@katliamom - Thank you for posting your second link, which supports exactly what I said- that economics is a major reason students fail to return to college.
@WISdad23
They bother for the money and they bother for the prestige and connections. Some of these kids are the sons and daughters of the political/business elite in a country that soon will be the world’s biggest economy. In other words, for schools like the Ivies, it’s business as usual.
http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/mount-st-marys-firing-simon-newman/
Attrition- due to finances and isolation.
@jym626, the atlantic offers a much more nuanced look at those same numbers. For example, the students who say finances are their biggest reason for quitting school are predominantly those in their 20s, who did not go to college right out of high school, and have jobs/family responsibilities. Many of them are in community colleges or for-profit schools.
Of those who dropped out in their freshman year, when they were 18-19, the reasons are far more likely to include poor academic preparation and lack of maturity. Or as this study concluded, “though research links financial difficulties to dropout rates, there are a number of factors that account for why students decide to leave school. Students tend to drop out because their expectations of college—academically, socially, or both—don’t match up with the reality once they get there. They also suffer from lack of motivation, inadequate preparation, and poor study skills.”
http://www.stateuniversity.com/blog/permalink/College-Drop-Out-Rates-Who-s-to-Blame-.html#ixzz4NBuJ0VqW
None of this matters much in the context of this discussion, which is about US schools – many of them rich, elite privates with colossal endowments – that turn a blind eye to admitting students they have good reason to believe are cheats. (And we all know that reason. Money.)
Yes, some of those students will drop out. But so will many of their American counterparts. We take in kids who have no business belonging in college. Or we take in kids we know can’t really afford it. We’re not saints in the college admissions game.
The issue with the Chinese dropout/ termination rate has nothing to do with finances, unlike many of the US students.
True. But again, I’m not going to lose sleep over some rich kid getting kicked out of school if that school admitted him/her knowing full well there’s a reason to believe he/she is a lazy entitled cheat. Those school made their bargain. I’m sure they employ some actuarial math majors to figure out the likely hood of these applicants dropping out to make room for more applicants without a whole lot to offer the school besides cold, hard cash.
I mean - which is worse: cheating? Or admitting the cheaters and their money to your school while going on about academic integrity, honor codes and educational standards?
If the schools didn’t play, the Chinese wouldn’t pay. Just that simple.
LACs – mentioned in this discussion – commonly matriculate less than three dozen international students into their first-year classes. Colleges of this type would seem to have little incentive to compromise their admission process for the fraction of this group consisting of Chinese students.
“A fair question is why top schools take anyone from China?”
A certain level of good Chinese students, like other international students, really adds to diversity and enriches the learning environment. Not every American students can travel to and study in China (which is expensive), but they may be able to learn a few Chinese things from their Chinese peers (which is important when China has a large economy and is influential globally).
Colleges are getting pressure from the Feds to improve retention and 6 yr graduation rates. Taking students who damage those stats, and with no guarantee that they will get a transfer student to fill the empty slot is not good business.
Can’t recall if it’s smith or wellesley, but one of them is now 30% international.
“In other words, for schools like the Ivies, it’s business as usual.”
Actually, at the very top level like Ivies, the quality of Chinese and other international students is less of an issue. They tend to take in very few international students. Many of them also set up their due diligence process; e.g. requiring a video interview via an independent party to verify students’ English proficiency.
The problem is more severe in those universities that are 1 or 2 tier below.
Clearly they disagree.
I might add, I’ve seen this in action at a university near my home. They recruit heavily in Turkey – lots of rich people in Turkey thrilled to send their kids to college in America where at least their odds of getting blown up by a terrorist bomb are smaller. Education isn’t that much of a priority since many if not most of these kids will end up working for mom and dad anyway. So quite often these kids are terrible students. (Though their language skills are often good because they attended boarding schools in England and finishing schools in Switzerland.) They come to Colorado to snowboard, hang out in Vail and smoke pot, mostly. Many live in a luxury high rise with a year-round outdoor pool on the roof. They drive luxury cars daddies buy. And they take 6 years to graduate, and not because they can’t get their classes! Because they flunk and retake courses. And you know what? The pressure is on for this school to RECRUIT MORE TURKS! Every year, the office is pressured to increase the numbers of these kids. And this has been going on for the past 20+ years, about the time that the state legislature started to cut back educational funds.
Smith reports 14% international, Wellesley 12%. You might be thinking of Mt. Holyoke (26%). At other Northeastern LACs, 6 or 7% may not be an atypical figure.
(Source: USNWR.)
As long as students are legitimately qualified to attend, great. Cheaters can stay home.
The WSJ article had a graph but now it wants a log in to read it 
It is not new for MHC to have a large international population, though.
Percent international (2000 to 2014 comparison) Part of the table from the WSJ article
I think it’s Mount Holyoke (25%) or Bryn Mawr (20%). Smith and Wellesley are under 15%.
Oops posted before I saw @merc81 post 