<p>A new report from the American Enterprise Institute <a href="http://www.aei.org/docLib/Diplomas%20and%20Dropouts%20final.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.aei.org/docLib/Diplomas%20and%20Dropouts%20final.pdf</a></p>
<p>Interesting. </p>
<p>I think alot these numbers would be lower if you just said how many graduated in 4 years. I realize people go part time and take longer or change majors or switch schools and take longer to graduate. But my pocketbook is only paying for 4 years</p>
<p>On the whole (and with many exceptions), schools with the lowest percentage of Pell Grant students, and fewest receiving need-based aid will have the highest graduation rates. It would be great to have a study like this linked to family income. The single most common reason students leave school is difficulty in paying for it, or difficult economic situations back home.</p>
<p>The 6 year time frame is better than 4- it includes those who may have a job during school but do finish in a good time frame. You can find statistics with graphs et al on individual schools’ websites. Sorting through the data on a specific school’s website is interesting. Looking at the retention rates for the second year is also revealing.</p>
<p>Thanks for posting this link.</p>
<p>It is not a good use of your money to send your kid to a school where he or she is not likely to graduate - although each school has some graduates.</p>
<p>I do think it is smart to send your kid to a school where they are surrounded by those who are likely to graduate.</p>
<p>It took me five years to get my A. B., but I was ten years more mature by the time I finished.</p>
<p>I personally believe that the low graduation rates are a good thing. It shows that schools are requiring standards of their students, and if the students aren’t putting enough effort in, they should not get a diploma.</p>
<p>I’ve worked four extremely hard years and I’ll be graduating with my B.S., commission, and license and it annoys the hell out of me, that I could have taken half the credits at some other school, been drunk half the time and still have the same degree (if not the license and commission).</p>
<p>It’s possible that it’s not just that poor students who receive aid may not be able to graduate on time because of disadvantages hardships. It could also be caused by the fact that they’re going to school for free or very cheaply. It’s kinda like being on welfare and never looking for a job. Students whose families are paying full tuition are not going to allow their kids to take an extra year. But if you’re going to school for cheap, why not stay an extra year?</p>
<p>I don’t really have anything to add, except that that is the best cover art ever.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link–very interesting to see that the graduation rate at the small, semi-selective LAC in my homestate are about equal to that of flagship university…</p>
<p>“I personally believe that the low graduation rates are a good thing. It shows that schools are requiring standards of their students, and if the students aren’t putting enough effort in, they should not get a diploma.”</p>
<p>So you are saying that the University of memphis has higher standards than Vanderbilt? My guess would be no.</p>
<p>My university did not fair well on the list, people at the university have known this for years. Attending the university, I can see why we do not have a high grad rate, many do not belong there at all.</p>
<p>Not saying they are stupid, it is just I can tell they have no interest in college at this time in their life, when the parties get boring, the upper division classes start getting hard, etc, they will drop. For many it seems their parents pushed into it all the while they rather be working or going off learning something else like being a carpenter or a beautician.</p>
<p>A guy I was in class with last semester that graduated actually prefered to be a heavy equipment operator and scored an entry level job operating a skidloader at a nursery.</p>
<p>How can UC Berkeley be classified as “HIghly Competitive” and UCLA as “Most Competitive”?<br>
Makes no sense.</p>
<p>This is basically just a rehash of IPEDS data that is widely available elsewhere, but it is interesting to look at some of their charts. The graduation rates at some of these schools are shockingly bad. A 6-year graduation rate of 8% at Colorado Christian University, rated “very competitive” in admissions? Are you kidding me? Why would anyone even bother, with that kind of track record? I don’t think any state recognizes a tort of educational malpractice, but maybe it’s time to consider one.</p>
<p>Even some schools highly touted on CC have disturbingly low graduation rates. Here are a few:</p>
<p>New College of Florida 56%
St. John’s (NM) 56%
Hendrix 66%
Northeastern U 66%
Goucher 67%
St. John’s (MD) 71%
Knox 72%
Rhodes 73%
Tulane 76%
Reed 76%
U of Miami 76%
Bard 76%
George Washington U 78%
Kalamazoo 78%</p>
<p>Unless I skimmed the article too quickly, it seemed it could not deal with transfers. If a child starts at school A, and transfers to school B, and graduates within 4 years, I dont think that should be regarded as a negative to school A.</p>
<p>mikecerang:</p>
<p>Yeah, having Berkeley and UCLA in two different categories jumped out at me, too. Something’s not right with that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s the BOTTOM end of the group of students that each college admits that appears to make the difference in the Barron’s methodology, and that makes sense given the different history of admission policies at those two UC campuses. But you’d have to ask the Barron’s editors to be 100 percent sure.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A far more efficient method for all parties concerned is for the colleges to simply not have admitted those students in the first place. Why admit somebody who isn’t going to graduate anyway? You’re just wasting everybody’s time - the school’s and the student’s. </p>
<p>As to how a school would know who is unlikely to graduate, one can invoke the same statistical regression analysis that insurance companies use to underwrite premiums. For example, if smoking is statistically correlated with high medical expenditures, then health insurance firms respond by charging higher premiums to smokers, or not even offering insurance at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that speaks to a related problem: why don’t those schools offer better financial support for those students so that they will graduate? Schools are not doing students any favors by admitting them only to have them leave due to finances. If anything, those students are actually worse off. They were already poor to begin with, so you admitted them, billed them and then sent them away without a degree? They would have been better off had they not even been admitted at all, for at least then they would not have wasted their money.</p>
<p>I don’t think this has been addressed here: it is difficult to graduate in 4 years at some schools because of scheduling difficulties/conflicts. Good questions to ask when checking out schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Daily</a> Nebraskan - Four-year graduates rare](<a href=“http://www.dailynebraskan.com/news/four-year-graduates-rare-1.1740198]Daily”>http://www.dailynebraskan.com/news/four-year-graduates-rare-1.1740198)</p>
<p>I want to know why the school’s 6-year graduation rate is only 64%. What are students doing, that they are not capable of graduating in less than 6 years?</p>
<p>Awesome my school (Penn State-Main) beat out Lehigh.</p>