Diplomas and Dropouts - Which Colleges Actually Graduate Their Students (and Which Do

[tokenadult]

How can UC Berkeley be classified as "HIghly Competitive" and UCLA as "Most Competitive"?

It's the BOTTOM end of the group of students that each college admits that appears to make the difference in the Barron's methodology, and that makes sense given the different history of admission policies at those two UC campuses. But you'd have to ask the Barron's editors to be 100 percent sure.

[sakky]

I personally believe that the low graduation rates are a good thing. It shows that schools are requiring standards of their students, and if the students aren't putting enough effort in, they should not get a diploma.

A far more efficient method for all parties concerned is for the colleges to simply not have admitted those students in the first place. Why admit somebody who isn't going to graduate anyway? You're just wasting everybody's time - the school's and the student's.

As to how a school would know who is unlikely to graduate, one can invoke the same statistical regression analysis that insurance companies use to underwrite premiums. For example, if smoking is statistically correlated with high medical expenditures, then health insurance firms respond by charging higher premiums to smokers, or not even offering insurance at all.

On the whole (and with many exceptions), schools with the lowest percentage of Pell Grant students, and fewest receiving need-based aid will have the highest graduation rates. It would be great to have a study like this linked to family income. The single most common reason students leave school is difficulty in paying for it, or difficult economic situations back home.

I think that speaks to a related problem: why don't those schools offer better financial support for those students so that they will graduate? Schools are not doing students any favors by admitting them only to have them leave due to finances. If anything, those students are actually worse off. They were already poor to begin with, so you admitted them, billed them and then sent them away without a degree? They would have been better off had they not even been admitted at all, for at least then they would not have wasted their money.

[mafool]

I don't think this has been addressed here: it is difficult to graduate in 4 years at some schools because of scheduling difficulties/conflicts. Good questions to ask when checking out schools.

[kinglin]

According to the most recently updated data from Institutional Research and Planning, only about 30 percent of [Nebraksa] undergraduate students graduate in four years and about 64 percent graduate in six.

Daily Nebraskan - Four-year graduates rare

I want to know why the school's 6-year graduation rate is only 64%. What are students doing, that they are not capable of graduating in less than 6 years?

[09ddarr]

Awesome my school (Penn State-Main) beat out Lehigh.

[Roger_Dooley]

This is interesting data, but pure comparisons of graduation rates can be misleading. To the extent that colleges demand academic rigor in their courses to weed out weaker students, a lower graduation rate that a peer institution that passes even poor performers, a lower rate could be a good thing. Of course, if the low graduation rate is due to horrendous scheduling issues, lackluster advising, unapproachable profs, incomprehensible TAs, etc., then it can rightly be interpreted as failure.

While in general I agree that colleges should admit only those likely to graduate, I do think some institutions have as part of their mission giving students with imperfect records the opportunity to succeed. They recognize that many of these non-sure-thing admits will fail to graduate, but if a portion of them do the school will be fulfilling its mission and the successful students will have profited from the lenient admissions policy.

[toadstool]

Not everyone belongs in college, particularly straight out of high school.

[researchmaven]

Just another example of how misleading these statistical comparisons can be. In the "most competitive" category there are reasons why the grad rates are relatively low for the schools listed and they don't have anything to do with the job the school is doing. For instance, GW admits a group of extremely competitive and often prestige-conscious freshman, a significant number of whom were applying to Ivy League schools in addition to GW. They matriculate at GW with the intention of transferring after a year or two. My D graduated from GW after 3 years. She loved the school and found the profs to be accessible and the courses to be strong. She observed people transferring to Columbia, Georgetown and Northwestern after the first or second year, simply because that had been their plan all along. GW loses about 10% of freshman and another 10% after sophomore year to these "prestige trade-up" transfers. She doesn't know of a single person who didn't graduate.

[newmassdad]

This is an interesting report, and there are lots of interesting anomalies in the data, some of which should raise real concerns about how colleges are doing.

At the same time, some of the differences can be better understood by understanding more about an institution:

- Both Northeastern U. in Boston and Kettering in Michigan are singled out for low grad rates. Both also have co-op programs which can lead to longer times to degrees, but a better experience getting there. Beware of raw data.

- UDC (in Washington DC) has a huge number of part time programs, appeals to part time students etc. As others have said, a low 6 year grad rate may not be all that bad if it meets the needs of a particular group of students (in fairness, UDC has lots of other problems...)

So let's not be led off track by the barrons classifications. Let's use our knowledge of similar places to try to understand how similar institutions can have such different outcomes.

[kayf]

Research -- you are absolutely correct, the inabilitity to track transfers make the stats almost meaningless.

[northeastmom]

Would schools that have more students involved 3/2 programs (ie: LACs without engineering programs) have lower graduation rates because students transfer schools to finish degrees in majors such as engineering? If so, is there anyway to track how many students are involved in 3/2 programs? Also, is there a way to track those who transfer out because a particular major is not offered?

[kayf]

Northeast, to me, a transfer can be a positive for a number of reasons, not just major. And assuming the student does well at the school he transfers to, the first school should be viewed as part of the child's overall sucess. Students transfer for a number of reasons -- some start out at a less expensive state school, planning to transfer. Others start at a small school, to help build confidence.

[northeastmom]

kayf, I was asking whether schools with higher transfer rates (for example those with more students involved the 3/2 programs) account for lower graduation rates. I wasn't trying to debate the pros and cons of transferring.

[Queen's Mom]

Is a 3/2 program considered a transfer? Seems to me that if you complete the program as specified, you "graduate".

[interesteddad]

Would schools that have more students involved 3/2 programs (ie: LACs without engineering programs) have lower graduation rates because students transfer schools to finish degrees in majors such as engineering? If so, is there anyway to track how many students are involved in 3/2 programs?

A 3/2 program is a transfer, but it is statistically irrelevant. For all intents and purposes, nobody does these much-ballyhoo'd 3/2 programs. Why would anyone transfer out of their college before senior year? Why would anyone take 5 years to get a 4 year degree? Why would anyone want to major in engineering without taking a single engineering course for the first three years of college? These 3/2 programs are "vaporware".

Transfers do negatively impact published graduation rates, even when there are more students transferring in than transferring out. It is not, however, the result of 3/2 programs.