Colleges Are Failing in Graduation Rates (New York Times)

College Search & Selection
41

<p>I find the implication that those with a “lower IQ” are better off in the “trades” incredibly classist/racist. How? IQ tests have been proven time and time again to be flawed and biased against students who are not white/Asian or upper-middle class. Try being a plumber for a day and then tell me what IQ one has to be in order to be a successful one.</p>

<p>Why is it that a poor Hispanic or a black student who is more likely to score a “lower IQ” shouldn’t have the opportunity to go to college? </p>

<p>The problem is systemic; we must fix our K-12 system, starting by offering quality, universal preschool (yes, the preschool you go to can determine whether or not you succeed academically), and THEN we can talk about who should and shouldn’t go to college.</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think anybody has proposed using IQ tests. We would use the same standardized test scores, high school grades, and other admissions factors that are being used currently to determine college admissions - and if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with the way things are being run right now. </p>

<p>I also don’t necessarily see that any restrictions on admissions would necessarily fall solely on poor black or Hispanic students, for I would argue that plenty of lazy rich white and Asian students who have no motivation for study would also be denied admission, and ought to be. See below. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Like I said, I never supported using “IQ tests”. Nor did I ever say that any poor student - whether Hispanic, black or any other race - should necessarily be denied the opportunity to go to college. </p>

<p>However, what I have said is that students should be matched to a college that corresponds to their abilities. Just because you’re good enough to be admitted to a typical college doesn’t mean that you should be admitted to Caltech…only to then flunk out. Many (probably most) of those Caltech flunkouts would have successfully earned their degrees had they gone to an easier school. Those students who would not have graduated from first-tier schools should have simply not been admitted in the first place, and thereby attended second-tier schools, those students who would not have graduated from second-tier schools should have gone to 3rd-tier schools, etc.</p>

<p>Now, granted, the implication of my proposal most likely is that more students - regardless of race or socioeconomic status - would ultimately be denied admission to any college, for those students who would henceforth be denied admission to the 4th tier schools would not be admitted anywhere. But, like I said, that’s as it should be. They aren’t going to graduate anyway, so why admit them at all? Doing so only wastes their time and money, which is an especial problem for those poor students who you referenced earlier. These students already don’t have much money, so how does it help those students to take money that they don’t have? They’re now worse off then even before. Those students would be better off at a community college where they can pick up a practical vocational degree. </p>

<p>To be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with people who want to learn as much as possible. That’s what the community colleges provide, for which admissions are open, the costs are cheap, and ample opportunities exist to learn a wide variety of skills. However, 4-year colleges are a different story. I see nothing to be gained by having unprepared students enter 4-year colleges only to drop out or flunk out.</p>

43

<p>I have never understood why the 4 yr graduation rate is so important and why it is one of the parameters in US News ranking. If student drop out for whatever reason let them drop out. As Xiggi has noted we are going down hill for 60 years. Increasing graduation rate is not going to make us intellectually competitive. It seems that we as a nation have decided to import/out-source the brains anyway. Increasing graduation rate would only mean that the French Fries fryer at McDonald will have a college degree to hang on his frying machine.</p>

44

<p>Yes like my Masters educated friends son who is now in the police academy. He would have 8 years on the force 12 years closer to retirement at the ripe ol age of 38/39. Live life in the reverse. A friends husband used the police force to obtain his Masers in Education on their dime, now at the age of 42 is a HS math teacher collecting a pension from his first career.</p>

45

<p>

</p>

<p>I would actually argue that that logic works in the exact opposite direction: if too many people have college degrees, then that only makes it imperative that you obtain one also, which makes 4-year graduation rates crucial. After all, if even the McDonalds French Fry guy has a college degree and you don’t, how does that make you look? </p>

<p>Now, I can agree with you that from a systemic point of view, having too many college graduates may be a waste of resources. But as a student, or a parent of a student, frankly, you don’t care about the systemic standpoint, because you can’t. All you care about is doing what it takes to advance your position. Put another way, if everybody else has a college degree and you don’t, you’re going to appear uncompetitive. Students and their parents therefore rationally value those schools that boast of high graduation rates because those schools help them to obtain the all-important degree. </p>

<p>The truth is, apart from employers within certain preprofessional tracks such as engineering or nursing, most employers don’t really care a whole lot about what you majored in. They don’t even care all that much about where you went to school. Those are only minor considerations, relative to the far more important question of whether you have a degree at all - from any school, in any major. Sure, it’s better to have an engineering degree from Stanford than a degree in some cheesepuff major from some 4th tier school, but the big dropoff is between having a cheesepuff degree from a 4th tier school and not having any degree at all. </p>

<p>So I agree with you that it’s a broken game. But it’s also a game that you can’t stop playing, because even if you stop, other people won’t, and they’re not going away. This is an arms race that no single individual can easily stop.</p>

46

<p>“which makes 4-year graduation rates crucial”</p>

<p>I think four-year rates are mostly nonsense; six-year rates are a much better metric, with so many big state schools overcrowded that students can’t get the classes they need to graduate in four years, and so many students facing financial pressure that some need to work a bit in between. Some just need a break to prevent burn-out. These factors vary from school to school and perhaps region to region, and the six-year rate helps to even out the comparisons between schools.</p>

47

<p>

</p>

<p>Inasmuch as families play a large role in educating and raising their children, parents should not nonetheless be able to rely on a system that is competent in providing the education to all. When some decided that the system would work on the basis of a quasi monopoly and force the parents to abdicate their rights to decide which system works for the children, they also accepted the responsibility. </p>

<p>What we have now is a system that remains competitive as long as parents are able to HELP their children by filling the huge gaps left by the army of incompetent, lazy, and over-protected teachers. As long as parents can help with basic math, basic reading, basic writing, the US remains on par or better with the rest of the world. As soon as the kids move beyond elementary school, the US falls like a rock. </p>

<p>Is there a correlation there? And please leave the moronic line of causation versus correlation out of this! The correlation is that our educational system is broken and UNABLE to educate children properly without outside crutches. Broken by the mediocrity and extremely low expectations brought to us by a system that is only meant to care about the … service providers. As the famous Shanker said, “I’ll care about students the day they will start paying union dues!” </p>

<p>In the meantime it is sooooooo easy to blame the families. Wanna have more family involvement? Give them more rights to speak and vote with their feet. Give them a system based on a true competition and choices. </p>

<p>Sooner or later, it WILL happen. Probably when the powers in charge start realizing that the hybrid model of charter schools still does not go far enough. The bad news is that we probably will waste another good number of generations before realizing the nefarious impact of what we have done in the past 50 years.</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>Uh, actually, I think that only strengthens the argument for 4-year graduation rates even further. After all, if a school is so overcrowded that students can’t get the classes they need to graduate in 4 years, then that should be a mark against the school, and rightfully so. Why would you want to go to such a school? Similarly, if the students are facing financial pressure, then that begs the question of why doesn’t the school offer better aid? Put another way, if you’re poor, then what you want is a school that allows you to graduate as quickly as possible so that you can leverage the degree to make money. A school in which you are unlikely to graduate in 4 years is a less attractive choice. If some students need a break due to burnout, then that begs the question of whether the school is overdemanding and/or whether the school is admitting students who can’t reasonably handle the workload. MIT is an infamously rigorous school, yet still manages to graduate over 80% of its students in 4 years. </p>

<p>Again, the bottom line is that it is entirely appropriate for students and their parents to prefer schools in which it is highly likely that they will graduate in 4 years.</p>

49

<p>The problem is that these factors have little to do with the quality of education from the institution. An employer or grad school cares little if it took four or six years; it’s the result that’s above all in importance. The student wants to go to such a school because its product is superior (noting that the objection raised above was that the four-year rate affects the one-size-fits-none ranking).</p>

50

<p>I disagree - it does have to do with the quality of education from the point of view of the student, and it is the student that is the ultimate consumer in the higher education market. All other things equal, the student should want to graduate as quickly as possible. </p>

<p>Let me give you a deliberately absurd example. Let’s say there was a school who all employers and grad schools agreed provided the absolute highest quality education in the world, better than any other school bar none, the only problem being that it takes 40 years to complete. I think we can agree that nobody would go to such a school. But why not - after all, the quality of the education is superior (at least in the eyes of employers and grad schools) and that’s all that matters, right? Yet regardless of what the quality of the education may be, the fact is, it simply takes too long. By the time you graduate, you’re ready to retire. </p>

<p>The point of the above example is to illustrate that timely graduation is an important factor that determines how desirable a particular school is as far as the students are concerned. Now, obviously it’s not the only factor. But it is an important factor. Students naturally choose against those schools that provide a slower path to education in favor of those that provide a faster path, holding the remainder of the quality of the education product package constant. And rationally so. Why spend extra years if you don’t have to?</p>

51

<p>All other things are not equal; that’s the point!</p>

<p>Let’s be a tiny bit more realistic:</p>

<p>School A averages four years at 80% quality.
School B averages six years at 100% quality.</p>

<p>Which measure is more important to grad schools and employers?</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>But again, it’s not the grad schools and employers who are the ultimate consumers of the product. The students are the consumers. Obviously the grad schools and employers don’t care how much time a program takes, for it’s not their time that is being spent. The students are the ones who have to spend the time. Hence, they’re the ones who have to be concerned about how much time they have to spend. </p>

<p>Besides, I don’t see any necessary inverse correlation between quality and graduation time. For example, we can surely agree that Harvard has the best overall brand in all of higher education. Yet Harvard also has one of the highest 4-year graduation rates of any school in the country. Harvard therefore combines both high quality with respect to grad schools and employers and a high graduation rate, and that is exactly why Harvard is such a desirable school.</p>

53

<p>Is this a joke? </p>

<p>Save your moral panics for another day.</p>

54

<p>I’m not saying it’s a moral panic.</p>

<p>I’m just saying that it’s a sad waste of resources to have so many students going to college but never graduating. Surely we could pay for health care reform and a host of other initiatives if we could redirect resources from that waste. </p>

<p>Now, obviously, nobody can reasonably ask for a 100% graduation rate. There will always be some people who will want to drop out. But you can improve the rate.</p>

55

<p>My opinion is that the grad rate at any school does not have a direct correlation to any one student at that school.
It is meaningless to each student because IMO it can be impacted by so many individual factors.</p>

56

<p>Do you really think (all things being equal) that an employer or graduate school will accept a college graduate who’s on the 6-year plan? Don’t you think that a student is more likely to graduate in 4 years if nearly all of his or her classmates is finishing on time ?</p>

57

<p>In general, I don’t think an employer or grad school would care; they know, e.g., that it can be hard to get classes in overcrowded schools. I don’t think they would care anyway.</p>

<p>Yes, I think the conditions and culture of a given school would play a role in the average time it takes a student to graduate.</p>