University of Mississippi appears similar to the Alabama flagships in that its net price calculator shows no need-based aid other than Pell grant for a FAFSA_EFC = $0 Mississippi resident. So net price for such a student is clearly unaffordable, except maybe for those who happen to live in or near Oxford, MS (which is not that big a city), if the student does not earn merit scholarships for academic credentials much higher than typical in the state of Mississippi.
In other words, University of Mississippi avoids enrolling the higher-risk-of-non-completion students (lower SES students who are not at the top end of the academic credential range) that UNM evidently gives more of a chance to.
And this is what makes UNM and similar schools so much more respected among people who look beyond mere stats and have the overarching experience/knowledge to understand the why.
I think it is very admirable when a university allows more students a chance at attaining a college degree. These schools do so knowing that their graduation rates will be lower, and some people will denigrate the schools. Yet, some schools actually practice good will and don’t just talk about it.
Other schools seek to game the system by now allowing equal opportunity to all citizens of their respective states. IMO, that is despicable, not admirable.
Mathematically, that makes zero sense. Why count the make up of elderly in the state - or infants, for that matter – when analyzing those matriculating to college, age ~18, and the pool of matriculants, i.e., high school grads who are college-ready. States grow and evolve over time. Different population groups have different birth rates, and death rates.
To have a public Uni match the race/ethnicity of its high school grads would mean it has open enrollment. That’s great, if a state can afford it. But I believe Publisher has mentioned upthread that none of these colleges have open enrollment.
As an example, per ACT, ~10% of African Americans in LA are college ready, in comparison to ~50% of LA Asians and ~39% of whites. (Yes, of course, there is bias in standardized testing, but the magnitude of the difference is large and unfortunately, not improving. Back to a K12 issue.)
Your mathematical argument is risible, but your continued defense of the indefensible speaks volumes.
Because of pervasive racial discrimination, it is impossible to formulate complete statistics on a historic basis, as you well know.
But here’s a rock solid number for you: 1. Until 1964, that was the number of African Americans who were allowed to enroll at LSU. From the “History of LSU”, which is published by LSU:
“From 1950 until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, potential African American students had to file suit in federal court to show why they should be admitted. This ruling was expanded to allow undergraduates to enroll under similar conditions in 1953, but A.P. Tureaud, Jr. was the only African American undergraduate to enter LSU until the passage of the Civil Rights Act.” https://www.lib.lsu.edu/special/archives/historical-information
And with the current disparity in enrollment, LSU still does not approach, even remotely, the state population. And it is clear that for decades African Americans were systematically denied enrollment. Attempting to attach a mathematical model to that, in your words, “makes zero sense”.
Pardon me for directly addressing the big purple elephant in the room. All this dancing around is making me dizzy.
Each state is responsible for the education of all its K-12 students. Theoretically, if all things are equal all races would produce the same percentage of what you call “college ready” students, of top-percentage students, and of low-performing students. And theoretically, all public colleges in those states would have demographic percentages that match the percentages of their K-12 enrollments. Theoretically, we could allow for some fluctuation and figure on a +/- of 4%.
Some people might find it makes perfect sense that states that have historically been the last to accept, much less embrace, public school integration, are some of the states that have the most uneven population/enrollment percentages for demographics. Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Louisiana etc.
IMO, instead of lauding those schools for their graduation rates, they should be castigated for not equally extending the opportunity of education to all their respective high school graduates.
I could type a lot more, but I don’t know what good it would do to overtly bring race and SED to the surface in this discussion. But doing so would make the discussion more transparent and easier to follow for some readers.
To clarify the record: Another poster has written more than once that I like or recommend LSU.
To the best of my recollection, I have only recommended LSU’s law school for those who want to practice law in the state of Louisiana.
I recommend LSU’s law school for future Louisiana lawyers because Louisiana’s legal system is a Civil Code legal system (Napoleonic Code), not a “common law” legal system as are the other 49 states.
P.S. Civil Code legal systems exist in Louisiana, the Canadian province of Quebec & in the country of France.
With respect to state flagship schools and serving a state’s population, it seems clear that the University of Alabama and the University of Mississippi use merit scholarship awards to attract high achieving non-residents to their respective states in an effort to strengthen the state’s work force & economic base.
Both the University of New Mexico & New Mexico State University attempt to do the same, but both are far less successful than are Alabama & Mississippi. In the case of UNM, it may have been related to a lack of dorms adequate to create a vibrant community of on-campus resident students. Until very recently, the Univ. of New Mexico was regarded as a commuter school–and still may be–as only about 8% of students resided on campus. Recent efforts by UNM are trying to raise that percentage to 18%.
@bluebayou: makes a great point about college-ready students. This raises an issue concerning the level of responsibility of a state’s higher education system to correct deficiencies in its high school systems.
Important to remember that the University of New Mexico is a selective admissions school as it admits just slightly more than 50% of all applicants. And it is important to remember that the state of New Mexico has the highest high school drop-out rate in the country at about a shocking 29%.
The University of Missouri at Kansas City is also a selective school accepting 56% of all applicants and rejecting about 44%.
CUNY-City College only accepts about 38% of all applicants, yet does a poor job of producing college graduates as only 43% earn college degrees within 6 years of enrollment. Of course, various factors affect the 6 year graduation rate, but universities which accept over 80% and over 90% of all applicants have significantly higher 6 year graduation rates.
These schools need to serve their students better. If admitting single parents, then on-campus day care is important in order to retain students. If primarily a commuter school, then public transpotation & nearby available, affordable parking become concerns. If the product of a poor high school system, then remedial instruction is an important issue. In short, schools need to know the needs of their students in order to better serve them.
If you are going to walk back your repeated comments…“troubled”…not be “tolerated”…well, that’s a good thing.
Many of the posts on this thread have been nothing more than an exercise in privilege, and the selective criticism of the New Mexico schools is stark evidence of that.
Where’s the concern about SIU? or Mary Baldwin, for that matter? Instead, you singled out the NM schools, while the list is replete with many other state schools. Again, your agenda has been clear from the beginning.
Mary Baldwin admits over 99% of all applicants. As what is essentially an “open enrollment” school, overall graduation rates are likely to be, and have been, impacted. Mary Baldwin’s 6 year graduation rate is about 47%. Interesting to note is that 50% live on campus.
The concern about all of the 15 ranked National Universities is the sub-50% six (6) year graduation rate. ( Although @Simba9 has explained the primary factor affecting the graduation rate at the Univ. of Alaska-Fairbanks as due to military transfers.)
SIU admit rate is 72% and its 6 year graduation rate is under 50% at just 41% despite respectable 25% and 75% SAT scores of 1020 & 1300.
Again, the concern is sub-50% 6 year graduation rates. If this is acceptable to any 4 year university, then maybe taxpayer dollars would be better utilized if these schools became community colleges or junior colleges since they are failing at graduating their students with 4 year bachelor’s degrees.
You still do not seem to get that admission rates do not tell the full story of admission selectivity, since academic strength of applicant and admit pools varies widely.
UIUC and Texas A&M have admit rates over 60%, but no one here would believe that they are easier to get into generally than UNM or CUNY-CC with lower admit rates.
I understand, but I also believe that a selective school has a responsibilty to its students that is not met by a sub-50% six year graduation rate.
Iowa State admits over 90% and grauates 75% within 6 years.
The University of Kansas accepts over 90% and graduates 65%
ASU accepts about 85% with minimasl admissions standards and graduates about 70% within 6 years.
University of Arizona accepts 85% with minimal standards & graduates about 64% within 6 years.
University of Oregon accepts 83% and graduates 73% within 6 years.
University of Kentucky accepts 94% and graduates about two-thirds within 6 years.
Kansas State also accepts 94% & graduates 64% within 6 years.
I could list dozens more ranked National Universities with high admit rates which exceed the national average for 6 year graduation rates.
Every school has a story and every school has a mission. Some accomplish that mission–in fact, most do. But any selective school with a sub-50% six year graduation rate is failing at its basic mission of producing college graduates.
P.S. Excuses are problems that need to be addressed & resolved in order to better serve the students & taxpayers.
You still do not seem to understand that lower admission rate does not necessarily mean academically stronger students. Or you are ignoring that because it does not match your selective disdain of UNM.
Again: Not everyone is equally ready for college, not everyone has the resources to get through six years without interruption, not everyone can stay in one place for four or six years. If a state chooses to use a university to serve these communities rather than some other model you approve of it’s their choice. In fact it’s their obligation, and this is how they are approaching it. They needn’t explain themselves to you. Your definition of college has no bearing on anything they do. If anything you should call US News and let them know they’re not categorizing these schools to your satisfaction.
Note that the only one with incoming frosh as weak as (actually weaker than) New Mexico in HS GPA is Arizona, but its incoming frosh are less poor and have higher test scores (actually, Arizona seems to be a standout or outlier in graduation rates relative to incoming frosh characteristics compared to most others listed here).
New Mexico’s low admission rate is probably reflective of a much weaker (academically) applicant pool than at the others.
@publisher As mentioned upthread, the slow path to graduation is linked to poverty. Much of the student body cannot afford four uninterrupted years of full time schooling at UNM. They have to take time off or take less than a full load of classes in order to pay their tuition and living expenses. That extends the time to graduation.
It seems unfair to decide that the university is a failure because many of its students happen to be poor. The schools you list in #115 are all located in states that are more prosperous than NM.