@sbballer Thats something we can agree on.
Just to mess with you Stanford guys in what is a completely dumb conversation. You know that Harvard has a lot more athletes (1097) as compared to Stanford’s 829?
Plenty of Harvard’s fencers and rowers and sailors go into the Olympics fyi. And plenty of Stanford athletes (in fact almost all of them) don’t go to the Olympics and don’t go pro early.
And hardly any Stanford athletes leave early to turn pro. I dare you to come up with ten from the last five years. Andrew Luck, Christian Maccaffery, and then who else? Tiger Woods and Johnny Mac aren’t in the last five years fyi. Fact is, in the pro money sports, Stanford just can’t compare to Kentucky or Alabama.
There’s all of 6 former Cardinals playing in the NBA and I couldn’t pick any of them out of a line up if my life depended on it. But I could identify Harvard’s Jeremy Lin, who played HS ball in Palo Alto. What planet do the Stanford coaches live on?
Some students take extended calendar time to graduate, but not extra semesters or quarters of school. For example, a few years ago, UCLA reported a 12-quarter graduation rate of 81%, while its 4-year graduation rate was somewhere around 70% at the time. The obvious implication is that some students took some quarters off school (gap quarters), even though they did not need extra quarters of school to graduate.
And by the way, D1 football players typically red-shirt and spend five years on scholarship at their school, and also typically attend summer school on scholarship every year. Harvard/Ivy guys are not allowed to do that. So they have to get a degree in just 4 years.
Stanford guys have five years plus four summers in class. So you’d think that would increase the number that get degrees.
Like Andrew Luck who “left early” as a football player, but who as a student earned a degree in four full academic years (plus several summers of summer school on top).
As for budding entrepreneurs leaving early – since they don’t all turn into Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates, from a parent’s standpoint that could be considered a negative. One of the big criticisms I hear of Stanford these days – and I hear it from Stanford faculty – is that the entrepreneurial culture among undergraduate men is out of control. People believe they are in college not to learn but to attract venture funding.
why does everything on CC revert to a USNews rankings debate?
The original question was about whether retention and grad rates matter in selecting a school.
Oh… and Jordan Morris.
OP here. Actually, the original question was
I have to thank all the posters who have participated in the discussion because it’s given me some context in which to think about the retention rate statistic. I was focusing on perceived happiness as the only driver of retention and hadn’t considered the impact of major changes and a family’s financial changes/financial aid changes. So, thank you for that part of the discussion.
But … who is Jordan Morris?
Jordan Morris is a soccer player who plays for the Seattle Sounders in MLS, and he has also been a US national team player since 2014. He plays as a forward. Had a chance to go to Germany to start his career, but he turned them down to stay closer to home. I have my own opinions about that decision, but he did just win MLS Cup in his rookie season. Decent player.
@LBad96 but you left out the key bit of info: he left Stanford after 3 years to go pro! (thus killing Stanford’s hope for top USNews ranking) Dang you Morris! It’s all your fault.
And the Econ majors at Dartmouth are there to attract ‘funding’ from Goldman Sachs in the way of a paycheck. 
You can’t compare Harvard’s athletes and Olympian athlete’s with Stanford’s. For example, Harvard had 11 students and former students at Rio. More than half of them rowers. Tally: No medals. Stanford’s 31 students won 27 medals.
You mentioned the NBA and Harvard’s Jeremy Lin. He is the first Harvard NBA player since 1954. There are five Stanford players in the NBA now (your stat).
My point is that whether it is training for world class competitions, or stopping/dropping out of school to pursue other opportunities in the business world or on an athletic field, Stanford students, for their various talents, are arguably the most sought after students in the world. 2-3% of students will leave any uni early for other reasons; but if you add that % to the small % whose college careers are either delayed or end early with entry to the sports and business worlds, Stanford will have retention rates, as calculated by USNews, marginally lower than those at HYP. That marginally lower % becomes significant when USNews’ methodology assigns a ridiculously high 30% weight of its “Best Colleges” formula to retention rates. Educational consumers, such as OP, need to be aware of just what USNews considers in its determination of “best.”
by the way just to mess with Harvard guys… Jeremy Lin got rejected from Stanford his first choice… Harvard was his safety… just saying:)
Stanford in the athletic realm competes with FBS schools… Berkeley, USC, UCLA, U of Texas and has won more national team and individual championships than any other school despite having a student body 1/4 the size… and many folks train for the Olympics but don’t make the team… .happens often even for elite athletes… Stanford (27 medals 14 gold >> Japan, France, Australia), USC, Cal Berkeley comprised 60% of all US medals at the Rio Olympics… no other schools… conference even comes close.
even without Jordan Morris Stanford won the men’s national championship for the second year in a row.
but I digress:)
I don’t know what the retention and graduation rates tell us about student happiness.
I suspect they say more about admission selectivity, student demographics, and financial aid.
Colleges that cherry-pick top students and meet 100% of demonstrated financial need (or that enroll many very affluent students) seem to have somewhat higher freshmen retention rates as well as much higher 4Y graduation rates (typically high 90s for the former and over 80% for the latter).
Apparently, the best students who get the best financial support (either from affluent families or from rich colleges) are more likely to stay where they start and to graduate on time. After all, these are the students who have the greatest freedom to choose where they go in the first place. If you’re attending your 1st choice college and not struggling financially, why leave?
“I suspect they say more about admission selectivity, student demographics, and financial aid.”
Correct. That’s why the USNWR rankings look the way they do. UWNWR puts a lot of emphasis in its formula on the “outputs” of retention and grad rates.
But retention and grad rates are mostly driven (at least at the high end) by the “inputs” of selectivity and resources. So selectivity basically equals good retention/graduation. Except in the case of Stanford, whose ranks are massively depleted by yuge defections for the Olympics and Silicon Valley billionaire status and high paying pro sports careers (in $$$ sports like fencing and water polo).
Retention and grad rates are only a meaningful shopping tool if there’s a significant variance in the actual output numbers as compared to what the input numbers would predict. USNWR actually does try to measure that amount of under or over performance, which is more meaningful than the mere output numbers.
comparing 4 year graduation rates among FBS vs non FBS schools is an example of flawed methodology… grad rates will always be lower with FBS schools because of athletic programs (redshirting, going pro, training etc)
like I said compare apples to apples… not oranges to apples.
I am originally from the UK. I am shocked at the drop out rates in US schools and also by the times it takes to graduate on time even at highly selective schools . In the UK, graduation rates at the top schools (Russell group) will be in the mid 90’s and on time graduations of those who remain will be even higher. I think this is down to a number of factors. University entrance is based on academic achievement alone and so only bright motivated kids need apply. Secondly finance has not yet become an issue, a 3 yr undergrad tuition and expenses will run $75k total where ever you go, so not yet the crippling expense it is here in the US. Lastly, if you live in London and attend Aberdeen (highly unlikely I know) flying home will only be 1.5 hours max, point being it easy to get home for some home cooking if home sickness creeps in as nowhere in the UK is a significant distance. It might also be worth noting UK students know if they flunk out once they have to retake, if they fail again they are out, that might go along way to focusing the mind first time around.