<p>“The idea that you can just get kids into fancier schools as a solution to low graduation rates is almost certainly a mirage.”</p>
<p>Some believe that low-income students with high academic potential will perform better if they are admitted to more selective schools and increase their likelihood to graduate. However, a new study challenges that idea and concludes that a school's selectivity actually does not make a significant difference. Instead, it suggests that a school's tuition is more correlated to graduation rates than selectivity. The details of the study are linked in the article.</p>
<p>Actually, the summary of the article suggests that the higher tuition may related to better advising. It seems logical to me that better advising and other support might lead to more students getting through struggles and graduating. It seems that the higher tuition was related to better results, even if the students in question weren’t paying that much tuition.</p>
<p>Actually, the article debunks the idea that “underqualified” students are more likely to drop out if they go to selective schools where they are “mismatched.” But it also indicates that they aren’t any more likely to drop out if they go to a school for which they are overqualified. I suspect that what’s going on here is that students from low-income families are most likely to drop out because of family and money issues, and not because of problems with academic success.</p>
<p>Note that tuition is not the same as net price. Some of the wealthiest schools have high tuition, but generous financial aid for low income students.</p>
<p>You are assuming that they have more skin in the game. Since by definition of the study these are students from low income circumstances, they most likely don’t have a lot of financial skin in the game, or at least no more than if they attended their state flagship.</p>
<p>These studies seem to constantly contradict each other. It makes your head spin. It reminds me of the medical studies that tell you one day something will certainly cause you to die prematurely, and two months later that same thing is crucial for living a long and healthy life.</p>
<p>“The study did find, however, that the higher an institution’s tuition, the better its overall graduation rate. When such factors as the SAT scores of entering freshmen are controlled for, it said, every additional $1,000 in tuition is associated with a 1 to 1.5 percent increase in graduation rates.”</p>
<p>I thought the statement above meant that the correlation between tuition cost and graduation rate was based on a sample of all students at an institution, not just the low-income students. If not, this quote would contradict the conclusion from Paul Attewell that states:</p>
<p>“There has been a lot of stuff written particularly about undermatching, and that if only kids went to more selective schools, they would graduate in bigger numbers,” said one of the report’s coauthors, Paul Attewell, a professor of sociology and urban education at the City University of New York Graduate Center. “That’s not really true.”</p>
<p>Are they using in-state tuition? OOS tuition?</p>
<p>So private schools are better than public schools for low-income students but the selectivity of public schools or private schools doesn’t matter? I can see that.</p>
<p>Though some publics devote a lot to certain advising (UMich comes to mind when it comes to career counselors), in general, the top privates lavish more services on to students.</p>
<p>When a co-worker of mine was an international student in WashU’s b-school, he got a ton of help from the friendly folks at the Writing Center there. The thing that was shocking to him was that even though WashU pays folks eager to help with writing, so few students took advantage of that service. Meanwhile, UCLA’s evidently is often overbooked.</p>
<p>They mention having an SAT score +/- 1 SD from the college’s mean influenced 6-year graduation rate by 15% without any controls, but only by 2% with individual and institutional controls such as GPA, curriculum, race, gender, etc. So SAT score is somewhat correlated with grad rate without controls, but has relatively little predictive ability with sufficient controls. This isn’t news. All other studies I am aware with sufficient controls reached the same conclusion.</p>
<p>The more interesting result is the notable correlation with tuition that remains present after including the same controls that nearly removed the SAT - grad rate correlation. They mention that the controls included measures of financial aid, so it sounds like the grad rate correlation is with a higher net cost, rather than just tuition. They also mention controls for number of hours worked and whether the college was public or private. I can’t imagine that they’d ignore controls for family income and SES or other obvious explanations. </p>
<p>My first though was persons with a greater financial investment are less likely to abandon that investment. For example, I’ve taken online classes at University of Wyoming for fun, in various fields that interest me. I particularly enjoyed a criminal psychopathology class I took there. I chose UW because their online classes only cost $40 per credit. I entered a degree program because being in a degree program made it easier to register for classes. However, I had no intention of completing a degree, so I probably show up in UW’s grad rate stats. I obviously would not have done this had the charge been $1000 per credit. The study mentions this financial investment as a possible explanation, as well as colleges with higher tuition being more likely to have better college resources for counseling and advising. </p>
<p>I think the personal financial investment in one’s education is a factor, but I don’t think the higher graduation rate at more expensive colleges is a result of the student paying more. The top colleges are also known to be generous with financial aid. The students themselves may not be paying more at those colleges, so it isn’t their personal finances. The fact that they are not paying the whole amount themselves many influence the graduation rate in a negative way. It’s human nature to not value something as much if you don’t pay for it yourself. I have seen students start college with scholarship money and when they drop out, be hit with massive debt. I am not sure they fully comprehend this large an amount of investment, and they may not have family members with experience handling sums of money this size to advise them. </p>
<p>It may be because these institutions invest more in counseling, mentoring, and have more personal contact with the student. I think there are psycho-social and economical factors that influence a student’s success. I have seen this situation go all kinds of ways- from a lower income family who raises a high school valedictorian Ivy graduate, to students who seem to do well in high school and then embark on a self destructive path in college. While this can also happen with students from higher income families, I think the impact on a low income student is more devastating. These students end up with a larger obstacle to returning to college-debt and no job skills to get a better job to pay it off. </p>
<p>Because I don’t think there is a way to know which student is going to be the dramatic success, and which one will not, I am in favor of providing opportunities for low income students regardless of average graduation rate. Even some successes makes a difference . I think colleges can help improve this success rate with good support systems for them. I don’t know how many colleges include classes on finances and student loans, but I think that would be helpful too.</p>
<p>This study does not note whether the the students who entered on the academic weak side, managed to graduate in their initially desired field. Peter Arcidiacono, Prof of Economics at Duke, revealed that while the academically weaker admitted Duke students managed to graduate, they did so by switching majors from demanding STEM disciplines to something less demanding.</p>
<p>I think what the study was arguing was that one of the counter-arguments put forth against this book are not true - the arguments put forth in the book are true, but that’s anathema to those of a progressive bent.</p>
<p>Could there be an inverted U relationship between net price (after aid and scholarships) and graduation rate? I.e. the above holds on the left side of the inverted U (student values the school more if paying more for it), but, past a certain point, a net price at the margins of affordability increases the risk of dropping out or delaying graduation (taking time off to work to earn money) because the student ran out of money.</p>
<p>This US News article from last October is interesting. It lists schools for which Pell Grant students’ graduation rates match those of the student body as a whole, which exceed those rates, and which fall far short. In general, when looking at this list, with the exception of Georgetown and maybe one or two others (I’m not familiar with some of them) , the top colleges fall in the first two categories. Georgetown isn’t known for great financial aid, so I’m sure it has more to do with finances than not meeting the academic requirements.</p>
</a>
The study referenced in the original post focused on mismatch based on SAT scores, which is not the same as being academically weak. They compared effects on graduation both with and without controls for other non-SAT measures of being academically weak, such as HS GPA and HS math curriculum. The latter focuses on how SAT influences grad rate among students who have a similar HS GPA, similar HS curriculum,same race/gender, etc. They found that the correlation between graduation rate and SAT scores becomes quite small when you add in controls for these other factors. </p>
<p>The Duke study you linked to shows the same pattern for switching out of eng/science/economics majors. SAT had some correlation with switching out of these majors prior to adding controls, but the SAT/switch out of major correlation became quite small when he added controls for other sections of the application, such as GPA and curriculum. So I’d expect the same pattern to occur in the original post study, with little difference in rate of switching out of major in the comparisons that had controls for HS GPA, curriculum, race, etc…</p>
<p>Perhaps a student who gets accepted to a “meets full need” college already has many qualities that it takes to succeed. These are the most expensive colleges- without financial aid- and they don’t award merit aid. The student who is accepted to an expensive college can’t be much of a “mismatch”- if at all- as the colleges are very selective. That student may also value being at a prestigious college and be praised by family and friends. </p>
<p>I think there is a U curve. The student who has a gap between financial aid and cost of attendance will struggle financially, not just with school but with being part of college life. Clothing, going out for meals with friends- all of that- will be a struggle. Will that be a barrier to the child student fitting in?</p>
<p>As far as not having enough skin in the game, I think that all too often lower income students have too much skin in the game which results in stress about finances and can lead to dropping out. It’s a very small percentage of colleges which offer true full rides. For many others even students from families with the lowest of incomes are expected to contribute $10K or more through loans, summer earnings, campus work and ???. Often the lower tuition schools will cost the lower income students more to attend. </p>
<p>This study is too broad to give any real information in my opinion. It’s far different looking at an “academically average” student and whether their graduation rate would change if they attend their local state college vs a more selective state university or looking at a low income top scholar and their likelihood of graduating from the local state college vs a top private which offers essentially a full ride. In the second case, one might struggle to pay each semester and need to move off campus and skimp on food at the state college while they would be free to concentrate on academics at the private college. </p>
<p>I find the authors use of the term “fancier schools” sets the tone for the article and what the study set out to prove. The top schools may have nice facilities but that’s not what makes their graduation rates higher. It’s the level of commitment to the students, the services available, the lower student to faculty ratio, etc… There is a difference between a student attending a state university with >25:1 and a college with <10:1. </p>
<p>I think I could have saved a lot of typing by just saying that I agree with Pennylane’s post #9.</p>
<p>There seems to be a lot of gaps left in the analysis of the results to leave room for judgement.</p>
<p>Personally, I think attending a more expensive university may also be a reflection of commitment level to ones education from the beginning. The intention to go deep in debt to pursue a career when cheaper options are available may show a leaning towards much higher ambition. </p>
<p>Certainly, my D at Wharton School of Business, at Penn is extremely driven and committed to entering and succeeding at the highest levels in business. Although, she had options of full free rides to some good schools.</p>
<p>I know other kids at other schools are equally committed but her commitment goes back to 7th grade. </p>
<p>Agree with madaboutx. For some students, the expensive prestigious school gives them added internal motivation to succeed. The same may also be true for a student who gets into a state flagship when they could have simply gone to the local city college. But it also applies to many who do take the ‘full-ride’ as well. Failing, or losing the scholarship is added motivation for some of them as well. The article leaves a lot to infer rather than providing enough data or analysis to truly draw meaningful conclusions.</p>
<p>I think there is also a bit more commitment on the part of the selective schools (and those with generous scholarships) to do whatever is necessary to ensure students graduate. (if not for the student, for the reputation/ranking of the school) That could be something good like better advising and tutoring options. It could also be more nefarious things like tolerating a lesser product from some student to ensure they get through a course. It happens at the big sports schools all the time with some athletes. We would be extremely naive to think that the big academic schools do not sometimes do the same thing with students as well.</p>