“… Two new reports out this month describing who completes college and the warning signs for students at risk of dropping out paint a picture of a much different future than the one most parents imagine for their kids.” …
The actual report from National Student Clearinghouse is at https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/SignatureReport12.pdf
A lot of students drop out for financial reasons. Some parents won’t break down and give their kid that $150 for a textbook, etc. Some parents expect their kids to fully support themselves the minute they turn eighteen.
Some kids drop out to get married with the intention of going back, but never do.
Others get bored and don’t know what they want to do with their lives. I say get your degree, then figure out what you want to do with your life because more opportunities will open up with a degree than without one. Some kids get burned out.
Some students flunk out because their parents forced a major that was beyond their abilities.
Dave,
I don’t think that it does. The statistic for 6 year graduation for full time students starting at <20 yrs is >80% at 4 yr public colleges. Only 13% dropped out. That seems to be in-line with reasonable expectations. Part timers and those who start later drop out more.
It’s extremely important to research retention rates, 4 year graduation rates and 6 year graduation rates…when choosing a college. Often times, graduation rates are strongly impacted by the quality of counseling and student support services available.
All public schools are not created equal, as we discovered researching my daughter’s top choices 6 year graduation rate:
University of Michigan 91% graduation rate
Michigan State University 79% graduation rate
Central Michigan University 57% graduation rate
Western Michigan University 55% graduation rate
Most people think of Western and Central as decent schools. It was sobering to learn that almost half of students who start at those schools, never earn a degree.
My kiddo was accepted to all of these schools, and ultimately decided to go to University of Michigan. Knowing that 9 out of 10 kids finish with a degree…honestly did figure in to her decision.
I personally believe she would finish at any of these schools, but she liked the idea of better odds.
And truthfully, compared to my niece’s experience, who is going to Western, my daughter’s school is a lot more supportive and actively involved in making sure she’s on track, helping to advise, and providing terrific services for getting through the rough spots. (that seems to be our impression, anyway)
We’ve been really happy with UMich.
As someone who has gone to both MSU and U of M, I can compare the two. The difference isn’t in quality of counseling or anything like that… it is in finances. U of M has a wealthier student body and gives better financial aid. Almost no one leaves U of M because of cost. That is not the case at MSU. Plus, people are more likely to go part time to MSU than U of M because of finances.
By the way, not earning a degree in 4-6 years DOES NOT MEAN never earning a degree. Mr R’s best friend took 8 years to graduate from Western since he was juggling semesters in college with deployments to Afghanistan.
Doesn’t it stand to reason that a university with a lot of money has more resources for counseling and student services? And yes, U of M does give much better aid…which, again, improves your odds of finishing. So does good access to mental health services, good career/major advice, emergency loans, tutoring, etc. Support services matter and affect outcomes. Whether it’s extra aid, free tutoring as part of your aid package, or mental health support…those extras boost your odds of finishing. Plenty of kids at UMich are not wealthy. According to the most recently reported numbers, 70 percent of resident undergraduate and graduate students and 53 percent of non-resident students receive some form of aid at U-M.
I am not seeing an 80% 6 yr grad rate for traditional students at public schools anywhere in the article.
If MSU has a graduate rate of 79%, it is inconceivable that “The statistic for 6 year graduation for full time students starting at <20 yrs is >80% at 4 yr public colleges.”
The variations in graduation rate is largely determined by the variations in 1-year retention rate. At least at my school, the main focus is on retention rate.
To see this, note that a typical top 50 school has a retention rate of about 92% and graduation rate of 82%. A typical top 100 school has a retention rate of about 86% and a graduation rate of 70%. About half of variation of in graduation rate (12% = 82% - 70%) concentrates in the first year (6% = 92% - 86%), and the other half spreads over the later three to five years.
The variation in retention rate is less about financing because at least first semester’s payment is due and paid before students come in (financing has more to do with the other half of variations later on). The variation in retention rate, IMO, are largely due to (1) the fit between academic challenge and students’ ability, willingness, efforts, or readiness, whatever you call it, and (2) cultural shocks and lack/inability of student support.
For (1), it is largely determined by how deep the admission office needs to dig into the application pool. It is also determined by whether academic cirruculum is challenging enough for your best students; otherwise, they will transfer to a more challenging school.
For (2), first generation students often encounter the greatest amount of shocks among domestic students. Having said so, international students are usually having the most difficulties of being successful the first year, even when compared to first generation students. This is true not just at a typical state flagship university. It is also true at Berkeley and MIT.
For (2), the school can do a lot, but they are very costly. Many people underestimate how costly they can be. For example, to effectively guide most students to have a new, active social life, the design of dorms or residential college plays an important role. Many people criticize today’s dorms are too costly, as a result, the fees are too expensive. But this line of criticism fails to understand there is subtle tradeoff between the quality of environment and retention/graduation rate. Of course, lower ranked schools tend not to have enough resources to do enough.
@prof2dad From the above linked report:
So, they include students that transfer (MSU’s transfer rate is 13%), and CC transfer students (a significant % of MSU’s undergrads are CC transfer students).
Mary, no that logic doesn’t stand.
I’ve had emergency funding from both Michigan and MSU. MSU’s was actually way easier to get and it’s the fund that I donate to as an alum.
Mental health services pretty much suck at both.
Career counseling is pretty much on par but the students at U of M are much better connected through their families.
Tutoring I can’t speak to.
I can say though that MSU’s support for low income students is far and away better than Michigan’s. Probably because Michigan has a pathetically low number of low income students.
I’ve been extensively involved with students at both universities. The only difference I’ve really noticed is wealth. It’s truly that simple unfortunately…
There is also the belief among many that everyone should get a bachelor’s degree regardless of ability. Many students admitted to college simply do not have the ability and/or motivation to see it through to a degree.
Better financial aid in general helps a college’s graduation rate. However, your personal chance of graduation is affected by the net price the college offers to you specifically, not other students at the college.
Also, some students fail to complete college for academic reasons. Graduation rates are highly correlated with admission selectivity. However, your personal chance of graduation due to academic reasons is based on your personal academic ability and motivation, as opposed to that of the other students at the college.
4 year graduation rates correlate highly with income. I can’t stop and look up scholarly studies to quote at this point in my semester, but here are a few googles:
A telling study, not above, observes that something like 90 % of top socio-economic quartile freshmen graduate in 4 years. The bottom quartile is at highest risk, but stopping out does not mean dropping out except in the first semester. If a poor student doesn’t come back after their first semester of college, they are highly unlikely to return ever. I remember this one because sometimes I teach the TAs how to teach, and they teach vulnerable freshmen.
That said, I still track graduation rates in evaluating colleges.
IMO, 4 vs. 6 year graduation rates can be a little deceiving. My alma mater has a 97% freshman retention rate, a 6 year graduation rate of just over 91%. The 4 year graduation rate drops significantly to under 80%, but the 5 year graduation rate is about 89% with the vast majority graduating with just one extra term.
It would be interesting to see the statistical difference between those who go away to school vs. those who don’t. College is really the only time in your life where you are surrounded by people your own age with the same goals and aspirations. Yes, you may be pursuing different degrees and careers, but you’re all there because you know what you want to do or understand you are there to find your passion in the process of learning. I would think that those are away from home and fully immerse themselves would have a much higher graduation rate.
Of course there are many who can’t afford to do that, and those students are more likely to have to hold down a job and be subject to other distractions that may include friends and co-workers who are not in college pulling at you with other outside activities and interests, family issues, the car they need to commute breaking down, etc. It’s simply harder for these students to stay on track.
It would also be interesting to know how many students actually use counseling services, tutors, etc. and how that factors into graduation rates. Personally, I never used any and wonder how much these services plays a role in graduation rates.
There’s also the issue that people who take longer than 4 years to graduate, or those who transfer, are not counted in statistics. As an example…I graduated from Michigan, my D graduated from Wesleyan, and my S graduated from Columbia. Neither myself or my D are counted in our school’s numbers, though both of us graduated in four years. Nor are we counted by the schools we transferred from, which have to count us as non-graduates. My S started and finished at the same college, but because he took almost six years off, he’s not counted as graduated. My family’s experiences lead me to question these kinds of comparisons.
And to add to what @romanigypsyeyes said, schools with more lower income students are always going to have lower retention rates. Your (hypothetical; I have no way of knowing) not-lower-income student can breathe easy.
I have so much to say about this subject but I want to highlight this - I agree with the article as far as test scores are concerned. I do not believe for one minute that standardized tests are the greatest indicator of college readiness. They are simply one small piece of the puzzle. Many students with high SATs are simply not prepared for college life as well as other students who perhaps scored lower on standardized tests but maybe come from different high school environments where there is more of a focus on discipline, college-preparatory teaching style/testing techniques, higher expectations in terms of individual responsibility, etc. I can go on and on but many students cannot adapt to a college setting. They cannot effectively communicate, take notes, corroborate, lead class discussions, focus, adhere to instructions (HUGE ONE), reach out for assistance, comply with deadlines, properly outline materials, befriend fellow students, engage in community spirit, navigate a library…
"I can say though that MSU’s support for low income students is far and away better than Michigan’s. Probably because Michigan has a pathetically low number of low income students.
I’ve been extensively involved with students at both universities. The only difference I’ve really noticed is wealth. It’s truly that simple unfortunately."
These observations are completely in conflict with our experience with University of Michigan.
My family is lower middle class…my kid got in and LOVES it there.
My brother’s inlaw’s kid is extremely low income (disabled parents, one blind)…she got in and has a nearly full ride. Loves UMich.
One of my kid’s best friends is a young man from Detroit with a ton of talent and very little family income. He graduates this year, and has loved his experience.
Maybe times have changed since you’ve been involved with UMich?
My kiddo has had no problems finding friends who she has a lot of commonality with. Kids who sometimes shop thrift stores. Kids who watch their money and pack their lunches because the meal plans are expensive, kids who buy used books. Kids who work 14 hours a week on top of being full time students… to pay bills and buy basics. Kids who have to pool their money to buy a pizza as a rare treat once in a while.
14% of kids at UMich get Pell Grants which are designed to assist the lowest-income students
And there are plenty of other students with middle class backgrounds, like my kiddo.
Dude…if 14% of students at UMich get aid that is given to the lowest income students, and over 70% of all students get some form of aid…it’s NOT the super wealth dominated school you’re describing.
Are there super rich kids? Sure. And dirt poor ones.
By the way…MSU offered my kid almost nothing in aid, and UMich gives her grants, work study and a departmental scholarship worth $20K over four years. At MSU my kiddo would have graduated over $50K in debt. At UMich she’ll graduate with debt, but under $15K. So clearly it is not our experience that MSU gives better “support” to lower income families.
Not saying MSU isn’t a good school. But No, it couldn’t come close to offering what UMich has provided my kiddo…and PLENTY of other kids like her.