<p>An important new book on improving the stagnant graduation rates of the nations public colleges and universities suggests that one reason so many academically talented students leave college without a diploma may be that they enroll in schools for which they are overqualified.
Authors William G. Bowen, Matthew M. Chingos, and Michael S. McPherson propose that counterintuitive idea, which they call undermatching, in Crossing the Finish Line, published this month by Princeton University Press. The books findings are drawn from a new study of 68 public colleges and universities, including 21 flagship schools, in four states.</p>
<p>The intuition is that if you want to be sure youre going to graduate, youre going to go someplace easy, said Mr. McPherson, who is the president of the Chicago-based Spencer Foundation.</p>
<p>That turns out to not be true.</p>
<p>Coming as President Barack Obama and major philanthropies, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are setting their sights on reclaiming the lead the United States once enjoyed in college-graduation rates, the books publication is timely. Experts predict its findings will weigh heavily in education policy debates going on now at the national level.</p>
<p>Until the real cost for any given student is exactly the same no matter which college/university/community college he/she applies to and is accepted at, no one can make legitimate comparisons across “quality of education”. In the end, money talks. The authors need better statistics.</p>
<p>But I don’t think cost is necessarily an indicator of the quality of education. Maybe it’s just the luck of the draw but I can say that the professors I had at my local community college were leaps and bounds better than the ones I had when I attented a fairly well regarded university that I dropped out of.</p>
<p>If money were the only issue wouldn’t you think that the better professors would be employed at the “fairly well regarded university” rather than at the community college? At least in these parts the professors at the local community colleges earn considerably less than their colleagues at Bard, Vassar, Marist, RPI and SUNY Albany.</p>
<p>This may be “one” interesting reason kids drop out, but I think the biggest issues with students leaving state colleges (in my experience–observing kids I know and teaching at a state college) are: #1 being under-qualified for college (kids with marginal stats who take remedial classes and flunk out), and #2 financial problems. Many state schools have barely a 40% graduation rate–many even in the 10%/4yr - 30%/6year range. Most of the schools’ students are average and below-average students. The over-qualified students have a much higher than average graduation rate for the schools they are attending. If admins really want to improve graduation rates, they should look at the biggest problem–admitting UNDER-qualified students who have an 80-90% dropout rate. (School is happy to take their $ for a year or two anyway?)<br>
Besides, why would the state colleges want their best students to go elsewhere–if they all leave for their “match” schools, the state colleges will have even lower graduation rates.
The same information could have the title “Highly qualified students at state colleges are more likely to graduate than less qualified students.” It’s all in how you look at it.</p>
<p>Who are the “peers” of these students–their classmates at state u. or those with similar stats who go to small private colleges? They have something in common with both groups, but you can’t really compare them. You can’t even compare top competitive flagships with 60-80% graduation rates (more like private schools) to most 2nd tier publics with 30% grad rates.</p>
<p>Other issues: Many “over-qualified” students choose state colleges to save money. They are more likely to come from poor families, less likely to have family support, more likely to drop out.
State schools have many non-traditional students–working people, single parents, etc. who have other personal issues that increase their dropout rate. Also, large schools give less individual support than small schools. At big state U’s, when they say, “You’re just a number,” that’s pretty much true. No one really cares if “you” drop out, because there is always another student to fill your seat. There is less positive peer pressure to stay in school when half your classmates are dropping out.</p>
<p>My understanding is that the authors had pretty darn good statistics – comprehensive longitudinal records on cohorts of students from the same high schools in five different states. I haven’t read the book, but I would be stunned beyond belief if the authors somehow forgot to take economic issues into account. Their conclusion was that students in a similar economic position were more likely to get sidetracked by all sorts of issues, including the economics, the more they tried to take the easier, often cheaper route. It wasn’t binary, of course – everyone who went to the “best” four year college didn’t succeed, and everyone who opted for community college didn’t fail. However bad the directional-state-u graduation rates were, though, the community college path worked significantly less well.</p>
<p>In my case, and I will say this was some time ago, I do believe that it was the fact that I wasn’t being challenged that led a great deal to my decision to leave school. I was a NMF and turned down scholarships because I didn’t want the “pressure” of having to maintain a certain GPA to keep the scholarship. I wasn’t at all challenged by the university I attended and spent a great deal more time socializing than attending classes because I saw that I could easily get an A on the assignments. I was extremely bored with school and had practically no academic peers in any of my classes. I dropped out after 4 semesters of making the dean’s list to join the military. I wanted a challenge…I got one…lol.</p>
<p>I just do not the buy that one is not challenged as a reason. reeinaz, I am not judging your particular situation, but overall I just do not buy it. A B+/A- student attending a school that is tier below where they might have gotten in can be challenged. If they are not, why not express that to a professor or an advisor. Couldn’t something like independant research or study be worked out? There are honor programs. I think that the “average” student is going to be challenged in math and science classes anyway. I cannot imagine information to be learned in orgranic chemistry, physics, genetics, college calculus, engineering classes, or studying a new 2nd or even 3rd foreign language flying into one’s brain to the point that they are completely unchallenged. </p>
<p>I can see economic reasons (college is just out of reach for many), TAs, large classes, professors and TAs with heavy accents, partying (including substance abuse and lack of sleep), poor time management, and needing/wanting to work too many hours at a job for cash as reasons for failing.</p>
<p>Not doubting their statistics (haven’t read the book), but I did read the article, which includes data from 4 states: Maryland, Virginia, N. Carolina, Ohio.</p>
<p>According to the article, finances were a big contributing factor to undermatching. And they admit to many “unmeasurables.” Each student has individual and complex reasons for choosing a college and for dropping out.</p>
<p>From the article:</p>
<p>"The study also found that undermatching was more common among students from families with low incomes and those whose parents did not attend college. The flagship schools in the study drew only 36 percent of the well-qualified students from families with no college-going experience, and 41 percent of those from families whose incomes put them in the bottom quartile of the income distribution.“We don’t have a decisive way with the quantitative data that we have to figure out what’s causing the results, but we do have some hunches,” Mr. McPherson said in an interview. “If you go to a place where most people graduate, your family will expect that you’re going to graduate. Where graduation is less of the norm, you’re just one of the crowd.” </p>
<p>The researchers speculated that the more-competitive schools may have better facilities, better teachers, more financial assistance, or more-extensive counseling.</p>
<p>Some other experts have pointed out, however, that the findings do not take into account other differences among students, such as variations in motivation or drive, that could also explain the better outcomes for high-achieving students at the elite schools."</p>
<p>IMO, they need to focus on the under-qualified students who are most responsible for the low grad rates. I think factors such as lower family income and lower parent education levels (class issues) pretty much explain the undermatching and lower grad. rates among otherwise highly qualified students.</p>
<p>Maybe my school was more than a tier below where I could’ve gone. I wasn’t much into ranking when I applied. I thought college was college. But the 1st 2 years of school, following my advisement did not have any of the classes you mentioned. I was 1st gen college so perhaps not saavy enough and assuming that COLLEGE was supposed to be challenging because it was well, college, without having to ask for extra work. How the TA’s who were teaching my classes would’ve received that request might have been interesting though. But I don’t think it would be that far of a stretch to think that many of the students profiled in this study might not have even been aware that they were “over-qualified” for the schools they attended. And aside from my academic qualifications, I can’t believe my circumstances were “that” atypical. Money was a non issue, need based aid covered everything. And I could only work so many hours with my work study job so that wasn’t an issue either. Maybe the lack of academic demands contributes to being easily distracted by everything else. But not everyone who drops out, flunks out. I just felt pretty “meh” about the whole experience. Sure I had a lot of fun at the parties. But I really was in college to get an education and it just wasn’t impressive enough to justify my time and money (typical teen attitude right?). Now, my whole search for college went nothing like what I’m reading on these boards and maybe for most kids, it isn’t that way either. I knew nothing about honors programs or research opportunities or anything like that. And I went to the top magnet school in my city. I applied to schools I heard of, ones with easy applications, and places that seemed “cool”. A classmate who I had better stats than, was accepted to Penn. I never even thought to apply. I was smart but no way was I “that” smart…lol. In the end I sent a last minute application to the school I attended, a local university a few blocks from home. I just hope my son can learn from my mistakes.</p>
<p>While I haven’t read the article and I suppose this could be true for some kids, I can’t believe that this reason would account for more kids dropping out than those who are underqualified or have a change in finances.</p>
<p>Again, without having read the book, and on the basis of having read a couple of extensive reviews, my understanding is that the practical policy focus of the book is on what is the best strategy for improving higher education outcomes for disadvantaged students. And that the authors’ conclusion is that public funds would be better spent building up third-tier public universities (directional state u’s) than two-year community colleges with transfers to higher-tier publics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. At the same income and class level, students still split among four-year colleges and two-year colleges, and the former group has meaningfully better (but far from perfect) outcomes.</p>