<p>This is interesting data, but pure comparisons of graduation rates can be misleading. To the extent that colleges demand academic rigor in their courses to weed out weaker students, a lower graduation rate that a peer institution that passes even poor performers, a lower rate could be a good thing. Of course, if the low graduation rate is due to horrendous scheduling issues, lackluster advising, unapproachable profs, incomprehensible TAs, etc., then it can rightly be interpreted as failure.</p>
<p>While in general I agree that colleges should admit only those likely to graduate, I do think some institutions have as part of their mission giving students with imperfect records the opportunity to succeed. They recognize that many of these non-sure-thing admits will fail to graduate, but if a portion of them do the school will be fulfilling its mission and the successful students will have profited from the lenient admissions policy.</p>
<p>Just another example of how misleading these statistical comparisons can be. In the “most competitive” category there are reasons why the grad rates are relatively low for the schools listed and they don’t have anything to do with the job the school is doing. For instance, GW admits a group of extremely competitive and often prestige-conscious freshman, a significant number of whom were applying to Ivy League schools in addition to GW. They matriculate at GW with the intention of transferring after a year or two. My D graduated from GW after 3 years. She loved the school and found the profs to be accessible and the courses to be strong. She observed people transferring to Columbia, Georgetown and Northwestern after the first or second year, simply because that had been their plan all along. GW loses about 10% of freshman and another 10% after sophomore year to these “prestige trade-up” transfers. She doesn’t know of a single person who didn’t graduate.</p>
<p>This is an interesting report, and there are lots of interesting anomalies in the data, some of which should raise real concerns about how colleges are doing.</p>
<p>At the same time, some of the differences can be better understood by understanding more about an institution:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Both Northeastern U. in Boston and Kettering in Michigan are singled out for low grad rates. Both also have co-op programs which can lead to longer times to degrees, but a better experience getting there. Beware of raw data.</p></li>
<li><p>UDC (in Washington DC) has a huge number of part time programs, appeals to part time students etc. As others have said, a low 6 year grad rate may not be all that bad if it meets the needs of a particular group of students (in fairness, UDC has lots of other problems…)</p></li>
</ul>
<p>So let’s not be led off track by the barrons classifications. Let’s use our knowledge of similar places to try to understand how similar institutions can have such different outcomes.</p>
<p>Would schools that have more students involved 3/2 programs (ie: LACs without engineering programs) have lower graduation rates because students transfer schools to finish degrees in majors such as engineering? If so, is there anyway to track how many students are involved in 3/2 programs? Also, is there a way to track those who transfer out because a particular major is not offered?</p>
<p>Northeast, to me, a transfer can be a positive for a number of reasons, not just major. And assuming the student does well at the school he transfers to, the first school should be viewed as part of the child’s overall sucess. Students transfer for a number of reasons – some start out at a less expensive state school, planning to transfer. Others start at a small school, to help build confidence.</p>
<p>kayf, I was asking whether schools with higher transfer rates (for example those with more students involved the 3/2 programs) account for lower graduation rates. I wasn’t trying to debate the pros and cons of transferring.</p>
<p>A 3/2 program is a transfer, but it is statistically irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, nobody does these much-ballyhoo’d 3/2 programs. Why would anyone transfer out of their college before senior year? Why would anyone take 5 years to get a 4 year degree? Why would anyone want to major in engineering without taking a single engineering course for the first three years of college? These 3/2 programs are “vaporware”.</p>
<p>Transfers do negatively impact published graduation rates, even when there are more students transferring in than transferring out. It is not, however, the result of 3/2 programs.</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>If only those students could have been identified in advance! Every school would like this crystal ball!</p>
I don’t think that’s true - there are lots of colleges that woud have to close their doors were it not for the tuition they receive because of the revolving door admission of unqualified freshmen</p>
This is a pretty naive approach. One needs to consider such issues as cross-correlation of variables, the degree of variance a variable explains and so forth. </p>
<p>In the case of deciding whether a kid will graduate, I suspect it involves variables such as “motivation” and “discipline” (whatever those truly mean) that are impossible to measure with accuracy. Worse, things change over time. </p>
<p>After all, how many of these students that don’t graduate start out planning to not graduate? Not many, I suspect. Then consider how many that don’t graduate fall victims to things outside their control? Quite a few, I suspect.</p>
<p>One thing today’s economic environment is bringing out is how fragile the economic status of many families is - all it takes is one illness or one lay off for a family to move from middle class, where college is affordable, to a class where college is not affordable. How do you quantify that in advance? Just not admit kids whose family incomes are below average, since that is where the risk is greatest?</p>
<p>Interestedad, I agree. I am repeating part of the explanation that I was given when I called up a state public U. and asked them why their 4 year graduation rate was so low. I just decided to ask CC particants if they thought 3/2 programs are a part of the reason. Part of the answer I was given was because of the 3/2 programs. The other reason given was that many students are just not in any rush to graduate and they choose to take a part time course load.</p>
<p>My wife worked for the Inst Research dept at a major U for a couple of years collecting this data (among other info). The 6 year timeframe is used to avoid penalizing universities for students who change majors. Changing majors would affect LACs less since the requirements for specific majors are usually more flexible. What it does in actuality is allow some U’s to get away with not scheduling classes often enough so students CAN complete in 4 years.</p>
<p>Other reasons that students take longer than 4 years are varied - working part time, having enough funding to finish school (haven’t we recommended people stop school to earn money and return later?), the rigor of studies (in my mind one of the reasons Reed has a low rate), lack of institutional support to assist students in passing. I note that one of the underperforming schools in the Competitive category is Central State U, a historically black university. Unfortunately, most HBUs are well behind in graduation rate.</p>
<p>…which is why, if you’re a Pell grantee admitted to a U with a single-digit-admit rate and generous FA, the school has already made a calculated investment in you based on your past outstanding performance and the extreme likelihood of your consciousness of this unusual and monetarily valuable opportunity. You are a low-risk admit with a high probability of graduating within the ceiling of academic-unit cutoff for FA, because that right there is your motivator.</p>
<p>It’s amazing how much mythology there still is on cc about FA recipients. (They’re losers; they’ll drop out; they should not have been admitted. Wrong.) In fact I’ll bet it’s just the opposite: the non-graduates in my experience (anecdotal only) tend to be from the class of people with little to lose. Non-anecdotal (statistical) tendencies in this regard might be borne out by the UC’s ELC study of academic performance after admission (side by side comparison of rich ELC admits with poor ELC admits). The study did not follow the 2 contrasting groups all the way to graduation, but it would not surprise me if rich students starting out with C’s as freshmen ended up with some F’s as upperclassmen – or simply lost their interest/motivation by that time, since partying was their preferred activity.</p>
<p>So we need more controls than just transferring rates (I agree, also important). Broad “graduation rates” or even 4-year rates are not meaningful without attention to the rigor of the institution, the academic material going in, and the degree of generosity when it comes to FA.</p>
<p>Putting so much emphasis on 4-year graduation rate is harmful, because it encourages schools to put arbitrary restrictions on students just to inflate some statistic.</p>
<p>For example, the opportunity to take a lot of classes outside your major, or to change your major freely, or take one fewer class than typical occasionally, or any number of legitimate things that might make a student graduate in 5 years instead of 4. Modulo money/tuition/fin aid issues, there is not any reason to restrict any of those - except that they can harm the 4 year graduation rate.</p>