<p>now that we have that issue isolated, let’s get back to the more pressing issues of the world: PA. :D</p>
<p>“3. The 4 year and 6 year graduation rates are horribly low at many colleges.”</p>
<p>Ok… but let us look at our rural high school. They graduate 188 kids out of 200 or so. 64 of the kids took the ACT and only 13 of those made the Texas minimum not to take remedial classes in college. 41 of those kids took the SAT, only 14 of them got a high enough score not to take remedial classes in college. 34 students took various AP tests and only 7 scores were a 3 or higher. ( All of these stats are on the Texas education sites. Many, many districts are equally dismal.) So… around 100 students went to our junior college and 48 of them had to take remedial classes. I’m not sure how many went to regular universities, but I know that many of them were not able to survive and had to drop out. Now, is that the college’s fault??? Somehow, I don’t think so… My boys are homeschooled and doing dual credit at the local cc and are amazed at how many students don’t do any outside assignments… There are currently 5 in the Spanish 2 class. That is all that survived from Spanish I!!!</p>
<p>a minority of students graduate on time? highly unlikely. i’m surprised that the over-marketing of college to every student is not one of his complaints.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it is definitely true in California and thus, likely elsewhere. Sure, the top 2-3 UC campuses have excellent grad rates for a public Unis. But the Cal States, where most California students attend, have an abysmal four-year grad rate. Less than 25% at the “top” Cal States; others have a 4-year grad rate in single digits (<10%), and 6-year grad rates of ~30%.</p>
<p>It would be better if graduation rate statistics also included semester/quarter counts as well as calendar time.</p>
<p>For example, Cal Poly has a low four year graduation rate. However, it has a large number of engineering students, and its heavily preprofessional orientation (“learn by doing”) likely means that taking quarters off at co-op jobs is common. So students doing such co-op jobs likely show up as graduating “late” by the four calendar year standard, even if they did not take more than 12 quarters’ (four academic years’) worth of school enrollment.</p>
<p>Reporting such statistics would give a more true picture of how many students need extra semesters/quarters in school to graduate (very common, and not a good sign) versus those who do not, but graduate late due to innocuous reasons like co-op jobs.</p>
<p>Another consideration would be part time attendance – someone taking half course loads at the local community college and state university due to a need to work part time may take much longer than the usual four years or 8 semesters to graduate, although s/he may not actually be paying much more tuition, if the schools are on a pay-by-the-credit-unit system.</p>
<p>To ALF’s excellent analysis, I would add to his first point that a huge portion of the budgets of many institutions of higher learning are actually in salaries and benefits. These costs have risen disproportionately both because of the cost of health care insurance and because more services now need to be provided for students (tutoring and counseling centers, etc.).</p>
<p>“5. There is a total disconnect between enrollment levels and student curricula on one side and needs of the American labor market on the other . . .”</p>
<p>Yeah, there is that freedom thing . . .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps that (poor) excuse is true, but how to explain SLO’s grad rate after SIX years: 70%? How about 8 year grad rate: 73%? </p>
<p>And don’t forget, that SLO is arguably the top Cal State, AND attracts a wealthier student body (17% Pells) than nearly every other Cal State, those who can afford to ‘go away’ to college. Cal State Fullerton has a 6-year grad rate of 50%. San Diego State is 65%. San Jose State is <10% at 4 years, <50% at 6 years.</p>
<p>Further, the Cal States are extremely generous with AP/IB credit…the issue is not output, but inputs.</p>
<p>Thanks so much for your brilliant response. It made my day! I just wish you were teaching at one of these expensive universities I’m paying to send my kids!</p>
<p>cool post…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not saying that the situation isn’t bad (and it probably is quite bad at all but the most selective schools) – but the statistics based on calendar years may not tell a completely accurate story.</p>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Too expensive is a relative term that also deals with the future career path that one is choosing. Is attending a top school and coming out a 150k in debt to become a teacher make the college too expensive? Probably so. If someone graduates from Wharton with 150k in debt and then works for a hedge fund, the cost of his or her education will literally become pennies on the dollar. Two components: 1) ROI 2) How a college impacts you socially and the way you view the world. Typically ROI gets more attention because the social side is impossible to quantify.</p></li>
<li><p>I went to a competitive college and I still thought the average student was pretty lazy and always looks for shortcuts. Grade inflation has made attaining a 3.0 much too easy. The top students work their tails off though.</p></li>
<li><p>There isn’t a standard set of KPIs that evaluate performance in a holistic manner. Hence, I agree. </p></li>
<li><p>Not an issue where I went, but students typically want to ‘live the dream’ in college and not focus on ever leaving.</p></li>
<li><p>Most college degrees are worthless in providing a useful skill set. An economic depression proves this point even more so.</p></li>
<li><p>The idea that “everyone needs to go to college” is a fallacy that needs to be erased from or culture.</p></li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li>Universities and colleges are expensive not based on the costs that are incurred, but by the rising demand for higher education from the US and abroad. </li>
</ol>
<p>Colleges are expensive based on the extraneous costs for administration, not on the cost of education. Spending money frivolously on the administration and bureaucracy - the same bodies that authorizes funding - is not an indicative of the true cost of “education.”</p>
<p>There’s a reason why I get the Porterhouse steak when someone else is paying. </p>
<ol>
<li>Students in engineering and the sciences tend to work quite hard, though there are statistics showing that the number of students studying engineering has not kept pace with the growth in overall enrollment.</li>
</ol>
<p>I recently read an article that stated college costs are so high due to College Presidents and Admin. in general catering to Alums and incoming students. They feel the need to recruit celeb. Profs who teach little, get paid ALOT and always new buildings, new dorms, new athletic facilities… all the <em>WOW</em> factor on our college tours. They have to borrow money in most cases for these bldgs. etc. and guess who pays for it? Our kids or in most cases, their parents. Everyone wants new and shiny. Not many dollars are going directly to teaching, most are going to reputation… do you agree? How do we reverse it?</p>
<p>There is one other explanation for very high tuition rates. There are some colleges that look at international students as cash cows and want to get as much money out of them as possible. At some of these colleges, they meet 100% of need for US students, and may also provide merit aid, so few US students end up paying the sticker price.</p>
<p>There have been other posts about big increases in mandatory student fees, that are not always reported when students are comparing “tuition”.</p>
<p>I am also struck by the wide range of costs for food and housing. Some of that variation can be explained by differences in the cost of living - NYC and DC colleges for instance charge much more than colleges in smaller towns. Hopefully, most colleges will continue to provide a range of housing choices and costs. I was at one public university where the difference in cost between the old and new residence halls was incredible (and the expensive ones didn’t include a kitchen). Those old residence halls are being torn down, but students like them better because they are more sociable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This made me laugh. Although, I am the opposite of this personally. </p>
<p>I do believe much of the increase costs and ineffective teaching is do to the drive to get every kid into college. </p>
<p>As Americans, we love an underdog. We want to make sure we polish every diamond in the rough. We want to leave no stone unturned. The problem is that we are so very ineffective at figuring out who really deserves a chance. We give money away to seem like we are being fair but we are not. We invest in kids that have no business being in college. This leaves us less money to give to kids that really will make a difference. How many middle income kids have fallen through the cracks because they just can not get the money together? They give up before they even get started.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, but ya’ gotta draw the line somewhere. Eventually, one has to say, ‘pencils down’. Maybe 4.5 years is better for a public, or 5? (Or, report all three.) </p>
<p>More importantly, reducing the focus on 4-year rate, however, also takes the pressure off the college administration to do something about their grad rate. Right now, the California publics are (almost) solely focused on inputs – getting (the “right”) students into the system. What they totally ignore, with their head in the sand, is that if the 4-year grad rate increased, they would be able to raise the input bar – more Frosh could matriculate since there would be more space available (without those 6/7 year adults hanging around). Heck, it might even save some financial aid money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Berkeley has had policies for decades to keep students from taking too many semesters to graduate, so it is not correct to say that they “totally ignore” this problem. However, the increase in four (calendar) year graduation rate from probably under 40% a few decades ago to around 70% now is likely mostly due to the incentives created by increased costs, and the higher selectivity of admissions that keeps out the less prepared students who need remedial course work.</p>
<p>Berkeley is not the only state university in California that has limitations on enrollment to prevent any student from “taking more than his/her fair share”. San Jose State also has policies to cap enrollment, such as allowing seniors with enough units to graduate (but missing some subject requirements) to register only for courses needed to graduate, and disallowing students who have fulfilled all graduation requirements from registering for any more state-supported courses at all. (The policy is framed in units rather than semesters or calendar time probably because CSUs have significant numbers of part time students.)</p>
<p>UCLA had mandatory policies too, ucb, but using the two flagships (which have the best and the brightest students full of AP credits) as examples rather weakens your point. Moreover, such get-out polices in the public sphere have enough exemptions to drive a truck through. All one has to do is to change majors to a disparate field. Voila: much more time allowed to graduate. Don’t like Engineering after three years? Switch to English and get a couple of more years. Just requires a sympathetic public servant to sign off.</p>
<p>fwiw: according to IPEDS, Cal Poly SLO, with its poor grad rates, is comprised of only 3% part-timers. (SDSU = 12%. San Jose = 21%.)</p>
<p>One reason why it will become more expensive:</p>
<p>[Pennsylvania</a> university heads paint bleak tuition outlook | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/22/us-pennsylvania-universities-idUSTRE81L1L620120222]Pennsylvania”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/22/us-pennsylvania-universities-idUSTRE81L1L620120222)</p>
<p>
</p>