<br>
<blockquote> <p>IMO, if you graduate 97% of your incoming freshmen, you need to make the academics harder.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>According to its website FAQ, Harvard graduates 97% of its students. They weed them on the way in more than on the way out.</p>
<p>I don't think Harvard weeds 'em out on the way in any more than MIT or CalTech, both of which are probably a good deal more challenging for the "average bear" simply because the curriculum options don't leave anywhere for a struggling student to hide. Both have lower graduation rates.</p>
<p>These superhigh graduation rates are a relatively recent phenomenon. Swarthmore's 4-year rate has increased 12% to 15% since the class of 1975. I suspect that Harvard has seen increases of similar magnitudes.</p>
<p>I think it is part and parcel of grade inflation and a "glass floor" that makes it pretty much impossible to flunk out of an elite college. In fairness, the support mechanisms (tutoring programs and the like) are much stronger today than in the past. It is possible for a smart kid to coast through most of these schools without a lot of academic engagement.</p>
<p>Some people attribute it VietNam era draft issues. I'm more inclined to think it had more to do with the influx of "risk" students in the early days of affirmative action and the commitment on the part of the colleges to see these students succeed no matter what. The "gentleman's C" became a "Gentleman's B" and the floor was raised across the board.</p>
<p>I agree that it's weird to graduate 100% of your students. It sounds more like they've been imprisoned for 4 years, because under normal circumstances, as interesteddad pointed out, some would leave because the school isn't the right fit, they develop interest in a major that the school doesn't offer, family pressures call them closer to home, etc. </p>
<p>So yes, transfer rates are a fact of life for colleges. Normally they are NOT, in fact, "dinged" for them because it happens at every college and that's part and parcel of the misleadingly-named Graduation Rate. It isn't the inverse of the failure rate--it's the inverse of the transfer AND graduation rate. For this reason, "expected graduation rates" at the upper margin are probably flawed, because the regression line that fits so well for middle-of-the-road colleges leads to irrationally high expected graduation rates for the elite colleges. Upper-tier colleges do get dinged unfairly to some degree. As has been said, this needs tweaking.</p>
<p>What doesn't make sense to me, though, is the idea that colleges should "flunk out" more students or drive them away through higher grading. We seem to be veering between the idea that people transfer for many reasons (which makes sense) and the idea that people only transfer when the colleges (rightly) flunk their sorry lazy selves out. That latter one seems really odd to me. And all this "gentleman's C" business seems a different issue entirely.</p>
<p>I'm not suggesting that colleges should gleefully try to flunk out X percent of their students. However, my college experience at a very demanding college in the 1970s was that some students did struggle with the rigor of the academics. My college certainly did NOT graduate 97% of its students as it does today. I don't think the students have changed, so if nobody struggles today, it must be because the minimum expectation has been lowered -- if not across the board, at least in designated "gut" tracks.</p>
<p>I find the concept of an expected graduation rate of 99% at one of the most difficult tech schools in the country (Harvey Mudd) to be the ultimate absurdity. Basically, for USNEWS to establish this "expectation" is tantamount to saying that a science and engineering college should be slapped on the wrist for maintaining very rigorous academic demands in fields that are inherently demanding.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd could ensure a 99% graduation rate. Drop Organic Chem as a requirement. Drop advanced math requirements. Replace the tough physics courses with "rocks for jocks" electives. Instruct faculty to have understanding for kids who don't come to class because they are binge drinking four nights a week. Would any of this make Harvey Mudd a better college? Is this a direction we want to encourage in our elite colleges? If so, why not just hand over the diploma upon receipt of the tuition check?</p>
<p>I know that at some large state schools.....particularly in the engineering programs they had so many kids who couldn't get thru pre-recs that they now have placed a limit on how many years one can try to get into the major. Also they do have classes known as "flunk out" courses. Basically I think these schools don't screen as well and thus admit kids who had little/no chance of success. It seems like a waste of resources to me. Why don't they screen better and direct admit to engineering rather than what they do now which is accept them but hold them in a pre-engineering major.....what a waste of $$$.</p>
<p>Caltech and MIT's lower graduation rate has a lot to do with students discovering they want to study something other than engineering. At Harvey Mudd, it is possible to change majors far more easily than at MIT, despite the cross-registration possibilites with Harvard, because HM is across from Pomona, CMC, Pitzer. MIT and Harvard calendars don't quite mesh, and it's more of a trek. However, I know of cases of students who started out as engineers at MIT and ended up as humanities majors, taking most of their classes at Harvard. A student changing his or her mind at Caltech has few options other than transferring.</p>
<p>What is the purpose of this graduation rate? Is is for prospectives and their families to assess how likely a 4 year payment will obtain the degree? Is that it? Other than that I just don't see the relevance. Someone inform me here.</p>
<p>Average graduation rate. The percentage of freshmen who graduated within a six-year period, averaged over the classes entering between 1995 and 1998. (Note: This excludes students who transferred into the school.)</p>
<p>I admit, I have never looked at these rankings carefully before. What in the heck is "overperformance/underperformance" and how is it derived?</p>
<p>The expected or applied rate to the school's actual rate. I am not totally sure how the "expected" rate is derived.</p>
<p>USNEWS has two completely separate graduation rate components in their ranking formula.</p>
<p>The first is a straight measure of 6 year graduation rates. The higher the better.</p>
<p>The second is the weird one. They come up with a "projected graduation rate" based on incoming SAT scores and per student spending. For example, they "project" that Harvey Mudd SHOULD have a 99% graduation rate. They then award extra points for colleges that exceed there projected graduation rate and dock points for colleges that fail to hit their projected rates. Harvey Mudd, for example, gets murdered in the USNEWS ranking because they miss their totally unrealisitic 99% graduation rate.</p>
<p>In another example, both Wellesley and Swarthmore have the same 92% graduation rate. But, Wellesley gets 4 bonus points because they have exceeded their "projected" rate; Swarthmore gets docked five points because they have fallen short of their "projected" 97% graduation rate.</p>
<p>Xiggi suggests that these projected rates may be manipulated. It is hard to argue with his theory. CalTech has higher SATs and higher per student spending than Harvey Mudd. Yet Mudd's "projected" grad rate is 9 points higher than CalTech's -- 99% versus 90%.</p>
<p>The flaw in the expected graduation rate premise is that all colleges are equally demanding academically and, therefore, that graduation rates can be predicted based largely on the median SATs. </p>
<p>If you look at the schools that underperform their "projected grad rates", you see two completely different types of schools. The underperformers seem to be dominated by very difficult schools (a lot of engineering schools) and by "loosey-goosey" schools such as Hampshire and New College of Florida.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>My college certainly did NOT graduate 97% of its students as it does today. I don't think the students have changed, so if nobody struggles today, it must be because the minimum expectation has been lowered -- if not across the board, at least in designated "gut" tracks.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Well, there is grade inflation of course. If the mean GPA has crept up but the flunk out cut-off remains the same, fewer kids will flunk out, even though the intellectual rigor of the course content may well be the same.</p>
<p>I think another factor is the greater level of support offered to struggling students - tutoring and remedial courses. And more second chances. In my day if your GPA fell below the bar you were out. Today, many schools make you take a semester off and then allow you back on some kind of probation. You have to really stink the place up to be truly dismissed.</p>
<p>Especially at high-end schools, I think it's mainly an attitude by the school of having gone to the trouble to get you in, they are reluctant to throw you out.</p>
<p>I agree with Coureur.</p>
<p>I also think colleges have enlarged their pools of applicants. True, legacies still have a hook, but being a legacy is not in and of itself an indication of mediocrity--au contraire. The large percentage of admitted legacies masks the large percentage of legacies who are not admitted. By enlarging their pool of applicants (Harvard used to be a mostly regional school before it became a national school then an internationally known school), the elite colleges have tapped a larger pool of highly qualified students.</p>
<p>I still chuckle at the memory of my trying to use an international student ID card to get a discount in a Paris cinema. The young man at the ticket window had heard of the B-school, but not the graduate school or the College.</p>
<p>So you are agreeing that the level one has to sink to for exclusion is very low and that did not used to be the case??</p>
<p>I have not made a study of graduation and retention rates over a long period of time, so I could not say whether this is a new trend at highly selective colleges or not. It is better to do a synchronic comparison, anyway. But it anyone has data for highly selective colleges dating back to the early 70s, that would be great.</p>
<p>For state universities, the data can be really affected by new admission policies, such as open admission. But that is not the case for highly selective colleges.</p>
<p>Marite:</p>
<p>Here's the historic grad rate data for Swarthmore:</p>
<p>Here's Yale's:</p>
<p>Here's an article on the rising graduation rate at Yale:</p>
<p>Thanks, Interesteddad. It would be good to link the rising graduation rates at Swarthmore to some specific policies. I found the Yale Herald article very interesting and good for putting things in context. As well, les grand esprit se rencontrent (see my post #26 about Caltech and MIT)</p>
<p>
[quote]
"I would guess that [the difference in graduation rates between Yale and Caltech and MIT] may have less to do with grading or failing," he said. "So many students come to college with a certain idea of what they want to do, and then that idea gets challenged. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton can accommodate students who come in with one thing in mind and then want to pursue something different."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Xiggi notes,"1. Knowledge
Are we kidding ourselves to believe that the Dean or Provost of Grinnell knows enough about both Swarthmore and Sewanee to fill the survey with recent knowledge?"</p>
<p>Response: Frankly, Xiggi, I am not sure that I agree with you. Generally, businesses know about their competition. Make no mistake about that. What this means is that I imagine that the president of a LAC ( or at least someone close to him/her) knows about the strengths and foibles of their school and how their school compares in a number of ways to similar schools. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there weren't reports prepared on all of their school's competitors noting how their respective school "stacks up" to the competition. I can tell you that this is certainly true with most businesses that I have encountered or advised.</p>
<p>I also foresee lots of problems using 6 year graduation rate in judging quality. There may be a lower graduation rate because of lower admission standards but high standards of work, which certainly would be a postive statement about the school. I would imagine that state schools, the lower tiered ones anyway, have lower graduation rates than found in many private schools because some state schools must make room for transfers from community colleges etc. In addition, private schools want to have low attrition in order to keep the revenue flowing. Another reason might be that maybe the kids don't like the school or maybe the college is too hard among other reasons. The bottom line is that low graduation rates can be due to many reasons, not all of which are negative.</p>
<p>Marite:</p>
<p>The increase in grad rates has been so slow and steady over time that I'm not sure any one policy change accounts for it.</p>
<p>I do think that the recent trend of allowing students to drop courses later in the semester helps. Certainly the mentoring and tutoring programs are much stronger today. For example, every incoming Swat freshman is assigned a "Student Academic Mentor" as well as a faculty advisor. A third policy is pass/fail first semester freshman year. I don't know when this was implemented, but it is a terrific policy in helping students deal with the shock of how hard college work is compared to the easy A's in high school and it helps break a lot of students of obsessive/compulsive pressure to make "all As", which is probably not going to happen.</p>
<p>Something struck my eye as a possible reason for differences between similar schools in graduation rates. Swarthmore (92% 6-year grad rate) requires a C average (2.0) for graduation. </p>
<p>I don't see that Yale has any GPA requirement beyond passing (a D- grade) in the required number of courses. They specifically note that a D in a course does not have to be balanced by a higher grad in another course in order to graduate. </p>
<p>Williams, which like Yale, has a 97% 6-year grad rate only requires that 19 of the required 32 courses receive a grade of C- or better.</p>
<p>In addition to requiring a 2.0 average for graduation, Swarthmore has an additional hurdle in terms of being accepted as a major in a department. Most departments require some combination of having racked up one or two Bs and no Fs or N/Cs in department courses in order to be accepted as a major. Thus, when time comes to choose a major at the end of sophmore year, a marginal C student is probably going to be faced with a day of reckoning and a likely transfer to a less rigorous school. This could explain why Swat has a very high average freshman return rate (96%) over the last ten years, but drops another 5% down to 91% for returning after sophmore year.</p>
<p>"I wouldn't be at all surprised if there weren't reports prepared on all of their school's competitors noting how their respective school "stacks up" to the competition." </p>
<p>Taxguy, it is OK to disagree with me. When it comes to evealuating the peer assessment, everyone is entitled to form an opinion based on what they read, hear, or know. I happen to think that the correct and current information is not as widely available as you may think. </p>
<p>Regarding the report, unless I am mistaken, that is exactly the reason why COFHE was started. The schools that participate receive detailed reports detailing the activities at a number of direct competitors. However, there are less than three dozens participants and the effectiveness of the surveys varies from school to school.</p>
<p>Regarding the graduation rates, you do not have to convince me. That said, most people do equate a high graduation rate with higher quality. My problem with the use of graduation rates by USN is that they set the bar of "excellence" at a rate that is hardly accessible and does not seem to lend itself very well to a "one size for all" type of ranking. In my opinion, the graduation rates should be controlled for different selectivities. A school that accepts 75% of its applicants should not be measured against schools that accept 25% or 30%.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What is the purpose of this graduation rate? Is is for prospectives and their families to assess how likely a 4 year payment will obtain the degree? Is that it? Other than that I just don't see the relevance. Someone inform me here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which are you asking about? The usual 4- 5-, and 6- year graduation rates that institutions report? </p>
<p>That graduation rate tells you a few things. How happy students tend to be with their choice of institution, whether they tend to make it through in a timely fashion, and so on. You don't always know the reasons behind them though. For example, are people not graduating on time because they stop out to work (which might reflect on financial aid, or it might reflect on socioeconomic background, or both)? Or are they unable to get required classes? The higher the graduation rate, the more certain one can be that students like their choice, that the school facilitates progress towards degree, that students tend to be goal-oriented when it comes to the degree. </p>
<p>If you're asking about the other graduation rate "performance" measure. The over or under thing is based on the expected graduation rate. I thought it was based on a model which takes more factors in account, but interesteddad indicated it's actually based on only two variables, SAT and per-student spending. It is supposed to tell you about the "value-added" qualities of the school (I talked about this on page 1). That is, how much better does the institution do with its students given what we'd naturally expect of students of their calibre on any campus? This measure may be telling for some schools but may not be very meaningful for schools at the top end of the spectrum who essentially have nowhere to go but down.</p>