<p>There are many more important things than the graduation rate to consider. If most other things about a school seem equal then consider it. If one school seems to be a much better fit, ie has what you want and you like it, then opt for a potentially longer time at a place you love. You may choose to take longer to graduate- a point some posters have brought up. Or, like many students, you may have no problems getting a degree in 4 years. Fitting the school and major to your likes and talents is more likely to yield success in finishing in a timely fashion. Changing your major will often require more time.</p>
<p>I think the 4yr graduation rate is important. I don’t know whose “facts” to believe, but if you get the data, it’s important to consider two factors that increase the cost if you take longer to graduate. There is the cost of extra tuition, if you have to pay it, that everyone mentioned, but there is also the cost of the portion of your first year salary which you will lose. If you defer your graduation by 6 months, and your starting salary is $50K, then it costs you an extra $25K minus the taxes. </p>
<p>If people are taking longer to graduate because they do co-op or something else worthwhile, then that’s a life choice. Co-op is potentially worth it because it makes you a better engineer - an investment that will pay for itself. But if the reason people are taking longer is because they can’t get into the classes that they need then I think the foregone salary is a very costly though often neglected factor.</p>
<p>classicrockdad, you make a very good point about the need to factor in opportunity costs as well. I hadn’t focused on that. As for whose “facts” are right, this number – 50 percent don’t graduate in four years – is irrefutable. I also think that for wis75 to say “don’t worry about taking extra time to graduate, enjoy yourself” shows just how out of touch she is. Easy for a 50-something medical doctor with some cash in the bank to suggest; a little harder for 18 year olds and their cash-strapped parents to implement.</p>
<p>I would suggest if that is important to parents they should monitor their kid’s progress. Few students report being delayed from graduating by not getting needed classes in time. They might not get them at 11am, but they can get them.</p>
<p>Oh, I see. It’s the parent’s fault that UW has a 50 percent four-year graduation rate, not the university’s. Boy, we U-Va parents must be pretty great!</p>
<p>Again, if the dominant factor in the low 4yr graduation rate is because of co-op, then I view that more favorably than if the dominant factor is the inability to get the classes you need when you need them. </p>
<p>As a matter of fact, I think that co-op is so valuable, that if co-op is the dominant reason, then I would favor Wisconsin over those with higher 4 yr graduation rates that don’t offer co-op. Co-op gives an engineering student a perspective that contributes to improved performance in their classes and having accomplished something to put on a resume can lead to a better job out of school. </p>
<p>I just don’t know the facts with regard to which is the dominant factor in the low graduation rate.</p>
<p>No actually UVa has a policy that makes it very hard to do semester or year long co-ops and many other non academic things that might make the overall college years more valuable. There was a long thread about it on the Uva site here. Many found the policy a negative and restricting forcing them to forego summer income to take summer school in order to be on track.</p>
<p>As UW has recognized, it has a public interest in improving its four year graduation rate so there is more room in its classrooms for more students. U-Va does an outstanding job on this front, while attracting students who are motivated enough to make things happen outside the classroom AND still graduate on time. Nothing in UW’s self-study suggests that the primary cause for its low graduation rate is internships that “might make the overall college years more valuable.” If that’s your position, barrons, then you are out of sync with your own institution. You guys need to get your stories straight.</p>
<p>It certainly applies in engineering/ The study did not detail what the students did with their time away–one way or the other. But Engineering specifically cites this as a reason. Do I need to repost that comment?</p>
<p>Perspectives. Any students still reading threads once they’ve been taken over by a cadre of extremely critical oldsters? Remember that the alumni and parents care about and have pride in their school, years later. Enough to bear denigrating comments from some who have no connection to UW. </p>
<p>“Sift and winnow” (see the plaque on campus for the full quote) for the real picture. Visit the campus and see if you like it.</p>
<p>Just an outsider point of view, and maybe I’ve missed a lot of the discussion, but I detect some pretty bizzare personal tit-for-tats among grownups. I thought we were all here to help each other. </p>
<p>I’ve found both wis75 and barrons to be enjoyable and helpful contributors to CC over the years. Sure they have a pro Wisconsin bias, but what alums aren’t proud of their school. They’ve always provided useful information and barrons even got the administration to look at a problem with first year students with lots of APs who get sophomore status second semester getting locked out of freshman seminars, a result nobody intended (hopefully that’s fixed). My D applied there as her safety but got into her first choice. </p>
<p>I think the real interesting discussion is whether students are getting locked out of the classes they need - as is the case in the California publics, or are they taking longer to graduate because Engineering at Wisconsin is very hard and they are taking a lighter load so that they learn what they need to learn better - not a bad approach, or coop, or is it because of some other productive reason. </p>
<p>Also, I’m not sure why we are talking about UVA for engineering. I would think the real techie oriented kids in VA would go to Virginia Tech anyway. I know 10 times as many engineers from Virginia Tech as from UVA.</p>
<p>In the spirit of the CC terms of service, I think that we can have an intelligent lively discussion without the personal attacks. C’mon folks.</p>
<p>I didn’t know we were talking about UVA engineering either. I thought we were talking about overall graduation rates, and that barrons’ point was that it’s unfair to compare U-Va and UW overall because UW has a large engineering school where internships are standard and good for the students and this pulls down UW’s average. </p>
<p>The problem with the argument is that U-Va’s engineering school is actually proportionately LARGER than UW’s – 15.7 percent of undergrads versus 12.3 percent – and neither school is so overwhelming in size that its graduation rate can put a large dent in the overall number. We can have a philosophical discussion on whether internships for engineers are awesome and should trump high graduation rates, but regardless there’s more to the graduation rate issue than engineering. In both schools the biggest school by size is arts and letters.</p>
<p>Average graduation occures in 4.2 years. .2 = 2.4 months or one semester.</p>
<p>If all (an assumption I know) engineering students took one semester off for an internship, the average is 4.06 years.</p>
<p>Even if the 4 year grad rate at our engineering school is 0%, that would still require ~55% grad rate across the other colleges to get to 48% overall. </p>
<p>Both coops and supposed course lockouts are primarily focusing on the engineering school, and they’re largely irrelevant factors in the bigger picture. Maybe the grad rate is dragged down by hundreds of small reasons, but lets not pretend like we’ve found some big contributing factor from either side.</p>
<p>Averaging out that one extra semester over 28000 undergrads means $140,000,000 dollars in extra tuition that students have to pay (even assuming all 28000 are paying in state), and that there 14000 bodies taking spaces in classes where 14000 other bodies could be.</p>
<p>Or it’s 1-3 credits over the summer.</p>
<p>Some schools actually include the Summer session after the Spring session of the 4th year in the 4 year graduation rate.</p>
<p>wait a minute, UVA includes summer after senior year in its 4 year grad rate calc. let me know if i’m going about this wrong, but with 2400 undergrads in summer school a proporationate share of each class would equal a real grad rate of 67 or so percent, not the reported 84%.</p>
<p>how many other schools pull this kind of stuff?</p>
<p>Why do you assume they are even in school when the data indicates most delays are due to TAKING TIME OFF which has no tuition cost and takes up no valuable classroom space? Also only 3% even cited difficulty getting a needed class as a reason. It was far down the list after taking time out, being lazy, and switching majors.</p>
<p>I didn’t read the last page of this thread, but I just visited UW-Mad and it’s an insane school. My cousin graduated last year (4 years may I add, and he said most of his friends graduated in 4 years, only the ones who double majored or had minors needed extra) and got a job in Houston Texas paying six-figures starting off. </p>
<p>And if you are going to party, def go to madison. It’s better than any other engineering schools (or any schools I visited for that matter, and I visited Georgia/UF/Alabma which are all party schools).</p>