I can understand the rate being low for large public universities since students may find it difficult to get enrolled in classes. I thought private universities will be do their best to get the students graduated in 4 years. Stanford’s 4y graduation rate of 76% seems little low when compared to other private universities. I can speculate various reasons but does anyone know the real reasons?
They also really actively encourage to study abroad, though remind them that doing so outside of approved Stanford-instructor administered courses will add more time to their undergrad period. Some kids make it work through careful planning, some by sheer luck, and some just ride with the extra time.
It’s likely due to the high percentage of students who choose to take a masters’ and undergrad in 5 years (“coterming.”) You don’t technically “graduate” your undergraduate degree until you’re finished with the masters in these programs, which are often 1 or 2 years long.
Yes, many of the reasons have been mentioned; study abroad, co-term, double major, interning, taking classes outside major for enjoyment or interest. It’s not like students are killing time hanging out at the mall or going surfing.
While I am thinking about it, if you want to go on to get a masters, co-term is something to look into. It is a good way to get accepted into a master’s program at Stanford.
@harborceal: “You don’t technically “graduate” your undergraduate degree until you’re finished with the masters in these programs, which are often 1 or 2 years long.”
That differs from what I know, and I’m gonna have to look into the details of the co-term. Perhaps there are different ways of doing co-term, depending on what one studies.
Startups - Stanford is the startup capital of the world and birthplace of silicon valley… . and students will leave early
Athletics - Stanford is the top athletic program in the country with a relatively small undergrad student population. … won 27 medals and 14 gold in Rio (the most of any university) - more NCAA team and individual championships than any other school - students will take time off to train… and students will leave early and turn pro… Christian McCaffrey, Tiger Woods,
The four colleges at the bottom of the list in post #1 are the ones that take athletics to “another level.” I know a few Stanford athletes and it’s not unusual for them to take more than four years to graduate due to the number of hours they spend training and in competitions.
Leave to work on startups. (Apparently most of them return since 6 year graduation is 95%)
Low 25% stats – hmm... does it mean students are overwhelmed with the work load and hence taking more time? Not sure.
Study abroad distracting students from staying on course/time.
“more options” – too many options and getting lost?
Probably each one is contributing to a varying degree but it is not clear which one impacts the most. But the bottom line is, if it takes more than 4 years it is going to be expensive unless one is on sports scholarship or doing RA/TA during co-term.
Hope most of the regular students on FA complete their degrees in 4 years and the low 4y graduation rate is not due to delay in declaring the major, lack of support/guidance, difficulty in enrolling for classes, too many requirements or getting overwhelmed with the work load etc.,.
On the bright side, looks like 95% of the students are completing in 6 years (close Harvard and Yale stats), so the students are not giving up.
The information discussed on this thread inadvertently points out why Stanford is “ranked” tied for 5th place by USNews (while anyone with actual, contemporary knowledge of American academia knows that Harvard and Stanford
currently define the pinnacle of US universities–undergrad and grad–as reflected in their yields). The methodology chosen by USNews assigns a value of 22.5% to “graduation and retention rates,” and 7.5% to “graduation rate performance.” Thus 30% of their ranking formula considers graduation rates. While taking graduation rates into account may make sense for most schools, it does not for Stanford. Naming Stanford “drop-outs” (for example, Tiger Woods, John McEnroe, John Steinbeck, Reese Witherspoon, Jerry Yang, Larry Page, Serge Brin–and yes, I know the last two dropped out of the grad school) would result in a long list of many of the finest athletes, artists, and high-tech and low-tech business entrepreneurs the world has ever known. This is in some part owing to Stanford’s location in CA and Silicon Valley; but it is primarily owing to Stanford’s hyper-selectivity. Stanford selects only the very best, and sometimes those people will leave to pursue: professional Olympic careers, or other professional athletic careers; professional acting careers; or hi-tech business opportunities. For the record, “Selectivity” is valued at only 12.5% in the USNews methodology, with a college’s acceptance rate accounting for a mere 10% of that 12.5%. This kind of absurdity in methodology results in a “tied for 5th place” USNews ranking for Stanford.
Stanford has the highest yield and lowest acceptance rate of any university in the US… despite having the largest freshman class size compared to peers… so students take the US News and World Report with a heavy dose of salt.
US News is an east coast media company and have curve fitted their rankings to reflect their bias and desired result… in this day and age Stanford is the school to beat IMO.
Agreed. The very best students are voting with their feet. Despite USNews ranking Princeton #1 year after year, Princeton regularly loses the majority of its cross-admits to Stanford, Harvard, and Yale, and has an overall lower yield than these schools.
Co-terms can graduate (or convert to grad status) anytime they complete 180 credits towards the undergrad degree, don’t have to wait until they complete +45 grad units. In fact most co-term students do convert to grad status at the earliest.
Don’t think Bing overseas is also the problem, all major universities have similar programs.
Back to OP’s question. There could be many reasons including :
Higher percentage of athletes. They take longer to graduate
Changing majors or deciding late on a major. (especially Engineering/CS) If you don’t start early right in the freshman year, it is going to be very difficult to complete an Engineering /CS major in 4 yrs.
Poor pre-major advising (almost non existent at Stanford)
Regarding start ups, there are a few (hand full) undergrads leaving for startups, not enough to make a dent in the 4-6 yr graduating rate. A vast majority of the start-ups that come out of Stanford are started by professors and their grad students.
@Prof99, Thanks for pointing out the importance of graduation rate in US News ranking. (That would explain why UCSD with 58% 4y grad rate and 5 levels of course requirements – UC, UCSD, College System, department and major- is ranked lower than UCD, UCSB,UI and probably well deserved)
If the low graduation rate is only due to exceptional scholar athletes, artists and entrepreneurs then it is understandable. (BTW, Harvard may also have similar exceptions e.g. Gates and Zuckerberg). But if the low rate is also due to a mismatch between the admitted students and academic rigor/expectation (quality, quantity and rigidity), then it is a different story. If the low rate impacts mainstream students, it is a serious concern since it is going to be more expensive with $60k and lost potential earnings/experience. Delayed graduation doesn’t benefit anyone – students, university, nor the society. But I don’t know what the real story is with Stanford.
Regarding the US news rank, from what I have read, Stanford doesn’t care about it and doesn’t participate in the survey (other than providing Common Data Set). Also, if we know how the ranking is done then is a fair game to include graduation rate, but I am under the impression that US News doesn’t disclose its method.
@ CA94309.
I agree, co-terminal doesn’t seem to be the reason for the low rate since as you mentioned one can get UG degree conferred without having to wait for masters.
If the low graduation rate is due to poor advising in choosing majors then it is a concern and it is good to know in advance so as to take necessary steps before it is too late.
it’s not the percentage of athletes it’s the elite level of athletes at Stanford that is the difference… Stanford athletes are on another level entirely and have many professional opportunities that are not available at other schools. Many take time off to train for the olympics… competitions, turn pro etc. Stanford’s peers in athletics are DIV 1 FBS schools.
we simply don’t know how many leave early, take time off to pursue startups but it’s a good bet it happens more at Stanford than any other school in the country.
Stanford is the number one school for undergrad startups 378 founders over 5 years… and these are venture backed companies who got over at least 2 million in funding… I’m sure there are many students who dropped out, worked on their startup and never received enough funding… or were in pre-seed stage… that don’t’ show up in these stats.
USNews does publish its methodology. Go look.http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings That’s where I got my numbers. The trouble is that very few people look behind the final rank order to see how that rank was calculated. If they did they would see how the current methodology inherently discriminates against any school that enrolls elite athletes.
In OP’s list USC, Stanford, UCLA, and Cal are at the bottom of the list in 4 yr. graduation rates. It just so happens that athletes from those four schools won the lion’s share of medals for the US at the Rio Olympics: Stanford 27, Cal 22, USC 21, UCLA 9. These four schools accounted for 65% of USA’s medals, with Stanford, Cal, and USC winning the largest number of medals. And this example includes only Olympic-class athletes. It does not include the elite Stanford athletes who go on to play professional football, baseball, etc…
Anyone who does not see a pattern here just doesn’t want to see one.
and no FA allowed for co-term :-S .