Graduation/Retention Rank-Is this Overrated by USNWR?

College Search & Selection
101

<p>Don't get mad. :) Even all evaluations of academic quality are not created equal. A person who knows a great deal about the institutions in question is probably to be trusted more than someone whose knowledge of them apparently comes from browsing the USNWR table. So it's still not true that your opinion about Caltech's educational quality counts as much as anyone else's. Especially when you say things that betray an ignorance about what the place is like (e.g. "every man for himself.")</p>

<p>In any case, let's let readers to judge who has made a more compelling case.</p>

102

<p>I fully understand why Caltech grads are so fiercely loyal to its school. These are some of the best and brightest students in the country - no question about that. Caltech's program is probably one of the most challenging (if not the most) in the country - no doubt about that either. This is not what is at issue (at least not what I am arguing).</p>

<p>What seems to get glossed over here (and frankly, the entire point of this thread) is the issue of graduation rates. The fact that this certain percentage of students that never make it to graduation at Caltech is (and understandably so) a certain source of pride and a badge of honor. I also fully understand this. </p>

<p>For instance, I attended a very competitive prep school way back when. Out of all of those students who entered the same year I did (freshman year) not everybody made it to graduation (some for academic reasons, some for personal reasons) -- but the difference is, I didn't feel that these failures in anyway defined my own success -- I wished that everyone had graduated. Many of those students (had they stayed at their respective local schools) would have likely graduated near (or at the top) of their classes -- they made the wrong choice in hindsight. So I understand the source of pride in "making it" through a difficult program - it's almost like surviving a tour of duty in combat (this sense of "whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger"). I totally get that. The difference is that I don't sweep those risks / dangers / considerations under the carpet. Frankly, I am very upfront about it when people have asked me about my prep school experiences and to those who have asked me for advice concerning prep schools. It can (and is) a double edged sword.</p>

<p>Similarly, is it any question that those individuals who were good enough to gain admission to a highly competitive school such as Caltech (and subsequently fail to make it to graduation) that those individuals are at least good enough to have gained admission (and, more to the point, would likely have had a higher chance to graduate from) most schools across the country? But for those unlucky individuals who don't make it across the finish line -- do you think they aren't regretting their decision to enroll at Caltech (is there any question that the majority of those people would likely have done just fine nearly anywhere else)?</p>

<p>Frankly, there is something almost borderline sadistic about defining one's success which is (even if in part) predicated on the failure of others. A fine school such as Caltech generally selects the best and the brightest in the country -- there is very little reason that one who chooses that school should be faced with a higher risk of not graduating vs. its comparable competitor (i.e. MIT). But that is the case. Now, for those who understand and accept that risk --> again, that is THEIR choice. But let's not pretend that those risks don't exist.</p>

<p>So whether its just sheer pressure / difficulty (e.g. Caltech) or due to lack of support / resources / attention (e.g. Cal) schools with lower graduation rates do represent an important risk factor that should be considered (at least shouldn't be brushed away as unimportant) -- particularly when one considers that there are schools of at least equal quality that possess higher graduation rates. Now, again, I want to make it clear that I am not saying that Caltech should graduate 100% of its students -- that is NOT what I am saying. Of course there will be outliers, slackers, etc. at ANY university. All I am saying is that its graduation rate should be IN-LINE with its major comparable competitors - and it is not. The fact is, its grad rate is relatively lower (in other words it is riskier) than its comparable competitors (Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, Stanford etc.) </p>

<p>That's all I am saying in a nutshell.</p>

103

<p>Great post, very little to disagree with. Except:</p>

<p>1.) I don't define my success based on the number who didn't make it.</p>

<p>2.) Changing Caltech so that the graduation rate is higher would also erase some benefits, and it's important not to sweep that under the rug. A lower graduation rate is the price Caltech pays for being able to do what no other school can. In particular, for some students, Caltech offers a great deal more "quality" than MIT, and so I dispute your final assertion that anyone can get the same benefit with less risk elsewhere. Since I have explained this point at length above and my discussion has not been refuted, I'll leave it there.</p>

104

<p>Ben, your points are well taken, and I get where you are coming from.</p>

<p>I think you now have a general idea of where I am coming from as well. In other words, i don't think there are any "wrong" views here it's merely a matter of perspective.</p>

105

<p>
[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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I too think that market forces can tell you whether something is really 'better'. If the Caltech education is really better, than why aren't Caltech graduates getting paid more? </p>

<p>But more to the point, it still begs the question of 'better for whom'? The education may be 'better' for those people who can handle it. But what about those students who can't handle it - and in particular, those Caltech students who flunk out? Clearly, I think we can agree that the education wasn't better for them. I think there is little dispute that the education was worse for them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have no problem with people doing things that are risky and hard. The question becomes, what if somebody reaches the point where it's become too risky and too hard? Should that person be forced to keep doing it anyway? I don't think so, and that's where we seem to disagree. In boxing, you don't keep punching a guy after he's thrown in the towel. </p>

<p>So, again, I would invoke the example of the guy who comes to Caltech, and does poorly and can see that he just can't pass the core. That person is basically forced to leave. And that's sad. Other schools, like Stanford, don't force their students to leave just because they can't complete a difficult core. They just end up going to a different (probably easier) major and graduating that way. </p>

<p>Besides, Ben Golub, even Caltech seems to agree with me, at least from a historical basis. Caltech today is far easier than Caltech was in the past. Caltech's graduation rate is probably the highest it has been in its history. Would you rather go back to the Caltech of the old days? Was the Caltech administration being dumb in making the school easier than it used to be? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I was also trying to indirectly explain to sakky why it's important for biologists to take quantum mechanics. Specfically, I was trying to suggest that it's not always about what knowledge you acquire, but how you are able to think and learn new things.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So then why doesn't Caltech force its * graduate * biology students to take QM? Hey, if it's so important that biology students learn new things, then those graduate students ought to take QM too, right? </p>

<p>The main issue to me is that Caltech is going to potentially deny somebody an undergraduate biology degree just because he can't do QM. Why? Few other schools do that.</p>

106

<p>
[quote]
1.) I don't define my success based on the number who didn't make it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, you sort of did, at least in other threads. You have stated that the value of the Caltech degree is partially from its 'risk, in that the 'risk' is necessary in order to push (perhaps the right word is 'scare') you into working hard. But evidence of that risk only comes from the fact that some people are getting hurt. For example, imagine a situation where nobody ever does flunk out of Caltech. Then you might feel that the school isn't really risky. </p>

<p>Hence, in an indirect way, you have defined your success by others failing.</p>

<p>Now, if you think that's a mischaracterization of your stance, then by all means, amend it. But I don't know that you can separate your valuation of the Caltech experience from its risk. </p>

<p>
[quote]
2.) Changing Caltech so that the graduation rate is higher would also erase some benefits, and it's important not to sweep that under the rug. A lower graduation rate is the price Caltech pays for being able to do what no other school can. In particular, for some students, Caltech offers a great deal more "quality" than MIT, and so I dispute your final assertion that anyone can get the same benefit with less risk elsewhere. Since I have explained this point at length above and my discussion has not been refuted, I'll leave it there.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So then you agree that the Caltech education may have been * even more valuable * in the past when it was even * more * risky. Like I said above, Caltech is an easier school than it used to be, by conscious choice of the administration. Would you rather go back to the Caltech of the 1920's?</p>

107

<p>
[quote]
sakky, you suffer from the "perfect solution fallacy". You think that just because a situation has some downsides, it is necessarily bad.</p>

<p>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]
</p>

<p>To continue your analogy, that's why 17-year-olds are not allowed to invest in the market, because they're not even allowed to open a trading account (at least, not without an adult cosignee). That's because we as a society believe (for good reason) that underage people are not responsible enough to make these kinds of decisions for themselves. That is also why we don't allow underage people to drink, smoke, gamble, or vote. </p>

<p>But that is precisely what Caltech demands. Most people who apply to Caltech as freshmen are under 18 when they apply, and many are 18 when they decide to accept the offer (i.e. when they send in their deposit). Hence, they are underage when they are making a highly fateful decision of their life. </p>

<p>To extend your analogy, we don't allow kids to gamble their money in casinos. But Caltech is asking kids (and that is what most of them are - kids) to take a gamble on their academic futures. Come on, Ben Golub. You know and I know that many people of that age do not really know what they're doing. </p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have never said that there were no benefits. But the problem is that the benefits are poorly distributed. The benefits accrue to the top students, and all of the pain accrues to the poor-performing students. Perhaps this is a difference in political philosophy, but I have never judged a school by how well it treats its best students .. The best students in any school are going to do extremely well no matter what. No, I just a school on how well it treats its WORST students. And the fact is, Caltech treats its worst students very poorly. In that sense, one could say that Caltech almost acts like a reverse Robin Hood. </p>

<p>But in any case, I am not the one who is preoccupied with risk aversion. No - PEOPLE are "preoccupied" (if that is the right word) with risk aversion. Ask yourself, why is the Caltech yield rate so low, relative to HYPSM? In other words, why does the majority of people who are admitted to Caltech choose not to go? Why does Caltech need to resort to merit scholarships, when HYPSM never do? For example, the reason my brother went to Caltech and not to MIT was simple - Caltech gave him the President's Scholarship and MIT didn't give him anything. If that hadn't happened, my brother candidly admits that he would have gone to MIT. </p>

<p>In other words, if the Caltech education is so beneficial, why don't more people want to go there? Seems to me that the reason is simple - that the bulk of the population agrees with me that they don't view the benefits as exceeding the costs. Hence, it is not I that is 'preoccupied' with risk, but rather that the majority of the population is 'preoccupied' with the risk. Maybe the majority of the population is wrong. But at least you should agree that you seem to occupy a minority position.</p>

108

<p>
[quote]
but sakky does argue that Caltech should be easier to graduate from.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Note, I never said that. That is just one method. I said that graduation rates should be increased. And my favorite solution is, and always has been, something we discussed before - simply don't admit people who aren't going to graduate anyway. Hence, Caltech would not have to become easier to graduate from. The curriculum would be exactly the same. However, you would just be no longer bringing in students who don't have what it takes. </p>

<p>Now, we have clashed before on the notion on whether it is feasible to do that. But leaving that aside, let me ask you one thing. In principle, if this could be achieved, would you think that would be better for Caltech, or not?</p>

109

<p>
[quote]
And my favorite solution is, and always has been, something we discussed before - simply don't admit people who aren't going to graduate anyway. Hence, Caltech would not have to become easier to graduate from. The curriculum would be exactly the same. However, you would just be no longer bringing in students who don't have what it takes. </p>

<p>Now, we have clashed before on the notion on whether it is feasible to do that. But leaving that aside, let me ask you one thing. In principle, if this could be achieved, would you think that would be better for Caltech, or not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course admitting only people who can make it through core would be best. I would personally pay money for that to happen because it's sad for me to see people fail. But the problem is that we do the most rigorous screening job in the college admissions industry, and sometimes you just can't predict. A lot of a student's potential for success depends on things that happen after he is admitted, and so it is not feasible even in principle to screen out, a priori, everyone who won't graduate. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So then you agree that the Caltech education may have been even more valuable in the past when it was even more risky. Like I said above, Caltech is an easier school than it used to be, by conscious choice of the administration. Would you rather go back to the Caltech of the 1920's?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Your history is a little off -- 1960 is a better year -- but the answer is yes. I think Caltech would offer an even more valuable service if it went back to that model. There are enough creampuff schools that give a diploma to everyone who walks in the door without Caltech adding to the pile.</p>

<p>In any case, you have again failed to address or refute the fundamental point. Caltech is offering something simple -- a commitment device: a way to motivate yourself to work hard for something valuable but hard to stick with. You point out that this hurts some people, and this is true. But the valuable commitment device would not exist without the possibility of bad outcomes. That is, if failing core just meant having to drop into an easier major, there would really be little motivation to complete it, or at least much less motivation. And the motivation is what we were selling in the first place!</p>

<p>Now, I would love to avoid the bad outcomes with screening, so it would be a threat but would never actually happen. Unfortunately, you and I both know perfect screening will never happen. (I don't know why you even waste your breath considering the possibility.) So everyone who buys the good accepts the risk of a bad outcome, and some people actually experience the bad outcome. But there's no way to eliminate that without squishing a big part of the added value that Caltech provides. So it's a tradeoff, and we've made our decision.</p>

110

<p>
[quote]
To continue your analogy, that's why 17-year-olds are not allowed to invest in the market, because they're not even allowed to open a trading account (at least, not without an adult cosignee). That's because we as a society believe (for good reason) that underage people are not responsible enough to make these kinds of decisions for themselves.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's why parents officially confirm the decisions and cosign the papers when someone chooses a college. Together with their parents, 17 year-olds certainly can evaluate the risks and rewards intelligently and make the right decision for them. Especially since the kids admitted to elite schools are way smarter and more responsible than the vast majority of all adults, I find your stance on this issue especially silly and patronizing.</p>

111

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>I'm sorry I just noticed this thread because there is one point that has not been fleshed out fully -- the benefits to a reputation for being tough. Now let me first say that -- at the margin -- it is not always cost effective to be too tough. But you can't fully evaluate this without taking into account the extra rewards for those who succeed. </p>

<p>You are right that someone who would have flunked out of Caltech would do better to have gone to Stanford and graduated. But what of the person who went to Stanford and did poorly because of (random, unanticipated) emotional or health problems? You apply to grad school with a 3.1 from Stanford and top PhD schools start thinking that's not such a great GPA. Some kid finishes Caltech with a 3.1 and the adcoms think -- Well, it's really tough there, let's take a second look at the record. Now, I'm NOT saying the risk reward necessarily favors Caltech, but there is a benefit to the tough rep. I know because when I was in charge of our PhD admissions, this sort of conversation came up from time to time and schools such as Caltech, UChicago and Swarthmore were always given extra consideration.</p>

<p>Clearly there are benefits to the tough math core. As I noted in another thread, I was a bit shocked when Mankiw blogged about a Harvard econ honors grad who got into most top law schools and was rejected by EVERY top Econ Phd program he applied to because of not having enough math. [What I don't understand is why no one at H warned him about this when applying to grad school?] This is simply not going to happen to a Caltech grad with a 3.5 in any major applying to Econ. Now that doesn't mean that the benefits of those applying to Physics or Econ necessarily outweigh the losses to those who got dinged because they are rejected to Law or Med School because of GPA. But there are benefits to having Baby Grad School in college for those who plan to get PhDs.</p>

<p>How do I know? I was one of those who went to Caltech to do Physics, decided I really disliked higher level physics and hence got so-so grades. I also doubted that there were many good, well-paying jobs in academic physics. Yet I got into many top grad programs in Econ and even got fellowships. I almost certainly had the lowest entering GPA of any person in my grad school.</p>

<p>But more important I avoided the following scenario: A goes to good school X but didn't learn what grad work in field is really like. A gets high grades and goes on to grad school with no clue as to what grad school is like. A gets killed in grad school and drops out after several years of frustration. This happened to many, many of my classmates in Phd school. Many were straight A students in their colleges and many were totally shell-shocked in grad school.</p>

<p>Having said that: There is no easy place to draw the line between toughness and excessive risk. But as I have argued with you, this is a moving target. Part of the need to grade inflate is because there is a free rider problem. As HYPSM inflate so Caltech must to keep some good students at the margin. But I personally believe that CHYMPS and society as a whole are worse off because ALL of them are not tougher graders. Their grades are less informative to grad schools, less informative to employers, and worst of all, less informative to the students themselves. Indeed, the final end point of this logic is to just abolish grading altogether at the top schools or give everyone an A.</p>

<p>And remember as HYPSM grade inflate, those stuck in the tough majors at HYPSM get hurt as well. Ask the sci/engineering majors at HYP how it stinks to have to get a 3.4 and then compete with their lib arts classmates if they choose to apply to law school? By your reasoning ALL majors at HYP should grade the same. Ask MIT grads about how annoying it is to compete for med school with HYP. By the same Caltech MIT comparison that's been made, MIT should inflate even more to offset comparisons with the Ivy. Why not turn down MIT for a good -- even non Ivy school -- with more grade inflation? Indeed, economists have documented that at ALL schools, tough grading in tech fields drives students to easy grading fields.</p>

<p>In an ideal world all the schools would be tougher but there would be tests you could take to place you into another college lower down the ladder. Absent the ideal world, there are real risks. But by the same token, schools should be downgraded for having too much grade inflation. The USNWR retention rate would make more sense if there were ALSO a column that downgraded a college for having too high a percentage of its graduating class finish with an A average.</p>

112

<p>One more minor point: Most of those who don't graduate from Caltech DO get degrees from other colleges. Sometimes they drop to a much lower ranked school, sometimes not. I was just talking to someone recently who transferred out and did quite well at Harvard afterwards. So he didn't suffer much and arguably learned more about life and school than had he gone to H directly.</p>

113

<p>
[quote]
Of course admitting only people who can make it through core would be best. I would personally pay money for that to happen because it's sad for me to see people fail. But the problem is that we do the most rigorous screening job in the college admissions industry, and sometimes you just can't predict. A lot of a student's potential for success depends on things that happen after he is admitted, and so it is not feasible even in principle to screen out, a priori, everyone who won't graduate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Now, I would love to avoid the bad outcomes with screening, so it would be a threat but would never actually happen. Unfortunately, you and I both know perfect screening will never happen. (I don't know why you even waste your breath considering the possibility.) .

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, I don't think I am wasting my breath. I think this is just defeatism. I think there is indeed a lot you can learn from all of the people in the past who flunked out of Caltech. I am fairly certain you could run a quite interesting statistical analysis on them to find correlating factors that would help you determine who would flunk out in the future. </p>

<p>Note, I am not asking for perfection. I am not asking for a 100% graduation rate. No school has that. But I am asking for a better graduation rate, preferably by a better admissions model. </p>

<p>Besides, I'll throw out the following as a possible project for somebody who has time. I strongly suspect that Caltech is not any tougher than comparable schools when it comes to * graduate * programs. For example, if I enter the Caltech graduate program in engineering, I suspect that I will not be statistically more likely to flunk out than somebody who went to the graduate program in engineering at MIT or Stanford or Berkeley. When I say 'flunk out', I mean leaving involuntarily with no degree at all, not even a consolation master's degree. So if that's true (and I suspect that it is), then that means one of two things. #1, either that the Caltech graduate admissions committee is doing a better job than the Caltech undergraduate admissions committee, and that begs the question: what does the former know that the latter does not? Or it means that the Caltech graduate programs are simply not as rigorous as the Caltech undergraduate program, and then that begs the question of: why not? After all, if rigor is such a good thing, then shouldn't the Caltech graduate programs be equivalently rigorous? </p>

<p>
[quote]
In any case, you have again failed to address or refute the fundamental point. Caltech is offering something simple -- a commitment device: a way to motivate yourself to work hard for something valuable but hard to stick with. You point out that this hurts some people, and this is true. But the valuable commitment device would not exist without the possibility of bad outcomes. That is, if failing core just meant having to drop into an easier major, there would really be little motivation to complete it, or at least much less motivation. And the motivation is what we were selling in the first place!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am well aware that this is what Caltech is doing. You know what it reminds me of? In World War 2, Stalin had NKVD units (secret police units) armed with heavy machineguns set up behind regular Red Army divisions with orders to shoot any retreating Red Army soldiers. I''m sure that strategy greatly increased the motivation of those Red Army troops to stand and fight, but I wouldn't call that a military model that ought to be copied. I know that if the US Army were to implement such a policy (where American soldiers were ordered to kill other retreating American soldiers), it would be a huge scandal. </p>

<p>
[quote]
That's why parents officially confirm the decisions and cosign the papers when someone chooses a college. Together with their parents, 17 year-olds certainly can evaluate the risks and rewards intelligently and make the right decision for them. Especially since the kids admitted to elite schools are way smarter and more responsible than the vast majority of all adults, I find your stance on this issue especially silly and patronizing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Insult me again, Ben Golub, and you ought to prepare to have a good long talk with a moderator. I am careful not to insult you. Perhaps you'd like to review the terms of service of this board and decide whether you will abide by them or not. </p>

<p>Besides, you keep talking about making the 'right' decision. But again, the fact that a significant portion of Caltech students do poorly belies the notion that everybody makes the 'right' decision to go to Caltech. </p>

<p>
[quote]
You are right that someone who would have flunked out of Caltech would do better to have gone to Stanford and graduated. But what of the person who went to Stanford and did poorly because of (random, unanticipated) emotional or health problems? You apply to grad school with a 3.1 from Stanford and top PhD schools start thinking that's not such a great GPA. Some kid finishes Caltech with a 3.1 and the adcoms think --

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, your analogy falls down because, frankly, a guy at Stanford who has some problem and ends up with a 3.1 there would probably not have gotten at 3.1 at Caltech. Heck, he might not have even graduated from Caltech at all. </p>

<p>But besides, we are conflating 2 different issues here, and maybe here we can reconcile your stance, Ben Golub's stance, and mine. I am simply talking about flunking people out. Nothing more, nothing less. You can be tough, yet not necessarily flunk a lot of people out. Give the bad students C's. Let them graduate with 2.0's. Fine. But at least let them graduate. With a 2.0, even from Caltech, you're not going to get into any decent graduate school. But at least you'll GRADUATE. </p>

<p>The truth is, in this world, whether we like it or not, there is a big difference between having a degree, even if you got mediocre grades, and not having a degree at all. There are a lot of employers who won't even interview you if you don't have a degree. It doesn't matter what school you got the degree from, it doesn't even really matter that much what you majored in or what grades you got. What really matters is that you have a degree. Like I said, a guy who flunks out of Caltech is still probably much better than a guy who graduated with mediocre grades from Fresno State. But many employers just don't see it that way, and will interview the latter guy but not the former guy just because the latter guy has a degree and the former guy doesn't. Like it or not, that is how the real world works. </p>

<p>So Caltech could implement a rigorous model where it is extremely difficult to get A's, or even B's. Fine. But I would strongly hesitate to flunk people out unless they really deserve it (i.e. they are caught cheating or otherwise breaking rules). </p>

<p>
[quote]
And remember as HYPSM grade inflate, those stuck in the tough majors at HYPSM get hurt as well. Ask the sci/engineering majors at HYP how it stinks to have to get a 3.4 and then compete with their lib arts classmates if they choose to apply to law school? By your reasoning ALL majors at HYP should grade the same. Ask MIT grads about how annoying it is to compete for med school with HYP. By the same Caltech MIT comparison that's been made, MIT should inflate even more to offset comparisons with the Ivy. Why not turn down MIT for a good -- even non Ivy school -- with more grade inflation? Indeed, economists have documented that at ALL schools, tough grading in tech fields drives students to easy grading fields

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In the case of MIT, or tech fields in any school, the reason to choose it is because the market does offer proper rewards to those who make it. Engineers get the highest average salaries of any bachelor's degree. So here, the market is rewarding rigor.</p>

<p>But the market does NOT properly reward rigor when it reaches the point where people are flunking out. And THAT is where I am focusing my attention. Somebody who flunks out of Caltech could have almost certainly graduated if he had just gone to an easier school. But the market doesn't care about that. </p>

<p>But more to your point, I have actually argued in other threads that, other majors should indeed grade the same and that grade inflation in creampuff majors should stop, and stop immediately. But that's not what I'm talking about here. You are free to dig up some of my old threads where I have discussed those subjects in great detail, and comment on them. Here, I am solely concentrated on graduation rates. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In an ideal world all the schools would be tougher but there would be tests you could take to place you into another college lower down the ladder. Absent the ideal world, there are real risks. But by the same token, schools should be downgraded for having too much grade inflation. The USNWR retention rate would make more sense if there were ALSO a column that downgraded a college for having too high a percentage of its graduating class finish with an A average.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I disagree. We have to keep in mind the purpose of the USNews rankings. The purpose of USNews, at least as far as I see it, is to cause individual high school students to prefer certain colleges. After all, USNews markets the rankings towards that particular demographic. USNews does not market its rankings to university administrators. The market consists mostly of high school seniors who are trying to figure out where to apply and where to go. </p>

<p>As an individual high school senior, frankly, I want to go to a school that will give me high levels of grade inflation and high graduation rates. I want that. Why? Because that helps me as an individual. I agree with you that a huge free-rider problem exists, and that basically, individual universities are caught in a prisoner's dilemma where all schools feel the need to inflate grades. But as an individual high school student, I don't care about that. What I care about is going to a school that will be most beneficial to me * as an individual *. And like it or not, that often times means avoiding schools that grade harshly and (especially) go around flunking students out. Like I said above, if I go to Caltech and flunk out, employers aren't going to care about why I flunked out. All they will see that is I flunked out. I will still probably be better than plenty of other college graduates out there who majored in creampuff majors at easy schools. But employers won't care about that. All they will see is "The guy doesn't have a bachelor's degree, so we're not going to interview him". </p>

<p>
[quote]
One more minor point: Most of those who don't graduate from Caltech DO get degrees from other colleges. Sometimes they drop to a much lower ranked school, sometimes not. I was just talking to someone recently who transferred out and did quite well at Harvard afterwards. So he didn't suffer much and arguably learned more about life and school than had he gone to H directly.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not talking about the guys who transfer out of Caltech in good academic standing. Obviously for the guy to have transferred out of Caltech and to Harvard, he was at least in good standing (i.e. he wasn't flunking out), otherwise, Harvard would not have admitted him as a transfer. </p>

<p>What I am talking about is, what happens to those guys who are not in good standing, those guys who are on probation and thus on the road to flunking out? What happens to them ?</p>

114

<p>
[quote]
But there are benefits to having Baby Grad School in college for those who plan to get PhDs.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But you are presuming that having 'baby grad school' necessarily means having a system of flunking lots of students out. See below. </p>

<p>
[quote]
But more important I avoided the following scenario: A goes to good school X but didn't learn what grad work in field is really like. A gets high grades and goes on to grad school with no clue as to what grad school is like. A gets killed in grad school and drops out after several years of frustration. This happened to many, many of my classmates in Phd school. Many were straight A students in their colleges and many were totally shell-shocked in grad school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But none of this necessarily requires harsh grading. You can still be heavily exposed to the way that grad school is really like, and get all of those other benefits you discussed, without having to implement harsh grading. It doesn't have to be a package deal.</p>

<p>Let me put it to you this way. I know plenty of people who went to MIT for undergrad, then stayed at MIT for his PhD, and reported that the grading in graduate school was * substantially easier * than it was in undergrad. I have heard this is true at places like Berkeley, Carnegie-Mellon, and Georgia Tech also. While I'm not sure of this, I suspect that it may be true at Caltech - that the grading in Caltech graduate courses is easier than the grading in Caltech undergrad, and in particular, that very few Caltech graduate students will flunk out from coursework. That doesn't make Caltech, or any of those other schools, easy when it comes to graduate school. Research is always hard to do. And plenty of graduate students at all of those schools are eliminated by the qualification exams (the General Exams). </p>

<p>But the point is, the * coursework * is not that harshly graded. And even if you are unable to complete the PhD, most schools, including I believe Caltech, will at least offer you a shot at a consolation master's degree, which is not that hard to get. </p>

<p>Caltech provides 'baby grad school' mostly because its undergrad program is so small and Caltech has a philosophy of treating its undergrads like fully-fledged graduate students right from the get-go. But all of those benefits don't necessarily require that you grade undergrads harshly and flunk a relatively high percentage of them out. If anything, that is actually UNrepresentative of the graduate student lifestyle because, like I said, graduate-level courses are usually not graded that harshly, and very few graduate students will actually flunk out.</p>

115

<p>
[quote]
Insult me again, Ben Golub,...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>With all due respect, I don't think that I was insulting you. I said that it is a silly and patronizing stance to pretend that Caltech admits can't make good decisions for themselves. That's knocking the idea, not the guy saying it. Also, it doesn't mean it was a bad decision if it results in a bad outcome. Simple, but true! Good investors make dozens of bets that end up losing money, but they might still be good bets. Good decisions are about the probability distribution a priori, not ex post. Deep thought!</p>

<p>
[quote]
I strongly suspect that Caltech is not any tougher than comparable schools when it comes to graduate programs. For example, if I enter the Caltech graduate program in engineering, I suspect that I will not be statistically more likely to flunk out than somebody who went to the graduate program in engineering at MIT or Stanford or Berkeley. When I say 'flunk out', I mean leaving involuntarily with no degree at all, not even a consolation master's degree. So if that's true (and I suspect that it is), then that means one of two things. #1, either that the Caltech graduate admissions committee is doing a better job than the Caltech undergraduate admissions committee, and that begs the question: what does the former know that the latter does not?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>University grades, that's what! Do you think for a moment that grades from mostly trivial high school classes provide nearly as good a screening device as four years at (usually very good) colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad? Your comparison of grad programs and undergrad programs with respect to graduation rates is a complete nonstarter. Graduate programs have much, much, much, much better data on which to select, and it is obvious that they will do a better job selecting. End of story.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Give the bad students C's. Let them graduate with 2.0's. Fine. But at least let them graduate. With a 2.0, even from Caltech, you're not going to get into any decent graduate school. But at least you'll GRADUATE.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is the thing you've said that I'm most tempted to agree with. But this would dilute the value of a Caltech diploma. Plus, it would reduce the motivation to work hard. </p>

<p>It's also important to note that your portrayal of "failing out" of Caltech is somewhat extreme. Many people who leave do it their freshman year, and can typically get into good schools despite a quarter or two of bad Caltech grades. At that point the high school record still packs a big punch. I know a girl who got into Duke after a bad freshman year (and decided to come back to Caltech in the end), and certainly most UC's would take you even after two bad Caltech terms.</p>

<p>Staying longer would inflict more damage, and I fully agree that maybe we should have better counseling to urge people to get out before serious harm is done. I'll have a chat with some administrators about that. </p>

<p>Still, I find questionable your belief that just being admitted to a college should necessarily result in getting a diploma from it (at least with very high probability). Then the diploma awarded by the college is actually a high school diploma for those who accumulated good high school records. I think it is worthwhile to have one place where a college diploma is something beyond that.</p>

116

<p>Not quite old, I think your point is an important one, and NOT just in relation to CalTech. I don't know how much play it will get here, because the "not graduating = failed out/couldn't do the work" is an assumption that comes up time and time and time again on CC. </p>

<p>However, it's pretty faulty. People leave school for any number of reasons, some personal, some institutional. To assume that all non-graduates left in academic difficulty is questionable.</p>

117

<p>In our seemingly wayward discussion about Caltech, let us take a step back and get back to the issue of graduation rates / retention.</p>

<p>1) No one (it seems) is arguing that Caltech isn't one of the nation's great universities.
2) No one is arguing that you won't get a top notch education at Caltech.
3) No one is arguing that Caltech attracts some of the best and brightest students from around the country.</p>

<p>All of that said, the issue at hand isn't any of the above. It seems that the outstanding issue of grad rates (at least as it relates to Caltech) are the following:</p>

<p>4) The fact that Caltech's graduation rate is not in-line (i.e. relatively and consistently lower) with its major competitors (HYPSM)</p>

<p>5) How / why that lower than average graduation rate (i.e. higher failure / drop out rate) tangibly benefits the prospective student considering Caltech vs. HYPSM... and let me add that the argument that Caltech's extremely rigorous curriculum makes up for (or neutralizes) this riskiness is rather a weak one IMO... for instance, what is to stop an MIT student from duplicating a similar curriculum for himself (or even a tougher one than the Caltech standard) if he is so inclined? The benefit it seems to me goes to that MIT student since he has the option of either: a) ratcheting up his work load, and/or b) scaling back his coursework if he so chooses whereas the Caltech student doesn't have the same flexibility / luxury. In other words, you can't argue that a highly motivated, highly intelligent, highly talented student COULD NOT receive the same (or better) education at MIT vs. Caltech... I mean, simply put, Caltech doesn't have a monopoly on a great education.</p>

<p>6) Finally, if there was undeniable consensus (from recruiters to your average person) that Caltech grads enjoy a significant advantage in the after market above and beyond its major competitors (HYPSM) for merely just graduating --> then I'd be more willing to give its lower graduation rate more credit. But this is simply not the case. Let's be frank, the majority of people looking at a Caltech grad vs., say, a Harvard grad will likely give more credit to the Harvard grad (despite Caltech's curriculum - and despite whether that is "fair" or not -- or even "right" or not), and frankly (though it will probably hurt to hear) the same credit would likely go to the MIT grad (at least generally speaking). Similar things can be said of UChicago, its tough course load and subsequent lower relative grad rate as well. In other words, while I won't go as far as to say that no one will give them credit for this (surely local employers and folks on CC are likely to be well aware of these things) - but in the overall scheme of things, I haven't ever heard people say something like, "wow, you graduated from Cal? you must have been very motivated and smart just to have made it through that academic minefield... here's your gold star."</p>

118

<p>
[quote]
for instance, what is to stop an MIT student from duplicating a similar curriculum for himself (or even a tougher one than the Caltech standard) if he is so inclined?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>His own lack of self-discipline. Caltech is selling you the chance to go to academic boot camp. It's not for everyone, and not everyone will view this as a good thing. It's not clear how many different ways I can say this before it sinks in.</p>

<p>As for (6), you are wrong, at least most of the way. While you don't get a gold star for just graduating, recruiters from top national firms (Goldman Sachs, Bain, e.g. -- and those aren't even in science or engineering!) say that a 4.0 at Caltech is a signal unlike any other as far as quantitative ability. The opportunity to top out on the toughest scale in the US is quite an opportunity. Sure, grandma on the street doesn't know what Caltech is*, but you bet your bacon that the people who matter in sci/tech know it well. </p>

<p>--
*Story: when I was a senior in high school, I got to talking with an older lady in a hotel lobby and she asked where I was going to college. I said I was deciding mostly between Harvard, Caltech, and Princeton. She said, "Well I'm not sure what those other two places are, but Harvard's the place to go!" And this was about 7 miles south of Princeton, New Jersey!</p>

<p>I wish you and yours the best of luck with making major life decisions to maximize your distance with my elderly acquaintance. I'll be getting a real education in the meantime ;-) </p>

<p>In other news, the drooling prestige obsession on these boards really is sickening... it might be beneficial to get a life.</p>

119

<p>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz</p>

120

<p>Sakky, you said:</p>

<p>"The truth is, in this world, whether we like it or not, there is a big difference between having a degree, even if you got mediocre grades, and not having a degree at all."</p>

<p>Now the distance between our positions has shrunk.</p>

<p>I think that there is a concern about needing a degree but I think the current possibility of flunking out without a degree from some college is exaggerated.</p>

<p>Consider -- the stats suggest that perhaps 3 dozen per year will leave without returning. But some 2/3 of those will be able to transfer to quite decent universities. That leaves about 10-15 who won't graduate from anywhere.</p>

<p>But remember:
1) At most schools, no matter what the grade inflation, some students will drop out for health/emotional/family reasons.</p>

<p>2) Many of those who don't get degrees could have entered another school but chose not to finish elsewhere. There are many schools of low selectivity that you can get into, and get an ok education if you just need a degree.</p>

<p>Why not? Because for many Techers, it was in fact easy to find outside employment. I don't know what the situation is today but when I was a student, we lost many kids because they were making good money in computers or engineering. Perhaps the most financially successful of my close friends flunked out, then got into one of the UC's, attended for a bit, and got very high grades. But he dropped out, worked for multiple enterprises and eventually made the big bucks in the Tech boom.</p>

<p>I personally think the problem of low grades harming Techers is worse than the drop out phenomenon (As I admitted it is a free rider problem which hurts Caltech students in the lower half of the class). But if your concern is simply graduating with a degree at all (from anywhere as you put it), I'm not sure it's that big a deal. [For example, the writer Harry Turtledove flunked out of Caltech engineering, transferred to Cal State, got good grades and eventually finished a PhD in History from UCLA. So, obviously having bad grades did not stop him from getting a grad degree from a top program.]</p>

<p>Certainly in the 80s, the Bill Gates model (drop out and make big bucks) was one that was tempting to lots of Techers, especially when part time jobs in the Greater LA area were paying quite handsomely for their services. I don't support dropping out to do this but the numbers who a) don't graduate from Tech and b) can't get into ANY school at all due to low grades may be vanishingly small.</p>

<p>BTW, even though we're discussing Caltech, I think this may also hold for MIT, CMU, Georgia Tech, etc. Because technical students in computers and engineering often have valuable skills, part time summer work can lead to lucrative employment that increases the temptation to drop out of school. Just as employment for econ Phd students who are ABD causes them not to finish their theses. This is why retention rate is a bad measure of quality. But we'll just have to disagree on this.</p>