<p>Thanks to all who have replied. I’m certain that there are a multitude of reasons for students not to graduate, but in aggregate, those reasons would tend to level out across colleges.</p>
<p>DD is well aware of what Earlham is and what it isn’t, so the de-emphasis on sports is not an issue for her. Richmond itself isn’t a draw, but I would say the same for Wooster, Grinnell, and Lewiston (Bates). Certainly, some students think that they’ll be OK with a smaller town, but find out after the fact that they do want more. The (insert college name here) Bubble is common enough that I tend to discount those reasons as a major factor in graduation rate differences.</p>
<p>Where I do see a direct (or inverse) correlation, in general, are in test scores of incoming students and the percentage utilizing Pell grants. Both measures can be proxies for income levels and possibly levels of preparedness. I would expect Bates to have higher graduation rates based on test scores, selectivity, and number of full-pay students. Kalamazoo and Wooster, though, seem to have comparable test scores, but admit fewer Pell students. This leads me to believe that Earlham gets more students in the door who subsequently find that even with significant financial aid, they are unable to afford to attend long enough to graduate.</p>
<p>Does this explanation make sense? If so, since much of Earlham’s attraction is its moral compass, is it the school’s obligation to fully inform applicants of potential adverse outcomes? Or is their role to provide an educational environment and let their consumers decide (possibly based on perceptions using incomplete information which the college could enhance) whether they can afford the cost? Based on national levels of student loan debt and unemployment/underemployment, it appears that many students/families have made choices they now regret.</p>
<p>I’m less concerned about DD’s ability to graduate, but as mentioned in my first post, I’d rather she keep her classmates in school with her rather than have them transfer or drop out. More to the point, I wonder if it’s realistic to essentially hold Earlham to a higher standard of disclosure for lower income students if it also means some portion, who would ultimately navigate the process successfully, would go elsewhere and miss out on an Earlham education.</p>
<p>Thanks again for your thoughtful responses.</p>