Graduation/Retention Rank-Is this Overrated by USNWR?

sakky · February 7, 2007, 2:46am

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

I agree that they probably aren't even looking at the data. Like I said, most kids think they're invincible and so they never think that they will be the ones that flunk out.

But that's not what I'm talking about. This thread is about whether USNews overvalues or undervalues graduation rate. After all, kids use USNews to help them decide where to go. Hence, to be useful, USNews should be weighting things that are important. I would argue that graduation rate is important and deserves to be weighed, such that those schools with lower rates rightfully deserve to get dinged. In fact, I would surmise that perhaps graduation rates are currently UNDERvalued by USNews, and should be valued more, given the importance of getting kids to graduate.

Think of USNews like a tourist guide. I go to a foreign city of which I know nothing, so I buy a tourist guide. A good guide should steer me to landmarks that are interesting and cultural, and away from things that are uninteresting. The value of a guide is how well it manages to do that steering.

cghen · February 7, 2007, 2:58am

Okay, I certainly understand your point, and it's largely valid. If any one person thought they could get an equal education (i.e. learn equal amounts at both schools - you do agree that what you actually know is a little useful in technical subjects, right?), then you should choose MIT to optimize future success.

I think this concern, though, is not so bad in technical areas where most people go on to graduate school. I think we can agree that graduate schools in technical subjects certainly doesn't elevate MIT above Caltech, and then it just comes down to how much you know and how much you were able to achieve as an undergrad.

Thus, your point is pretty moot for many people. I do concede, however, that if say if a student weren't confident about wanting to go to graduate school, he or she should probably pick MIT if he or she is interested in career optimization.

Or maybe it's possible that Caltech has a tougher core curriculum and has few safe majors to transfer into, which have very little to do with how supportive the environment is (at least how I perceived UCLAri talking about it).

I don't think that you've contradicted anything I have said or implied. That's really the point I was making.

UCLAri · February 7, 2007, 3:05am

[quote]
Or maybe it's possible that Caltech has a tougher core curriculum and has few safe majors to transfer into, which have very little to do with how supportive the environment is (at least how I perceived UCLAri talking about it).

[/quote]

Even if this is the case, is this "good?" After all, MIT's "safe" majors are also excellent departments-- both poli sci and econ are top programs. This means that an MIT student who's not finding EE or CE or whatnot to his liking can go into something else and still get a degree.

That's value, if you ask me. I don't buy into the idea that universities shouldn't be giving you value at the margin.

sakky · February 7, 2007, 3:25am

[quote]
I think this concern, though, is not so bad in technical areas where most people go on to graduate school. I think we can agree that graduate schools in technical subjects certainly doesn't elevate MIT above Caltech, and then it just comes down to how much you know and how much you were able to achieve as an undergrad.

Thus, your point is pretty moot for many people. I do concede, however, that if say if a student weren't confident about wanting to go to graduate school, he or she should probably pick MIT if he or she is interested in career optimization.

[/quote]

Well, let me put it to you this way. 42% of Caltech graduates go on to receive PhD's in science/engineering as shown stated in the following link. {The number of Caltech students who later receive PhD's in something other than science/engineering is so small as to be safely neglected}. Hence, that means that * most <a href="58%">/i</a> will actually not receive PhD's. Granted, I am sure that many of them will end up with master's degrees. Yet the fact is, without a PhD, you basically can't be a 'true' researcher.

<a href="http://baba.astro.cornell.edu/%7Efavata/usnewsarticle.html%5B/url%5D">http://baba.astro.cornell.edu/~favata/usnewsarticle.html</a>

[quote]
Or maybe it's possible that Caltech has a tougher core curriculum and has few safe majors to transfer into, which have very little to do with how supportive the environment is (at least how I perceived UCLAri talking about it).

[/quote]

Well, all of that gets wrapped into a larger definition of 'support'. I have always wondered why Caltech can't just create some safer (relatively speaking) courses for those students who find that the standard core is just too hard for them. To me, that's better than flunking them out.

Like I said before, the best solution is to simply not admit those weaker students in the first place. But if you are going to admit them, you should at least try to bring them along to graduation. Yeah, everybody in the Caltech community will know that they are in the 'easy' track. But at least they'll get a degree. That's far less harsh than flunking them out completely.

[quote]
After all, MIT's "safe" majors are also excellent departments-- both poli sci and econ are top programs.

[/quote]

Well, in the case of MIT economics, I wouldn't exactly call it 'safe'.

Frankly, if you wanted an example of a 'safe' MIT major, it would probably be Sloan management. But of course, it's all relative. I would argue that Sloan management is still far more 'hazardous' than the vast majority of other majors at other schools out there. There are a LOT of creampuff Mickey Mouse programs out there.

UCLAri · February 7, 2007, 3:30am

[quote]
Well, in the case of MIT economics, I wouldn't exactly call it 'safe'.

[/quote]

Of course. I'm speaking relatively.

cghen · February 7, 2007, 12:20pm

If this is the only evidence you have about relative "supportive atmospheres", just call it graduation rate (which I have already awknowledged as obviously not ideal) and don't try to apply it to something more broad.

It's really just not feasible with a small number of students to have well-flushed out departments in all areas. Caltech has (correctly in my opinion) focuses its resources to provide science and engineering departments that rival the total output of large research universites (like MIT) but serve only a small number of students. Hence, one can still get all the advanced graduate courses in technical subjects (unlike a LAC), but not sacrifice too many of the benefits they provide either. It's just a different way of prioritizing (which seems to both escape and annoy you), and that will obviously come with some tradeoffs like having fewer non-technical majors to transfer out of.

edit: The reason it's important for every student to take the core curriculum is because every upper level class assumes that knowledge is a given; they don't have to waste time reviewing differential equations or basic quantum mechanics, which gives more opportunity to learn more advanced subjects.

sakky · February 7, 2007, 2:34pm

[quote]
If this is the only evidence you have about relative "supportive atmospheres", just call it graduation rate (which I have already awknowledged as obviously not ideal) and don't try to apply it to something more broad.

[/quote]

I have anecdotal evidence also. For example, Ben Golub (a Caltech student) has bragged about how he believes Caltech is even more rigorous and less forgiving of poor performance than MIT is, and how he thinks that's a positive differentiating factor between Caltech and MIT. I agree that it's a differentiating factor, but I disagree with him that it is positive - I actually think that it's negative. The way I translate that is, Caltech supports its underperforming students less. Put another way, if you don't do well, you are more likely to flunk out of Caltech than at MIT.

[quote]
It's really just not feasible with a small number of students to have well-flushed out departments in all areas. Caltech has (correctly in my opinion) focuses its resources to provide science and engineering departments that rival the total output of large research universites (like MIT) but serve only a small number of students. Hence, one can still get all the advanced graduate courses in technical subjects (unlike a LAC), but not sacrifice too many of the benefits they provide either. It's just a different way of prioritizing (which seems to both escape and annoy you), and that will obviously come with some tradeoffs like having fewer non-technical majors to transfer out of.

[/quote]

I'm not necessarily asking for fleshed out programs in all areas. I am asking for an easier track. For example, I suspect that certain classes in the Caltech core curriculum are the ones that really trip students up - and hence are disproportionately likely to cause people to flunk out. So then we should then create an 'easier' version of that particular course for those students who just can't pass the normal version. That would help more students to graduate.

Let me give you an analogy. You ever play one of those video games that is based on levels (like Super Mario Brothers or Zelda) where you can complete every part of a level except for one piece, and you just keep dying in that one piece? That's highly frustrating, because you can do everything else. You just can't get past that one part. What I am proposing is that Caltech students who are having difficulty be offered a detour around that one part that is giving them difficulty.

[quote]
edit: The reason it's important for every student to take the core curriculum is because every upper level class assumes that knowledge is a given; they don't have to waste time reviewing differential equations or basic quantum mechanics, which gives more opportunity to learn more advanced subjects.

[/quote]

I disagree. The truth is, Caltech has plenty of majors that just don't require knowledge of the core to get through the upper level.

To give you an analogy, take biology. Caltech provides a well-regarded biology undergrad program. Yet the truth of the matter is, you just don't need to know things like quantum mechanics or linear algebra to pass upper-division classes on biology. They're nice to know. But you don't really need to know them. Frankly, biology just doesn't use that particular knowledge.

I can say that because I know of people who have gotten into the PhD program in biology at Caltech, and none of them had ever taken quantum mechanics or linear algebra or any of those things. Yet Caltech happily admitted them for graduate school. So if Caltech graduate biology students are not required to know those things, why should we require Caltech undergraduate biology students to know them?

What is sad to me is when a Caltech undergrad wants to major in bio, but can't do graduate because he can't pass quantum mechanics, when QM has nothing to do with his discipline anyway. It's like not allowing you to graduate with an English degree because you can't speak French.

brassmonkey · February 7, 2007, 6:14pm

I think the retention rate should be 16%, and the grad rate should be 4%, the percentage of freshman that stay on for another year seems much more indicative of a great school than the amount of students that graduate in 6 years, which can be fudged by manipulating the curriculum. G/R 20% more towards retention and less towards grad. rate just makes so much more sense to me.

tech_fan · February 8, 2007, 2:22am

sakky, you are wrong on this issue.

For many people, it's more meaningful and more desirable to get an education that is more difficult and more binding. Inded, the fact that Caltech students are forced to

i) do a hard sequence of math and physics OR
ii) not graduate

is very valuable to them. This situation motivates people to learn things they otherwise wouldn't have the stamina to stick with. They know this full well going in, and they choose this. You are incredibly naive if you think there is no value in the opportunity to commit yourself irreversibly to a difficult program. Sure, it carries a higher risk of a bad outcome. It is for that very reason that students work harder and do better. Without that risk, the motivation would be lower and the average student would get less education.

In simple terms, going to Caltech is like burning your bridges behind you as you go to battle. Yes, things get riskier, but you also get better.

You do not seem to understand this. You want to kill the opportunity to do something hard and noble. You are such a lover of risk-aversion that you are willing to sacrifice excellence to it. You do not understand the value of a real challenge to a determined mind. We do not think like you. We are proud of it.

the_prestige · February 8, 2007, 2:42am

^^^ so i guess by that logic, everyone would do simultaneous equations better while doing Russian Roulette - because the fear / risk of a bad outcome just brings out the inner Fields Medal in all of us ... sorry, but count me out.

i guess we should discount things like teamwork and working under a cooperative environment - things that aren't that important in the "real world" -- it's every man for himself - who cares who gets left behind as long as its not me, right?

tech_fan · February 8, 2007, 2:43am

It's not for everyone! I said it's okay for there to be one place offering the opportunity for those who want it.

As for teamwork and making it through together -- that's THE central aspect of undergraduate life at Caltech. Clearly you don't know much about it. Challenges and teamwork are not mutually exclusive.

sakky · February 8, 2007, 4:48am

Ben Golub, like I've always said, what we really should be doing is asking the opinion of somebody who went to Caltech, and flunked out. You said it yourself - it's like going to battle. I wonder what soldiers who are dying on the battlefield think about whether it was still worth it for them to go to war. But hey, as long as YOU survived in one piece, it's all good, right? Other people got hurt, oh well, that's their problem, not yours.

In your last post, you are also conceding this fact. In particular, I think you would agree that Caltech is not 'for' those people who did poorly, and especially those who flunked out. Sadly, they can't go back in time and make a different decision. What's done is done. Just like a guy who enlisted to fight in a war and got maimed can't go back in time and decide that he would rather not have enlisted.

I think you are intent on simply not seeing that people are getting hurt. Either that, or you just don't care.

tech_fan · February 8, 2007, 10:23am

sakky, you suffer from the "perfect solution fallacy". You think that just because a situation has some downsides, it is necessarily bad.

The situation is like that of an investor who buys a high-risk stock, understanding the costs and benefits full well, and loses his money when it tanks. That doesn't mean we should outlaw the stock market or ban intelligent adults from purchasing volatile stocks or have a guaranteed refund if you do less well than you expected. In fact, any of these solutions would seriously harm the economy. But these are your solutions.

Your accusation that I don't see that some people are getting hurt is extraordinarily ridiculous. I have never made a post on this issue in which I didn't acknowledge, in English, that some people get hurt in the end. It is you who are wearing blinders in this debate. You pretend there are no benefits to a riskier structure because you are so preoccupied with risk aversion.

So go, outlaw the stock market, close down every ski resort, end every activity in which there is some risk of a bad outcome. The risk-free World of Sakky is one I look foward to with great anticipation.

Rabban · February 8, 2007, 12:02pm

This reminds me of the saying which goes like: “Life is a daring adventure or nothing. To keep your faith toward change and behave like a free spirit in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable.”

Or that lovely scene in the Act 1 of the Valkyrie, in which Siegmund risked his life and pulled out the broken sword (that his fater,Wotan, left for him) off the tree, and eventually won Sieglinde’s love as a prize (ackkkkkk “incest” ).

Merit and Risk- Most of the time they come in one package.

hoedown · February 8, 2007, 1:24pm

I, for one, am enjoying such a meaty discussion of this issue. Thanks, all.

collegehelp · February 8, 2007, 4:59pm

I downloaded files of data from IPEDS.

Based on 239 research universities, the correlation between SAT and graduation rate is +.81. This is still very high but not as high as I thought.

Based on 418 liberal arts colleges, the correlation between SAT and graduation rate is +.79. This is also very high.

These statistics say that about 64% of the explanation for a school's graduation rate is the SAT scores of the students.

When you use the SATs that are specific to the freshman class with the graduation rate, the correlations are higher. The above correlations are between the SATs of the 2005 freshman class and the graduation rate of the 1999 freshman class.

the_prestige · February 8, 2007, 10:19pm

[quote]
The situation is like that of an investor who buys a high-risk stock, understanding the costs and benefits full well, and loses his money when it tanks. That doesn't mean we should outlaw the stock market or ban intelligent adults from purchasing volatile stocks or have a guaranteed refund if you do less well than you expected. In fact, any of these solutions would seriously harm the economy. But these are your solutions.

[/quote]

The underlying assumption with this thinking is, of course, that there are no other comparable investments (with comparable yields) vs. a high-risk stock (i.e. a school with a relatively lower grad rate - e.g. Caltech). But there most certainly is - e.g., MIT. There is nothing to suggest that graduates of Caltech have any significant advantage over an MIT grad - merely by just graduating (or making it to graduation) vs. the MIT grad -- in other words, the "return" would seem comparable, yet the "risk" is considerably higher for those choosing Caltech.

In other words, the problem with the investment analogy is that the market dictates that a higher risk stock (or, for that matter, stocks generally - namely, the equity risk premium) should provide a higher yield for its investors to compensate for the additional risk taken. However, in this case, there is nothing to suggest that the market rewards those graduates of schools with lower grad rates for simply just graduating. So why take that risk in the first place, all else being equal.

Simply put, if you can achieve a similar or equal return with a lower risk profile, the question still stands, "why would anyone choose the investment with the higher risk profile"?

tech_fan · February 8, 2007, 10:22pm

[quote]
the question still stands, "why would anyone choose the investment with the higher risk profile"?

[/quote]

Because the education is better. MIT is easy compared to Caltech for the median undergrad (at each school). Some people prefer more education and an environment in which the average undergrad is smarter -- i.e. Caltech.

You narrowly value things based on the job market alone (or rather, your casual estimate of the job market, which is not necessarily accurate). The choice is more complicated than that, and for some people (like me) clearly Caltech is the better bet because it offers a greater challenge with more rigor and a less inflated evaluation system. That's valuable just on its own. (But, incidentally, it also does offer a powerful signal in some select groups that no other diploma comes close to.)

In any case, let's put that aside -- just focus on the personal value. By your lights, nobody should ever do anything risky and hard just for the exhiliration of it. But it's not your place to tell people what's valuable -- they decide that for themselves, not you.

the_prestige · February 8, 2007, 10:44pm

[quote]
Because the education is better.

[/quote]

Says who? You?

[quote]
MIT is easy compared to Caltech for the median undergrad.

[/quote]

Translation: it's easier to flunk out of Caltech. I won't argue with that.

[quote]
Some people prefer more education and an environment in which the average undergrad is smarter -- i.e. Caltech.

[/quote]

Again, who says that a Caltech student gets "more educated" vs. an MIT student? You?

[quote]
You narrowly value things based on the job market alone (or rather, your casual estimate of the job market, which is not necessarily accurate).

[/quote]

First, I never said that I valued a degree just by the job market alone (though I would say that it is one of the more important metrics - let's face it, the majority of people attend college in order to get a good job - that's just a fact). Next, you value things based on your own observations just like anyone else - what makes your assessment any better than mine or Sakky's? Nothing. I offer one opinion - nothing less, nothing more. You offer another - nothing less, nothing more.

[quote]
The choice is more complicated than that, and for some people (like me) clearly Caltech is the better bet because it offers a greater challenge with more rigor and a less inflated evaluation system.

[/quote]

Again, that is a choice / opinion / assessment that works for you. It doesn't follow that this is a choice / opinion / assessment works for anyone else. Further, you discount the higher risk associated with that choice, whereas I am merely pointing it out.

[quote]
By your lights, nobody should ever do anything risky and hard just for the exhiliration of it.

[/quote]

When did I say that? Now you are twisting my words. Return should merely reflect risks taken as it does in any efficient market. I was simply pointing out that the risk of attending a school with a lower grad rate (higher risk) doesn't provide a return higher than a comparable school with a higher grad rate (lower risk). Thus, I was simply pointing the error in your initial analogy with regards to a high risk stock. Never did I say that people shouldn't take calculated risks.

[quote]
But it's not your place to tell people what's valuable -- they decide that for themselves, not you.

[/quote]

and right back at ya pal. you offer one opinion, nothing more (just as i do). its ironic that you don't see the hypocrisy in your own criticism against me.

tech_fan · February 8, 2007, 10:48pm

It's a simple matter of fact that the average Caltech undergrad is more educated in hard science. The Caltech requirements -- 5 terms of hard physics and 5 terms of math, among other things -- far outstrip any other institution. The average undergrad at MIT definitely doesn't take quantum mechanics or a math course from Apostol's book. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.

As for the "higher return", you keep thinking that it has to be monetary. What evidence do you have that Caltech's returns don't justify its risks? Please furnish some if you have it.

Note that I was never arguing that MIT should become harder to graduate from, but sakky does argue that Caltech should be easier to graduate from. So your side is the one trying to imply that our system is flawed. I'm just pointing out the fallacies in your approach. : ).

Thread		Replies	Views
What's the Value-Added of USNWR Freshman Retention Rate? College Search & Selection	43	185	April 15, 2021
A Review of the USNWR Approach-What is Valuable? College Search & Selection	132	231	April 15, 2021
USNWR Rankings - The Metrics College Search & Selection	384	545	April 15, 2021
USNWR ranking methodology-- the nuts & bolts... Or is it just nuts? Parents Forum	182	955	April 14, 2021
USNWR 2009: Looking at the Top Strata I (Freshmen Retention) College Search & Selection	16	124	April 15, 2021

Graduation/Retention Rank-Is this Overrated by USNWR?

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

Graduation/Retention Rank-Is this Overrated by USNWR?

Related topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US