least. </p>
<p>A better solution would be if colleges only charged if you actually graduated (or at a pro-rated level if you transfer your credits to another school and graduate there). If you don’t actually graduate, then you don’t pay.</p>
<p>But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for schools to implement such a policy. The next best solution would then be to simply not admit those students at all, and therefore not have them waste money that they don’t really have.</p>
<p>A plumbing license is better than having attended and been dismissed from a college after two years, especially when you consider the considerable costs of the latter.</p>
<p>maybe its because college students realize
that Bernie Madoff went to a third tier school
and still came through with four beachside estates, yachts, and vases worth millions
not to mention a good chunk of money.</p>
<p>What if this isn’t about how hard college is at all? I remember reading that most students drop out because of financial issues, not because of the difficulty.</p>
<p>I think the most interesting idea to come from the book is that you should attend the best college that will admit you. Your chances of graduating are better, other things being equal.</p>
<p>Then the best answer is for schools to provide better financial aid. </p>
<p>Barring that, don’t admit those students who can’t demonstrate that they won’t be able to pay their way through graduation. While that might seem cruel, I would actually argue that that’s actually kind. These people are already poor, and you’re not helping them by charging them money they don’t really have and then not graduating them. You should instead admit fewer people, but help to graduate those you do admit. For example, instead of admitting 4 students, all of whom will later drop out because of financial difficulties, just admit the best one of those 4, and provide that student with full financial aid.</p>
<p>Why is it assumed that plumbing and other trades are easily attainable by people under a certain IQ? There isn’t a dichotomy where smart = 4 year college and dumb = able to do the trades. My dad is quite the handiman and I’ve seen his blueprints for various projects . . . He’s explained to me, on occasion, what he’s doing on the car, the fridge, or the bathroom. I never fully comprehend it because I do NOT have the aptitude for that sort of thing and it makes my eyes glaze over. But it’s certainly very exacting (woe unto you if you should measure a few centimeters wrong on the bathroom tiling), complicated (needs careful planning), and requires a lot of logic and math. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think kids should be encouraged to figure out potential careers BEFORE they go to college. Yes, college students typically change majors three times, yadda yadda, but they should at least have a vague idea of what they would like to do and, equally important, don’t want to do. This was one of my major failings when I went to college the first time, years ago. I didn’t have the slightest clue what I wanted to do, so I fell into a major because I had an aptitute for it. But when I actually started thinking about it, I realized that most of the jobs related to that major were ones I hated. I liked that subject in the context of academia, but it didn’t lead to JOBS I would actually have liked.</p>
<p>I think it’s fair to say that different people are better at different things. Some people may not do well within an academic context, but are adroit at working with their hands, and they should be encouraged to pursue a skilled trades career rather than college, , for a skilled tradesman can earn more money than many college graduates will. There is no implication that one skillset is necessarily more worthy than the other.</p>