<p>I love Reed! But I fear its low graduation rate and wonder if their students really get to cut loose. Does the 4-year graduation rate correspond with their deemphasis on grades? What may contribute to the stat?</p>
<p>Also, what are the grad school prospects like for Reedies? i.e., do prestigious grad schools accept a lot of the students who apply?</p>
<p>argh. 25 views and no responses? :(</p>
<p>The second question is easy: See [REED</a> COLLEGE LIFE AFTER REED<a href=“grad%20schools%20are%20at%20the%20bottom”>/url</a> and [url=<a href=“http://web.reed.edu/ir/medschool.html]REED”>Medical School Acceptance Rate - Institutional Research - Reed College]REED</a> COLLEGE MEDICAL SCHOOL ACCEPTANCE](<a href=“http://web.reed.edu/ir/success.html]REED”>Life After Reed - Institutional Research - Reed College).</p>
<p>For the first, I’d say that Reed is an academically challenging and quirky school. I think that some students had been surprised in the past by what they found when they arrived on campus, but the new view book and all the info on the web site are now better telling Reed’s story. Plus, admission has become more competitive in recent years, and all these factors are contributing to the rising graduation rate. </p>
<p>6-year graduation rate: 2002 - 70% —> 2009 - 77%</p>
<p>(It is not uncommon for Reed and other college students to take some time off, and the Common Data Set thus gives six-year percentages.)</p>
<p>How about some other views by Reedies and friends?</p>
<p>I was also wondering the same thing about Reed’s 4 year graduation rate - around 58 - 59%. What is it about Reed that 2/5ths of students don’t graduate in 4 years? Makes me wonder about the school’s institutional support of student success. Why is this so at Reed, whereas at comparable institutions the 4 year grad rate is significantly higher?</p>
<p>Good, good questions. I graduated from Reed in the 1970s, so my experience is not recent. When I was a student at Reed, it was in deplorable condition. Before Bragdon took over as President, Reed was six months away from shutting down, on the verge of financial collapse. (This is according to Jim Phillips, another President of Reed.) Reed may well have improved since then–I hope so–but my experience there was awful: Few courses available in my major, abominably bad health care (ask someone about Dr. Dana–a “Quest” article once advised “If you can crawl to the Infirmary, don’t!”), and a prevailing attitude among the faculty and administration that respecting the individuality of students was indistinguishable from taking no action to guide or advise them academically. Of course, the faculty were on their own during this time, with the college in crisis. Would their jobs endure? They didn’t know. The much-vaunted concept of academic freedom for faculty functioned for many of them as license to interpret their academic disciplines through their own personalities and personal issues and needs; many were capricious, inaccessible, self-serving. One professor, after students banded together to ask for more help from professors, proclaimed his disapproval, publicly and at length, of what he termed “neo-nannying”–but this was in the 1980s, after the financial crisis. Reed’s alumni magazine reported the story sincerely, as an example of intellectual life there. Off the top of my head, I can remember three instances in which faculty members engaged in publicly conducted affairs with students. Reed then had no rules, only the so-called “Honor Principle,” and almost any behavior was ok. Two of these remained at Reed; one might still be teaching there. Drugs: Does the Chemistry department still allow members of the Cultural Affairs Board to concoct hallucinogens for mass distribution at the Renn Fayre? (By now, you are probably cursing in disbelief, but it’s all true.) Reed might have improved if it has become more committed to the actual education and welfare of its students. But the dismal four-year graduations statistics quoted in this thread indicate that it hasn’t changed substantively. Earlier this spring, the Reed admissions committee, impelled by financial necessity, removed 100 financially needy candidates from the list of students it had planned to admit, in order to substitute 100 candidates who could pay full cost. Although Reed should not be faulted for making necessary choices, this example conveys a sense of the starkness of the place. Reed lacks a financial cushion, and just doesn’t have the resources of better-off schools. Students in the 1970s were expected to be aggressively, sometimes bizarrely self-reliant (ever heard of scrounging?) Then, when the student population was around a thousand, almost very year saw a suicide or suicide attempt. When Reedies really needed help, Reed wasn’t there. So…pretend you’re a Reedie…you’re all alone in a school that glorifies solitary eccentricity, that loads you with a titanic amount of work and tells you if you need help that you’re lucky to be there since you’re apparently not a genius, that considers hallucinogens to be intellectual/spiritual vitamins, that has no concept of fundamental rights for students, that is totally absorbed in the mythos of its own culture and really doesn’t care if you stay or go. How do you feel? Yes, there are some excellent professors; yes, the students very often go on to graduate programs; yes, the place is physically beautiful–it engenders a sort of wild freedom of the mind, a vision of Oxford with soundtrack by the Grateful Dead. Ask yourself very seriously if this is what you want your college experience to be.</p>
<p>Wow, Prairie, thanks for the totally candid response. Not the stuff of CTCL pretty brochures. An obviously real student’s (albeit past) real experience with the school.</p>
<p>You’re welcome. Reed is a “wow” kind of place. Remember that higher education in the USA is a commodity, and it is marketed, bought, and consumed. Reed claims to be different, to inhabit a realm of absolute value and to preserve and pass on a kind of intellect and a way of being in the world which transcend other contexts. I am still so drawn to this ideal…if I didn’t believe in its promise, my disappointment would not be so manifest. Looking back, I conclude that Reed’s ideals are a collectively held fantasy. My advice is to go to a college which will meet your needs, academically and otherwise; that will give you the resources and context to further your academic education; and that will help you lay the foundation for your life after college. The fantasy is not worth it, in my opinion.</p>
<p>I appreciate your comments prairie, and I know people who had similar experiences in the seventies, but we should really hear from current students and recent alums on this issue. I don’t think it is the same Reed you went to. I am curious as to what they have to say, although I have my theories.</p>
<p>I’ve found from scouring the interwebs that the retrospect on Reed tends to be very polarized, but those dissatisfied with their education tend to be in the minority (but, again, these are fairly recent alumni). I second aghast on the call for more recent alumni and current students, but I am thankful for your candid, honest opinions, Prairie. Certainly, I think your comments about a lack of a nurturing college guidance over its students’ academic progress is a very valid point when looking at the particularly low 4-year grad rate even today. And indeed, the fault may be codified in the college’s “individualistic” ideal. It’s an interesting take on an ideal that I’ve only heard when exalted both in college literature and in student opinion; I’d like to hear more.</p>
<p>CollegeConfidential doesn’t list older threads, but I did a search and I found this thread: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/reed-college/180362-graduation-rate.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/reed-college/180362-graduation-rate.html</a></p>
<p>There are definitely more voices to corroborate Prairie’s points:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From there the discussion veers off to lysistrata, lol.</p>
<p>Wow. I’m a current student at Reed, and I have to say: I barely recognize the school Prairie describes. Some elements are definitely recognizable (more in a bit), but Reed must have changed dramatically since the 70s.</p>
<p>Let me just run down a list of some things that were brought up.</p>
<p>Professors: It has been my experience that the professors are completely dedicated to teaching and helping students succeed. More often than not, when I need to speak with one, I’ve simply been able to walk into his or her office, even outside of posted office hours. When I do schedule something (for example, when I know it will be a longer discussion), they’ve been very accommodating. I remember asking my math prof when his office hours were, and he responded, “When do you need them to be?” All my professors know me (EVERYONE is on a first name basis at Reed), most students have at least a couple professors they talk with socially, and the overwhelming majority are superb teachers.</p>
<p>Academic support: In addition to your professors, you get an hour of private tutoring per class per week; also, the DoJo (tutoring center) is almost always well-stocked with free tutors and free food. Plus you have your friends. If you go it alone, it’s by your own choice.</p>
<p>Honor Principle: Prarie is absolutely right in that there are very few rules regulating students at Reed, and that hasn’t changed. When I was applying, I simply assumed the HP was college-brochure fluff, but it’s something the student body takes very seriously (I remember a freshman at the start of the year saying something about the HP being a joke, and every sophomore, junior, and senior within earshot jumped down the poor guy’s throat). What this means in practice is that you can politely ask those smokers outside the window to move, and they will; that professors can routinely assign take-home self-timed closed-book finals without worrying about cheaters (How many schools can say that?!); and that students are generally trustworthy and look out for each other. It’s more about community norms than anything else (IMO; some would disagree), and it definitely makes Reed a more enjoyable place to live.</p>
<p>Drugs: Reed still has a reputation for drug use. Whether or not this reputation is warranted is a matter of some debate among students. But the academics are tough enough that the real drug users either moderate or drop out, and a yearly psych department study invariably shows that students perceive the amount of drug use to be much higher than it actually is. Other than that, all I can say is that I have never used drugs and never felt pressured to do so at Reed (HP again). Prarie’s post was the first time I’d heard anything about the chem dept. concocting illicit substances; I doubt that still happens.</p>
<p>Reed’s Financial Situation: I remember reading about the problems Prarie described, but for the most part, they’re a thing of the past. Of course, the recession has certainly taken its toll: the NYT story about the 100 students is true, and believe me, the student body is Not Happy with this. See Reed’s home page for some links.</p>
<p>Health Center: The counseling services have a good reputation, the other medical services do not.</p>
<p>“Reed is Different”: I really do believe this to be true. I mentioned the well-founded academic trust between students and professors (not to mention between students and themselves). Also, there’s the whole “No Grades” thing – I haven’t seen a transcript or a letter grade since high school. And since you’re probably in the middle of the whole HS rat race, I doubt I need to elaborate on how liberating that de-emphasis can be. Common room discussion topics shift smoothly from debates over new movies to debates over the relative merits of Thucydides and Herodotus (the former pwns the latter, in case you’re curious). I came to Reed and it was like finding a treasure trove were someone had stashed all these awesome, interesting people with whom I could share my inner geek.</p>
<p>I’d recommend visiting the place, see if it clicks with you. If it does, I won’t need to tell you to attend; if it doesn’t, then you’d probably be happier somewhere less brutal (or equally brutal, but with a sort of culture you can connect to).</p>
<p>This post has gotten quite a bit longer than I’d intended. Hope it helps.</p>
<p>After looking back over the thread, I realize that I’ve gotten a little off topic; I guess I was responding more to Prarie than the original poster.</p>
<p>With regards to PhDs, Reed is fourth in the nation for percentage of students who go on to earn one: [REED</a> COLLEGE PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]REED”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College). (This is out of all colleges and universities, not just peer schools). I think Vossron’s links covered the rest.</p>
<p>As for the low graduation rate… I wish I knew the answer to this one. I do know that the picture is not as bleak as it apparently was in the 70s, and that Reed has been working on this. The Academic Services has gotten a make over in the past couple years, the DoJo (mentioned in my previous post) is new and thriving. I recall seeing statistics (can’t find where) showing that the graduation rate has been steadily increasing. Some students attribute the low rate to Reed’s willingness to “take chances” with applicants, others blame the stress, or a result of students who come here lacking an accurate picture of what Reed is like. I personally don’t pretend to know.</p>
<p>But again, I suspect that if you visit here and feel you can connect with the community, it probably means you’ll do well here if accepted.</p>
<p>Tetra, I’m glad to learn that Reed has changed so much for the better. Free food? A tutoring center? When I was there, beer was free, during the socials in Commons, but food was limited, and not very good. Free food would have attracted the sizeable proportion of Reedies who lived off campus, without board contracts. Back when there were more students than dorm spaces–the Cross-Canyon dorms (Sisson, Chittick, etc.) were the newest dorms–sophomores were generally obliged to live off campus, while many others did so to save money. Trying to keep a stock of free food publicly available would have been as ongoing and difficult a task as trying to keep the water out of a pit dug in the sand next to the ocean. Does Peoples’ Food Store still exist? Off-campus Reedies got their yogurt, granola, rice, bread and cheese there. Free food? Reed really has changed. But it’s still underfunded, and the four-year graduation rate is still low.</p>
<p>“Trying to keep a stock of free food publicly available would have been as ongoing and difficult a task as trying to keep the water out of a pit dug in the sand next to the ocean.”</p>
<p>Well said. You definitely know college students. :)</p>
<p>Perhaps “snacks” would have been more appropriate, but there’s enough Ramen and fruit (and junk food) to get a meal out of. Even so, I’m not sure how they manage to keep it stocked…</p>
<p>Peoples’ is still alive and kicking. (As is the noble tradition of scrounging, by the way…).</p>
<p>Lack of housing is no longer a problem (they just built a few new dorms, so now there’s actually a surplus), but because room and especially board are so expensive, many Reedies still elect to live off campus. (Bonus tip for future Reedies still reading my ramblings: If you want board plan A or B, it’s cheaper to start on plan C and then buy extra board points, since they give a 10% bonus when you do so, which beats out the “bulk discount” from the more expensive plans.)</p>
<p>But yes there’s no denying that Reed could use more funding (it would be wonderful to become need-blind) and fewer drop-outs.</p>
<p>Hi Tetra. I was editing my most recent post, and timed out. Here it is–somewhat darker in tone than the draft.</p>
<p>Tetra, I’m glad to learn that Reed has changed so much for the better. Free food? A tutoring center? When I was there, beer was free, during the socials in Commons, but food was limited, and not very good. Free food would have attracted the sizeable proportion of Reedies who lived off campus, without board contracts. Back when there were more students than dorm spaces–the Cross-Canyon dorms (Sisson, Chittick, etc.) were the newest dorms–sophomores were generally obliged to live off campus, while many others did so to save money, or for other reasons. Trying to keep a stock of free food publicly available would have been as ongoing and difficult a task as trying to keep the water out of a pit dug in the sand next to the ocean. (Does Peoples’ Food Store still exist? Off-campus Reedies got their yogurt, granola, brown rice, bread and cheese there.) Back then, Reed increased its tuition-based revenues by admitting students who could pay tuition (though not necessarily room/board fees), without regard for the limits of its ability to house the total student population. In the process, it admitted quite a few people who were less than optimal candidates, I think. Many of them didn’t graduate. (Or maybe they were done in not by academic demands but by the overwhelming drudgery of walking or riding a bicycle to and from campus in the rain, especially at night, and being impoverished.) Reed’s current solution to revenue problem–preferential admission for those who can pay full price–resembles what it has been doing for a long time. The price is now higher, as it includes on-campus living, but the decision to admit is now, as then, made with the financial survival of the college in mind. Does this influence the current four-year graduation rate? I don’t know, but it is an influence constant over time.</p>
<p>I wanted to comment on the thread after seeing the recent activity. I have a good friend who attended but did not graduate from Reed nearly 20 years ago. I have a student currently at Reed. I also have friends in the Reed community. What I’ve heard is that in the past, Reed had a sort of institutionalized “drop 'em in the deep end and see who swims” mentality. There was a heavy courseload, a lot demanded of students, but not a lot of resources to help them with that. When students struggled with it, for whatever reason, that was seen as indicative of not “really” belonging, of not being a good fit. Basically, the school took chances in admitting some students – underachieving passionate students, students with very uneven track records – but provided no support to help those students succeed. If you failed out, or mentally could not handle it, it was about <em>you</em>, not about the school. </p>
<p>I think that’s changing. what I’ve seen, and what I’ve heard, and what my son has experienced. While there’s not the level of handholding or academic support that some schools have (even top schools – Stanford, for example), there is definitely more awareness of graduation outcomes, more concern about improving them. Most importantly, I hear and see an increased institutional sense of responsibility for the graduation rates. The administration seems much more concerned about providing the resources to help students graduate. Health services for students seems to be more aware of issues of stress, pressure, concentration, stuff like that. While I don’t think it’s going to become a 97% grad rate school, it does seem to be improving. There’s awareness of the situation. The administration no longer seems to regard low grad rates as a perverse badge of honor.</p>
<p>“A perverse badge of honor” is an exact description of the spirit of Reed, as I knew it, anyway. It will be interesting to see how Reed sees itself and its history as it makes these changes for the better.</p>
<p>I’m going to link to something I published on CC two years ago. I’m a Reed alum from the 1960’s – a golden age, I think, not just of the “old Reed” but a not very rich one (endowment then was about $2 million – I kid you not!).</p>
<p>This post addresses the issue of Reed’s graduation rate, and what it means. I would also emphasize what Vossron referred to – the trend. Here’s a link to the whole thread.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/reed-college/398658-graduation-rate.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/reed-college/398658-graduation-rate.html</a></p>
<p>My comment from that thread:</p>
<p>A few observations.</p>
<p>(1) These numbers are not affected by transfers. That is to say, a 4 year graduation rate is simply what percentage of freshman graduated in 4 years – with the non graduates being either transfers or those who were still enrolled (or perhaps on leave) but intending to complete the program. Reed calculates this like every other school.</p>
<p>(2) It is quite common to compare 6 year rates, but I can see why you would be interested in the 4 year rates. The 6 year rates essentially tell you what percentage of the entering cohort ever graduate from that school (since relatively few get their degrees after 6 years), the remainder therefore being those who transferred, dropped out, or had health or financial problems and continue to stretch out their programs.</p>
<p>(3) Regarding the 6-year rates, you have to put them into historical perspective. The 75% 6-year rate that you mention could refer to either the freshman (entering) class of 2000 or the freshman class of 2001 (the 75% 6-year rate was the same for both of these entering cohorts).</p>
<p>If you were able to find CDS data for 8-10 years ago, you would find 6-year rates of about 65%, and for 4 or 5 years ago rates of about 70%. What this means is that Reed has been improving its graduation rates.</p>
<p>This is due to several factors, I believe. More financial aid, greater selectivity on admissions (both because of more applicants overall and because the admissions office is able to find more applicants who are a good fit to Reed’s demanding program), and improvements in the “quality of life” or “campus climate” in an effort that is continuing this year, for example, with a substantial expansion of available on-campus housing.</p>
<p>(4) I think that as a rule of thumb the percentage who fail to return for their second year is roughly half the percentage who fail to graduate in 6 years (i.e., it’s kind of a “leading indicator” of the eventual graduation rate). The last time I calculated this some years ago, Reed’s 6-year graduation rate was 70%, and its first-year retention rate was 85%. So 15% didn’t return for second year, and 30% overall from the initial cohort didn’t graduate in 6 years.</p>
<p>One thing Reed has focused on is cutting that first-year attrition. What you see now is that 91% of the 2006 cohort returned for their second year (the current academic year), i.e., 9% left or at least didn’t enroll for their sophomore years. (See the Reed 2007-2008 CDS here: [Reed</a> College 2007-08 Common Data Set SecB](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/cds/cds0708/cdssecb200708.html]Reed”>Reed College 2007-08 Common Data Set SecB - Institutional Research - Reed College) ).</p>
<p>If my rule of thumb is roughly true, then the 6-year graduation rate for the 2006 entering class (cohort) would likely end up at about 82%. This is suggestive of continued improvement in Reed’s retention (reduction of attrition). As an alum, I’m hoping for continuing improvement in this percentage for next year and beyond.</p>
<p>(5) This brings us to the remaining issue: why is Reed’s 6-year graduation rate comparatively low. If it indeed is trending up so that for the entering cohort of 2006, some 82% will graduate, and if the trend continues upward, then Reed is not nearly as far out of line with peer institutions as it once was. But even if for the 2007 cohort it ends up in the low 80’s,it’s lower than some of those that have 90%+ graduation rates.</p>
<p>By way of explanation, it’s convenient to say that Reed has one of the most demanding academic programs in the country. I think that’s a possible factor. (Also see Caltech’s 6-year graduation rate for comparison: last time I looked it was in the 85-88% range.) But there are some very demanding programs (e.g., Swarthmore) with 6-year graduation rates in the mid-90% range. I think that while the academic demandingness is indeed a factor, “fit” has more to do with it, in that some students just don’t fully appreciate the type of program Reed offers, and further that in past years (but less so in recent years as application numbers have soared) Reed’s admissions committee was more willing to take a chance on “underachievers” who had very high test scores but less than stellar high-school grades.</p>
<p>And I think another factor is that Reed has not been able to guarantee financial aid that meets 100% of need. So those students who come but struggle or take a while to adjust academically – and who also need financial aid – may sometimes transfer out after a year. In recent years, however, Reed has been upping its financial aid (and focusing more of its endowment on just this) and on other factors that affect retention, and that’s why we’re seeing the improvements.</p>
<p>What they haven’t done, to my knowledge, is to dumb down the academics (I’d still love to go there again!), but at the same time they’re trying to broaden curricular options in a variety of ways including in the arts, they’ve reduced the student-faculty ratio, and they’ve focused on making more permanent (tenure-stream) appointments rather than adjuncts, all to provide a more supportive environment for students.</p>
<p>So there you have my long answer to your question. I’ve thought about this a lot. Others may have additional insights for you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was under the impression that while other schools don’t take need into account need and don’t promise to meet 100% of need, Reed does the opposite, being “need-aware” during admissions, but promising to meet 100% of demonstrated need for the admitted students.</p>
<p>Reed has indeed guaranteed to meet 100% of need for many years. This was reaffirmed last December by President Diver:
[Reed</a> College | President’s Office | Speeches, Letters, and Articles](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/president/speeches/economics_of_reed.html]Reed”>http://www.reed.edu/president/speeches/economics_of_reed.html)</p>