<p>I was looking over my sons very preliminary list of colleges, and I have to admit that I was disappointed by the graduation rates of many of the schools on his likely admit (i.e. safety) category. Maybe Im overreacting. The Freshman to Sophomore retention rates all looked okay (75%+), but the 4-year and 5-year graduation rates for some of these schools -- 30% (4-year)/50% (5-year), 39/54, 47/55, 54/59 has me concerned. How much weight should be given to these numbers? In other words (sorry I'm being so scatterbrained -- it's a Monday) will numbers like this have a significant impact on a campus' culture/feel/whatever you want to call it?</p>
<p>I guess there are 2 schools of thought about this and I suppose that it depends on the situation. I believe that graduation rates should be compared to schools with similar entrance standards. A university like my alma mater OSU will never achieve the graduation rate of a highly selective university like Yale nor should it. I would be more worried if it did as a matter of fact. However if you are comparing colleges like JHU, CMU, Emory, and Brandeise for instance, I would be somewhat concerned if one had graduation rates significantly lower than the others. The questions need to be asked why? Is it because of academics, failure to meet student expectations, lack of student support, inadequate finaid, or others. Likewise one with a significantly higher grad rate among peers could be a good sign.</p>
<p>Another factor is the trend in grad rates. If the trend is upwards, it could be a good sign if it is as a result of increasingly upward admissions standards, improvement in academic support programs and student satisfaction.</p>
<p>Thanks oog. I sort of had the same reaction. Unfortunately many of these schools do have the same general profile (small, southern LACs with similar SAT scores, GPAs, etc.) And yet there is a wide discrepancy in grad rates. Taking the one larger (5000 students), public university out of the mix -- which has a 4-year rate of 30% -- I'm still left with a 4-year graduation rate range from 39% to 78%. I don't expect these schools to have graduation rates comparable to HYPS, but some of these rates seem extremely low. </p>
<p>Just another question to tuck away for the campus visit, I suppose.</p>
<p>I have noticed one variable is the number of foreign students. Their graduation rates are usually pretty low. Maybe they just don't fit in, have language problems or something happens at home. I always did some checking for schools with low rates. There is almost always a reason and it usually indicates some problems.</p>
<p>I think grad rates are just one indicator. Low grad rates just suggest further investigation. Is the reason overcrowded classes, so kids cannot get what they need to grad? Is it because they cater to the less affluent who may take time off to work? Do many flunk or drop out? </p>
<p>Not all reasons for low grad rates are problematic, especially within a socio/demographic context of the students.</p>
<p>I think that this is a variable worth considering. It seems to me that it is probably an indication of poor academic/financial support -- it's hard to see any other explanation. I'm not aware of many schools where the number of foreign students would impact this data significantly. By the way, I've always heard that while it's tough to get into a selective college, it's almost impossible not to graduate. They clearly want that number to remain high for a variety of reasons, and thus provide the resources to ensure student success.</p>
<p>Run it against family income status. The single most common reason folks leave school is lack of money - either individually, or that the student is needed to take care of his/her family. As we are often reminded, many folks live paycheck to paycheck - one auto accident, or unexpected illness or some such and the family is close to going under. Big sport Div. I athletics will also bring down graduation rates.</p>
<p>I'm not so sure about your last point, mini. At UMich, for example, varsity athletes make up only 3% of the entire student body. Even if none of the football or basketball team members graduate, that'd be such a tiny fraction that it couldn't really account for a grad rate difference.</p>
<p>I think your first point, money, is number one. Second, I'd have to say is inadequate academic preparation. The second feeds into the first, because once you've taken several developmental courses (which are noncollege credit), and on top of that repeated a few courses, maybe dropped a couple more, all of a sudden, the loans start piling up, the financial aid starts dropping, and then student leaves over money. The converse happens also: the student needs money for bills, works to the detriment of their classes, but the ends up dropping out because of academic reasons. MOney issues and academic issues are intertwined for just about all the students I work with.</p>
<p>Colleges with very demanding academic programs also tend to have lower graduation rates. For example, CalTech's grad rate is quite low compared to Stanford (with similar student bodies in terms of academic prep). In large part, this is because the academic program at Caltech is extremely difficult. I suppose this could be viewed as a positive or a negative, but it's hard to argue that CalTech would be a "better" school if they made all the courses easier or offered a few "gut tracks" so that everyone could do well.</p>
<p>In some cases, there is a difference in graduation requirements. For example, Williams and Swarthmore are quite similar schools both academically and in their student profiles. But, Swarthmore's grad rate is about 5% lower than Williams'. Easy to see why when you read the fine print. To graduate at Williams, you have to get a C- or better in 17 of your 32 courses. You could get D's in 15 of your courses and graduate. At Swarthmore, a C- is required to get credit for a course and you must have an overall C average (2.0) to graduate. That is a more demanding standard. If a student starts racking up C-minus or lower grades in courses (because of slacking or because the work is just over his head), he will quickly reach the point where the handwriting is on the wall and transfering is the only sensible choice. I think this is why you see a drop in the cohort between sophmore and junior years. Again, this could be viewed as a positive or a negative depending on a prospective student's confidence level and desire to put forth at least a modicum of effort.</p>
<p>Trust me, I'm not talking about the CatTech's of the world :)</p>
<p>Thanks to everyone. Mini and Garland, you appear to be absolutely right on the money (no pun intended) -- the schools with the lower graduation rates may have similar stats re SAT scores, GPA, acceptance rates, etc., but they have significantly more Pell grant recipients (I know this is just a rough tool, but I don't know how to look into the money issue in more depth). </p>
<p>It's still something that I'll be raising with the schools on visits to feel out any issues with student support, availability of classes, etc.</p>
<p>PS -- Couldn't resist the dig at Williams, could you idad? :eek: Just kidding! -- the last thing I want to do is open more debate between A,W & S. All fine schools that my son is not competitive for (i.e., I don't have a dog in the hunt).</p>
<p>"For example, Williams and Swarthmore are quite similar schools both academically and in their student profiles." </p>
<p>Until this year, Swarthmore had 30-40% more Pell Grant recipients than Williams, and I'm willing to bet substantially more students just above the Pell threshold. That could account for most of the difference independent of any academic difference. I also think it likely that athletics also holds students at Williams - they have a piece of a life they highly value even if they aren't doing well academically, something that is less likely at Swarthmore, I would think. Remember - 50% of students at every school are in the bottom half of the class, an experience that I would imagine would be very shocking to a Swarthmore student.</p>
<p>At any rate, generally speaking, look for the income-related explanations first - they are likely to account for the bulk of the differences.</p>
<p>lderochi - something else to keep in mind that goes along with the money issue is the presence or absence of coop programs. While some are set up to allow graduation in 4 years, many aren't, and most people I know that went through one tokk about 6 years.
Also, given the universe is small Southern LACs, I think these schools have a fair amount of "non-specific" transfer in and out - some is money related, as in "can't afford the tuition anymore", some is fit related "really do miss football" or the opposite "can't stand football". I know a couple where there is a strong legacy contingent - Mom, Dad or Granddad went there, and when child expresses an interest in a smaller school, that is the only smaller school that is considered. Then when daughter realizes that Sewanee is way too far from Atlanta - she transfers.</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>I agree that in "macro" comparisons, money is by far the key determining factor. </p>
<p>I'm not so sure that it is in the case for very similar schools. For example, Amherst's grad rate is nearly identical to Williams, but with a much larger number of Pell Grand and financial aid students. That tells me that there might be some other common ingredient.</p>
<p>I think your athletic point is valid, particularly at small LACs where athletes make up a sizeable percentage of the overall student body. Not only is there "something to hold their interest", but there is often an institutional willingness to accommodate athletes as described in the "Ad Hoc Committee Report on Athletics" that you and I have both read and its faculty descriptions of accommodating disinterested students on two unnamed "men's athletic teams".</p>
<p>BTW, Iderochi. Not a dig on Williams at all. The biggest reason that the experts rate Williams as statistically the best liberal arts college in the country is its high graduation rate and that the grad rate outperforms the experts' predicted graduation rate. A 97% six-year grad rate is a feather in the cap.</p>
<p>Also, do look at the part time enrollment. Often a school with a lower 4/5 year grad rate has a larger group attending as a part time student. Those students cannot graduate in 4 years. Also, look at age of the student. There are some schools with the average student age being a little older. Some of these students have other obligations (ie: began a family) and take longer to finish.</p>
<p>Transfers are not counted in the 4-year graduation rate. Schools that have engineering tend to have lower graduation rates - MIT and CalTech being a good example of this. Specialty schools, where a student can't transfer internally from something like business or engineering into liberal arts, have lower graduation rates.</p>
<p>Of course, the big concern is whether or not the students can get all of their requirements in if they want - in short, if a motivated student has an excellent shot of getting out in four years. If not, are you prepared to spend about five years of tuition money?</p>
<p>Can't answer the question about social life - might depend on the reasons for the low graduation rate - transfers v. 5-year graduation v. part-time.</p>
<p>Good thread.</p>
<p>I look at all the reported stats starting with freshman retention. For example I quizzed one southern LAC near and dear to both cangel and I and learned their lower than expected retention rate was "due to the kids forgetting that colleges had classes and tests in addition to the parties". The loss in each subsequent year was far, far, less and the 4 year grad rate was respectable. </p>
<p>At the other end, grad rates-I tend to subtract out the bad seed freshman losses, and then critique the numbers that remain at 4 year and 6 year. If 6 year is substantially higher than 4 year grad rates, bells, whistles and alarms go off . I believe that can signal difficulty in accomplishing the requirements within the given time frame.</p>
<p>Example. School X-75% freshman retention. Whoa! Why? Is it they weed out the non-performers? F/A lots worse second year? Need to find out. 50% grad rate at 4 years. Whoa! Why? 6 year grad rate 67% (only 8% lower than freshman retention). Uh-oh. Somebody is getting closed out of classes or something wacky is going on with changing requirements or difficulty transferring between disciplines.Need to check it out.</p>
<p>So the dry numbers don't explain anything but they can tell you when to look deeper. IMO.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So the dry numbers don't explain anything but they can tell you when to look deeper.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you repeat that for emphasis, Curmudgeon!</p>
<p>The reason I am so "big" on looking at a wide range of statistics for schools is not that the statistics mean diddly in a vacuum. But, as you say, they can provide a snapshot of a school and especially highlight things that bear looking into a little closer.</p>
<p>I only wish I had understood that value of the data before the college hunt, because then I could have been a real curmudgeon in the info sessions. If someone had told me that 25% of the freshmen drop out "due to the kids forgetting that colleges had classes and tests in addition to the parties", I might have suggested they need a new Admissions Director. My follow-up probably would have been, "what's the percentage of frat membership and do they pledge during freshman year?"</p>
<p>At some schools many kids work and go to school so often they take a light load and it takes them longer period. Most people I knew at UW worked summers and during the year and paid for most of their education. I believe the number or working kids was upward of 70% after freshmen year.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, the answers to your last two are many and yes.:). Of course, southern LAC was a dead giveaway -except for Hendrix of course-the Swat of the South. Residential colleges, no frats, Southern Quaker-(well, we call them Methodists but same thing down here. Sprinkle-ers and shakers. They're all going to the same place anyway. Grab you your own snake and sit a spell. We'll talk real religion. LOL.)</p>