<p>
[quote]
My reply: The correlation between average SAT and graduation rate is very high, about +.85 to +.90.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There's also a strong correlation between SAT scores and family income, which might well explain most of the graduation rate correlations.</p>
<p>touche idad:</p>
<p>I was gonna post the same thing -- ergo, is there is strong correlation with income and graduation rates?</p>
<p>An article on another thread shows that the economic diversity at Princeton has actually decreased over the past decade or so. The Ivies in general, have an extremely low rate of Pell Grantees (<10%). But, they have extremely high graduation rates....hmmm, a connection?</p>
<p>More to sakky's point, and the UCs -- the state campuses purposely give tips to low income applicants, such that each campus comprised of ~33% Pell Grantees (4 times that of most Ivies), including Cal and UCLA. Add to the fact that the public (read taxpayers) don't believe in free rides, finaid even for the poorest of the poor, requires a lot of self-help, including work study (IMO, these kids would be better served by 15 hours of tutoring vs. waiting table in food services). As a result, the UCs have poor four-year graduation rates. </p>
<p>Sakky's, since some (many?) of these kids might not ever graduate, should the state not offer UC opportunities to poor kids, and make them go to Cal States or a juco instead?</p>
<p>
[quote]
the G/R ranks look very much like a survey on which private schools have the strongest brands.
[/quote]
and the biggest endowments and richest students.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or the support to let them graduate without lifting a finger or attending a class?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt you mean to imply that this is a fair characterization of the workload at HYPS.</p>
<p>
[quote]
USNEWS is actually rewarding colleges with less rigorous academic programs and docking colleges with notably challenging academics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not exactly. It is rewarding colleges that rarely flunk students out.</p>
<p>The academics may be quite challenging at places where almost everyone graduates. Again, I know of no evidence that Swarthmore students are better off because some of their classmates did not make it through. Look at any field that requires a good college education and you will find lots of students from HYP, Stanford, Duke, Amherst, Williams... All have astronomical graduation rates, and extremely successful graduates. So if they missed something by not having more people drop out/ transfer/flunk out, I cannot see what it is.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the people who did flunk out should be counted somewhere. Simply declaring that this is the price required for rigorous academics is a difficult argument to sustain when there are so many counter examples among elite colleges. As Sakky has pointed out, flunking out of college is a terrible experience for any student, particularly for someone with the academic talent to be admitted to one of these elites in the first place.</p>
<p>Hawkette: Collegehelp is talking about correlations in the aggregate. There will always be outliers. This does not mean the relationships do not exist.</p>
<p>Interesteddad. Yes, there are high associations between SAT, income, and grad rates. That is why it is misleading to compare grad rates across colleges that differ substantiallly in student demographics. So one could fairly compare Harvard to Princeton, but perhaps not either of these to Columbia, with a much higher proportion of Pell recipients. Meaningless to compare any of these three to a local branch of a state school whose students typically work full time and go to school at night.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I doubt you mean to imply that this is a fair characterization of the workload at HYPS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. I was characterizing the half dozen or ten students (the difference in a couple point grad rate change) who are capable of getting a C at Swarthmore but who choose not to do so by not going to class or turning in assignments or making any effort. I don't think a college is "better" by allowing the most extreme slackers to graduate with Ds.</p>
<p>At many elite colleges, you could (theoretically) graduate getting D's in half your classes. At Swarthmore, a D doesn't earn a credit. There's your difference in graduation rates.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, it's not an admissions issue. In CalTech's (or Swarthmore's) case, we are only talking about a difference of maybe ten students from each freshman class. And, the difference is that those ten students can't squeek by on a gentleman's C- gut track. There's nowhere to hide. By the time sophmore year rolls around and it's time to declare a major (requires B's in the intended major at Swat, I don't know about CalTech), a decision point has been reached.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, I still think it is mostly an admissions issue. After all, when you are only bringing in a class of about 200 students a year, then you ought to be very careful about each individual student that you are bringing in. You certainly shouldn't be bringing in 10 subpar students when you're not bringing in that many to begin with. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think that a equally strong argument could be made: An elite college that isn't too demanding for at least a few students is too easy and should stiffen up its academic requirements. We know that "x" number of students at all of these schools are slackers. It's not the students who make the effort that are flunking out. I can't speak for CalTech, but I know that, at Swarthmore, if you go to class, make an effort, use the resources, you are going to graduate. The weeding process only culls the students who aren't even making a minimum effort, like not even going to class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But like I alluded to before, the labor market doesn't seem to care. You can talk about how it is right and good for Caltech and Swarthmore to maintain rigorous standards that weed students out. But like I have said, like it or not, the labor markets place great value on just having a degree, regardless of how easy it is to get that degree. For example, on the whole, it's better to have graduated from a cheesepuff major from Fresno State than to have flunked out of Caltech (or Swarthmore). Like it or not, it's true. That's because when it comes time to determining who should get a job interview, an employer is just going to see that you either have a degree or you don't. If you don't have a degree, you can't sit down and explain to them that you went to Caltech and the program was extremely hard and that's why you didn't graduate. All they will see is that you don't have a degree. </p>
<p>The same is true of graduate school. What if you want to be a lawyer, a doctor, a dentist, or get an MBA, or any of these things? Almost all of these programs require that you have a bachelor's degree to even be eligible to apply. Again, if you want to do these things, graduating in a cheesepuff major from Fresno State is better than flunking out of Caltech (or Swarthmore). </p>
<p>Look, interesteddad. Don't get me wrong. I sympathisize with your position. In a perfect world, people would realize that Caltech and Swarthmore are difficult schools. In a perfect world, there wouldn't be competing creampuff schools out there handing out degrees to students who don't do any work, or if they did, people would realize that fact and compensate accordingly. For example, somebody who graduated in an easy major at a no-name school would basically be treated by the labor market. as no better than somebody who flunked out of a difficult school. </p>
<p>But, sadly, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where having a degree matters greatly, even if that degree was a Mickey Mouse degree. Somebody who graduates with an easy degree from an easy school has many more career opportunities than somebody who flunked out of a difficult school, even if the latter guy actually worked harder than the former guy. In other words, in a perfect world, the rigor of Caltech or Swarthmore would be accounted for in the labor markets. But we don't live in that market. If you flunk out, all anybody will care about is that you flunked out and you don't have a degree, and they won't care why. Sad but true. </p>
<p>That's why, frankly, I think schools like Caltech and Swarthmore should lighten up. I'm not talking about giving people easy A's. But at least let your students graduate. Don't flunk them out so readily. Give them mediocre grades, but you should be very careful before flunking somebody out. Flunking somebody out is a terrible thing to do to a person, particularly when other schools refuse to flunk out their subpar students. </p>
<p>You can look at it from a competitive standpoint. Let's say that I get admitted to both Caltech and Stanford. I see that Caltech might flunk me out, but Stanford will almost certainly not. If I get flunked out, I will be put at a major disadvantage in my career. Hence, it seems to me that, from a risk aversion standpoint, I ought to prefer Stanford. From a selfish and competitive standpoint, why should I risk the chance of getting expelled if I am subpar at Caltech, if I can just go to Stanford and be subpar and not be expelled? Seems to me that Stanford would then be a more desirable school because it's a ** safer ** school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not saying that looking at graduation rates isn't worthwhile. It's most instructive in the middle of the bell curve where you see some real variation. At the top of the curve, is there really any difference between 92% and 96%? I don't think so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, actually, that's a HUGE difference. Turn the numbers around. 92% graduation means 8% of your students don't graduate. 96% graduateion means that 4% of your students don't graduate. So the relevant numbers are really 8% vs. 4% - or DOUBLE the chances of not graduating. That's HUGE.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The other flaw with the USNEWS approach is that it docks schools for students who transfer out, but does not count the students who transfer in. If you factored the two-way impact of transfers, all of these elite colleges would be at essentally 100% six-year grad rates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The notion of outward transfers just begs the question of why are any of the students trying to transfer out? It seems to indicate that, for whatever reason, those students are dissatisfied (because if they were satisfied, they wouldn't be transferring out). Hence, losing "graduating" students because they are transferring out seems to me to be a rightful metric of determining student dissatisfaction. </p>
<p>
[quote]
HYP do not like to flunk student out, you do not want to flunk out a future president. A gentlemen's C is acceptable. So their graduation rate is higher than they should be and give them an artifical boost in the USNWR ranking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. But as a person who is risk-averse (which most people are), you tend to prefer a safer school in which you have a greater assurance of graduating. Think of it this way. Given the choice between one school in which everybody graduates, and another school in which many students do not, a risk-averse person will tend to prefer the former.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I probably agree with your statement, but I am not sure that I agree with the accompanying idea that this relates to the quality of an institution. People transfer for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that the student misjudged his or her “fit” at a school. Some at a more prestigious school might gut it out for four years because the students hopes that the brand value of the diploma might make the struggle worthwhile, but does this really mean that the prestigious school really is better? For example, a student from North Carolina is accepted at Yale and U North Carolina. She goes to Yale and hates it (for whatever reason). Will she transfer back to North Carolina where she would likely be much happier and would still get a very good education? Probably not because the brand value of Yale is appreciably stronger than UNC. But should such a decision lead one to conclude that Yale does a better job of educating and graduating its students vs what UNC does?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, in this case, that's rather irrelevant. In your scenario, the student is getting something he really wants (the brand name), and is willing to sacrifice other things to get it. So at least the school is providing an overall positive benefit to that student, because if it didn't, that student really would transfer out. The student is inherently making a determination that, as bad as his situation is, it's still better than the alternative. </p>
<p>Contrast that with other schools that make students miserable AND don't have a strong brand name. </p>
<p>I agree that it has nothing to do with educating its students, strictly speaking. But I don't see the USNews ranking as having to do strictly with educational quality. It has to do with what makes schools desirable, whether that's because of the quality of education or other factors. The truth of the matter is that much of the value of college is wrapped in the brand name because of the job market signalling aspects of the brand (this is the work that won Michael Spence the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001). Much of the value of a top college is the ability to signal to the market that you were good enough to get into that college in the first place. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The support to help them do the work? Or the support to let them graduate without lifting a finger or attending a class? If the purpose of an elite college is to simply sell degrees, then they could dispense with classes altogether. Just cash the check and mail 'em the diploma.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But, like it or not, that's what the job market values. More importantly, it's what students value. It is entirely rational for students to prefer the safer school in which they are more assured of getting a degree. Why take risks with your life if you don't have to?</p>
<p>Interesteddad, you seem to be arguing your point from a macro, systematic standpoint. However, I am looking at the situation from a individualistic, micro level. Why should an individual high school student want to take extra risks with his academic career, if he has the option of a safer school? </p>
<p>
[quote]
More to sakky's point, and the UCs -- the state campuses purposely give tips to low income applicants, such that each campus comprised of ~33% Pell Grantees (4 times that of most Ivies), including Cal and UCLA. Add to the fact that the public (read taxpayers) don't believe in free rides, finaid even for the poorest of the poor, requires a lot of self-help, including work study (IMO, these kids would be better served by 15 hours of tutoring vs. waiting table in food services). As a result, the UCs have poor four-year graduation rates. </p>
<p>Sakky's, since some (many?) of these kids might not ever graduate, should the state not offer UC opportunities to poor kids, and make them go to Cal States or a juco instead?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>CalStates and jucos are the only options? Actually, I think you're being a bit pessimistic. Think about it. Let's say you really are poor. And you're good enough to get into Cal or UCLA. Then that probably means that you're also good enough to get into one of the top private schools, like an Ivy, Stanford, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, etc. And the fact is, those top private schools tend to be EXTREMELY generous with financial aid, often times, far more so than the UC's are. </p>
<p>For example, I remember talking to 2 guys who were California residents, and had gotten into both Berkeley and Harvard, and found out that Harvard would actually be * cheaper * once financial aid was factored in. I will always remember one of them acidly joking that he had always dreamed of going to Berkeley, but he couldn't afford it, so he had "no choice" but to go to Harvard. </p>
<p>So maybe, from a systematic standpoint, that points to a solution. Maybe we should offload poor, but highly qualified students, away from the UC's and to the top private schools. The UC's may not have much financial aid available, but the top private schools evidently do. </p>
<p>Now, even if you're not at the level of Berkeley or UCLA, but can get into one of the lower UC's. That means that you're still likely to be able to get into a mid-tier private school and probably get substantial financial aid and/or a merit scholarship. </p>
<p>But the point is this. I am not sympathetic to the idea of the UC system bringing in all these students without properly backing them financially. If you're not going to back your students financially, then don't bring them in. Let them go to other schools where they will get proper backing. I am quite convinced that most students who are good enough to get into a UC, especially the top UC's like Berkeley or UCLA, could get a full-merit-ride at some other school. So if money is the real probem, then those students should be taking those rides. That's better than the current situation where the UC's are basically robbing students of their time and money, and not even giving them degrees. The worst part is that the UC's ** know ** that those guys won't get degrees, yet take their money anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No. I was characterizing the half dozen or ten students (the difference in a couple point grad rate change) who are capable of getting a C at Swarthmore but who choose not to do so by not going to class or turning in assignments or making any effort. I don't think a college is "better" by allowing the most extreme slackers to graduate with Ds.</p>
<p>At many elite colleges, you could (theoretically) graduate getting D's in half your classes. At Swarthmore, a D doesn't earn a credit. There's your difference in graduation rates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then like I said, don't admit those guys in the first place. Either that, or do something to motivate them. Expelling somebody is a tremendously traumatic move that ought to be used only as a very very last resort. </p>
<p>Afan's point is well-taken and ought to be reiterated. There are students at HYPS who are subpar in effort, and they still graduate. Hence, they are safer. So, again, from an individualistic standpoint, if you had the choice between going to Swarthmore, or going to HYPS, and you can see that there is a greater risk that you might not graduate if you go to Swarthmore than if you go to HYPS, that is a legitimate reason to prefer the latter. </p>
<p>Like I said, people are risk-averse and prefer safer choices. That's why people tend to prefer a guaranteed $400,000 vs. a 50% chance of getting a million dollars. </p>
<p>The major intervening dynamic is the labor market. Take a guy who went to Swarthmore, was lazy, and so flunked out. Then take another gu who went to Stanford, was lazy, but still graduated. Both guys were lazy. But the lazy Stanford guy has a much brighter career future than the Swarthmore guy, simply because he has a degree and the Swarthmore guy doesn't. He is better off. In a perfect world, the market would realize that both guys are equally lazy and both equally undeserving of a job. But that's not what happens in reality. Like it or not, that's not how it is. </p>
<p>Interesteddad, you can complain all you want about how schools should demand rigor and not hand out degrees to subpar students. But as long as the labor markets don't care about rigor, neither will the students. Like I said, most employers just want candidates with degrees, no matter how easy it is to get that degree.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I am not so sure it is an admissions issue. One would need to see more detail about the high school characteristics of students who flunk out or drop out of these colleges, but it may not be that predictable. Perhaps every student admitted looks highly qualified when they applied. Some had emotional problems, difficulty adjusting to college life, changes in motivation, physical illnesses, etc that meant they performed worse in college than predicted. </p>
<p>It is possible that there are so few people with both the ability and inclination to do what Caltech offers that the class size should be smaller. However, that is a difficult proposal to make. Caltech administrators probably know what those who do not graduate look like in high school, but no one else does.</p>
<p>It still comes back to the experience of the students and expectations of the college. It is clear that flunking out students is catastrophic for those who ednure it. I just do not see how it benefits those who make it through, given that most elite college manage to launch their students without having to send such a large percentage home without degrees.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's say you really are poor. And you're good enough to get into Cal or UCLA. Then that probably means that you're also good enough to get into one of the top private schools, like an Ivy, Stanford, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>sorry, but your assumption is just plain incorrect. The Ivies don't go looking for poor kids -- they just don't, and neither does Northwestern. More importantly, the poor kids that get into Cal and UCLA are typically at the bottom of the SAT range, and are accepted BECAUSE they are poor, so even if they applied to a 100% need-blind, rich school, they would not get in.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sorry, but your assumption is just plain incorrect. The Ivies don't go looking for poor kids -- they just don't, and neither does Northwestern.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said that the top private schools 'go looking' for poor kids. </p>
<p>I am saying that perhaps it is a more optimal systemic solution for the poor kids to be directed to look at those private schools, and not the UC's. After all, if the UC's refuse to back them properly financially, then maybe the UC's aren't the best places for them to go to. That's better than what happens now, which is that these poor students end up paying UC money that they don't really have, and STILL end up with no degree. That's the worst of all worlds. So we should be attempting to convince more of these poor students to consider private schools that have plenty of money. </p>
<p>Bottom line. If a student isn't going to graduate, then maybe he shouldn't come. I say that for the good of the student. The worst thing you can do is bring in students who you know aren't going to graduate. You're just wasting everybody's time and money. </p>
<p>And besides, given the socioeconomic 'affirmative action' that almost all private schools run, I am fairly certain that if you can get into Cal or UCLA, you can get into quite a few private schools with rides. See below.</p>
<p>
[quote]
More importantly, the poor kids that get into Cal and UCLA are typically at the bottom of the SAT range, and are accepted BECAUSE they are poor, so even if they applied to a 100% need-blind, rich school, they would not get in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The analysis doesn't necessarily rest on just the very top privates. Keep in mind that there are literally THOUSANDS of private schools out there, many of which provide full financial aid and/or merit scholarships. I am quite certain that if you are good enough to get into Cal or UCLA, you are good enough to get into one of these schools with a full ride. After all, other than with the possible exception of football/basketball players, even the worst students at Cal are still above-average students (where the average is calculated relative to all students nationwide). If you are an above-average student, I am convinced that you can get a full ride SOMEWHERE.</p>
<p>But the bottom line is this. Contrary to their public image, I don't think the UC's are a very good deal for an individual poor person, precisely because they refuse to support the poor with sufficient financial aid. I agree that the UC's bring in a lot of poor students, so in that sense, you could say that they are trying to help the poor. But they don't really support those poor students very well. I see no glory in bringing in lots of poor students, only to have a lot of them drop out. In fact, frankly, that actually makes them WORSE off, because now they have even less money than they did before. Societally speaking, those poor students should be going to schools that will actually back them properly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On the other hand, I am not so sure it is an admissions issue. One would need to see more detail about the high school characteristics of students who flunk out or drop out of these colleges, but it may not be that predictable. Perhaps every student admitted looks highly qualified when they applied. Some had emotional problems, difficulty adjusting to college life, changes in motivation, physical illnesses, etc that meant they performed worse in college than predicted. </p>
<p>It is possible that there are so few people with both the ability and inclination to do what Caltech offers that the class size should be smaller. However, that is a difficult proposal to make. Caltech administrators probably know what those who do not graduate look like in high school, but no one else does.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In that last sentence, you just stated the remedy. If the administrators know what these students who will not make it look like, then the answer is then to stop admitting students in the future who look like that. </p>
<p>But I also agree that perhaps it is impossible to know. But then Caltech will simply have to accept the fact that they are a 'risky' school and are therefore less desirable (and hence deserve a lower ranking) because most people are risk-averse.</p>
<p>
[quote]
THOUSANDS of private schools out there, many of which provide full financial aid and/or merit scholarships.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>care to list a handful that will give a FULL RIDE merit scholarship plus travel to a kid with a 1100 SAT?</p>
<p>
[quote]
care to list a handful that will give a FULL RIDE merit scholarship plus travel to a kid with a 1100 SAT?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not just an 1100 SAT score we're talking about. We're also talking about a, presumably, quite strong high school GPA (otherwise, you would not have even gotten into Cal or UCLA). </p>
<p>And again, it's not just a FULL RIDE merit scholarship we're talking about. We're talking about a combination of financial aid AND merit that, together, covers your full costs. If you're poor, you're probably going to get a lot of financial aid. Hence, it doesn't take that much more merit aid to cover the difference.</p>
<p>Searching around Google, or on CC, you can actually come up with schools that provide merit scholarships eligible to those with 1100 SAT scores. For example, just pulling up Google, I see Columbia International University offers the R.C. McQuilkin Leadership Scholarship, which provides a full ride, and is eligible for people with SAT scores of above 1000 (and high school GPA of 3.0 and some other requirements). That's right - a FULL RIDE. Lambuth University offers the Achievement Scholars Program which is open to people with 1090 SAT scores, and provides $11,000. Wesleyan College provides the $14,000 Knox McNeil Scholarship for those with a 1100 SAT. Combine that with need-based financial aid, and that may be fully equivalent to a full ride. Many other examples exist. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.ciu.edu/college/admissions/financialaid.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.ciu.edu/college/admissions/financialaid.php</a>
<a href="http://www.golambuth.com/finaid/scholgrants/merit.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.golambuth.com/finaid/scholgrants/merit.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.wesleyancollege.edu/Admission/Undergraduate/Tuition/Scholarships/tabid/1057/Default.aspx%5B/url%5D">http://www.wesleyancollege.edu/Admission/Undergraduate/Tuition/Scholarships/tabid/1057/Default.aspx</a></p>
<p>I also don't know why you invoked travel. UC's don't usually provide money for travel either. For example, if you're from Northern California and the only UC you can get into are all in Socal (i.e. Irvine, Riverside, Santa Barbara, etc.), then you have to pay for travel yourself. I don't see any significant difference between a private school not providing you travel money and a UC not providing you travel money.</p>
<p>Travel is important since poor kids don't have the $ to jump on a plane. sakky, your hyuperbole has gotten the best of you, and I suggest you quit while you are behind. </p>
<p>Does your googling show that any students with an 1100 actually recieve a full ride scholarship. Just because its the minimum doesn't mean that they actaully award the $$ to those kids. Wes? Oh, come on now, I'm sure you read the Gatekeepers, and how competitive admissions are.</p>
<p>btw: there are only 2500 four year college in the US, so its kinda hard that your "THOUSANDS" is even plausable. Normally, your points are somewhat well taken, but your credibiltiy is at dropping fast.</p>
<p>Great analysis and commentary throughout, but no real consensus that I can see about the relative worth of this number, although it does seem pretty clear that family economics and brand name have a strong influence on the numbers behind the G/R rank. </p>
<p>Would anyone care to comment on the 20% weighting assigned to Graduation/Retention rank? IMO, G/R rank should carry less weight than PA (25%), Faculty Resources (20%), Selectivity (15%) and perhaps even Financial Resources (10%)?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Travel is important since poor kids don't have the $ to jump on a plane.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again, what did I say regarding the UC's? How do you think people from NorCal get to, say, UCRiverside or UCI? You really think they're driving every time? Heck, add up the gas money you would take to do that. </p>
<p>So if you want to harp upon travel costs, then you should harp upon travel costs in ALL cases, including the UC's. How many UC's do you know that consistently give travel money? </p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky, your hyuperbole has gotten the best of you, and I suggest you quit while you are behind.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I suggest you watch yourself before I have to bring in the moderators. I don't tell you what to do. Don't tell me what to do. </p>
<p>
[quote]
btw: there are only 2500 four year college in the US, so its kinda hard that your "THOUSANDS" is even plausable. Normally, your points are somewhat well taken, but your credibiltiy is at dropping fast.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And where is my post incorrect? 2500 qualifies as "thousands". Among those thousands, there are almost certainly going to be some schools that will offer somebody who is good enough to get into a UC enough money to constitute a full ride. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Does your googling show that any students with an 1100 actually recieve a full ride scholarship.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, it doesn't have to be a full ride. All it has to be is enough money that, combined with financial aid, is equivalent to a full ride.</p>
<p>And, in answer to your question, I can think of one guy I know right now - my neighbor. His SAT score was, shall we say, mediocre, mostly because, at the time, he was a recent immigrant and therefore his English skills were rather undeveloped. Yet, he was able to get merit money from a no-name school. Combined with financial aid (because he was poor), he effectively got a full ride that took him all the way through college. He eventually got a master's degree at MIT.</p>
<p>But the point, again, is that schools should not be bringing in students who they are not willing to fully support, and that includes financial support. If they insist on doing that, then they should be rightfully dinged for it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would anyone care to comment on the 20% weighting assigned to Graduation/Retention rank? IMO, G/R rank should carry less weight than PA (25%), Faculty Resources (20%), Selectivity (15%) and perhaps even Financial Resources (10%)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If anything, I might argue that G/R ought to count more than any of those other factors. After all, like I said, the purpose of going to college is not just for the heck of going to college. The purpose of going to college is to graduate. If you're unable to graduate, then the entire rationale for even going there is gone. Honestly, who cares if your college has great PA, selectivity, faculty and financial resources, if you can't graduate?</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's why, frankly, I think schools like Caltech and Swarthmore should lighten up. I'm not talking about giving people easy A's. But at least let your students graduate. Don't flunk them out so readily.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have to laugh. Neither CalTech (90% grad rate) nor Swarthmore (92% grad rate) are flunking out a lot of their freshmen!</p>
<p>Actually, Swarthmore has taken about a 2 point hit ever since they dropped football in Dec. 2000 and helped the players transfer to other schools. It takes forever for that to work its way through a 6 year grad rate statististic. The incoming freshman class enrolled after football was gone had a 93% five-year grad rate, but STILL hasn't shown up in the 6-year rate. That cohort won't show up in the USNEWS data for two more years....</p>
<p>sakky:</p>
<p>i-dad is right, you are hilarious. Of the (ahem) THOUSANDS of colleges, how many meet 100% of need??????</p>
<p>
[quote]
is that schools should not be bringing in students who they are not willing to fully support, and that includes financial support.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>which gets back to my original question which you have yet to answer, since the UCs and Cal States do not "willingly" provide full support, should they NOT accept those kids?</p>