Go to the best school that will admit you. "Undermatching" => lower grad rate.

College Search & Selection
1

<p>About the book "Crossing the Finish Line" by William Bowen</p>

<p>News:</a> (Not) Crossing the Finish Line - Inside Higher Ed</p>

<p>Mismatch or 'Undermatch'?</p>

<p>The large gaps in graduation rates, especially for black men, are an issue of great concern to the authors. And they note that some might look at these figures and see evidence for the "mismatch" theory that is popular with many critics of affirmative action. That theory holds that students from various minority groups are not well served by being admitted to highly competitive colleges with grades and test scores that are lower than those of other admitted applicants. These students -- as evidenced by lower graduation rates -- don't experience academic success as they might at less competitive institutions, the theory holds.</p>

<p>The new book argues that it has conclusive evidence to debunk mismatch theory. The authors used data from their database to compare black men with high school grade-point averages below 3.0 who enrolled in the most selective flagships and those who enrolled in less selective flagships and the least selective flagships. What the authors found was that these students -- who mismatch theory would suggest would do better at less competitive institutions -- actually are most likely to graduate at more competitive flagships. The graduation rate for this cohort of black males at the three selectivity levels of flagships is (starting from the most selective), 46 percent, 40 percent, and 38 percent. So these black males benefit significantly from being at the more competitive institutions.</p>

<p>In the interview, Bowen said that this is more evidence of the powerful impact of peer expectations and institutional expectations at more competitive institutions. The message for black males (and other minority groups) is not to be scared off by alleged mismatches but to "go to the best place that will admit you."</p>

2

<p>People drop out of college for a variety of reasons. Some because they can’t hack the rigorous workload/academic problems But normally its an underlying problem that has little or nothing to do with the academic rigor of the college, its subjective to the individual: work ethic, whether they are prepared for college academically, whether they are prepared for college socially, financial strains and stress, socio-economic issues (do they fit into the crowd), independent living/dorm issues and for some just a question of “relevance.” (they wonder how writing english papers has anything to do with the job market…of course, that is a superficial analogy and wrong headed, but they don’t see it that way.) </p>

<p>For some students, being around highly motivated individuals helps them perform at optimum levels for them, but for others it can be daunting and overwhelming, or depressing. </p>

<p>Being the first in one’s family to go to college means that person has two problems initially: one, not knowing what to expect when they get there, and two, performance anxiety and not wanting to let their proud family down. That can mean a recipe for disaster.</p>

<p>I generally agree that reaching up the ladder and not underestimating one’s potential is a good thing. But I also believe that the high drop out rate (its higher for men in general than it is for women, in college) is less about “undermatching” than it is about other personal and subjective factors. Some of the lower tier schools have admission rates that exceed 75% and approach 100%. Many of those admitted would NEVER have been admitted at a higher ranking/tiered school that is more competitive. These students were problem students in high school and many of them are whoafully prepared for college on any level. Going to a higher ranked school wont help them at all. </p>

<p>The vast majority of colleges from top tier to the bottom of third tier schools have fairly good graduation levels. The dropout rate at state universities is higher than it is at private colleges and there is a message in that perhaps: that the size and bureaucracy and “loneliness” of being in a state school has more to do with drop out rates than being in a small private college where personal relationships and support groups may be more helpful. I don’t have statistics to support that thesis, its just my conventional wisdom from anecdotes and general reading on the topic. </p>

<p>Clearly, we need to do something about the drop out rates, regardless of race, creed, gender or financial situation. </p>

<p>One of my pet peeves with “education” in general, is that while I am a strong proponent of liberal arts education and a broad brush approach to higher education (cf. technical colleges that match your degree with a specific job, such as airplane mechanics), I am also a proponent of doing a thorough inventory of each person’s strengths and weaknesses. In that sense, knowledge (for the individual) is power. There are several tests that can be given that measure all sorts of things from motor skills, to analysis, to mathematics, to reading levels and reading speed. We need to work on the weaknesses to the extent they are GENERALLY RELEVANT in the workplace, but its ridiculous to require people to take precalculus or advanced algebra if they wont be using that skill in life and have no intention of becoming engineers or computer geeks. </p>

<p>On the other hand, why require people to take english and philosophy and history if they are simply not geared that way in their brains…they are better at motor skills and mathematics, or are very artistic? </p>

<p>We should encourage people to pursue that which they enjoy doing, and 99.99% of the time they will select subjects that they are good at and avoid those they are poor at. </p>

<p>Endemic in any of this “reach for the stars” mentality is a pervasive and pernicious notion that one college is superior to another and if you attend College A, a higher ranking college, it makes you a superior human being. Wrong. I reject that.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with a healthy sense of challenge, but it must be matched and tailored to the individual and that individual’s circumstances. Which may or may not have anything to do with the ranking of a particular college. </p>

<p>My kid got waitlisted and received two rejections from schools that she thought that she REALLY wanted and REALLY NEEDED to attend, in order to be a successful human being. Three years later, the pain subsided, the perspective much changed…we both look back on that time as a frenzied and temporary insanity. That things really did work out for the best and she is at the best place for her (where she is now insanely happy and doing exceedingly well). Had she attended Brand X (a highly selective school that shall remain nameless, but which caused the most pain and resentment), we see now it would have been a COLOSSAL MISTAKE for HER. We are grateful now how it all resolved, though at the time we were very unhappy campers.</p>

<p>“The Best Place that will admit you” may not necessarily be the highest ranking place.</p>

3

<p>Makes sense to me. I would think this would generally be true for most people provided they have the rudimentary skills needed to build on, which I believe most people admitted into selective schools do possess. It’s much easier for at risk students to flounder within institutions where there are already significant percentages of others doing the same. </p>

<p>Also, I think it’s a fallcy to think academic progress is easier at less selective institutions. The red tape, lesser skilled professors, and lack of quality support or effective counseling can all converge to make for a miserable experience for those least able to navigate through it all.</p>

4

<p>The biggest impact on college students’ goals and aspirations is indeed their college peer group. Assuming no situations of terrible student-institutional fit, the “best school to admit you” principle has a lot of merit. Decisions based on other factors are often likely to be based on pretty superficial stuff (e.g. “I liked the tour guide” or “The campus architecture doesn’t turn me on”, etc.).</p>

5

<p>Some of this information might be very misleading. If I interpreted the data correctly, a “highly selective” qualified student would do less well at a “somewhat selective” or “selective” institution. However, these big designations (similar to the USNEWS first tier, second tier, etc?) are very general, while most students on here are going to highly selective or selective colleges anyway.</p>

<p>So when it’s between Harvard and Directional Commuter State, no contest. But if it’s a decision among 99% of the schools that students here are considering, I don’t think the answer is quite so clear. Full price at top 10 or free ride at top 50? Honors at Flagship U or middle of the pack at Not As Well Known LAC?</p>

<p>If I ran the circus, I would advise students to go with the cheapest offer in almost every situation. There’s a lot of freedom that a lower/no debt load can offer a student that cumbersome student loans at any but the very best institutions can’t. Even simple things, like the freedom to take unpaid internships, to be more involved on campus, and to splurge from time to time can get overshadowed by a lot of debt.</p>