<p>Everybody admitted to Princeton, MIT, Stanford and CalTech are well qualified with great grades, high SATs and strong ECs showing energy, ambition and commitment.</p>
<p>Some schools take those well qualified candidates and graduate 90% of them and up. Others take those candidates and graduate less than 90%.</p>
<p>Schools don't choose to fail a certain percentage of students. Failing grade are given to those who truly deserve it, not the bottom X%. The failure rates are consistent because the rigor and selectivity of schools don't change much. Caltech students are incredible, but 15% of them are not able to handle Caltech's workload. They could probably ace their way through Podunk State, but this does not mean Podunk State is better than Caltech. If Caltech stepped up selectivity or lowered rigor enough, then it would have a graduation rate of more than 90%.</p>
<p>I didn't say one was "better" than another. Only that some statistically represent a higher risk of failure. All things considered and pretty much equal, I would rather place my $40,000 a year on a school that is 90% or above.</p>
<p>I have no reason to think that I am any more qualified than the typical admit. And yes, I am most concerned about me, that's why I want the odds in my favor.</p>
<p>Also, i believe very low graduation rate or a high graduation rate are indicators of the level of commitment of the school to undergraduate teaching. In a field like engineering, extra free tutoring, more office hours from professors and graduate students could definitely help a student from a C to an B+.</p>
<p>For Caltech undergrads, getting a C is considered by many as a failure grade. The unfortunate students would normally transfer to other schools if they get C average.</p>