“US News saw no reason to exclude Gallaudet University from its ratings and rankings along with the other 398 National Universities and neither do I.”
And neither you, nor USNWR, offer anything about the list-i.e. how should it be used? What does it mean? Are there problems to be addressed? If so, what are they and how should they be addressed?
So, please, what does Gallaudet’s inclusion on the list mean, other than it is on a list that USNWR-and you-think is very important.
And who, exactly, made USNWR the final arbiters of anything? It’s clear that this list doesn’t address any of the difficult issues in education-such as disability, poverty, accessibility-and is instead just a meaningless list.
But you, and USNWR, are consistent, with a slavish devotion to vacuous lists which look impressive but ultimately mean little or nothing. Why six years and not five or seven? And what is the ultimate meaning of the list, which ignores numerous variable, other than the consistency of producing list after list?
To borrow a quote from Emerson:
““A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.”
Dude, you’re acting strange here. Many schools, many missions, not all facing in the same direction, so let it go. If you want to put an asterisk near the ones that don’t prioritize 6ry grad rates as highly as first gen opportunity then go ahead, but be clear with yourself that it’s your problem, not theirs.
If you’re not wealthy and looking for a shot at college in NYC or Detroit or rural NM, or you’re deaf and don’t feel high school left you ready for college yet, or the military has you sitting in AK for two years with nothing to do then these places are your choices and you think god they’re there. No casual commentor on an internet chat board should say a word to interfere with that.
EDIT: If anyone has ever said Don’t Be A Slave To USNWR Rankings then they should be just as quick to say Look The List Is Dumb Again and move on.
6 years is 150% of the nominal time for a bachelor’s degree; it seems to be the usual method for measuring whether someone is likely to complete the degree at all. That may be true in general, but perhaps not for some situations or schools.
CUNY- it educates immigrants, the children of immigrants, kids who grew up in homeless shelters (and are still living in shelters), etc. It serves graduates of the largest public school system in the country, with children who speak dozens and dozens of different languages at home-- many with parents who are illiterate even in their own native tongue. It is heavily commuter, and is designed for students who live at home and take public transportation to class. It maintains its commitment to accessible higher education- students who are disabled, or poor, have been incarcerated, come out of the foster care system without ever having been adopted, etc.
Until a few weeks ago when the economy tanked, it also enjoyed being located in NYC, where employment opportunities were abundant for students with “some college” on their resume. I know many young adults who took a “pause” on college while they worked, raised kids, intending to go back at some point (and many do).
It is easy to pick on a college whose mission it is to serve the disadvantaged and wonder why it’s grad rate isn’t higher. Me? I look at colleges with student bodies heavily slanted towards kids from privileged backgrounds and wonder why they aren’t graduating everyone in 6-8 years…
I know a number of OOS kids that have gone to UNM on the Amigo scholarship.
The Amigo scholarship (instate tuition for OOS students = <20K COA/year) lasts for 8 consecutive semesters - requires 15 credit hours (5 courses) per semester and a 3.0 GPA to retain.
A middle class student with good family support probably can finish at UNM or NMSU in four years.
For in state students, the NM lottery scholarship lasts for seven consecutive semesters, not eight. The student must enroll within 16 months of having graduated from HS. The student must complete 15 credits with a 2.5 GPA or better in the first semester to qualify for the lottery scholarship.
Once having obtained the scholarship, if the student drops below 15 credits, takes time off, drops below a 2.5, or registers late for classes, the scholarship goes away.
For poor students who have to work while attending school to support themselves or their families, losing this scholarship is likely. Dropping to part time status or taking time off to work, and then having to pay tuition due to loss of scholarship will extend time to graduation. Some will get discouraged and some will drop out.
Even with these limitations, NMSU and UNM rank #2 and #10 respectively as “leaders” (high research/high mobility) in this 2017 Brookings Institute study:
Back to NM, the state’s socioeconomics and demographics play a huge part in the grad rates. If you look at UNM, almost 1/2 of the students are latino, which is consistent with the state population. There is unfortunately widespread multi- generational poverty in this community. And public schools that rank consistently toward the bottom in the nation. Only 23% of the Latino population in the state has a college education, and many attending our state colleges are 1st gen.
And, while UNM, with which I’m most familiar, offers great OOS scholarships, over 80% are in-state residents. And, the requirements of the OOS scholarships are so low (23 ACT/3.5) that it’s not likely pulling in higher stat students, and then why would high stats kids want to attend when they can go to other schools with merit aid and more academic peers. Our own kids don’t want to attend UNM, despite the financial advantages, and the fact that kids coming from their school do great there.
As I mentioned earlier, UNM admin is constantly grappling with the issue of low grad rates (and grad rates have risen over the past 5yrs). They’ve considered raising standards, but that won’t work. They’ve instituted remedial math tracks to bring 1st years’ abilities up, and talked about similar programs in other areas, but $ is an issue. They have a summer start program for kids needing it, but the issue always comes back to a lack of funding. And, enrollment has been falling (maybe it will increase due to covid-19).
There is a good community college. (This is how small Alb is; there’s one CC, at least that I know about).
The thing is, UNM is not a bad institution. There are many great professors and programs. The former interim president and long time prof is now head of research at GT. The advising is fabulous. They have a good honors program. There’s lots of research going on. We have several labs in the vicinity and partnerships with them. Kids get internships. Yet, most high achieving kids who can afford to leave for college, even if to just go to our neighboring state schools (many go to ASU).
On this list, I see schools that have large numbers of non traditional students, commuter students, English language learners, true first gen, meaning 1st in family high school grad, high rates of Pell and although seldom considered, high rates of the SEOG.
I see schools that have students who are proud and grateful to be attending college, who might not care in the least about the USNWR because that magazine isn’t helping them get an education or a job. Some might not realize that they are at a nationally ranked college. They’re there because it’s their local school. There were no visits, agonizing over the ED application, getting chanced on here, accepted student sleepovers, all the privileged activities I see that are common on here.
This site has good advice but there is a high level of elitism.
Without a big analysis, I’m going to say that non traditional students, schools with high SEOG rates, and English language learners are going to have extended graduation rates. Many students have compelling obligations and challenges outside of their studies that make it difficult to graduate by someone’s arbitrary standard.
MWFan- if you include excessive computer gaming, obsession with online porn, online poker, and smoking weed all day as mental health issues, than I agree with you. Sadly, the children of the affluent have their own afflictions-- the only difference is that they’ve got parents who can swoop in and insist they take a medical leave so as not to “ruin” their transcript, vs. the children of the disadvantaged who are forced to accept the consequences whatever they may be.
Despite the tone of Publisher’s initial post, methinks he does raise a valuable question (particularly in light of all the call for college-for-all). Heck, even NM recognizes that it has an issue with graduation rates and is trying to address it.
The last few posts have suggested several legitimate reasons why a college may have a lower graduation rate, and all of those should be studied to see how a college might mitigate any roadblocks. Perhaps more classes at night? Or, classes ending before the bus/subway shuts down? More online course for greater flexibility for those with children? All kinds of things a college could do to support non-traditional and first gen students.
OTOH, if academic remediation is key reason for many to not graduate in 6 years, we should ask the question if we really doing a service to those students to admit them into a four-year University in the first place? Wouldn’t it make more sense for students to take English/Writing and basic college math at a junior college which has smaller classes and is less costly? Do we really need tenured PhD’s to teach what is essentially high school-level (honors) classes?
I’ve often raised this question in my own state of California. At some Cal States, nearly 100% of incoming first years require remediation in English and/or Math. Fortunately, the Cal States do offer many smaller classes, but still, that is a very expensive way to deliver remedial education. Perhaps better to take those remediation dollars from the Cal States and provide them to the community colleges where they’d go a lot further. (Note this is not so much about the grad rate of the 4-year but a question of where best to efficiently and effectively educate those who are weak in math and/or English/Writing.)
My initial post asked why are the graduation rates at these 15 universities so low.
I think that all students deserve better.
Wouldn’t it be better for those marginal students to receive better instruction in high school ?
Wouldn’t it be better if students facing challenges earned an associate’s degree rather than no degree at all ?
While there are many helpful responses offering insights into the challenges for both students & schools, there are also a couple of overly emotional responses which do not help address the problem. These are real life issues which need solutions to the identified issues.
The six (6) year graduation rates are gathered by the US Dept. of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics in an effort to assess how well schools are educating Americans.
An issue that has yet to be addressed is whether or not any of these 15 universities are “open enrollment” schools. If so, then the theme of offering an education to everyone & anyone helps to explain the sub-50% graduation rate.
But, some schools are selective. For example, the University of New Mexico accepted only 52% of all applicants–clearly, not an open-enrollment school. (5.283 applicants were rejected, while 5,629 were accepted = 52% accepted.) Many ranked National Universities have much higher rates of acceptance and also have significantly higher 6 year graduation rates.
Another example of a selective admissions school with a sub-50% six year graduation rate is the University of Missouri at Kansas City which accepts just 56% of all applicants. (3,602 accepted, while 2,776 were rejected = 56% admit rate.)
Another example is CUNY-City College which just accepts 38% of all applicants. (16,853 applicants were rejected, while 10,340 were accepted = 38% admit rate.)
The only school on the list of 15 National Universities with a sub-50% graduation rate that appears to offer open-enrollment-type admission is Mary Baldwin University in Virginia which accepted almost all applicants (6,365 accepted from 6,371 applicants).
I think that students facing challenges of completing a 4 year degree in 6 years should have the option to be awarded an associate’s degree after the completion of half of the credits required for a bachelor’s degree. This not only helps students facing difficulties by formally recognizing their accomplishment, but it may preserve the hours earned forever as opposed to losing credits since the student did not complete the bachelor’s degree requirements within a certain number of years from initial enrollment.
Awarding the Associates Degree is a very good idea for the reasons that you gave, Publisher. It could be that push to go a little bit farther since the stat is matriculated but not graduated within 6 years. How far into their studies are the students getting? If less than half way, this could be the impetus to get there. The next half may follow.
It’s easy to picture a senior with a few credits left to graduate in the 6th year but is that the case? Or is it after 6 years, you are a sophomore or a junior? Is that stat for 6 years of full time study or is year 1 counted and then students could be going part time , even though they will be counted under the return to school for a 2nd year stat.
Are students not completing their degree because they’re failing classes, the degrees have a strict progression regardless of major, that selective expensive LACs don’t have, and prereqs fill fast? Is the perceived value of the degree not there?
Even with pell, seog & other financial assistance, is it still unreasonably difficult to continue attending if you have children to raise, your parents can’t help you with a penny or you need to help your parents financially? Or all three. What does an EFC of zero look like when there is no money for school long term, year after year.
I see references to selectivity and it makes me wonder about the profiles of the applicants that were rejected more than the students who were accepted.
Admission rate does not tell the full story of admission selectivity. UNM’s CDS suggests that it admits students with HS GPA as low as 2.5 (15.90% of frosh had HS GPA between 2.50 and 2.99), and the 25th percentile ACT was 19. So its 52% admission rate likely came from a very academically weak applicant pool (yes, there is trouble in K-12 there…). UNM may be giving a lot of marginal students a chance, but there is some lower limit, either based on space available or based on the chance of success being too low, that they set.
It is rather unlikely that people would say that UNM’s 52% admission rate means that it is harder to get into than (for example) Texas A&M with its 61% admission rate or UIUC with its 62% admission rate.
@“Sapphire G” : Lots of great points in your above post #76. Sometimes despite financial aid programs, there is just not enough money when family responsibilities are taken into account. This is one reason why awarding Associate’s Degrees makes sense–because family obligations can and often do change. An associate Degree would make the college credits earned permanent as opposed to becoming invalid with the passage of time (a certain number of years that students credits remain valid toward earning a bachelor’s degree).
@ucbalumnus: Agree that quality of student matters and that we need to strengthen high school programs in order to prepare all students for college.
@“Sapphire G” : A point that needs to be emphasized from Sapphire G’s post # 76 above is just how precious (& scarce) any dollars spent toward higher education can be for non-traditional students with family responsibilities.
When it comes down to deciding between using dollars to feed & clothe one’s children versus buying gas to get to school or purchasing class materials, one’s family obligations come first.
Partially helpful in this area would be comparing percentage of students receiving Pell grants at any particular university.