<p>Could simply be that, relative to preparation of the students attending, the first year at the schools toward the top of the list just isn’t that challenging. Or, alternatively, the quality of challenge at the lower-ranked schools is just as great as those at the more highly ranked ones.</p>
<p>Or the more highly ranked ones have better advising. Or, having made the investment, they are less likely to allow them to flunk out. Or family incomes at the higher ranked schools are higher (the vast majority of folks who leave school do so for financial/family reasons).</p>
<p>For free, there are all kinds of hypotheses.</p>
<p>My guess is “the quality of challenge at the lower-ranked schools is just as great as those at the more highly ranked ones” but students are less well prepared in math. They are weeded out by calc and physics. If they survive calc and physics, then there is usually a weeder course or two in the major field that will get them.</p>
<p>Is it ethical for a university to admit students that have a small probability of success? Is it not easy to predict who will succeed?</p>
<p>California Institute of Technology 89 770 800
Harvey Mudd College 85 740 800
Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering Blank 740 800
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 93 720 800
Carnegie Mellon University 86 680 780
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 82 650 730
Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art 83 640 770
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology 80 630 710
Worcester Polytechnic Institute 75 630 710
Illinois Institute of Technology 68 620 710
Stevens Institute of Technology 73 620 710
Case Western Reserve University 78 620 720
Milwaukee School of Engineering 55 590 685
Rochester Institute of Technology 61 560 670
Clarkson University 70 560 660
Polytechnic University 50 560 670
Drexel University 60 560 670</p>
<p>“I could divide them inti more than one tier based on retention”</p>
<p>Yeah, because what does retention rate really tell you? Nothing.</p>
<p>You can’t separate the different variables that are at work for retention rate just by looking at entry scores. There is no accounting for the difficulty of the program or things of that nature…</p>
<p>Top LACs in freshman retention rate:
Freshman Retention Rate </p>
<hr>
<p>Freshman Freshman
Institution retention rate enrollment
College of the Holy Cross 96% 754
Davidson College (NC) 96% 464
Haverford College ¶ 96% 314
Swarthmore College ¶ 96% 370
United States Naval Acad 96% 1,228
Wesleyan University (CT) 96% 720
Amherst College (MA) 97% 433
Carleton College (MN) 97% 504
Williams College (MA) 97% 534
Bowdoin College (ME) 98% 474
Pomona College (CA) 99% 378</p>
<p>“My guess is “the quality of challenge at the lower-ranked schools is just as great as those at the more highly ranked ones” but students are less well prepared in math.”</p>
<p>I would be willing to guess that at the intro level, the classes at the lower ranked schools are even harder and the grading curve more brutal.</p>
<p>I agree with RacingReaver’s assessment about Carnegie Mellon. The engineers are usually quite happy with their job opps/salaries upon graduation but getting there isn’t easy as the curriculum can be demanding for some (most have free time to do whatever such as join a frat).</p>
<p>Many smaller and more selective school have the motto that if you meet the admissions standards, they know you can succeed there and will do everything to make sure you do. I go to Rose-Hulman and this is certainly the case. Instead of “weeder” Calc and Physics classes, we have special classes for students who may struggle with the traditional classes. They cover the same material but at a more relaxed pace. In addition, the professors always encourage students to come and talk to them, especially if the student is struggling in the class. The only students I know that have left Rose left for reasons other than academics (family issues, etc). While the coursework is very challenging, it is actually difficult to fail out because there are so many resources and people to help you.</p>