Four year graduation rates: Why so low?

Parents Forum
1

<p>I attend a small-medium (10,000-11,000 undergrads) public flagship and was shocked to see that the four year grad rate is 19%! Curious, I looked at my home state's much larger, higher ranked (around US News 100 or so), more selective university and saw that their four year graduation rate was around 16-17%! I know there are various reasons why people graduate late (my mom and dad took 5 and 22 years, respectively, to earn their bachelor's degrees!)--add a double major late in the process ,student teaching, switch majors junior year, but still, these incredibly low rates shock me--my home state flagship you even broke down the data by admissions index and honors college statistic, and the "best" incoming students still had four year grad. rates of around ~40%. This is especially surprising as most of the seniors that I've known (largely through my sorority) have graduated in four years.</p>

<p>What could be the cause of this? Tiered scheduling? Poor advising, maybe? (I'm on a four year renewable merit scholarship and so "need" to graduate in four years--with a double major and minor, I spend a significant amount of time each semester planning out my schedule for all for the remaining semesters, looking at historic trends in course scheduling [even down to the time offered, etc.] and so om I imagine if someone didn't do this, they could end up surprised by a scheduling snafu... and so could I, for that matter!) </p>

<p>And with such low four year graduation rates, do these public schools end up being significantly more expensive than one might expect?</p>

2

<p>bump......</p>

3

<p>Money. More specifically, a lack of money.</p>

<p>Students run out of money and have to take a semester (or year) off. Or they have to back down to part-time status and work. </p>

<p>Or the school is short on money, and hence short on professors. I've heard tales from our state flagship of kids not being able to take a full load of classes because all the sections were full, and they couldn't enroll in the classes they wanted or needed.</p>

<p>A while ago I read that the AVERAGE student now takes between 5 and 6 years to graduate. In today's economy, I'd expect that to get even longer.</p>

<p>But most people on CC aren't "average" students.</p>

4

<p>Since your discussing public universities, one of the reasons for the low graduation rate is educational problems having a origin prior to students entering the universities. Simply stated, the preparation that many students receive in high school is appalling. Unfortunately a sizable proportion have not learned how to write at a level appropriate for college studies, and reading is almost at the same level. It is a dilemma for both public CC's and Universities because they have often been compelled to function as remedial schools for the public school system. Which obviously raises their costs and redirects away from their traditional mission. And obviously it causes enhanced tuition for students-both those enrolled in the LC courses and those who's own tuition has hidden costs to pay for these courses. </p>

<p>The cruelty in it all is that due to overemphasis and improper use of self esteem theories by the PS's, some entering students genuinely believe they have been properly prepared for collegiate studies.<br>
This is not an indictment of the individual qualities of students, given the chance to catch up they will do so and often quite well. But they have been betrayed by the system which was supposed to prepare them for the next stage. </p>

<p>Another element is within academe itself. The overall costs for college have increased an average of 6% yearly and for the students and families much of the burden of these costs have been transferred onto them via various forms of loans (which under current conditions are amongst the most inequitable and corrupt form of credit available in the US). And in an increasingly difficult economy there are fewer families who can meet both living and educational costs. So many who do end up not graduating it's a matter of circumstance rather than choice. In many regards what had been a working public system has been switched into one wherein the students and families bear the predominate burden. And academe loses some students (especially in the public supported institutions) because some increasingly perceive it all as a fools game. </p>

<p>And the last cause is a general systemic problem. In the US the expectation is everyone should go to college, but the reality is not all are suited and many would be better served by other career training paths.</p>

5

<p>There are a lot of reasons why this happens. I would look at the 6 year graduation rate as well. I think this is often a more valid measure of how a school is doing, especially a public. At our state flagship, it is not unusual for students to take more than 4 years. Often times it is a function of getting closed out of required classes, changing majors and having to take required classes, cutting back on classes a couple of semesters to earn more money, study abroad that interferes with course sequensing, etc. Our state flagship did start a program a few years ago guaranteeing graduation in 4 years if students did certain things. First off, they had to declare a major freshman year and stick to it. In exchange they were guaranteed places in required classes. My understanding is that there were not a ton of students who signed up for the program although some did. My guess is that if you look at 6-year rates you will see a significant increase. </p>

<p>Finally, I believe that nationwide, only half of the students who start college eventually graduate at all. You will likely see a higher proportion of this effect at public colleges rather than privates due to the cost involved. While I haven't done the research, it would not surprise me to see them replicated at many public schools across the country.</p>

6

<p>Many reasons. Change of major often necessitates extra time. Can't get courses for graduation is a problem at some schools. Not throwing kids out who flunk courses. Kids who drop courses . Those wonderful abroad programs that do not make up enough creditis for a major and graduation. Internships, time off. </p>

<p>Also money. Many kids end up going part time after mom and dad can no longer foot the bill. Or the family makes the heroic effort to pay that first year trusting that the money will come from somewhere and it does not.</p>

7

<p>"Or the school is short on money, and hence short on professors. I've heard tales from our state flagship of kids not being able to take a full load of classes because all the sections were full, and they couldn't enroll in the classes they wanted or needed" </p>

<p>And Lafalum there's an accessory problem developing from the shortage of money. In the recent past many courses were taught by adjuncts who did nonetheless have appropriate credentials. However because of their low pay and poor treatment many of these same adjuncts have opted out seeking other arenas to apply their credentials. As a result in some colleges with limited funds (and ethics) they are beginning to recruit adjuncts who are not a great deal more qualified than the students they are hired to teach.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
In the recent past many courses were taught by adjuncts who did nonetheless have appropriate credentials. However because of their low pay and poor treatment many of these same adjuncts have opted out seeking other arenas to apply their credentials. As a result in some colleges with limited funds (and ethics) they are beginning to recruit adjuncts who are not a great deal more qualified than the students they are hired to teach.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I believe this to be true. All of the reasons above are true, but I am highlighting this because I have a relative who is an adjunct at several colleges. He has a terminal degree. He is paid hourly, and does not have a retirement plan or major medical insurance through his employers (the colleges/universities). He is married and does have medical coverage through his wife's employer. If he did not, he would have had to leave teaching, and he could not get a full time job to get those benefits in education because his terminal degree is not a PhD. His degree is a different type of terminal degree, but he is very qualified to teach the subjects that he teaches.</p>

9

<p>Your relatives circumstance is unfortunately quite common. And conceptually there is going to be a point where it will blow back upon the colleges and universities. Partially because it will be increasingly difficult for colleges to cajole students into the educational/career track needed for a college instructor. So academe may have had a budget binge through the use of adjuncts possessing terminals as cheap and very qualified teaching staff but the next potential generation will simply opt out. </p>

<p>In a more general context students will hear indirectly or directly of the economic struggles of adjuncts and will begin to critically think as to whether their particular degrees or the entire system is an any way capable of delivering on all the collegiate marketing hype. And when the debts incurred for the education which got an adjunct where he or she is, are added...eventually students (and families) will consider seriously whether the education they are obtaining is worth the risk...as it certainly didn't pay off for the people who work within or promote the academic system.</p>

10

<p>My first 2 kids graduated in 4 years, however each went in with a major and stuck with it. Youngest child is going to take closer to 9 or 10 semesters--he transferred and lost a few hours, changed majors his junior year and had one under 12 hour semester due to medical problem.</p>

<p>Most of the kids of friends of mine who have taken more than 4 years are all due to either major changes, working more hours or in cases poor advising that resulted in missing a required class for graduation.</p>

11

<p>Changing a major is often a cause, as noted previously. Choosing to drop classes can also cause a student to start to fall behind. In my kids' classes, they both have friends who have dropped classes planning to pick them up over the summer or "next semester," who find themselves falling behind. It's unrealistic for many kids to catch up with multiple semesters of 18-19 credits once they start to fall behind.</p>

<p>Other reasons that weren't mentioned are taking a semester abroad, which can put a student behind in the required courses to graduate. For many majors, such as the engineering/science majors, academics are tracked so that if students want to have that experience they end up needing another year. Adding a second major or minor(s) can stretch the time it takes to get a degree. As this becomes more common, there is less pressure on students to get through college quickly.</p>

<p>There are some schools which only offer required classes once a year or every other year. If a student doesn't monitor this situation carefully, they can find themselves behind. Likewise, there are some schools (shame on them) that don't properly advise students on their requirements. Often you can find the schools with problems by looking at the web sites with school reviews, where students blast their universities or departments (rightfully so!).</p>

<p>More majors are now requiring an internship to graduate, which can extend graduation a semester or two. My oldest discovered that his major required a 3-credit internship, which involved working 40-hour weeks for a period of time. Ultimately, he was able to find a summer internship that would meet the course requirement but it did mean paying summer tuition (technically, I suppose this qualifies as a 5th semester!) in order to graduate within 4-years. The alternative would be to have done the internship during the school year, but taking other credits that semester would have been essentially impossible.</p>

<p>Some schools also have majors that have longer requirements, such as PharmDs, Architectural degrees, or dual programs (BS/MBA) which will skew the statistics.</p>

<p>Many of the top schools show graduation rates that are much higher than lower tier schools. Available scholarship funding, the SAT scores of their students (if you believe that the scores are a predictor of success), and resources to keep their kids moving through the school may all be reasons why those schools are more successful in issuing 4-year degrees.</p>

<p>I think it's very reasonable to ask schools why their graduation rate is so low, and what they're doing to improve it.</p>

12

<p>If students on average are now taking 5-6 years to graduate, shouldn't this factor into cost comparasions? I.e., School A's COA is $25k per year but 80% of the students take more than 4 years to graduate while School B's COA is $30k per year but 80% of the students graduate in four years. Thus, there is a probability that the costs could be about equal or even higher for School A due to the increased time needed to graduate (not to mention the opprotunity cost of spending that extra year or two in school). Along those same lines, every renewable scholarship that I've seen has been renewable for four years--is this really a "full ride" if the majority of kids can't graduate within that time period (and one could argue that high achieving kids are just as likely, if not more likely, to switch majors, have challenging course loads, study abroad, or add double majors as "average" students)? I know, as someone who has both switched majors and added a double major, I have felt a lot of pressure to graduate in four years, as my yearly COA would jump about $17k after the fourth year!</p>

13

<p>One big issue leading to low graduation rates is class offerings. You may need a class in the winter to stay on schedule but it is only offered in the spring. Now you can't graduate in four years. This happens twice and you're now on the five year plan.</p>

14

<p>Maybe we should ask why the graduation rate is so high at some institutions, mostly privates? And I can tell you why:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>for those without a lot of $, like our family, we could not afford an extra year, so there was no question D would graduate in 4 years.</p></li>
<li><p>for those with lots of $, which is at least half of the families at High Graduation Rate Colleges (HGRC), not to be confused with elite colleges ( :) ), those families can afford to subsidize and support their students (no part time jobs, tutors when necessary etc) such that it would take a lot of effort not to graduate on time.</p></li>
<li><p>finally, many HGRC colleges invest a lot of resources, including faculty for multiple course offerings, advising to keep kids on track, counseling to help with problems and such, that resources, like not getting a needed class, are not an issue. For example, my D was always able to get the courses she needed, either because they opened extra sections or just added a needed seat or two. </p></li>
</ul>

<p>IMHO, it is hardly fair, especially in this day and age of almost non-existent financial aid from individual states and poor state funding, to blame either a state college or its students for a low graduation rate. Blame the state legislature for not supporting higher ed instead.</p>

15

<p>newmassdad Washington State did a study on this and they found students who took at least linear algebra in high school had much higher graduation rates than students who didn't. The University of Washington changed their admission policies to reflect this. They believe less resources will be needed for remedial math and these resources can be used to increase other course offerings.</p>

<p>As for your coments on HGRC colleges, fifty are the Ivy League, UVA and forty one of US New's top fifty LAC's.</p>

16

<p>Another reason...many schools offer joint BS/MS programs where you receive both degrees at the end of five years. Those students technically don't graduate in four. The six-year graduation rate accounts for them.</p>

17

<p>Most people don't realize that to graduate from many institutions in four years with a single degree and without taking summer classes, requires you to be a full-time student each semester (difficult to have an out-of-school job) and to not make any unexpected changes. Anything that throws that off--needing to work, illness, dropping/failing a course, changing majors, adding a second major or a minor, a semester abroad, not reading the fine print and missing a requirement, transfering--can delay graduation. </p>

<p>It is very difficult to get teaching certification in 4 years because of all the courses one must take (essentially a double major in education and in your discipline) plus the required semester of student teaching where it is very difficult take much other than student teaching.</p>

<p>Students can make up some things with AP credit, CLEP credit, summer courses, etc., but sometimes that's not enough.</p>

<p>Most universities provide a suggested course sequence for graduating in 4 years for each given major. Students should always consult such a guide when planning their courses and should know how they're going to compensate any time they deviate from the suggested list. I always have advised students to have a four-year plan to meet their graduation requirements and to look at it and check off things each semester, so there are no nasty surprises senior year.</p>

18

<p>
[quote]
IMHO, it is hardly fair, especially in this day and age of almost non-existent financial aid from individual states and poor state funding, to blame either a state college or its students for a low graduation rate. Blame the state legislature for not supporting higher ed instead.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I think the state college does indeed bear quite a bit of the blame. The sad truth is that a lot of state colleges simply don't have a culture of caring for their students. </p>

<p>I'll give you an example. Take Berkeley. I know a guy who was an engineering student at Berkeley, and hated it and so did quite poorly to the point of failing. However, he performed decently in his breadth liberal arts electives. {He didn't do great, but at least he was passing). Yet Berkeley simply would not let him switch from the College of Engineering to the College of Letters & Science. Why? He's clearly not enjoying engineering, so why force him to stay? Wouldn't it be better to let him move to L&S where he would actually graduate? But Berkeley would not let him do it, because L&S won't let engineers switch in who have not done well. Seriously, what's up with that rule? I think those engineers who are not doing well are precisely those who need to be able to switch. But Berkeley wouldn't let him do it.</p>

<p>As a result, he flunked out completely. Who is served by that ? Does anybody benefit? I would argue that this was a classic lose-lose situation. The student clearly lost. Berkeley lost too. Why does it have to be that way? What's the big deal with just letting him switch over? After all, he was performing better in his L&S classes than some of the actual L&S students, yet those students weren't flunking out. {They were getting mediocre grades, but at least they weren't flunking out.} So why force that guy to stay in engineering and flunk out? </p>

<p>I also don't see how the state government can really be blamed for this situation. After all, Sacramento isn't forcing Berkeley to enact this policy. Berkeley did that all by themselves. As a result, some Berkeley engineers flunk out completely when they could have graduated if they had been allowed to switch to L&S. Whose purpose does that serve? </p>

<p>I think this is a case where blame can be clearly pinned on the university.</p>

19

<p>Sakky, </p>

<p>This is the parent's forum. Can't you take your rhetoric to the student oriented forums and let us adults have civil discussions? </p>

<p>For example, you quote a discussion of financial policies and then use an "example" that is about administrative policy. This is not how we parents discuss things. :)</p>

20

<p>The single best predictor of student success (whether measured by 1st year retention, 1st year GPA, 4 year graduation rate, final undergraduate GPA, grad school admission rate, or you-name-it) is what is on the student's secondary school transcript. Selective colleges and universities have better "success" rates because their student bodies include a higher percentage of students with those good secondary school transcripts. The lower you go on the selectivity scale, and the lower the percentage of your student body with that kind of transcript, the lower the "success" rate will be.</p>

<p>That said, the less selective institutions do serve an important role in providing opportunities for students who didn't do so well in HS - our "late bloomer" as it were. As others have written here, college isn't for everyone, and even if it were, it wouldn't be the right choice for everyone at the traditional college age. It is unfortunate that so many young people and their families spend such a huge amount of money (and accumulate such a huge amount of debt) before they finally figure out that they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.</p>