<p>Collegehelp, unfortunately, the downfall of the graduation under/overperformance is that it does start with establishing that performance through the original … selectivity of that class. In other words, the lower the selectivity, the lower the expectation of performance. The second problem is that the graduation rate is directly proportional to the potential leniency of a school. In so many words, as the USNews rankings clearly demonstrates, schools with lower selectivity, easier curriculum, or rampant grade inflation do much better than highly selective schools that happen to maintain superior expectations for their highly qualified students. </p>
<p>This explains why Harvey Mudd has been ranked DEAD LAST in the category of underperforming in the expected graduation rate. All the while, the school still bests every other LAC (and most doctoral universities) in the selectivity ranking, continues to rival with MIT and Caltech for providing the very best undergraduate engineering education, and continues to be among the best 1 to 3 schools in the PhD production --if that matters! </p>
<p>If we want to borrow from the USNews reports, it would be hard to beat a recompilation of all their criteria, minus the over/underperformance, the alumni donations, and most importantly the peer assessment that distorts the final rankings so aptly. </p>
<p>PS I noted that you mentioned the issues of selectivity and difficulty of curriculum at technical schools.</p>