How long do freshmen really take to graduate at top universities?

College Search & Selection
61

<p>No. That does not jive with my experience. I can't name more than a couple of kids I know that stayed in Ann Arbor over the summer. And those that did were because leases are 12 months generally, so they stayed and got jobs in Ann Arbor instead. Our high school generally sends over 100 students a year to Umich. So I know literally hundreds of kids who have gone there. My youngest stayed in Ann Arbor the summer after he graduated in order to keep working at the place he had worked at over the school year. There were so few students there that he only had to pay $500 rent for the entire four months.</p>

<p>You need 124 credits at LS&A and 120 in engineering to graduate. That's 15 or 16 per semester. I don't see how that can be very difficult. Especially since a fair number of kids enter with AP credits.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
Michigan has not gotten an increase in state funding over the last 5 years or so and not much is expected in the future due to the car economy stinking. They need every cent they can generate to keep their operations going.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do they? Michigan has had THE fastest 20-year endowment growth rate by far of any of the 25 schools that currently have the largest endowments. The UM endowment has grown by a whopping 21x in the last 20 years. 2nd closest would be Duke's that has grown by only 11x in the last 20 years. </p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colleges_and_universities_by_endowment#Institutions_by_20_year_endowment_growth%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._colleges_and_universities_by_endowment#Institutions_by_20_year_endowment_growth&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Hence, it seems to me that UM has quite a bit of money to spare to help out their poorer students. </p>

<p>Come on, barrons. Think about what you're saying here. You've always been advocating aid for poorer, less privileged students. Yet here, you're effectively saying that UM, which is now one of the richest schools in the country, should not try to help out its poorer students. I could perhaps see that, if the UM endowment was not growing at the pace of other schools, then, OK, maybe it is true that UM doesn't have any money to spare. But come on. When your endowment growth far outpaces that of your competitors, I think you have quite a bit of excess resources that could be redirected to other purposes. </p>

<p>
[quote]
They have already increased tuition to the maximum level.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? $5k-7k per year (depending on which UM school you are in) is not that expensive. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.umich.edu/%7Eregoff/tuition/full.html#Lower_Gen%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.umich.edu/~regoff/tuition/full.html#Lower_Gen&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>As a point of reference, Ohio State charges $8600 per year (for the Columbus campus). Yet the state of Michigan actually has a higher per-capita income than the state of Ohio does. UM is also a better school than Ohio State is. </p>

<p><a href="http://undergrad.osu.edu/costs.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://undergrad.osu.edu/costs.html&lt;/a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Income_by_state%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Income_by_state&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So think about what that means. Michigan taxpayers are richer than Ohio taxpayers. UM is also a better (and hence, presumably more expensive to operate) school than is Ohio State. Yet UM actually charges *less * than Ohio State does. Hmmm, what's wrong with this picture? I think that shows that UM actually has substantial room to increase tuition further. I would think that, if nothing else, UM can at least increase it to the level of OSU (and then in turn offer better FA to the poorer UM students who can't afford it). </p>

<p>But like I said above, this may not be relevant anyway. UM has a far bigger endowment than Ohio State does. So why can't UM use some of it to help out its poorer students? That is, of course, unless you believe that those poorer students should simply not get any help. But if that is the case, then just say so. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also whether you are 21, 22, or 23 when you start working really is not that big a deal. You have over 40 years to work either way and believe me--that is a LONG time. I much rather spend some extra time in college living the student life and working part-time for an extra year or two. Most people still look back at those years as some of the best in their life no matter how little money they had. Money is NOT everything.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But that's not the point. It's not solely your money. It's the taxpayer's money. You want to fritter your life away? That's your decision. But that doesn't mean that the taxpayers ought to subsidize you in doing that. Sure, it's easy to say that money is not everything when it's not YOUR money at stake. How does it make you feel as a taxpayer to be forced to hand over hard-earned money to the state, which then in turn hands it over to some students who aren't serious about graduating? </p>

<p>Again, this is not a game here. You want to fritter away your own money, that's your business. But when you fritter away taxpayer money, that's another story entirely.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
There are some people here at Illinois who does it under 4(engineering), which I think is crazy. I think 4/5 years is about right for engineering majors.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
My first reaction to your list of privates with big 4yr/6yr differentials was that they were mostly schools with big engineering emphasis.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Once again, this just begs the question of why engineering has to drag down the numbers. I agree that it probably does - but why should it? In other words, why can't engineering programs be reformed so that more students graduate on time? </p>

<p>Yes, I know what a lot of you are going to say. A lot of you are going to enumerate all of the difficulties inherent in an engineering program. All those points would be true, but they just elicit more questions of why it has to be that way. </p>

<p>For example, surely, somebody is going to point out that a lot of engineering courses are only taught once a year, meaning that if you can't get it when you're supposed to take it, you have to wait a whole year for it to come around again. But that just begs the question of why are those courses only taught once a year? Why can't they be taught more often? </p>

<p>Similarly, somebody is going to point out that a lot of engineering course sequences occur in lockstep cascade, meaning you have to pass course A before you can take course B, and then course B before course C, etc., so if you miss or fail one course, that delays all of the subsequent courses. But again, why do they have to be in lockstep? Can't the system be reformed in a manner where missing one class in the sequence isn't fatal? </p>

<p>One of my biggest objections to engineering programs is that they inevitably force you to take courses that you simply don't need. For example, I know that at Berkeley (and many other schools), EE students are forced to take an extremely difficult course on Data Structures. But the truth of the matter is, practicing EE's just don't need to know that stuff. Granted, it's helpful to know it. But they don't need it. So why force all students to take it? Similarly, Berkeley chemical engineering students are forced to take upper-division physical chemistry. Why? ChemE's in industry just don't need to know that stuff. </p>

<p>I believe there are plenty of opportunities for engineering programs to tighten themselves up in order to improve graduation rates. It just has to be made to be a priority. The sad truth is that many engineering programs just don't really care very much about their students, especially their undergraduate students.</p>

64

<p>sakky,
I think barrons raises some valid concerns about U Michigan’s endowment and tuition costs and the school’s ability to cover its costs. The situation there is not acute now and you are absolutely correct that U Michigan has large endowment assets (ranks 9th according to the latest NACUBO data published (admittedly old as it is from 6/30/06). But I’m sure you also know that U Michigan’s per capita endowment is only $141k which places the school 26th among national universities. That's still good, but probably not the cushion that the school would like to have. </p>

<p>As far as tuition cost, I looked at U Michigan’s IS and OOS tuition cost as compared to other public universities ranked in the USNWR Top 50. U Michigan has the third highest IS tuition cost of the 18 public universities measured. For a cross section of private universities that might serve as comparables, it gets much better as U Michigan is cheaper than nearly all of the comps for OOS tuition, but many of the private universities offer merit aid of some type so the advantage might not be as great as it appears. </p>

<p>State budgets are a problem all over the country and Michigan is certainly no exception. Ultimately, the U Virginia target model (become fully self funding and function as a privately funded public university) is very possibly going to be necessary because of all of the state funding cuts. This has not come to pass yet and will take time, but if it does, then ALL of the top public universities will need to do a lot of fundraising if they want to stay competitive.</p>

<p>The state funding problems have implications for students and faculties and the overall resources that a public university can deliver to its students. If a financial squeeze hits and resources get even more scarce, the stories that we hear from time to time about the difficulty of getting one’s courses (eg, your stories about UC Berkeley) will become much more common. This is a legitimate concern for all in the education industry (administrators, faculty, students, alumni, etc) and that includes publics and privates. </p>

<p>For the record, U Michigan's IS and OOS costs compare as follows:</p>

<p>PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES<br>
U Michigan $ 9,723 , $ 29,131 </p>

<p>Penn State $ 12,164 , $ 22,712
U Illinois UC $ 9,882 , $ 23,968
W & M $ 9,210 , $ 26,725
U Virginia $ 8,500 , $ 27,515
UC Davis $ 8,109 , $ 27,177
U Texas $ 7,630 , $ 20,364
UC S Barbara $ 7,010 , $ 25,694
UCSD $ 6,888 , $ 25,372
UC Irvine $ 6,794 , $ 25,478
U Wisconsin $ 6,726 , $ 20,726
UC Berkeley $ 6,654 , $ 25,338
UCLA $ 6,522 , $ 25,206
U Washington $ 5,985 , $ 21,283
U North Carolina $ 5,034 , $ 19,682
Georgia Tech $ 4,926 , $ 20,272
U Florida $ 3,206 , $ 17,791 </p>

<p>PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES<br>
U Michigan $ 9,723 , $ 29,131 </p>

<p>Tulane - , $ 36,610
Boston College - , $ 35,674
Lehigh - , $ 35,610
Northwestern - , $ 35,429
U Rochester - , $ 35,190
Notre Dame - , $ 35,187
Cornell - , $ 34,781
Carnegie Mellon - , $ 34,578
Case Western - , $ 33,908
NYU - , $ 33,420</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
Really? $5k-7k per year (depending on which UM school you are in) is not that expensive.

[/quote]

Sakky,
The numbers you quoted are per semester. Michigan has one of the highest in-state tuitions among publics.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
I'm not talking about "summer" school. UM gets out around the end of April. The spring term I'm talking about goes from the start of May to mid-June.

[/quote]

That's not it. I see them in alum functions quite early in the summer. By June 1, most of them are working already.</p>

<p>I agree with 3bm103. I don't see why it's so difficult to graduate in four years.</p>

67

<p>I think the number one reason for kids not graduating in four years is changing their majors. Even then, it's doable if they concentrate on general electives until they decide. My middle son entered not having a clue what he wanted to major in. Changed his mind at least four or five times. He graduated in four years with no summer school. It's much harder to change majors in engineering. Luckily, youngest son went in majoring in computer science and didn't change his mind. Had absolutely no problem graduating in four years, but would have been difficult with changes.</p>

<p>And yes, UMich is one of the most expensive public universities in the country. Engineering tuition for that last year exceeded $14,000. Good incentive to graduate in four years.</p>

68

<p>Both our kids go to private universities and we told them we would fund them for 4 years. However, one is a liberal arts major and the other in the sciences who had lots of APs and is very organized and focused.</p>

<p>The liberal arts kid has had lots of my looking over his shoulder to make sure his credits and choices enable the 4 year thing to happen. As was pointed out, even though he changed majors, because he was guided (not by advisement, but by me), he's still on track.</p>

<p>Maybe that makes me seem hard-line, but those were the conditions we articulated upfront once the acceptances were in hand.</p>

69

<p>another interesting article about why it takes so long to graduate</p>

<p><a href="http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/LPN/news/radhika.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/org/LPN/news/radhika.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>exerpt:
"Barrier Courses and Time-to-Degree: What is the Connection?"
The traditional American notion of higher education has been that students who choose to pursue college education obtain their undergraduate degrees in four years and enter the workforce to pursue their career goals. But in reality, the time it takes to obtain an undergraduate degree is now well above the traditional four years. Nationally, 1993 figures indicate that 53% of students in bachelor degree programs graduated within five years (Precious, 1999). More and more students are taking anywhere between five and seven years to complete their undergraduate education. The reasons for this trend are varied and range from being employed while attending school, to individual college requirements to graduate, to student motivation, to number of credit hours carried per semester, to the quality of student effort, to the mechanics of learning, and the impact of student ability. </p>

<p>There is evidence is to show that many students are unsure of their career goals when they enter college and experiment with different courses and majors before they choose one that they eventually graduate with. Other students drift from one major to another because in many cases, they are unable to pass the courses required to be allowed to major in the field. This is also thought to influence the time taken by a student to graduate, commonly referred to as time-to-degree. In other words, by the time these students graduate, they have accumulated more than they need to fulfill graduation requirements and they have taken over four years to accomplish it. </p>

<p>Clifford Adelman in his research on the trends in undergraduate education identifies this as a potential correlate of the increased time-to-degree. He note that there has been a 10.6% increase in mean credits earned by undergraduates. Adelman speculates that the growing proportion of withdrawals, in-completes, and no-credit repeats that students appear to have accumulated could have an impact on increased time-to-degree (Adelman, 1995). In his research, Adelman has identified two sets of courses. The first is a list of courses where students have either withdrawn, repeated or taken an incomplete. The second is a list of courses that have the highest rate of failures and penalty grades. The theory is, students are failing key courses that are necessary to majoring in a particular field switch majors, thereby lengthening the time it takes to graduate. These key courses have been referred to gatekeeper courses, gateway courses, and sometimes barrier courses.</p>

70

<p><a href="http://www.sairo.ucla.edu/Fishbowls/Influences%20on%20ATTD.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sairo.ucla.edu/Fishbowls/Influences%20on%20ATTD.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>based on the national survey of college freshmen (CIRP):</p>

<p>The preliminary analyses find that about 80% of entering students of UCLA expect to graduate within the conventional 4 years. The real time to degree statistics of UCLA from the 1995, 1996, and 1997 cohorts showed 42%, 46%, and 52% graduated within four years (UCLA Office of Academic Planning and Budget). Apparently there is a gap between students’ anticipation and their real life experience.</p>

71

<p>Here is a VERY INTERESTING powerpoint presentation from UNC Chapel Hill about why it takes a long time to earn a degree. Compares UNCCH with other major public universities. I highly recommend it.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.unc.edu/depts/trustees/Time%20to%20Degree.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.unc.edu/depts/trustees/Time%20to%20Degree.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

72

<p>Here is another web site that will tell you the percent of graduates after 4, 5, and 6 years. The IPEDS COOL web site:
<a href="http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>click on "retention/graduation"</p>

<p>BTW, you can search by school name, location, major, size, distance from home, or religious affiliation.</p>

73

<p>
[quote]
So why can't UM use some of it to help out its poorer students?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who has said that they aren't? U-M has some of the best financial aid in the Big Ten for residents (they compare packages with each other) AND it has a program that eliminates ALL loans for residents from the poorest families.</p>

<p>Michigan has traditionally been a state which runs on the "low support, high tuition, high aid" model. That means everyone pays a lot, but they offer lots of aid for people who would really be pinched by that. Look at MSU's tuition, it's not that different from Michigan's! Other states do things differently--North Carolina being a wonderful example.</p>

74

<p>Their stats for MIT amuse me. When they calculated the percentage of students majoring in business/sci/engineering, they didn't take into account the fact that freshmen by definition don't have majors there (and I bet this is true at other schools as well). The fraction of students who actually have majors who are majoring in bus/sci/eng is ~93%.</p>

<p>You know what else they forgot to factor in? The effects of combined bachelor's/master's programs where students get both degrees simultaneously after 5 years.</p>

75

<p>In looking through the U North Carolina presentation that collegehelp posts above, there is scads of data to support various thoughts expressed earlier about graduation rates. There are clear differences in graduation rates by income level and by parent education and financial need. Children from lower income homes or who are first-time attenders at colleges or are considered as "needy" financially, are likely found in greater numbers at public universities. I also found the differences in grad rates between IS and OOS residents and between students of different ethnicities to be important differences. Also, the difference in grads of women to men was pretty stark. I'm not sure whether to cheer for the good performance of the girls or lament the comparatively weak performance of the boys.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
I think barrons raises some valid concerns about U Michigan’s endowment and tuition costs and the school’s ability to cover its costs. The situation there is not acute now and you are absolutely correct that U Michigan has large endowment assets (ranks 9th according to the latest NACUBO data published (admittedly old as it is from 6/30/06). But I’m sure you also know that U Michigan’s per capita endowment is only $141k which places the school 26th among national universities. That's still good, but probably not the cushion that the school would like to have.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, look. No doubt, all universities, public or private, would like to have as large of an endowment as possible. Just like I wouldn't mind at all if somebody were to hand me a million dollars. I wouldn't mind that at all.</p>

<p>But let me put it to you this way. As Alexandre once pointed out and the data bears out, UM's endowment used to be far far smaller. That is, after all, one reason why it is able to boast the highest by far of endowment growth rates of the top 25 most endowed schools - UM started off at a far smaller base, and it's obviously far easier to grow quickly from a small base. Yet think about what that means. UM has been a top-ranked school for more than a century, yet apparently has been able to do so while having a relatively tiny endowment for most of that time. </p>

<p>What you also have to do is weigh UM's desire for a larger endowment with the needs of those poorer UM students who are having difficulty paying the bills. I thought the mission of a public school was to increase access, particularly to the underprivileged. </p>

<p>In particular, I am not sympathetic to the notion of rich state residents nonetheless getting a tuition subsidy. I've known some rich Michigan people (i.e. children of auto company executives) who nonetheless received a state subsidy to attend UM. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky,
The numbers you quoted are per semester. Michigan has one of the highest in-state tuitions among publics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fair enough. I made a mistake.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Who has said that they aren't? U-M has some of the best financial aid in the Big Ten for residents (they compare packages with each other) AND it has a program that eliminates ALL loans for residents from the poorest families.</p>

<p>Michigan has traditionally been a state which runs on the "low support, high tuition, high aid" model. That means everyone pays a lot, but they offer lots of aid for people who would really be pinched by that. Look at MSU's tuition, it's not that different from Michigan's! Other states do things differently--North Carolina being a wonderful example.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aha! Very very good. I was hoping somebody would say that. </p>

<p>So let's then follow the logic. If you (hoedown) are correct, that means that UM's poor students receive sufficient financial support. That therefore means that whatever is causing UM's relatively low graduation rate (relative to the top private schools), and/or delayed graduation rates, it can't be because of lack of financial support of the poorer students, right? After all, if UM's FA program is really effective, then that should mean that poor student shouldn't have to take part-time jobs which would delay, or potentiall prevent graduation, right? </p>

<p>The point is, schools can't have it both ways. If students' graduations are being delayed/prevented because of poverty, then the school should have better FA. If poverty is not the problem, then you should fix whatever is in fact the problem. But at the end of the day, not enough students at the top public schools, relative to the top private schools, are graduating on time.</p>

77

<p>
[quote]
So let's then follow the logic. If you (hoedown) are correct, that means that UM's poor students receive sufficient financial support.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know why this is such a "AHA!" moment for you. </p>

<p>MPact is a relatively new program, which means that graduation rates cannot yet reflect its impact. Although need has always been met 100%, some of that need was met with loans in the past. That might have had a detrimental effect on graduation rates for poorer students, as you posit. It was concern about that, and about the way it might influence choice of major and graduate degree aspirations, that inspired the change at Michigan, and at the schools like UNC and UVA which also have programs like this. But I think it's ridiculous to claim that MPact can't be working, or that it's not "correct" when it's only been in effect for a few years!! Graduation rates are calculated on a 4- 5-, and 6-year bases, so it is premature, IMHO, to imply that this program is bogus.</p>

<p>What may be even more important is the reality that aid does not play a solitary role on campuses. There are a number of correlates with lower SES status that put students at many college at risk of not graduating at the same rate as their peers. Those risks remain even if you meet 100% of their need with grant. Financial aid addresses some of the risks, but you can't keep all students in school just by removing their tuition concerns.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But at the end of the day, not enough students at the top public schools, relative to the top private schools, are graduating on time.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No. There are MANY reasons why students at top publics may take longer. Reasons that have nothing to with their income. Reasons that have nothing to with aid. Reasons that DO have to do with income, but not aid. A number of people in this thread have posited reasons when people may go through slower at publics, even top publics.</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
MPact is a relatively new program, which means that graduation rates cannot yet reflect its impact. Although need has always been met 100%, some of that need was met with loans in the past. That might have had a detrimental effect on graduation rates for poorer students, as you posit. It was concern about that, and about the way it might influence choice of major and graduate degree aspirations, that inspired the change at Michigan, and at the schools like UNC and UVA which also have programs like this. But I think it's ridiculous to claim that MPact can't be working, or that it's not "correct" when it's only been in effect for a few years!! Graduation rates are calculated on a 4- 5-, and 6-year bases, so it is premature, IMHO, to imply that this program is bogus.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not implying that the program is bogus. I am simply saying that if the program is working, then claims that UM students can't graduate on time because of financial reasons are bogus. Like I said, you can't have it both ways. </p>

<p>
[quote]
No. There are MANY reasons why students at top publics may take longer. Reasons that have nothing to with their income. Reasons that have nothing to with aid. Reasons that DO have to do with income, but not aid. A number of people in this thread have posited reasons when people may go through slower at publics, even top publics

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I completely agree that there are many reasons. And each one should be investigated and remedied if possible. </p>

<p>But I don't want to hear any more excuse-mongering. If financial aid is the problem, then the answer is to provide more financial aid. If that is not the problem, then let's figure out what the problem is and fix that. But at the end of the day, I am interested in fixing problems, not listening to excuses. I want to hold universities' feet to the fire.</p>

<p>Look, as you have seen on this thread and others, none of the reasons that have been posited on this thread that are problems *should*be problems. I believe the system can be fixed to eliminate whatever problems happen to exist. Is it that engineers suffer from low graduation rates? Fine, then we should reform engineering. Is it that some students experience difficulty in switching majors? Then let's make the major-selection system more flexible. Is it that some students are just not motivated to graduate (i.e. Johnny Lechner)? Then the answer is probably to not even admit these students in the first place, or barring that, to at least cut off state subsidies from these students after a certain number of years. All of these problems can be fixed. What you guys seem to be doing is defending problems. Why would want to defend problems? I think you have to be a little more optimistic than that. The easiest way to fail at anything is to convince yourself that nothing can be done.</p>

79

<p>Sakky, for some people, financial aid isn't enough. They need to financially support their families too. Should the schools give these students an extra $10 to $30,000 a year above all college costs so these students can go to school and support their families at the same time?</p>

<p>Other students don't graduate because they find something they like better or more lucrative. Should we force these students to graduate first? </p>

<p>Others develop health problems. A few die. How are your resurrection powers?</p>

80

<p>The reason why Michigan students take longer to graduate is because students are so happy, they don't want to leave! hehe!!!</p>