<p>Hi was just looking on a website and it showed one college with a 80% retention rate but a 41% transfer out rate. The other schools we compared it to had N/A under the transfer rate. Not sure how to interpret this or what is acceptable?</p>
<p>“Retention rate” usually refers to freshman retention rate—the percentage of entering freshmen who return for their second year. It wouldn’t be surprising that a school with an 80% freshman retention rate—i.e., 20% freshmen don’t return for their sophomore year—would also have a 41% “transfer out” rate, which I assume means 41% transfer to another school at any time before completing their degree. Either figure would signal to me a place many students are looking to leave, and a place where a lot of the people you start with as a freshman will no longer be around to graduate 4 years later.</p>
<p>When I compared 4 schools only one had it listed. Why don’t other schools report or where do you find that information?</p>
<p>^ Beats me SDiegoMom. Four-year retention and four-year graduation rates were important issues for our D’s. But it was really hard to cull this information from available statistics. We didn’t want to hold a private university responsible for defections out of their control … e.g., illness, death/divorce of parents, etc. We never did find a way to separate “students who left because of the school” from “students who left for all reasons.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you can’t separate those things. But it is reasonable to assume that rates of major illnesses, death/divorce of parents, etc., should be more or less consistent across populations of 18-to-22-year-olds at various colleges, subject perhaps to relatively minor regional variations. Divorce rate, for example, are generally higher in the South and West than in the Northeast and Midwest, so to the extent a college’s student body skews toward one region, there could be some deviation from the mean in either direction. But if you look at the very top schools, freshman retention rates and 4- and 6-year graduation rates tend to be very high across all regions. There’s little reason to suppose students at other schools are, on average, sicker, or have sicker parents, or have parents more prone to divorce. So it’s reasonable to surmise that most of the variation is somehow a reflection of something going on at the school—financial, social, academic, or whatnot—that influences what fraction of student to decide to stay.</p>
<p>It may also be a reflection of the students who are admitted and hardships they are enduring–when there is a significant financial hardship for the student to be attending school (e.g. when s/he is supporting the family or self while attending school), it is more difficult for them to graduate in 4 or 6 years than students without such obligations. This is one reason that state schools may have somewhat lower graduation rates.</p>
<p>This is a small private LAC. Out of 4 I was comparing none of the others report and I don’t know why only one would report.</p>
<p>You can look this information up for any college/university at [College</a> Navigator - National Center for Education Statistics](<a href=“http://www.nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator]College”>College Navigator - National Center for Education Statistics) It also will appear on the Confirmation Page when you file the FAFSA. </p>
<p>As to why one place will post it clearly on their website, but another will bury it, who knows! It sure would be nice if they had to have it in a standard location, wouldn’t it?</p>
<p>Looked on that website too but not reported for most of the LAC’s we are looking at. Just the one he wants to go to! :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I quite agree. But in the case of public universities where a significant fraction of the undergrads are struggling financially, part of the puzzle is usually that the school doesn’t have the resources to provide as generous financial aid as some private colleges and universities do, so the net cost of attendance after financial aid may sometimes be as high or higher at the public institution as at the private, despite a lower sticker price at the public. </p>
<p>Financial aid isn’t the whole story, however. Even the handful of colleges that meet 100% of “need” are not workable for the student whose parents won’t pay their share of EFC; and they certainly aren’t workable for the student who is expected to work to help support her family, because these colleges generally don’t want part-time students and their FA is never generous enough to support other family members. So these students often end up at public institutions, in many cases taking reduced course loads while working part-time or even full-time, or taking whole semesters or entire years off from school to save enough to go back. These students are not going to graduate in 4 years, and many won’t graduate in 6. </p>
<p>Officials at our public flagship (the University of Minnesota) have expressed frustration that a significant fraction of their entering class come in saying they’re “on the 6-year plan,” meaning they expect to work, often attempting to fully pay their own way, and don’t expect to graduate in less than 6 years—which can easily slip to 7 or 8 or even more, as it often turns out to be harder than they expect to find sufficiently remunerative employment to cover the costs of higher education at today’s prices, even with in-state tuition. There’s something admirable about that ethic of hard work and self-reliance; for us Midwesterners it runs pretty deep in our veins. Some of these kids say their parents could afford to contribute but, having paid their own way through college in their day, think there’s something ennobling and character-building about their offspring doing the same. But it’s frustrating to the University which gets demerits in the rankings because of its relatively low 6-year graduation rate. And it’s probably a self-defeating strategy for a certain fraction of these kids who find they really can’t make it through financially on their own and end up never earning their college degree.</p>