US News really needs to eliminate "freshmen retention" as a factor

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Re: bclintonk’s post #32, low return rate universities in the top 50.
I’m looking at schools where there is too little fun or too much fun. Maybe it’s just me.</p>

42

<p>The idea of ranking colleges on a one-size-fits-all scale is silly to begin with. It is even sillier when the criteria and the weightings are arbitrary, as in the USN report. However, that does not mean that frosh retention is unimportant. The top colleges can limit their admissions to students who are highly likely to stay with the program, who have the financial resources to stay in school (either from their families, or from financial aid), and who are likely to succeed academically. The less prominent competitors have to settle for some students they might not have otherwise admitted. Those are higher risk candidates, and more of them drop out or transfer.</p>

<p>So frosh retention tells you where a college stands on those measures. Like any aggregate, it does not, in itself, distinguish financial, academic, fit, and personal reasons for students leaving. So it is a useful data point, but small differences, on the order of a few percent, mean little.</p>

43

<p>When an in-state public school has a low freshman retention rate, you also think of things like students having to leave to work more to be able to afford tuition.</p>

44

<p>Let me note that when I started my post, I too believe that freshmen retention rate can be important. The problem is that it is too easy to “game the system” with and there are many factors that lower the retention rate for valid reasons. For example,</p>

<ol>
<li>coops built into the curriculum</li>
<li>Kids who temporarily take a leave of absence</li>
<li>Schools who have an extremly difficult curriculum</li>
<li>Schools who have very tough grading standards.</li>
</ol>

<p>all of these factors lower the freshmen retention rate. Moreover, colleges can and seemingly do “game the system” in several ways such as:</p>

<p>1, Inflating grades
2. Not suspending students when they should be suspended etc.</p>

<p>Also by counting freshmen retention rate, you are essentially double counting admission standards. For example, higher SATs and GPAs in addmission usually result in higher retention. There is a strong corelation. US News rankings includes SATs and average class rank as a factor and ALSO includes freshmen retention rate,which in effect double counts admission standards. </p>

<p>Due to these reasons, I think freshmen retention rate, while interesting, should be eliminated from any ranking. It could be noted in the statistics. It should just not count in the formula.</p>

45

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, this issue is very important at many universities with low freshmen retention.</p>

46

<p>Who is proposing a different formula for ranking colleges? What would be in it?</p>

47

<p>How about something like this?</p>

<p>20% STUDENT BODY MEASUREMENTS for Incoming and Outgoing Students (20%):
5% Standardized Test Scores
3% Top 10% Ranks
2% Admittance Rate
7% Job Placement Statistics
3% Graduate School Statistics</p>

<p>20% FACULTY ASSESSMENT
8% Reputation among academics
4% Reputation among students
3% Reputation among alumni
5% Reputation among employers</p>

<p>15% COST OF ATTENDANCE</p>

<p>15% FACULTY RESOURCES
4% % of classes with under 20 students
4% % of classes with over 50 students
3% Student/faculty ratio
1% % of classes taught by Tas
1% % of faculty with highest degree
1% Faculty salary
1% % of faculty that are full-time</p>

<p>12.5% FINANCIAL RESOURCES
8.5% Money per student dedicated to research, student services, and related educational expenditures.
4% Endowment per capita (while it’s not likely, ideally splitting out spending on undergraduate vs. graduate students)</p>

<p>10% GRADUATTION/RETENTION MEASUREMENTS
2% Freshman Retention
3% 4-Year Graduation Rate
3% 6-Year Graduation Rate
2% Differential Measurement</p>

<p>5% FACILITIES</p>

<p>2.5% ALUMNI GIVING</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>TG: I would turn your points around and say that Admissions is not doing a good job in finding matriculants who can fit thier tough curriculum/standards (to your two points above). Retention rate is therefore more valuable in this case.</p>