<p>I'm going to take a minority position and provide a partial defense of the graduation rate. Note, that doesn't mean that the use of it by the rankings is perfectly justified. Let's keep in mind that no ranking is perfect and no ranking category is perfect. They all have their flaws. The question is, does a particular ranking category provide more benefits than drawbacks? I would argue that in this case, it probably does. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree. I never thought about it and never knew the percentages, but the G/R rate shouldn't influence something that much. </p>
<p>These are my reasons:
They don't take into account all the football players who graduate a year early for the NFL or play for four years but don't qualify for a degree. (grad rate)
They don't take into account freshmen basketball players who go pro after a year. (retention rate)
They don't divide into sections as to WHY a student transferred/withdrew after their freshman year. Some don't like the school, which I could see being used as a legitimate factor. But what about those students who want to change majors but their current school doesn't offer what they want? What if a student is having family problems at home and chooses to return home for a year or more to take care of things? They still affect retention rate even though it's not something that the school did wrong that made the student leave.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. But you have to keep in mind that it's all relative. Schools are being ranked relative to each other. All schools with division 1-A football teams will have players leaving early for the NFL. All schools have some students who have family problems and therefore have to withdraw. The key is then, which schools seem to have more problems with retention/graduation relative to others? </p>
<p>
[quote]
It also penalizes schools that have larger numbers of working and independent students. Not everyone has mom and dad write big checks for the easy 4 year ride.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this partially. But see below. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I agree that athletes probably have some influence on this score's calculation although I suspect it is more than just a few players going to the NFL or NBA. Division I athletes (outside of the Ivy League) routinely redshirt for a year to get a physical and maturation advantage. I don't know what % of athletes do this, but it is not small. However, I don't think that the overall effect of this practice is so large as to have a major impact on a school's 6-year grad rate.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's also keep in mind that college athletics consists of far more than just football or basketball. Plenty of college sports basically have no real professional option and thus don't really have much of a problem at all with students leaving early to go pro. For example, there is no established and lucrative professional league for crew. Or field hockey. Or wrestling (no, the WWE doesn't count). Or gymnastics. Or fencing. Or cross-country. Or water polo. Yes, some of these sports have nascent professional leagues. But come on, college students aren't exactly champing at the bit to drop out of school to become instant millionaires as professional cross-country runners. </p>
<p>I seem to recall having read somewhere that the overall retention and graduation rate for all college athletes (for all sports) is actually HIGHER than it is for the college student body as a whole. Obviously, football and men's basketball (and to some extent baseball) tend to exhibit lower graduation rates. But most of the sports are not money sports. And athletes in these sports actually tend to do better than the average non-athlete. Hence, having a large sports contingent may actually make a school BETTER in terms of graduation/retention rate. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's even worse for schools like Caltech that are very challenging academically and enroll a highly qualified student body.</p>
<p>USNEWS uses a "predicted graduation rate" which essentially assumes that you should have a very high grad rate based on high SAT scores. So a school like CalTech that has incredibly high SAT scores has a ridiculously high predicted grad rate. They get docked signficantly for underperforming against their predicted rate -- a double whammy, docked once for the lower grad rate, docked again for missing their predicted grad rate. Guess what? CalTech is hard. Like nobody would have guessed, right?</p>
<p>Of course, the absurdity of it all is that CalTech could improve in the USNEWS rankings by replacing all those pesky physics and engineering seminars with basketweaving for dummies classes, giving everyone gentleman's As, and having a 98% grad rate.</p>
<p>Swarthmore gets docked on this too, despite the fact that their six year grad rate is above 90%. They get docked because their SATs are so high. They could improve their ranking by letting slackers graduate with D's instead of requiring at least a C in a course to get credit towards graduation. Would that make it a "better" school? No. It would actually make it a worse school, if you believe that students should actually be expected to study a little bit at an elite college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This actually gets into a long debate that I have discussed with numerous other people on CC. And don't get me wrong, interesteddad. I sympathasize with your position. What you are describing is how the world should be. </p>
<p>But, it's not the way the world is. There's a big difference between the way the world should be and the way the world actually is. We have to deal with the world the way it actually is, not how we would like it to be. Sad but true.</p>
<p>Here's what I mean by that. I believe there is actually a good reason for Caltech to get docked for a graduation rate that is relatively low (when compared to peer schools like HYPSM). Basically, it serves to signal that Caltech needs to be more careful about who it admits. Why admit students who aren't going to graduate anyway? You're just wasting the school's time and the students' time. If the school insists on admitting him regardless, then, frankly, I think the school deserves to get punished with a lower ranking. The signal to me is fairly clear - if some students are unable to graduate because they can't handle the work, then you shouldn't have ever admitted them. </p>
<p>On a related note, this holds for students who can't graduate on time or don't get retained because they run into financial problems and need to work. The way I see it is, the school is ultimately responsible for providing sufficient financial support to every student it brings in. Why admit somebody who isn't going to be able to make it because he runs into financial trouble? Either fully support that student with a proper financial aid package. Or just not admit the guy at all. The worst choice is to admit him, only to have him drop out in the middle because of financial problems.</p>
<p>Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking that I am just being cold by advocating that schools not admit these students. To the contrary, I would argue that I am actually being compassionate. Like I said, the worst scenario is to bring in a student only to have him leave halfway without a degree. If you admit a student, you should be fully prepared to back him all the way to graduation. Or, don't admit him at all. All or nothing. The worst choice is that "intermediate" choice where you admit him but don't fully support him. Think about it. If he's not going to graduate, then, frankly, he's just wasting his time and wasting the school's resources. </p>
<p>Not only that, but he's just wasting his money. Again, let's talk about the guy who has to drop out because he runs out of money. That guy had presumably spent some of his money for those years during which he was in school. When he drops out, he's not going to get any of that money back. So think about what we have here. We have a guy who didn't have much money to begin with, and now he has ** even less ** money, and he ** still ** has no degree. Hence, I would argue that this guy is even worse off than if he had never gone to college at all. Keep in mind that you don't just go to college just for the heck of it. You go to college to get a degree. If you're not going to get a degree, you might as well have not even bothered to go at all. </p>
<p>Hence, I would actually argue that it is the compassionate thing for a school who can deduce that an applicant isn't going to make it to graduation (whether for academic or financial reasons) to simply not admit the applicant in the first place. Everybody would then be better off. I agree that it's not pleasant to be rejected from a school. But it's even worse to go to that school and then later have to drop out. </p>
<p>Let's look at it from the student's perspective. I think that most students, like myself, are highly risk-averse when it comes to their degree. I remember going through the trauma of a harsh weeder undergrad program in which I and others in my program weren't even assured that we were going to graduate at all, and in which the pressure to avoid flunking out was ever-present. Trust me, it is a most unpleasant experience that I wouldn't wish on anybody. I remember thinking to myself what I would say to my family if I flunked out. That was pure hell, because you can't plan for anything if you don't even know if you are going to graduate. That pressure to avoid flunking out is always hanging over your head, clouding your entire experience and making it impossible to enjoy anything. Later on in life, I went to a graduate program where finishing the program was basically assured. You might not get top grades, but you are basically assured that if you do the work, you would get the degree. Contrast that with undergrad in which you can do all the work, and flunk out anyway (because it was a curved weeder program). Judging from that experience, I would argue that there is a tremendous amount of value in knowing that if you get admitted to a particular program, that you are basically assured of graduating (as long as you put in a good-faith effort to do the work). Hence, I think that schools probably are well-advised to only admit those students who they honestly believe will make it, and not admit those students who are doubtful. After all, if you're going to weed your students anyway, I would argue that it's more compassionate to do it through the admissions process than through the curricula. That way, you have saved people time and money. Not only that, but if the student is simply not admitted, then the student can just go to some other school that did admit him (and presumably does believe that he will make it). In contrast, if a student comes to your school and then flunks out, he is screwed, because no other reputable school wants to admit a transfer student who flunked out of his previous school. Such a student is far far worse off than if he had simply never been admitted at all.</p>
<p>{Now, of course, one might say that the student should not have chosen to enter a program that was just too hard for him. I agree that the student bears some responsibility. But, again, let's not be too harsh. Let's have some compassion here. These guys are just 17-18 year old kids. People of that age do foolish things all the time. Hence while these kids bear responsibility for making bad choices, schools also bear responsibility for allowing them to make bad choices. A better solution for all parties involved is to simply not provide that bad choice.} </p>
<p>Besides, look at it this way. Like it or not, the market for labor is far from perfect. In particular, it rewards the fact that you have a degree far more than how difficult it was to get that degree. Somebody who graduated from Fresno State is valued more highly in the market than somebody who went to Caltech and flunked out. That's because, like it or not, most decent jobs out there require that you have a degree to even get an interview. In many cases, the employers don't care very much about how difficult your school was, or (sometimes) even what you majored in. What matters is that you have a degree. A guy who flunked out of Caltech may well be better than a guy who barely graduated from Fresno State, but employers don't know that and don't care. All they care about is whether you have a degree. No degree, no interview. </p>
<p>{Now, of course, I exaggerate. It's not that strict of a dichotomy. But I think you get my point. In this labor market, there is a big difference between having a degree, even if it's in a creampuff major at a no-name school, and not having a degree at all.} I think schools like Caltech ought to be more cognizant of just how damaging it is to somebody's marketability to flunk him out. Right now, as it stands, those who went to a school and flunked out would probably have been better off if they had never gone to that school at all. </p>
<p>Bottom line - schools should either do whatever they can to help as many of their students graduate as possible. Or, just don't admit those students who aren't going to make it anyway. A school that insists on bringing in students who aren't going to graduate is probably rightfully dinged by the rankings. What they're doing is bad for the students, bad for the school, bad for everybody.</p>
<p>But back to the issue of rankings. Keep in mind that rankings like USNews are basically 'consumer information goods' that provide information to prospective students regarding what schools they should be preferring. Take the notion that if I get admitted to a particular school and choose to go there, then I am highly assured of graduating. That, to me, is a highly piece of information and is a legitimate reason to prefer one school over another. Again, this has to do with man's natural risk-aversion. It's the same reason for which psychologists have discovered that most people will take an choose a guaranteed $400,000 vs. a 50% chance of getting $1 million (and a 50% chance of getting nothing), despite the fact that the expected value of the latter is higher. People place value on certainty and want to reduce their risk. By going to a school like Caltech, as opposed to a peer school like HYPSM, you are basically taking a higher risk of not graduating. Given man's inherent risk aversion, I think it is reasonable to place less value on the riskier choice.</p>