Why do people assume that a college’s graduation rates are their student’s personal chance of graduating in 4 or 6 years, rather than a reflection of the students that the college enrolls, both in academic matters and how well they can afford the cost to attend?
For example, Arizona State has 4 and 6 year graduation rates of 45% and 63%. But would an incoming student with a 4.0 unweighted HS GPA in hard courses, 34 ACT, and parents who can and will easily pay the remaining net price after scholarships have much risk of failing to graduate in 4 years? Presumably, the students who barely made the automatic admission criteria (one of top 25% rank, 3.0 HS GPA, 22 ACT, 1120 SAT) are at higher risk. Similar for University of Mississippi, with 4 and 6 year graduation rates of 39% and 60% that may reflect those who barely made the automatic admission criteria (basically NCAA minimum for in-state applicants, including non-athletes).
I know when I see a school with low retention rates, my first thought isn’t “Oh no, if i go there I’m going to probably drop out,” it’s more like “What’s wrong with that school that so many drop out?”
I attended a school with a high graduation rate, and there were many support systems in place to achieve that. I would infer that schools with lower grad rates might not have the same sorts of support. So yes, while it might be possible for an individual student to succeed without the supports, I think it’s helpful when the overall culture of a school Includes a collective interest in helping all students succeed.
Unless it is an impacted major or overcrowded school, where you might not get the classes you need when you need them. Our state flagship suffers somewhat from this and I am not sure whether being a stronger student makes it easier for you to get your needed courses on time (doubtful). Otherwise, I would agree with OP.
The obvious answer is that it is not popular enough that it can admit a class of mostly 4.0 unweighted HS GPA students with high test scores and wealthy parents.
Sure, some of it is based on student ability but it is other factors, too - continuing support in terms of aid instead of declining/disappearing financial aid, ability to easily get the classes you need to graduate, support services of many stripes, good advising, an environment where academics are taking seriously vs a party school atmosphere where campus parties are happening 5 nights a week, etc.
I also find it odd when posters assume their chances of graduating will be similar to the average rate for the college they attend, and I’d agree that students who are highly academically qualified without non-academic issues (financial, family, medical/psych…) have little chance of failing to graduate. However, there is still often a good risk of taking longer than 4 years to graduate. Even the most highly selective academic colleges rarely reach a 90% 4 year graduation rate. Some do not even reach 80%. There are many reasons why highly academically qualified students may take more than 4 years such as co-ops/work, more complex degree plans, switching majors late, and non-academic related events.
The most common reasons that students drop out of college are financial. The graduation rate of a college is directly related to the median income of the students who attend the college. Rich private colleges are mostly attended by students who rarely run out of money to pay tuition, need to drop out to support their family, or who are trying to work full time while attending college.
Once again, people here are using indicators of wealth as indicators of quality of education.
Every kid in our old neighborhood attends/ed Arizona State and not a single one failed to graduate in four years. When you have a student population of 60,000+ students, there are 60,000+ stories and reasons for individual graduation choices. In the case of ASU, and especially its top-notch Barrett Honors College, those stats shouldn’t deter anyone or cause anyone to pause. Anyone who wants to graduate from ASU in four years can and will.
And lets not forget schools with lots of engineers include delays for Co-ops in those numbers. My D will technically graduate in 5 years but still only 8 semesters.
I agree with MWolf about finances being the primary reason students drop out or take longer to graduate from college.
However, a low graduation rate can also indicate that the college isn’t doing a great job of:
Advising students so they take the necessary sequence of classes for their major and don’t end up as “super seniors” (having taken more credits than they need to graduate, but not enough to fulfill a major). Or just having an inadequate Advising system in general, especially with regard to popular majors that are hard to get into (pre-med tracks and computer science comes to mind since often there aren’t enough seats.)
Supporting the students they accept
Ensuring required courses are open and available. This is a BIG problem at some schools.
Ensuring that sequenced courses are available in spring AND fall so that the student doesn’t have to wait an additional semester or school year to complete
Not burdening students with too many gen ed requirements, especially if the classes fill quickly
Being clear with transfer applicants about which credits will and will not be accepted
At my kids’ NESCAC kids receiving Pell grants graduate from the school at a rate higher than kids who receive neither a Pell nor a Stafford loan (93% vs. 88.0 for the 2012 cohort, 92.2% vs. 92.% for the 2011 and 93.8% vs. 85.4 for 2010).* That leads me to believe that financial aid is a factor at some schools but in reverse of how I think the OP was seeing it. My theory is that at a full needs met school with good FA support kids who need substantial FA are less likely to transfer out than full pay kids. Alternatively it could be that candidates who need a lot of FA have to have a stronger academic profile to be admitted, and that that’s reflected in the graduation rates.
It’s always useful to ask why a school’s graduation rate is what it is. Some schools are feeder schools to more prestigious schools while others see virtually no one transfer out. Some have great FA, others FA policies that force a lot of kids to drop out or transfer. Some schools make it hard to get the courses one needs to fulfill the requirements while others bend over backwards to scoot kids out the doors. Special programs, AP credit policies, and required co-ops can also affect the graduation rates.
*ETA: the trend at the state flagship for the same state is the opposite. Kids with Pell grants graduate at a rate almost 20 percentage points lower than those without Pells or Stafford. The school covers 2/3 of need while the NESCAC covers 100%.
My D applied to honors programs at many schools with lower graduation rates. I had no issue at all with the graduation rate as I knew that she’d have no issue graduating. I wasn’t even worried about her getting classes she needed, as my D knows how to work the system to get into classes.
I’d love for the CDS to add a line asking how many of the kids who did not graduate transferred out. It wouldn’t totally clear up the question of how many kids were failing at the school, in that kids can sometimes transfer to less rigorous schools even in the midst of falling apart academically, but it would be a useful data point, as it might help to separate out the number of kids who are truly dropping out of the college.
However, many students drop out for financial reasons, so information about dropping out completely versus transferring may just be the distinction between dropping out completely because they completely ran out of money and cannot afford any college, versus transferring to a less expensive college.
Coops and internships cause delays. You have far more part time students and untraditional students working while going to school. Then you have change of majors and the availability of classes.
I don’t think this statistic – how many transferred out – is easy to keep track of. A kid doesn’t show up for 3rd year? The college may send transcripts to other colleges, but I doubt they would necessarily know whether the student transferred – much less whether the student completed her degree, and where.
An alternative data point (if it’s available) would be first year retention rate. Presumably students who don’t make it from year 1 to 2 generally don’t do so for financial reasons. This might give a better indication of how supportive the school is in helping their students academically. On the other hand it might take students a couple of years to fail out if they are given the benefit of the doubt by being placed on academic probation first.