Personally, I am a fan of that “laboratories of democracy” thingy, and if NM residents are happy maintaining their public Unis in 50th place, I am not in position to judge. (As a resident and taxpayer of California, I focus my complaints of public Unis on the UC!)
At least UNM’s numbers are trending in the correct way. It’s not as if the college doesn’t realize that it should and could do better. (The attached article refers to math remediation/support.)
Many if they are like UMass Boston are community college alternatives and also have a high level of non traditional students who may not be attending full time and it takes longer. Does this list factor in transfers?
“Should this failure to graduate over 50% in 6 years be tolerated”
I do not know what you would do other than tolerate it.
One thing that almost seems too obvious would be to try to understand why students do not graduate within 6 years. It seems to me that there are probably a very wide range of reasons.
One reason might be that students transfer to a different university and graduate from there. Seeing on this list U.Mass Boston as less than 50% makes me wonder if some of their students transfer to U.Mass Amherst, U.Mass Lowell, or one of the many very good universities in Boston and graduate from a different school. I have long thought that we need to see “graduated from any university in six years” graduation rates rather than “graduated from this university in six years”. This might be particularly true for public schools that are not the top school in their state system.
Some students probably run out of money.
Some students probably never belonged in university in the first place. I have seen one case and heard of other cases of students signing up for classes and then not bothering to show up to their classes. The result is sort of inevitable. We may push too many students to attend university where they should have done something else after graduating high school.
Most universities will “take a chance” on many students. Some will work out well. Some will not. I know one person who was a terrible student in high school. A low ranked school took at chance on him and admitted him. He did exceptionally well and transferred to a “top 50 in the world” university, did exceptionally well, went on to get a PhD, and became a tenured professor at a university that would never have admitted him straight out of high school. However, for every student with this record there is at least one and probably multiple students who are equally bad in high school, go to university, and realize that they do not belong there.
I know a professor who teaches in a field where it is not obvious what one does for a living after graduation. He always tries to have a “what do you plan to do later” talk with his students. He is at a school which the children of farmers can afford to attend (not a private school in the US). He occasionally has a student reply “it does not matter whether I graduate – I have four years here then I work on my father’s farm until he retires then it is my farm”. They are enjoying their four years in university. If they fail to graduate it is not a reflection on the university. It is just a sensible reaction to their intentions in life.
It seems to me as if someone could spend a lot of effort to figure out what the non-graduates are doing, and why they did not graduate. I would like to see the detailed information before I have a strong opinion regarding whether any of these universities are doing anything wrong.
Graduation rates are mostly tied to selection effects – basically the academic strength and financial resources of the incoming students.
Obviously, a college that “gives everyone a chance” including those with weaker admission credentials and/or less financial resources will have a higher non-graduation rate.
There are treatment effects that a college can apply to raise graduation rates, such as offering better financial aid (but that can be expensive). Colleges can also raise their graduation rates by trying to attract academically stronger students from wealthier families, while discouraging those from poorer families with obviously bad (rather than just marginal) financial aid offers. But is the latter really what people here want colleges to do?
This is a very good and interesting report. Thanks for sending the pointer.
I was surprised by the number of students who need to work more than 20 hours per week, and the number of students with dependent children. This is tough.
Well I will give the state on NM some credit , it seems to understand it’s states population and it trying to make it work for them, no credit given to LIU, they could not even be bothered to send in the numbers. Does NM have a strong cc system that may be able to help kids get up to spec for a four year college?
The Albuquerque Journal article shared by @bluebayou in post #20 above is helpful.
It points out that the national 6 year graduation rate for public institutions is about 59%, while it is about 60% for private institutions. Both New Mexico State University & the University of New Mexico are well below those rates at 47% & 49% respectively.
Although the University of New Mexico has shown improvement in its 4 year graduation rate by adding summer programs, it still lags far behind in both 4 year & 6 year graduation rates when compared to national averages.
The response in this thread is interesting. One poster has resorted to making false & unfounded accusations while trying to encourage a pity party. Understanding the reasons for poor performance should be the first step in rectifying the underlying issues, not as an excuse to accept the status quo.
I, for one, do not believe that race or ethnicity is the problem. A poor education system from K-12th grades is the primary issue as New Mexico typically ranks at or very near the bottom of K-12th grade education when compared to other states.
Poverty and low income is also a concern which is addressed through Pell grants, state lottery funded scholarships, and by tuition free summer remedial programs.
Clearly, the state of New Mexico has the brain power to address these issues in a more effective manner as the state ranks as the 17th highest for those ages 25 and older with advanced degrees beyond a bachelors degree.
In an effort to attract students within New Mexico, nationally & internationally, the University of New Mexico offers generous scholarships with modest qualification standards.
scholarships.unm.edu/scholarships/index.html
The Amigo Scholarship for non-residents requires an ACT score of 23 (SAT 1130) and a 3.5 GPA----OR----26ACT (1230 SAT) plus a 3.0 GPA.
As the country experiences difficult times economically, many will be seeking low cost options for higher education.
While admirable that the state of New Mexico offers almost free college to non-residents & residents with modest qualifying standards, the real issue may be in the state’s K-12th grade education system which has the highest drop-out rate in the country at approximately 29%.
Your fixation on the New Mexico schools is puzzling, as there are other schools with worse graduation rates.
But what do the schools that you do criticize have in common-high minority representation, and students who most likely are stretching every financial resource to attend.
And what schools do you tout-U Miss and LSU? Those two schools have some of the most unrepresentative student bodies, with minorities attending in numbers much less than the state population, whereas just about every school on your beloved list serves disadvantaged students.
So it’s clear that the New Mexico schools are attempting-like CUNY, UMASS-Boston, and several others on the list-to make college affordable for a large segment of their population. Your obsession with NM notwithstanding, why no umbrage about SIU-Carbondale?
No agenda–at least not what you imagine–other than to identify issues in an effort to search out possible solutions.
I, unlike some, believe that all regardless of race, ethnicity, income level or disability, deserve a quality education.
Some seem to want to use race as an excuse for poor performance justifying underperforming schools. I disagree. I believe all are capable and all are deserving of a high quality education leading to an undergraduate degree.
While some may want to engage in a pity party, I am looking to identify issues in a search for possible solutions.
P.S. Emotional responses, while somewhat understandable, are not helpful or justified.
“P.S. Emotional responses, while somewhat understandable, are not helpful or justified.”
Where would the continued use of the phrase “pity party” fall on that spectrum? Hmm…seems like an “emotional” response.
And your concerns are selective at best; why no complaining about SIU? Or CUNY, located in the richest city in the world? Or UMass-Boston, where you can’t walk down the street without bumping into a Phd(social distancing notwithstanding)?
An unthinking obeisance to lists of all kinds, especially in higher education, leads nowhere. There’s a factor that you apparently consider “emotional”-the fact that actual human beings attend these schools, and that some states have embraced a public policy to encourage attendance. And these human beings are fascinating, with myriad issues affecting their ability to successfully complete college-ranging from personal issues to financial issues. You ignore all of this-it’s too “emotional” no doubt.
Yes, real live human beings attempt to better themselves, attend college, find jobs, raise families…it’s called the Human Condition.
I have raised the issue of sub-50% six (6) year graduation rates of all 15 to 17 ranked National Universities which report 6 year graduation rates below 50%.
Maybe the University of New Mexico & New Mexico State University should receive acknowledgement for giving students a chance, but adhering to certain standards that result in low graduation rates.
If so, then Arizona State University & the University of Arizona deserve awards for admitting almost all applicants–85% & 84% respective admit rates–and graduating above the national average at 69% & 64% with respect to 6 year graduation rates.
They have somewhat lower Pell grant percentages (30% and 28%) than UNM and NMSU. But they also have the advantage that Arizona’s population is highly concentrated, with about 80% of the state population living within commuting range of ASU or UA, so that more of those with limited financial means can attend while living where they lived before. For New Mexico, about 45% of the state population lives within commuting range of UNM and NMSU, so accessibility to those universities by students with more limited financial means is more difficult.
Regarding Auburn and Alabama that you compared favorably to UNM and NMSU in reply #8…
Note that Auburn and Alabama’s net price calculators show an unaffordable net price for low income students who do not earn enough the merit scholarships, unless perhaps they already live locally.
While their baseline admission standards are fairly low, it looks like their discounting policy emphasizing merit scholarships but with little need-based aid beyond federal aid have had the not-surprising effect of skewing the students toward those who are either from wealthier families or who have much higher academic credentials than usually found in the state of Alabama (particularly among low income Alabama residents, or black Alabama residents who are being resegregated into inferior K-12 schools). In other words, the state’s two flagship universities improve their graduation rates simply by avoiding “giving everyone a chance” and excluding those from lower income families who are not at the top end of academic credentials (i.e. those with the most challenges in school and the highest risk of non-graduation, especially if the school does not make a greater (and potentially expensive with financial aid) effort to help them stay on track).
Do you want New Mexico’s flagship universities to do the same to raise their graduation rates?