Graduation/Retention Rank-Is this Overrated by USNWR?

College Search & Selection
41

<p>
[quote]
I have to laugh. Neither CalTech (90% grad rate) nor Swarthmore (92% grad rate) are flunking out a lot of their freshmen!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Relative to their peers, they certainly are. And that's the point - ** it's all relative **. Anybody who is good enough to get into Caltech or Swarthmore is also good enough to get into a bunch of other top schools that provide easier grading. Given those relative choices, the fact that Caltech/Swarthmore is the relatively dangerous one among the bunch is a mark against it.</p>

<p>Now, clearly Caltech/Swarthmore are better than the vast majority of other schools out there. But we're not talking about that, are we? Nobody dispute that these schools are better than your regular run-of-the-mill school. The question is, are they as good as their peers? On this particular metric, they are not. </p>

<p>Ask yourself, why would somebody who is risk-averse choose Swarthmore and brave that 92% graduation rate (hence, 8% non-graduation rate) if he can get into, say, Amherst or Williams, with their 96% graduation rate (hence, 4% non-graduation rate, or half as much)? Why would somebody who is risk-averse choose Caltech, with its 90% graduation rate (hence, a 10% non-graduation rate), if he could go to MIT with its 94% graduation rate (hence a 6% non-graduation rate, or almost half) ? I am not aware of any evidence that Swarthmore provides an education that is "way better" than Williams or Amherst, just like I am not aware of any evidence that Caltech is "way better" than MIT. Hence, given the fact that most people are risk-averse, it seems to me that people who are good enough to get into these top, dangerous schools also would have top, safer choices available to them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
-dad is right, you are hilarious. Of the (ahem) THOUSANDS of colleges, how many meet 100% of need??????

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And when exactly did I ever say that all, or even most of them did? </p>

<p>What I said before, and I'll say again, is that of those thousands of schools out there, if you are good enough to get into Cal or UCLA, and probably any UC, you can surely find ONE school out there that will provide you with a combination of financial aid + merit scholarships that will be equivalent to a full ride. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your answer is YES. They should NOT accept them. Why? For reasons that I have stated. If they don't have the financial backing to take them all the way through, then why take them at all? They're just going to drop out halfway anyway, and the school knows it. Hence, I would say that it is actually unethical for a school to take these people's money, KNOWING that they won't graduate. </p>

<p>However, in this discussion, you have confounded 2 problems. #1, the money. But #2, the fact that these students are not highly prepared for UC. Let's face it. Not everybody has what it takes to graduate from UC. Plenty of students run into academic trouble, and plenty of them ultimately flunk out. I would venture to say that poor students are proportionately more likely to run into trouble because they probably had bad high schools that didn't prepare them properly. It's sad that they didn't get a proper high school education, but it only compounds the problem by sending them off to a UC for which they are not prepared, only to see them flunk out. Flunking out helps nobody. If you know somebody is not properly prepared (either academically or financially, or both), then you should not admit him. So your answer is YES. </p>

<p>Let me give you an analogy. I know a guy who runs a motorcycle training class, basically teaching people how to ride motorcycles and pass their motorcycle license test. Every time he teaches his class, he always gets some guys who are not properly prepared, i.e. they've never even ridden bicycles before and they clearly are not ready to learn motorcycles. Now, if he was just a greedhead, he would just take their money, knowing that they are going to fail their license exam, or even if they do somehow pass, they are going to hurt themselves someday. He would just say "Hey, that's their own fault, it was their choice to ride motorcycles". But he doesn't do that. When he sees somebody who is clearly unprepared, he refunds their money and privately tells them to leave the class, advising them to go pick up some basic skills before they come back to take his class. Basically, he doesn't want these guys to hurt themselves, and he doesn't want to take money from people who are unprepared. </p>

<p>I think that's the right attitude to have for a school. If a guy is just not ready for your school, then don't admit him. At the very least, don't take money from somebody who doesn't have much money and who you know isn't going to make it.</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
What I said before, and I'll say again, is that of those thousands of schools out there, if you are good enough to get into Cal or UCLA, and probably any UC, you can surely find ONE school out there that will provide you with a combination of financial aid + merit scholarships that will be equivalent to a full ride.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And you would be incorrect, again. But, it HAS been a hoot.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
Ask yourself, why would somebody who is risk-averse choose Swarthmore and brave that 92% graduation rate (hence, 8% non-graduation rate) if he can get into, say, Amherst or Williams, with their 96% graduation rate (hence, 4% non-graduation rate, or half as much)?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Believe it or not, some really bright kids enjoy being challenged intellectually. Probably difficult to understand if you view the only benefit of college as a diploma for job placement purposes (like getting a mechanics certificate at the local votech school and a job at Mr Goodwrench).</p>

<p>To be honest, graduation rates never entered into my daughter's consideration. She never had any doubt that she could graduate from any school she choose.</p>

<p>If we put aside financial issues and voluntary transfers, the only reason anyone doesn't graduate from one of these schools is because they are a total slacker or eff-up. Even when grades are an issue, they are usually a symptom of some other problem (like not studying or going to class).</p>

<p>Kids who legitimately struggle, but make an effort, pass and graduate. The only exception might be someone who stupidly tries to gut out a physics or engineering major without sufficient aptitude for advanced math.</p>

<p>Remember, the real graduation rates at all of these schools (if you count the students who transfer in) is very close to 100%.</p>

44

<p>


Sakky, as interesteddad has insinuated, you don't really understand the motivations of people passionately interested in science and math. Good scientists, for example, tend to be both ambitious and risk-loving. It's almost a requirement for doing good research that one is willing to put significant effort into something that may fail. That isn't to say the amount of risk isn't calculated and considered, but don't blindly apply 'job optimization' to a very unique fraction of society. </p>

<p>Rather, people who apply to and attend Caltech (and likely similar arguments follow for Swarthmore), do so because they feel that the benefits of a small, focused school outweigh the risk of having fewer majors to transfer into should their interests change. Hence, of course the relatively low graduation rate is a negative, but it's probably not nearly as important as you make it sound.</p>

45

<p>I don't know that I completely agree with sakky's argument vis-a-vis risk aversion, but I think he does bring up an interesting question: why choose CalTech over MIT when MIT offers both greater prestige in most circles and an arguably more supportive atmosphere?</p>

<p>Nonetheless, I think that sakky's argument overlooks the possibility that most 17 to 18-year-olds don't even bother looking at that data.</p>

<p>On a side note, I'd like to ask everyone to remain within the limits of the TOS. This is not an option, and not an issue of debate. It is entirely possible to argue these points without getting personal.</p>

46

<p>


1. You'd be hard pressed to demonstrate to me that MIT offers greater prestige to knowledgeable people in science, engineering, and math.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>On what evidence are you basing the claim that MIT has a more supportive atmosphere?</p></li>
<li><p>As a small school Caltech offers certain substantive benefits that larger schools cannot match. Examples include: incredibly low student to faculty ratio, extremely qualified student body across the board, thriving Honor Code which greatly enhances both the undergraduate community and academic quality, and immensely difficult classes that build upon a rigorous core curriculum required for all students. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Of course for many people, these such perks don't outweigh the negative effects that come along with being a small school, but they're certainly important for some.</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
1. You'd be hard pressed to demonstrate to me that MIT offers greater prestige to knowledgeable people in science, engineering, and math.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who says it has to be in science, engineering, and math alone? Not every MIT grad is going to end up working in those fields. </p>

<p>
[quote]
2. On what evidence are you basing the claim that MIT has a more supportive atmosphere?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Like I said, "arguably." However, I'd say that the pass-fail system of the first year is a pretty nice way to institute a soft landing for income frosh.</p>

<p>
[quote]

  1. As a small school Caltech offers certain substantive benefits that larger schools cannot match. Examples include: incredibly low student to faculty ratio, extremely qualified student body across the board, thriving Honor Code which greatly enhances both the undergraduate community and academic quality, and immensely difficult classes that build upon a rigorous core curriculum required for all students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, don't shoot me here. I'm not saying that CalTech is bad. It's absolutely one of the top universities in the country. But MIT *arguably<a href="key%20word">/i</a> offers benefits that CalTech does not.</p>

<p>Of course, we still assume that the rational actor chooses a school based on what maximizes utility-- and in your case, it's obvious that the small campus offered that. But I'm still pretty sure that MIT is winning out in cross-admit battles. I'm not saying anything definite, but I do know a couple people who suggested to me that MIT's atmosphere was a tad bit less cutthroat.</p>

48

<p>I don't think that's overrated by USNWR at all. Graduation rate is, in my mind, one of the most criteria when evaluating a college. Let's face it, nowadays many students get a college education for the degree. Who wants to attend a school with a poor graduation rate, and risk not even getting a degree? The worst thing that could happen to a student, worse than not getting into a college, is getting into a college, spending years of his time and tens of thousands of dollars, only to drop out without a degree. Even if the school offers the best education in the world, it's not going to be worth much to you if you attend only to drop out. In this sense graduation rate really precedes other factors in determining the quality of education at a school.</p>

<p>In fact, I think more emphasis should be placed on the 4-year graduation rate. For example, at a top school like UC Berkeley, the 4-year graduation rate is 58%. That's pretty bad compared to other top schools like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton where the 4-year graduation rate is about 87-90%. Why is it taking so long for so many students to graduate in 5, or 6 years in a program that's designed to be 4 years long? If a high school only graduates about half its students in 4 years, while another 30% or so take 5-6 years to graduate, that wouldn't be a very good high school. Why is college different? The sad part is the other UCs have even lower 4-year graduation rates, as do most colleges ranked lower.</p>

49

<p>Well, in the case of the UC's, some of the majors may be 5-year programs. Students may have difficulty finishing in 4 years if they cannot get all their courses in due to enrollment limitations. And all state schools have a substantial number of people whose need to work while in college prevents them from moving as fast through the curriculum.</p>

<p>But the real question is whether students at these schools with low, for elite colleges, graduation rates are any better off than students at other elites?</p>

50

<p>How many students at HYP are working their way through school?</p>

51

<p>


Fair enough - no one has ever tried to argue that MIT is not better for business related fields.</p>

<p>


Caltech also uses a pass/fail system for most of freshman year as well. Please at least try to be somewhat accurate. </p>

<p>


I think you're confusing competitiveness with difficulty - Caltech is hard, but for the vast majority of students, it's a highly collaborative place. You either misunderstood those "couple people" or they represent a very small minority opinion. </p>

<p>


Of course it does. All I was pointing out was how ridiculous your (implied) claim that choosing MIT over Caltech was some sort of dominant strategy - a viewpoint that is apparently based on several of your misconceptions about Caltech.</p>

52

<p>Of course graduation rates are important.</p>

<p>It is perhaps the single greatest statistic which tells you:</p>

<p>1) How good a job a university has done in selecting / admitting its student body
2) How good a job a university does in helping its students get the proper resources, attention, support in allowing them to graduate either on time or graduate at all.</p>

<p>As many have already pointed out, all else being equal, why would one risk attending a school that has a poor track record graduating its students? (regardless of whether that is due to poor selection process, lack of focus / attention / support by administration / faculty, difficulty enrolling in classes, etc.) when one can attend a school that boasts a high graduation rate?</p>

<p>Let's peer through the looking glass the other way around: how in the world can one defend a poor graduation rate (even a relatively poor one?)</p>

53

<p>How can one defend a lower grad rate?--1. You are a school of opportunity that allows more than a hand selected cream of students a shot at higher education. The best of those will make it through and have success in life they would not have had without that shot. See the CCNY etc. of the 50's in NY.</p>

54

<p>I looked at 4-year graduation rate. I set 75% as a floor. Can you organize a program for my daughter and get her through your school in four years is not a bad question? I’m giving you four 5’s in AP classes and six-quarter hours of college history as a beginning. Simply an efficiency question nothing more.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
You are a school of opportunity that allows more than a hand selected cream of students a shot at higher education

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Translation: you are a school that either allows too many students of inferior quality that can't even graduate either on time or at all - and / or - you are a school that doesn't give the proper resources to allow them to graduate either on time or at all.</p>

<p>btw, you haven't answered my initial question: "how can one defend a poor graduation rate (even a relatively poor one?)"</p>

<p>in other words, your post, while very dreamy and idealistic doesn't offer any net benefit to a student choosing between school A) high graduation rate vs. B) low graduation rate... what is the benefit of choosing the school with the low graduation rate, all else being equal?</p>

56

<p>You cannot tell the "quality" of all students by their HS record. Yes, that's the safe way to go but in this country we do believe in second chances and opportunity for all. Many have proven that you can associate high income and high SAT scores. Should only those lucky enough to come from such backgrounds get a chance to get ahead in life? Some will take the chance and run with it and others will fail again but at least some are better off and so is society.
I love all those born on third base who believe they have hit a homerun. What is the advantage to the student? You might see more upside in more people later in life too.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
1. You'd be hard pressed to demonstrate to me that MIT offers greater prestige to knowledgeable people in science, engineering, and math.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But I think you just gave it away right there. Why are we simply restricting ourselves to people who are knowledgeable about technical subjects? The truth of the matter is, plenty of people out there are NOT knowledgeable about technical subjects.</p>

<p>I'll give you an example that comes from the world of law. I know a woman whose grandmother was involved in a legal dispute and had to hire a lawyer. So this woman recommended a lawyer that she knew, Her grandmother was skeptical, asking her where this lawyer went to law school. She replied: Stanford Law. Her grandmother replied: "No, I want somebody who went to a GOOD law school." Basically, her grandmother thought there were only 2 "good" law schools in the world - Harvard and Yale.</p>

<p>Look, fair or not fair, there are a lot of regular people out there who don't know school rankings. They just don't know it. Back to the case of MIT vs. Caltech, the fact is, a lot more regular people have heard of MIT than Caltech. And many times, these regular people are going to be in charge of hiring you, or buying from you, or doing business deals with you, or so forth. Like it or not, Caltech does not have the general brand name that MIT does. Yes, I agree that among those who are technically knowledgeabe, Caltech is well known. But not everybody is technically knowledgeable. In fact, I would argue that only a minority of people out there are. We can complain all we want about the unfairness of it all, but fair or not, it is what it is. </p>

<p>Furthermore, like UCLAri said, plenty of people at MIT don't go into technical fields. The 4th most popular undergraduate major at MIT (behind EECS, bio, and ME) is management at the Sloan School. These guys are (obviously) targeting a management career, in which case they will obviously be dealing with plenty of non-technical people. </p>

<p>
[quote]
2. On what evidence are you basing the claim that MIT has a more supportive atmosphere?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Higher graduation rate. 94% vs. 90%. Or, turned around, 6% of MIT students will not graduate, vs. 10% at Caltech, hence a 40% increase. </p>

<p>
[quote]
3. As a small school Caltech offers certain substantive benefits that larger schools cannot match. Examples include: incredibly low student to faculty ratio, extremely qualified student body across the board, thriving Honor Code which greatly enhances both the undergraduate community and academic quality, and immensely difficult classes that build upon a rigorous core curriculum required for all students. </p>

<p>Of course for many people, these such perks don't outweigh the negative effects that come along with being a small school, but they're certainly important for some.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Look, nobody is saying that Caltech doesn't have advantages over MIT. Heck, my brother chose Caltech over MIT (although it was mostly for the money - Caltech gave him a full ride and MIT didn't give him squat). </p>

<p>But we also have to agree that MIT has advantages over Caltech too.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
How many students at HYP are working their way through school?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the real question is, why can't Berkeley properly support its poorer students such that they don't * have * to work their way through school?</p>

<p>For example, again, at Harvard, full rides are guaranteed for anybody whose family makes less than 60k. Hence, Harvard fully supports its poor students. Granted, Harvard doesn't have a lot of poor students, making it easy to support the ones that are there. But that perhaps means that Berkeley should perhaps bring in fewer poor students. While that sounds harsh, as has been said before, the worst thing you can do to a poor student is take his money and then have him drop out. He doesn't have much money to begin with, and you're going to take his money, knowing he's unlikely to graduate? Frankly, I think that's unethically predatory. It basically means that you're just exploiting poor people. </p>

<p>One compassionate thing that Berkeley could do is only charge if the person graduates. Make it one big lump-sum payment at the very end, as the guy gets his diploma. That way, if he doesn't graduate, he pays nothing. I think that would actually spur the Berkeley administration to support people to graduate. Right now, the administration, frankly, has no incentive to support these people. They don't graduate, the Berkeley administration doesn't really care, because the school got paid for the time that they were there, and they will just replace them with a new bunch of people who also will pay but won't graduate, etc. I suspect that if Berkeley only got paid when people graduate, the administration would immediately align itself to help people to graduate. </p>

<p>But if you can't do that, then the best thing to do is to simply not admit people who aren't going to graduate anyway. </p>

<p>The worst choice is the current choice - bring in students who aren't going to graduate, and take their money and waste everybody's time.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
You cannot tell the "quality" of all students by their HS record. Yes, that's the safe way to go but in this country we do believe in second chances and opportunity for all. Many have proven that you can associate high income and high SAT scores. Should only those lucky enough to come from such backgrounds get a chance to get ahead in life? Some will take the chance and run with it and others will fail again but at least some are better off and so is society.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, that's unclear. Those who made it are better off. But those who didn't are WORSE off. Hence, from a net standpoint, whether society is better as a whole is unclear. </p>

<p>How are those who didn't make it worse off? Simple. They've lost time and money that they could have spent doing other things. Again, we are talking in the context of the poor, hence, poor people don't exactly have a lot of money to begin with. And you took some of it. Hence, they are actually worse off, financially. I know a guy who was poor and racked up thousands of dollars in loans at Berkeley, and flunked out. Frankly, his life is sad now. He has all these student loan interest payments he has to make, and he isn't making much money. Basically, he's now living hand-to-mouth. All these student loans, and no degree. That's just sad. </p>

<p>But what's arguably even worse is that if you flunk out, your academic record is ruined. Forever. Even driving records and bankruptcy records are wiped clean, by law, every 7-10 years. But academic records stay with you forever. So if you go to Berkeley and flunk out, that fact sticks with you forever. That hinders your chances of later transferring to another school, or going to graduate school, because all of them are going to ask for your prior academic record, and then they're going to see your terrible academic record. </p>

<p>Take that guy again. He would like to go to some other (easier) undergrad school. But he's having difficulty. Why? Because no respectable school wants to admit a transfer student who flunked out of his previous school. The ironic thing is that he had actually been admitted to a bunch of other schoos as a high school senior. But now that he flunked out of Berkeley, these schools don't want to admit him as a transfer. </p>

<p>So the point is, this guy is now ** much worse off ** than if he had never gone to Berkeley at all. He's deeply in debt, he wasted years of his life, and he can't get into any other decent school. His life is now just sad. He would be better off if he had never been admitted to Berkeley at all. </p>

<p>Nor do I mean to single out Berkeley. There are a lot of other people out there who waste time and money, and ruin their academic records at other schools and don't graduate.</p>

60

<p>
[quote]
And you would be incorrect, again. But, it HAS been a hoot.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Would I? I doubt it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Believe it or not, some really bright kids enjoy being challenged intellectually. Probably difficult to understand if you view the only benefit of college as a diploma for job placement purposes (like getting a mechanics certificate at the local votech school and a job at Mr Goodwrench).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, let me put it to you this way. Kids may SAY that they enjoy being challenged. And I am quite sure that those kids who get the challenge and survived it really did enjoy it. </p>

<p>But what about those kids who didn't survive the challenge? In particular, what of those kids who went to Caltech and flunked out. Do you think they enjoyed it? Who enjoys flunking out? </p>

<p>That's why we, as a society, advocate safety, especially for kids. I know a lot of people that "enjoy" smoking. The problem comes years later when a lot of them will have serious health problems. That's why we try to discourage smoking. I would probably 'enjoy' eating junk food for all my meals. But I know that's going to kill me. Just because something is enjoyable doesn't mean it's good for you. </p>

<p>
[quote]
To be honest, graduation rates never entered into my daughter's consideration. She never had any doubt that she could graduate from any school she choose.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, well, I'm quite sure that everybody who chose Caltech never really 'thought' they would not graduate. After all, if they really thought that, why did they choose to go there in the first place. Yet the fact is, 10% of them won't graduate. </p>

<p>Come on, interesteddad, you know how it is. Kids always think they're invincible. They always think that nothing bad is going to happen to them. Their mentality is that bad things happen to other people, but never to them. It is the job of adults to instill a sense of realism and perspective in kids - to convince them that bad things really can happen. That's why we teach them to wear their seat belt, to drive safely, to not smoke, to not use drugs, to not get into fights, to not drink until they're of legal age, to not have underage sex. We do these things because we know that bad things can happen as a result of them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If we put aside financial issues and voluntary transfers, the only reason anyone doesn't graduate from one of these schools is because they are a total slacker or eff-up. Even when grades are an issue, they are usually a symptom of some other problem (like not studying or going to class). </p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But again, the question is, why even take that chance, if you can go to another good school where you can be a slacker or eff-up, and STILL graduate? Why take unnecessary chances? </p>

<p>
[quote]
</p>

<p>Remember, the real graduation rates at all of these schools (if you count the students who transfer in) is very close to 100%.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, this is hardly proof of anything because the variable is inherently endogenous. Schools calibrate their transfer rate BASED on how many of their current students drop out. If more students drop out, more transfers are admitted. If those transfers then in turn drop out, then even more transfer students are brought in. The upshot is then naturally a "100%" graduation rate. But it is an artificial 100% rate. It is a rate that inherently contains a lot of waste - that a lot of people wasted their time and money and never got a degree. It's just a matter of accounting that you don't really "count" those people who don't graduate. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, as interesteddad has insinuated, you don't really understand the motivations of people passionately interested in science and math. Good scientists, for example, tend to be both ambitious and risk-loving. It's almost a requirement for doing good research that one is willing to put significant effort into something that may fail. That isn't to say the amount of risk isn't calculated and considered, but don't blindly apply 'job optimization' to a very unique fraction of society.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know about that. They don't seem that particularly 'unique' to me. ALL research inherently involves risk, whether that research has to do with science/math, or with social sciences, or with humanities, or whatever it is. A sociologist might conduct a field study and find that the data does not conform to his hypotheses, and hence the results will not be compelling. Heck, this happens ALL THE TIME in sociology. A guy getting a PhD in English might think there is something interesting to find within a particular small subsector of literature, and then after spending years researching it, discover that there really is nothing there at all. </p>

<p>At the same time, we shouldn't romanticize science. I know you talked about 'good' scientific research, but I think we can agree that there is plenty of scientific research out there that just isn't that 'good', and isn't that risky. Let's face it. There is a lot of derivative work out there - where all you're doing is basically just extending an existing well-known theory. But you're not really taking much risk because the theory is well understood and characterized. All you're doing is applying the theory to yet another set of experimental results. But it's not like you're really taking a lot of risks. </p>

<p>In fact, many science PhD theses are exactly this. Let's face it. Most PhD theses are not exactly ground-breaking. They're usually just derivative work. Why? Again, career safety. PhD students tend to prefer safer projects in where they know they can get publishable results and thus graduate. That's safer than throwing a long bomb on a risky project in which you might spend years and still not get good results, and hence, not be able to graduate. </p>

<p>But the point is, I don't see any reason to believe that science research is inherently more 'risky' than any other kind of research, or that scientists are really that 'unique'. Is a guy getting a PhD in physics engaged in any more 'risk' than a guy getting a PhD in economics? Or humanities? I am unconvinced. Any research can fail. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Rather, people who apply to and attend Caltech (and likely similar arguments follow for Swarthmore), do so because they feel that the benefits of a small, focused school outweigh the risk of having fewer majors to transfer into should their interests change. Hence, of course the relatively low graduation rate is a negative, but it's probably not nearly as important as you make it sound.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I woud say to that is that perhaps we should ask people who actually went to those schools and flunked out, and ask them whether they think the rigor is a negative. I'm quite certain that they would say that it is, and they would probably all say the same thing - that if they had gone to another school, they would have graduated. After all, who enjoys flunking out?</p>