<p>The USNWR rankings assign a 4% weighting to the % of students who return after their freshman year. Yet the difference in numbers throughout the Top 100 is relatively small.</p>
<p>Only two schools in the Top 100 fall below 80% (U Tennessee, U Arizona). </p>
<p>Only one school in the Top 75 falls below 85% (U Iowa). </p>
<p>Only one school in the Top 50 falls below 90% (Yeshiva). </p>
<p>The Ivy schools (Princeton, Yale, U Penn, Columbia at 98%, Harvard, Dartmouth, Brown at 97%, Cornell at 96%) have good numbers but NOT A SINGLE SCHOOL in the Top 33 falls below 94%. </p>
<p>So, where's the value added in this number and why does USNWR assign it such a heavy weighting?</p>
<p>Perhaps, indirectly, it points to good financial aid at the school-- where a student can continue on without threat of losing aid (whether financial or scholarship)--and where that aid is in terms of grants, not loans, so the student doesn't have to work much during the school year. Consequently, he/she can have good class attendance, can do well academically, and so returns. So, I'm guessing the importance of the freshman retention rate indirectly points to financial aid. I suspect that freshman retention rate might be key in predicting graduation rates, too. ??</p>
<p>Well, it might also be a kind of happiness-gauge for the students. I mean, if they're all having a miserable experience, they won't be that likely to come back, will they?</p>
<p>Well, freshman-to-sophomore retention indicates how many students a school loses right away. It is probably a predictor of graduation rates but some schools with high freshman retention have low graduation rates. Georgia Tech has about the same freshman retention as RIT but Georgia Tech has a 76% graduation rate while RIT has a 59% graduation rate. It is probably a reflection of student ability and motivation. I don't think financial aid is a big influence because it takes time to really sink into the financial abyss. I think somewhat different factors are involved when students drop out after one year than after 2 or 3 years.</p>
<p>I think the value of the freshman retention statistic comes from doing comparisons and combining with other information.</p>
<p>By the way, if your freshman class has 2000 students, the difference between a 98% and 93% freshman retention is 100 students which translates over three years into a dollar loss of about $6-8 million at a private university.</p>
<p>I just think it shows how happy students are at the school. A 98% retention rating says that the kids really love it there but a 60% one says that quite a few students don't and felt the need to leave.</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with happiness. Well, happiness may have a small amount to do with it, but that's not the main reason these schools have low freshman retention rates.</p>
<p>The #1 reason that people don't return to their college is financing. People with poor financing usually go to an in-state public school where they pay low rates, unless they have good grades and can get into a private school that fills a lot of need. Public schools don't have the money per student to help people with their financial need that Private schools do, meaning a lower retention rate.</p>
<p>The retention rate has nothing to do with the education at a school, it shouldn't be weighted that much, and it unfairly discriminates against public schools, just like the majority of factors in the US News rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The #1 reason that people don't return to their college is financing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is this verified? I know finances play a significant role in dropout and stopout, and in transfer too, but are they they top culprit in freshmen retention? I'm not necessarily challenging the assertion, but I was wondering your source on that.</p>
<p>It's also not clear to me that private schools uniformly enjoy a better retention rate, or that they do so because they can offer better financial aid. Maybe that's true among the top schools, but over the spectrum of colleges I believe some privates don't match their high costs with generous aid. In other words, I think you could be right about costs playing a role, but that can also effect middle-class students who enroll at privates with an unrealistic sense of how loans will add up past that first year, or who don't like it enough to make costs "worth it," or whose aid package is less sweet in the sophomore year, etc..</p>
<p>
[quote]
the difference between a 98% and 93% freshman retention is 100 students which translates over three years into a dollar loss of about $6-8 million at a private university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Many privates will fill these slots with transfers, and suffer no loss at all.</p>
<p>Since this factor counts for so little in the arbitrary weighting, it hardly affects the rankings. The rankings themselves, being based on arbitrary weightings of arbitrary factors, are meaningless. That said, it might be useful to note and investigate widely different retention rates among seemingly similar institutions. As noted by others above, comparing a rich elite private to any state school is inappropriate due to differences in resources and the factors that lead students to enroll.</p>
<p>In response to the questions about the 4% weight for the Freshman Retention rank, I recognize that this is not a huge number by itself, but it is large compared to some other factors (eg, acceptance rate is only 1.5%, student-faculty ratio is only 1.0%, % of classes with more than 50 students is only 2%, etc.). Also, there is no measurement at all for a 4-year graduation rate which I would argue is more important to the student/family. The 6-year graduation rate that is now included in the USNWR rank is worth 16% which I would also consider too high. </p>
<p>Also important to my mind for the Freshman Retention number is the weight that is given to a number where the differences just aren't that great. Large variances among similar schools are rare and this number does little to differentiate among schools. For example, consider two examples. Compare Northwestern (97% retention) with U Penn. (98%). If Northwestern were to get to 98%, this would mean a change of perhaps as few as 10 students. Or compare larger schools. Look at U Michigan (96%) and UCLA (97%). U Michigan could reach the same level as UCLA with a change of as few as 65 students. At a school like U Michigan, is this really such a differentiating factor that it should be weighted 4% of its total score? I don’t think so.</p>
<p>Looking at the list of schools more broadly, you will see that there just is not that wide a distribution of numbers. </p>
<p>Here is the list for the Top 100:</p>
<p>1 Princeton 98%
2 Harvard 97%
3 Yale 98%
4 Cal Tech 96%
4 Stanford 98%
4 MIT 98%
7 U Penn 98%
8 Duke 97%
9 U Chicago 96%
9 Dartmouth 97%
9 Columbia 98%
12 Wash U StL 97%
12 Cornell 96%
14 Northwestern 97%
15 Brown 97%
16 J Hopkins 95%
17 Rice 96%
18 Emory 94%
18 Vanderbilt 95%
20 Notre Dame 98%
21 UC Berkeley 97%
21 Carnegie Mellon 94%
23 Georgetown 97%
24 U Michigan 96%
24 U Virginia 97%
26 UCLA 97%
27 USC 95%
27 Tufts 96%
27 U North Carolina 96%
30 Wake Forest 94%
31 Brandeis 94%
31 W & M 95%
33 Lehigh 94%
34 Boston College 95%
34 NYU 92%
34 U Rochester 94%
34 U Wisconsin 93%
38 UC SD 94%
38 Georgia Tech 91%
38 Case Western 92%
41 U Illinois UC 92%
42 Rensselaer 92%
42 U Washington 92%
44 UC Irvine 94%
44 Tulane 87%8</p>
<p>44 Yeshiva 87%
47 UC Davis 91%
47 UC S Barbara 91%
47 U Florida 94%
47 Penn State 92%
47 U Texas 92%
52 G. Washington 92%
52 Syracuse 92%
54 Pepperdine 89%
54 U Miami FL 88%
54 U Maryland 93%
57 Boston Univ 90%
57 Ohio State 88%
57 U Pittsburgh 89%
60 U Georgia 93%
60 Rutgers 89%
60 Miami U OH 90%
60 Texas A&M 90%
64 Purdue 86%
64 U Iowa 83%
64 Worcester 92%
67 U Connecticut 90%
67 U Delaware 89%
67 U Minnesota 86%
70 Indiana U 88%
70 Michigan St 90%
70 Fordham 90%
70 Clemson 89%
70 SMU 87%
70 BYU 94%
76 UC S Cruz 88%
77 U Colorado 83%
77 St. Louis U 87%
77 Stevens Inst 89%
77 Va Tech 87%
81 Iowa State 85%
81 Clark Univ 86%
81 NC State 90%
81 Baylor 83%
81 Marquette 89%
86 American U 88%
86 SUNY-Bing 91%
88 UC Riverside 85%
88 U Denver 86%
88 Howard U 89%
88 U Kansas 82%
88 U Missouri 84%
88 U Tulsa 82%
88 U Tennessee 78%
88 U Vermont 85%
88 U Alabama 84%
88 Auburn 85%
98 U Arizona 78%
98 U Pacific 85%
98 Northeastern 88%
98 U Massachusetts 84%
98 U Nebraska 81%
98 SUNY-Env Sci 84%
98 SUNY-Stony Br 87%</p>
<p>In the end we can argue endlessly about what weighting factors can/should be applied to any metric. That will be the case with any quantitative "rankings" of schools...or rankings of anything for that matter. The important thing is that the methodology be clearly defined and published. If you disagree with a weighting factor, then you can take the raw data and compute your own personal ranking system. To US News' credit, they provide the raw data, and even allow quick ratings re-sorts based upon the columns of data provided.</p>
<p>rogracer,
I agree and appreciate USNWR making their rankings transparent (except for Peer Assessment scoring) and for using objective data. I accept that different folks will weigh things differently, but I was struck by the 4% weighting (and the 16% 6-year grad rate weighting) and I was curious to know if my perceptions were shared by others. Do you have a view on the weight given the size relative to other factors and the differentiating value (or lack thereof) of the information that is being measured?</p>
<p>For a change, I agree with Hawkette...I don't see the point of the freshman retention rate. Graduation rates are important, but should be taken with a grain of salt. Of course, a university that graduates 100% of its students (doesn't exist) does a better job than a university that graduates 60% of its students. But once we are talking about 80%-95% graduation rates, it is wise to look deeper into the reasons for those relatively small gaps. But Freshman retention seems completely useless to me.</p>
<p>alex,
Thanks for your comment. As the numbers above show, the ranges often are much tighter than even the 80-95% numbers you reference. Still, I'm not sure it's completely useless because I guess you'd like to know if a school had a lot of transfers out, but the differences seem pretty minor to warrant a 4% weight. 1% seems more appropriate to me. </p>
<p>To repeat and augment the initial post:</p>
<p>Only two schools in the Top 100 fall below 80% (U Tennessee at 78%, U Arizona at 78%). </p>
<p>Only one school in the Top 75 falls below 85% (U Iowa at 83%). </p>
<p>Only one school in the Top 50 falls below 90% (Yeshiva at 87%). </p>
<p>The Ivy schools (Princeton, Yale, U Penn, Columbia at 98%, Harvard, Dartmouth, Brown at 97%, Cornell at 96%) have good numbers but NOT A SINGLE SCHOOL in the Top 33 falls below 94%.</p>
<p>I think the reason that they changed the metric to heavily weigh 6-year grad rate was because of the year they put Caltech at #1, and everyone was up in arms, and USNWR believed they would lose credibility, ranking a school (relatively) few people had heard of above HYPS,etc., so they re-parsed the numbers. </p>
<p>What about the list for LAC's? I don't have this years USNWR, but can someone post them in order of retention rate? I'd expect the retention numbers to be lower because an individual person leaving is so much more significant. (i.e. 9 people leave amherst, and it drops to 97%, 120 leave Cornell, and it drops by the same rate)</p>
<p>Aside from the weight given to freshman retention in the US News formula,freshman-to-sophomore retention is of major concern to colleges and universities. Schools seem to focus on two numbers: (1) freshman retention after one year and (2) freshman graduation after 6 years. There must be a reason why schools pay so much attention to freshman retention. Conceptually, freshman retention means something different from graduation rates.</p>
<p>Students who drop out after one year have completely failed to bond with the school, or they flunked out.</p>
<p>collegehelp,
I agree that freshman retention is important as both sides, students and colleges, are losers if the numbers go bad and this is not good for anyone. Having said that, I question its relative worth to other variables and its high (to me) 4% weighting.</p>
<p>brassmonkey,
Re 6-year grad rate, you may be right, but the current data show Caltech only at an 83% 4-yr rate (and a 90% 6-yr rate). Of the USNWR Top 50 national universities, 17 schools currently rank ahead of Caltech. Here are all of the Top 50 that made USNWR's Top 100 List for 4-year Grad rates. </p>
<p>Columbia 92%
Princeton 90%
Yale 90%
BC 88%
Georgetown 88%
Notre Dame 88%
Duke 87%
Harvard 87%
U Penn 87%
Northwestern 85%
U Chicago 85%
Brandeis 84%
Cornell 84%
Dartmouth 84%
Emory 84%
Tufts 84%
U Virginia 84%
Brown 83%
Caltech 83%
Vanderbilt 83%
MIT 82%
Wash U 82%
W&M 81%
J Hopkins 81%
W Forest 78%
Rice 76%
Stanford 76%</p>
<p>
[quote]
Large variances among similar schools are rare and this number does little to differentiate among schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Therefore it does not make much difference whether it is included or not.</p>
<p>Kind of silly to debate whether it should be 4% or 1%, when the change could not possibly have any effect on rankings. Unless there is some data-driven basis for choosing 1, 2, 3 or 4 % (or zero, or 50%), what difference does it make? </p>
<p>The big question is the logic of trying to reduce the totality of a college experience to a single number that is valid for all students. Is Caltech really the best college in the country? For someone who wants to study theoretical physics, one could make a case that it is. One could make an even better case that it is among the best for people who want a narrowly focussed campus community, as intense an experience as possible, and who are prepared for the pace and level of the work. For someone who wants to study comparative medieval literature? Probably nowhere close to the best. A one dimensional ranking will almost always be wrong.</p>
<p>Problem with 4 year grad rates: Many programs are designed to take 5 years.</p>
<p>This is particularly common among engineering programs. So a 4-year grad rate measure would discriminate against colleges with large numbers of students in 5-year programs. People might enroll in these because they are particularly strong. Many excellent students at top colleges (Stanford) enroll in programs that grant both a bachelors and a masters degree at the end of 5 years, but no degree at all at 4 years. Colleges look at 6 year, rather than 4 year, rates so not to penalize for this factor, students taking educationally valuable time off for internships or other experiences, and students taking time for health or family reasons.</p>
<p>afan,
My point is that from a rankings weighting standpoint it has consequences and affects the rankings. I am arguing that it should not because the differences are minute and the metric itself is less important than others. Consider the following where you have very small differences in % retention, but large differences in rank. </p>
<p>Tied for 1st
98% Princeton
98% Yale
98% Stanford
98% MIT
98% U Penn
98% Columbia
98% Notre Dame</p>
<p>Tied for 8th
97% Harvard
97% Duke
97% Dartmouth
97% Wash U
97% Northwestern
97% Brown
97% UC Berkeley
97% Georgetown
97% U Virginia
97% UCLA</p>
<p>Tied for 18th
96% Caltech
96% U Chicago
96% Cornell
96% Rice
96% U Michigan
96% Tufts
96% U North Carolina</p>
<p>Tied for 25th
95% Johns Hopkins
95% Vanderbilt
95% USC
95% William & Mary
95% Boston College</p>
<p>Tied for 30th
94% Emory
94% Carnegie Mellon
94% Wake Forest
94% Brandeis
94% Lehigh
94% U Rochester
94% UCSD
94% UC Irvine
94% U Florida
94% BYU</p>
<p>Re grad rates, the colleges already include 4-year grad statistic in their CDS. Also, it would probably not be too hard to classify programs as 5-year and measure those students separately. For financial purposes, 4-year grad rates have real value to students & families.</p>