<p>“After all, think of it this way. The strong implication in this thread is that Reed is a school that institutes harsh grading standards, which also means that many students must end up with bad grades, and in particular, failing grades. As others have said, Reed takes admissions risks, which means that Reed admits some students of possibly marginal status (defined below) and then weeds out the ones who don’t make the cut through a well-etablished policy of grade deflation.”</p>
<p>The average grade at Reed is a B-. Reed doesn’t weed anybody out, the success or failure of a student is up to them.</p>
<p>“Nevertheless, I am clearly not doing well, and I may not even pass the comprehensive orals.”</p>
<p>Very few people don’t pass the junior year qualifying exam. If they don’t pass they were not doing well in the department previously and it is the last message of “This isn’t going to work.” It rarely happens. If you have been working hard and doing well enough in class you’ll pass. Mine wasn’t hard, very straight forward.</p>
<p>“To take some historical examples, take a look at George W. Bush and John Kerry. Both of them have freely admitted to being deeply unmotivated students while at Yale - with Bush actually earning a slightly higher GPA than Kerry did (although both were mediocre). Bush freely joked about his irresponsibility during his college days, and Kerry admitted that he spent more time on other pursuits, such as learning how to fly, than on his studies. But they both successfully graduated anyway.”</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but you’re holding this up as some kind of positive example? I’m kind of shocked that a person could coast through Yale. I’ll concede this point, if you don’t want to study hard, don’t go to Reed. By hard I mean 6 hours a day, not unreasonable for a college student.</p>
<p>“one has to wonder why the same doesn’t happen at other LAC’s. Williams, Amherst, & Swarthmore all graduate well over 90% of their class despite being just as small as Reed.”</p>
<p>Williams and Amherst, at least get a lot more applicants than Reed. Since they have such a big applicant pool those that are ultimately accepted are of a higher caliber, thus more likely to graduate.</p>
<p>Finally a story to illustrate my take on the marginal students. The department secretary for my department told me a story once about one of my favorite professors. She had seen him take an active interest in some marginal students. He gave them personal attention, the key to his office if they were up late, that kind of thing. The secretary said that he completely turned their academic careers around, they went from not passing to having successful collegiate careers, and the secretary credited this one professor with that. Reed doesn’t admit marginal students to weed them out, they admit them to give them a chance. The personal attention you get at a school like Reed goes a long way towards helping the students succeed.</p>
<p>In closing, I appreciate how all of the posts on this thread have remained so respectful in tone. Apparently we can disagree without resorting to insults and name calling.</p>
<p>“Contrast that with what happens at other schools, where students can stop going to class and stop studying… and still pass and hence successfully graduate.”</p>
<p>An average grade of a B- does mean that people are weeded out, for it implies that many students are getting far worse than B-'s. Compare that with the average GPA of most top schools which is approaching 3.3. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then tell us again why is Reed’s 6-year graduation rate so low, relative to its peers? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am holding it up as a “positive” example because, whether we like it or not, Bush and Kerry, for all their laziness, still graduated. That makes somebody who doesn’t graduate from Reed (or any other college) look even worse.</p>
<p>Look at it this way. Most employers outside of the Pacific Northwest, and probably many in the region, have never heard of Reed. They certainly don’t know of its demanding environment. What they do know is that even the laziest people, i.e. people like Bush and Kerry, can nevertheless still graduate from college. So if you go to Reed and don’t graduate, you look bad. An employer will interpret that as a negative signal that, if even lazy students can graduate from a famous college like Yale and you can’t even graduate from a school I never heard of, you must really be incompetent. Such is obviously an erroneous analysis, but that’s how it looks. </p>
<p>That’s why I’ve likened college degrees to an arms race - you need one because your competitors will have one, and so not having one will make you appear inferior by comparison. Sad but true. </p>
<p>Look, I sympathize with your position. Personally, I think that employers (and grad schools) should not place the emphasis on college degrees and grades that they do. The root of the problem therefore lies with them. But, like it or not, they’re not going to stop. Employers simply won’t understand why you lack a degree when others have one. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m elated for those students. But what we are talking about does not apply to them, because from what you are saying, those students did in fact actually graduate. </p>
<p>What I am talking about is all those students who don’t graduate. What happens to them? Granted, I agree, some of them probably do leave voluntarily. Every school has some such students. Those of whom I am most concerned are the ones who leave involuntarily. What happens to them? Only 23% of Reed students graduate in 6 years, and given Reed’s tough grading standards (relative to other top schools) indicates that there are a lot of students who are being forced to leave involuntarily.</p>
<p>True. But from the point of view of the student, so what? Again, Bush and Kerry become two of the most successful politicians in modern history: one became President, the other almost did. </p>
<p>Like I said, maybe the country would have been better off if Yale had flunked out both Bush and Kerry on the grounds of laziness. But Bush and Kerry wouldn’t have been better off. They were able to parlay their (undeserved) Yale degrees into tremendous professional success. </p>
<p>Like I said, if you go to Reed and flunk out because of laziness, you are going to look bad relative to students who were just as lazy but nevertheless managed to graduate from easier schools. Most employers have never heard of Reed. They won’t understand why you didn’t graduate. They won’t understand that Reed is a difficult school. All they will see is that you didn’t graduate, whereas the other job applicants did. Sad but true.</p>
<p>The fact that Bush graduated from Yale has always been a source of confusion for me. I’m glad to have this interpretation. Contrast that with Harvard not admitting JFK Jr., talk about not giving preferential treatment.</p>
Reed is primarily a grad school prep college; career employment is not typically the immediate goal of most Reedies. What matters more is admittance to grad schools, where Reed grads do very well. So while it’s true that most employers have never heard of Reed, they have heard much more about the grad schools Reedies attend.</p>
<p>I agree with many of the points that sakky has made thus far, but I do have some gripes that I feel must be shared.</p>
<p>The burden of responsibility in the college application lies on what party? The applicant, yes, the applicant makes the final decision on where to apply and ultimately on where to attend. Colleges like Reed and St. John’s advertise their rigor and their individuality (and along with that individuality the fact that they are not the right fit for everyone).</p>
<p>No one is forcing anyone to go to college, it is a choice to apply and ultimately a choice to attend. Colleges and Universities are in no way obligated to compare themselves to their peers in the application process. Reed does not have to point out the difference in graduation rates between themselves and any other school. </p>
<p>College is a product, it is a service that provides education, and there is no guarantee of a degree. This is why I found this to be particularly disturbing:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, our job market is oversaturated with college graduates and a degree has become the de facto requirement for most jobs. However, that has no real relevancy to this argument. If someone wants one hundred percent certainty that they are going to get a degree, then they can apply to Harvard and work incredibly hard. Because, once again, this all revolves around student choice.</p>
<p>Is it sad that college flunk-outs are worse off then they would have been if they had never gone to college? Yes it is. Does sentimentality have some sort of sway over logic? No.</p>
<p>When a teenager spends incredible amounts on their credit card and eventually has to declare bankruptcy it is their fault. It ends up on their record, because of their actions. A credit card company does not force pedestrians to sign up, pedestrians sign up because they want to and they accept the risk. And if they are ignorant of the risk? Then their ignorance will be their downfall, there is no court in this nation that will allow a criminal to walk free due to “ignorance of the law”.</p>
<p>So, in conclusion, this discussion should be able to continue along the lines of: what is the acceptable risk that the average college applicant should be willing to take? And the answer is ultimately that it resides within in them and their priorities. People take risks, and many of them know that they are taking risks; and sometimes they pay off.</p>
<p>First off, none of this discussion should be taken to mean that Reed is a uniquely problematic school. Obviously many schools have problems. Reed is being used simply as an illustrative example. </p>
<p>However, as to your point regarding those who spend $200k to earn a liberal arts degree and then to unemployment, well, at least the person has a degree. At least he can check the box that employers now currently demand of many of their job applicants. The student at Reed who spends $200k yet doesn’t graduate can’t even do that. </p>
<p>Secondly, now that we all agree that there is a (significant) risk to the student, I would re-propose the suggestions I made before to reduce the risk. Reed students who flunk out should not be charged (or at least should be provided a rebate). After all, if the guy isn’t going to earn a Reed degree anyway, why should he still have to pay full fare? Similarly, that student’s academic record at Reed should be wiped in full. Again, the notion is that if the guy isn’t going to graduate from Reed, who cares what his Reed grades were? Let him move on with the rest of his life with a clean slate.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example. Because I love baseball, let’s say that I try out for the Boston Red Sox - and my performance is completely incompetent. No problem! Nobody cares that my tryout was a bust. Employers and grad schools aren’t going to hold that experience against me. I tried out, I didn’t make it, so I’m free to move on with the rest of my life. </p>
<p>Not so with academic performance. If I go to Reed and flunk out, that fact will stigmatize me for the rest of my life. Anytime a job application asks whether my academic performance has ever been deemed unsatisfactory, I have to answer ‘yes’. Anytime a grad school application asks whether I’ve been expelled from school, I have to answer ‘yes’. </p>
<p>So, again, I would propose that Reed should simply cancel those failing grades. Pretend as if the student had never even attended Reed at all. You’ve already expelled him from Reed, I see no reason to stigmatize him further. Let him move on with his life with a clean slate. </p>
<p>If a guy in a bar becomes drunk and creates havoc, the bar’s bouncers have the right to throw him out. What the bouncers do not have the right to do, after the guy has already been removed from the premises, is chase the guy down the street and beat him to a pulp. </p>
<p>I believe every school bears responsibility to help every student it admits, even (heck, especially) the ones who perform poorly. If the school doesn’t want that responsibility, then it shouldn’t admit those students. But given that you did admit them, you should be trying to help them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting that you would say given that the current economic recession is demonstrating in vivid detail what happens when you allow individuals to assume risks that they don’t really understand.</p>
<p>And? They took a risk, the results of the risk are their fault, not the school’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not interesting, logical. If a student decides to take such a risk despite the economic crisis, that’s their choice and their responsibility. If they do not understand the risk involved then they should not be taking it, the world provides many ways for them to become aware of the risk it is their loss for not utilizing them. History rewards the calculated risk-taker, and shuns the reckless, no safety net can save someone from their own idiocy. As I stated previously, college is a product. All that it guarantees is the opportunity to obtain a degree, and the opportunity to learn. If you choose to go in order to increase job prospects, great. No college guarantees increased job prospects and none are required to.</p>
<p>It’s quite interesting that you would invoke the story of credit card firms and personal bankruptcies, especially in light of the global economic events of recent times, for the simple fact is, for the last few years, too many financial institutions were providing too much credit to high-risk borrowers, thereby jeopardizing not only the financial net worths of those individual borrowers, but also the state of the entire global economy. </p>
<p>In particular, I might have expected such a libertarian, free-market, “homo economicus” argument to have been made - indeed be quite prevalent - a few years ago. But now? I believe recent events have demonstrated in excruciating detail that individual consumers are poor judges of personal financial risk. Offer people high-risk financial instruments such as exotic subprime mortgages and people will surely take them. The work of behavioral economists of the last few decades have demonstrated emphatically that people do not behave rationally. They consistently miscalculate probabilities and misjudge risk. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously they are in no way “obligated” to do anything. But they should compare the difference, and they should also try to minimize that difference.</p>
<p>I would also dispute the notion of where the burden of responsibilities lies. I would argue that it lies with the school. To be sure, the applicant does indeed bear some responsibility. But the school bears some also, and should bear the majority. </p>
<p>Why? Because the school has far more experience with these decisions. Reed makes thousands of admissions decisions, year after year. In contrast, each student (usually) makes one decision in his entire lifetime about where to go to college. Hence, who has the clearly better opportunity to learn from experience? Clearly the school enjoys a tremendous informational advantage. The school can learn, through past admissions decisions, what works and what doesn’t work. The student has no such opportunity. </p>
<p>Furthermore, the Reed adcom is comprised of a committee of mature professionals. Stack that against a 17-year-old kid who has probably never lived away from his parents for a day in his life. That’s not a fair fight by any stretch. </p>
<p>So while I agree that both parties of a transaction bear responsibility if the transaction turns sour, from an ethical standpoint, it is the part that has the most information and the most knowledge that should bear the lion’s share. I think it is deeply unfair to attribute all of the responsibility to a 17-year-old kid who has never made a decision of this caliber before in his life, and let the adcom get off scot-free.</p>
<p>“I believe every school bears responsibility to help every student it admits, even (heck, especially) the ones who perform poorly. If the school doesn’t want that responsibility, then it shouldn’t admit those students. But given that you did admit them, you should be trying to help them.”</p>
<p>But Reed does help it students. You get individual attention at a school of Reed’s size that you just don’t get at a big State University. If a student isn’t going to study or go to class, and that was the only type that I saw who flunked out, what are the professors supposed to do? They can’t force someone to work. What about the big State Universities? How many students at big State Universities flunk out because they are just a number and get lost in the shuffle?</p>
<p>I also think you are over-estimating the implications of not getting a degree. I’m willing to bet that a lot of Reed students who didn’t finish landed on their feet. There are a lot of factors that go into being successful in the outside world. People skills, having a good work ethic to name a few. If you want to show me a student who left Reed without a degree who never turned things around I’m willing to bet that the problems are more involved than their lack of a college degree.</p>
<p>No, it is both their faults, and mostly the school’s fault. The school should not have admitted that student. Just like a bank that offers a subprime mortgate to somebody who can’t pay should not have provided that mortgage. And that is precisely why new bank regulations are being written that will most likely outlaw most subprime mortgages. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not logical, but simply cold-hearted. The fact is, individual people are poor judges of personal risk, as demonstrated theoretically by behavioral economists as Kahneman and Tversky and empirically by the financial crisis. </p>
<p>Let me couch it in these terms. The metaphor of consumer banking regulation is that individuals need to be protected from taking on too much risk that they don’t understand. That’s why individual investors who aren’t rich are barred by law from investing in hedge funds, venture capital, and other lightly regulated private instrument pools, because of the risk. Surely you’re not advocating the complete abolition of these laws? But why not - after all, people should be allowed to take on whatever risks they want, right?</p>
<p>Again, to be clear, I’m not saying that Reed is worse than the state schools, in fact I would argue the opposite: I would say that Reed is better than the state schools. </p>
<p>But that’s not the point. After all, Reed is supposed to be an exceptional school, so it should be better than the state schools. What matters is how Reed compares to its peers (who are not the state schools). After all, Reed is a top school, so it should be held to high standards. {Now, if you want to say that Reed should not be held to high standards, then that’s a different story entirely.} </p>
<p>Again, I emphasize, Reed is simply an illustrative example. Is Reed better than the average school out there? Of course! It ought to be: the average school ain’t that good. What I am saying is that Reed still has room for improvement. Put another way, if Williams, Amherst, Caltech and Swarthmore can graduate 90% of their students, why can’t Reed? </p>
<p>As to what Reed can do regarding students who don’t go to class and don’t study, the answer is simple: don’t admit those students. After all, why should Reed ever admit anybody who doesn’t want to study and doesn’t want to go to class? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is disputing that other personal factors are important. Obviously just having a degree, and nothing else, is no recipe for success. There are also clearly people with no degrees who are highly successful.</p>
<p>But the point is, the degree is a boon. Employers look for them. Grad schools look for them. Ceteris paribus, it is easier to succeed with a degree than without. When you fill out a job application, you can checkmark the box that asks whether you have a degree. When a job spec says that they are looking for somebody with a degree, you can submit your resume. Many government jobs - i.e. public school teaching - require that you have a degree. It’s not fair, it’s not right, but that’s how it is.</p>
<p>The flunk rate is implied. Obviously nobody knows what the flunk rate is. </p>
<p>But given the relatively low graduation rate, coupled with the school’s vaunted reputation for rigor, it is logical to assume that the flunk rate must be relatively high. After all, something has to explain the low graduation rate. If not that, then what?</p>
<p>Ultimately, however, the responsiblity always lies with the individual. I certainly agree that people do not behave rationally, and that’s why there are safety nets in our society and why their is a mass of information for anyone to access at anytime. Knowledge enlightens the individual and hopefully betters them in all aspects of life, hence the rabid pursuit of a college education in our society.</p>
<p>Now, you make the point that people should not be presented with vast amounts of risk because unknowingly they will take it and most will suffer. At what point then, is there an acceptable amount of risk? Do we require a certain graduation rate of colleges? Do we ask the hard ones to raise admission requirements and lower academic standards? Risks are a part of our daily life, and we face them at the behest of ourselves and no one else. If we become obsessed with the mitigation of risk in colleges then other standards fall by the wayside and the real benefit to society could become dubious at best.</p>
<p>Now, you bring up the point of mutual responsibility in a contractual agreement, and in particular that the lion’s share of responsibility lies with the college due to its incredible store of information. The problem with this, however, is that the college has no choice in who decides to apply. When a student sends in their application they stating that under certain circumstances they would like to attend said university or college. At that point the college with its store of information decides to either admit or deny the applicant.</p>
<p>One could make the case that the college then should look at the data and determine if the student will graduate and then accept or decline them based on whatever they subjectively determine to be a good chance at graduating. But, private colleges in particular have to work with what they are given. Reed has the facilities for X number of students, it is only so well known and is largely self-selecting. Do you see the problem? Reed has to turn a profit in order to stay viable, and in order to due that they need to admit the correct number of students. As Reed only has so many 4.0’s applying they have to pick what they believe are the best of the crop from the rest of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>And then we have the holistic nature of the admissions process, while statistical analysis can determine by the numbers which students are likely to succeed, colleges and universities are obligated to look at more than that. The student’s essays which profess that they can handle the high intensity of Reed, and that they are in love with the college (or on the other hand they are bad and Reed has to reject a 4.0 who would obviously hate it). </p>
<p>This little study of Reed represents, to me, the American Dream. There is a continual argument between those who argue for all individuals to be covered by massive safety nets (which both buoy the lower ends of society and harness the upper) and those who argue that it is the freedom of choice and its indefinite stratification of society that is necessary (which inevitably leaves the lower in the gutter and the higher much higher). I do not fall in either crowd, I believe that philosophical flexibility can solve many more problems than religious adherence to any one philosophical doctrine. For example, when it comes to the issue of health care, I firmly believe that a socialized system would benefit us, and I further would hope that poverty could be eliminated through any number of social initiatives. Why? Because these are the essentials of life, and grand socialization would allow the greatest number of people to thrive and live.</p>
<p>Then, we come to an issue like secondary education. Which, unsurprisingly is not an essential of life. And don’t get me wrong, I firmly support education and the drive to learn more and more; I hope that I might be the first person in my family to earn a PhD. But simple fact leaves us with the undeniable: Secondary Education, while grand, is it an imperative in our society. Sure a degree is needed for many jobs, but far more jobs do not require one, we only see the jobs that require degrees because of the life style that they provide. Pursuing a college degree is a risk that an individual undertakes for personal betterment, perhaps in the pursuit of a job, or perhaps not. Shooting high for a degree has its consequences, however, if it fails then the worst thing that will happen is a return to their previous station in life (perhaps less rich). If obtaining a college degree wasn’t costly then it would have little value in the business world (and I am not simply talking in terms of money). The reason that our society applauds those who educate themselves is because only so many end up succeeding (in their quest for education, as it were. I mean to imply the difficulties present in the high achievement of education). When a high schooler gets and A we applaud them because excellence above the expectations presented was achieved. And inevitably people will fall below those expectations.</p>
<p>So, to bring this back to the argument at hand, different colleges have varying degrees of risk attached to them due to the rewards that they present and the circumstances that they are in. Reed is a graduate feeder school that does more than just offer a degree, it also offers a certain intensity of education to many people who wish to strive higher (So, some people without perfect high school records take a risk at a hard school).</p>
<p>I agree with you about regulation of our economy’s risks because of the potential damage to all of the world (yes, dramatic). But people either know the risks involved in a $200,000 investment, or they suffer the consequences. After all, we are arguing under the assumption that a 90% or greater graduation rate is acceptable. If we truly decide that individuals dropping out of school is a sad thing that leaves them worse off, then complete mitigation of that phenomenon is required, not partial. It is difficult for us as a society to say that we wish to guarantee a certain degree of success because there will always be those who didn’t make the cut. And ethically, this becomes a bit of a paradox, because we either have to agree that there is risk involved and elimination of that risk is not the primary goal of a secondary institution; or we have to declare arbitrarily that certain percentages of success are acceptable while leaving others out to dry.</p>
<p>“As to what Reed can do regarding students who don’t go to class and don’t study, the answer is simple: don’t admit those students. After all, why should Reed ever admit anybody who doesn’t want to study and doesn’t want to go to class?”</p>
<p>But what I’m saying is that among the marginal students you can’t tell who will rise to the challenge and who won’t. I knew both types and there was nothing to distinguish them in their high school records. What distinguished them was how hard they worked once they got to Reed. My main reaction to the ones who stopped working was that it was too bad they were throwing away this opportunity for such a great education. I know it can be tough sometimes. The work seems overwhelming and personal problems come into play. But just get up, go to class, and once you get into that rhythm the rest will fall into place. If the classes are hard you won’t get everything but you’ll understand enough to pass.</p>
<p>“if Williams, Amherst, Caltech and Swarthmore can graduate 90% of their students, why can’t Reed?”</p>
<p>You’re talking about a group of schools that are much more selective than Reed. The admission rate at Williams and Amherst is around 20%. When Reed has an applicant pool that is that large and the resulting incoming class is that talented then I think you’ll see their graduation rate climb. But if Reed’s applicant pool was that large and their acceptance rate was that low when I applied then I wouldn’t have been accepted . (I applied to Williams and didn’t get in.) That makes me sad because I loved Reed.</p>
<p>"The flunk rate is implied. Obviously nobody knows what the flunk rate is. </p>
<p>But given the relatively low graduation rate, coupled with the school’s vaunted reputation for rigor, it is logical to assume that the flunk rate must be relatively high. After all, something has to explain the low graduation rate. If not that, then what?"</p>
<p>People drop out of college for many reasons. Some thought it is what they wanted to do then changed their minds, some found an employment opportunity, some joined the military, some stopped for a while for many reason, etc…</p>
<p>These reasons do not mean any of them flunked out or was failing college, I even stopped going years ago, and I was no where near flunking out.</p>
<p>So unless their are stats on the amount of people flunking out, I can hardly call it implied. All it tells me is there are a lot of people who chose to do other things in life, that does not mean they were failing college.</p>
<p>Some people at any school will drop out. All of those reasons are not specific to Reed. </p>
<p>But what is interesting is the relative difference. A far higher percentage of Reed students drop out than at peer schools. Hence, there is something specific happening at Reed.</p>
