Posted on 06/05/2009 7:47:11 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Executive Summary
In the fall of 2001, nearly 1.2 million freshmen began college at a four-year institution of higher education somewhere in the United States. Nearly all of them expected to earn a bachelor's degree. As a rule, college students do not pack their belongings into the back of a minivan in early September wondering if they will get a diploma--only when.
For many students, however, that confidence was misplaced. At a time when college degrees are valuable--with employers paying a premium for college graduates--fewer than 60 percent of new students graduated from four-year colleges within six years. At many institutions, graduation rates are far worse. Graduation rates may be of limited import to students attending the couple hundred elite, specialized institutions that dominate the popular imagination, but there are vast disparities--even among schools educating similar students--at the less selective institutions that educate the bulk of America's college students. At a time when President Barack Obama is proposing vast new investments to promote college attendance and completion, and has announced an intention to see the United States regain leadership in such tallies, these results take on heightened significance.
This report documents the dramatic variation in graduation rates across more than 1,300 of the nation's colleges and universities, even between those with similar admissions criteria and students. Using official U.S. Department of Education graduation rates, this report identifies the top and bottom performers among institutions that have similar levels of admissions selectivity, as reported in the widely used Barron's Profiles of American Colleges. Though completion rates increase as one moves up the selectivity scale, we show that within each category of selectivity, there are large differences between the schools that graduate most students and those that graduate few. While student motivation, intent, and ability matter greatly when it comes to college completion, our analysis suggests that the practices of higher education institutions matter, too.
The institutions covered in this report run the gamut from large, public research universities to small, private liberal arts colleges; from highly selective, world-famous institutions to regional, open admissions ones. America's college graduation rate crisis is not happening at the handful of institutions that admit only a few of their applicants and graduate most--it is happening at a large swath of institutions that admit many but graduate few.
We do not argue that high graduation rates are invariably a good sign or low graduation rates necessarily a bad one. After all, an easy way to pad graduation rates is to drop standards and hand a diploma to every student who walks through the door. And we do not want to suggest that modest differences in graduation rates should be overemphasized--that is why we focus on the extremes.
However, graduation rates as calculated here do convey important information--information that should be readily available to students selecting a school, parents investing in their child's education, and policymakers and taxpayers who finance student aid and public institutions. We believe that the graduation rate measure included here should be just the beginning of a deeper inquiry into college success--one driven by more accurate measures broadly defined: in future earnings, in acquiring knowledge, in workplace success, and ultimately in becoming the kind of citizens who can contribute to the stability and prosperity of our society. . . .
“Not everyone should go to college.”
Agreed— and if more colleges would acknowledge that fact by raising their admissions standards, it would improve education for all concerned. Those who are suited for college would enjoy a more challenging level of instruction, and those who aren’t would be able to use their time and money to further their own lives and careers.
Far too many students do not finish high school fully prepared for a traditional “4 year” college. These students end up having to take high school level remedial classes in college as a result.
The easiest way for colleges to do this would be to end the teaching of remedial classes. A prospective college student who is ill-prepared for college could then take the necessary remedial work at a community college for far less in tuition than a traditional school would charge.
“fewer than 60 percent of new students graduated from four-year colleges within six years.”
....some state legislatures are getting tired of that...if you don’t graduate in 6 years you have to pay out-of-state tuition for your next year...the goal is to cut out the “professional student” who hangs atound for years soaking up tax subsidised education and blocking the availability of admission for an incoming kid.
I believe it was Dr. Sowell who said that one of the major problems with affirmative action in colleges is that in order to boost numbers of minority students, the colleges will mismatch the students' skills to the colleges' requirements, thus making failure much more likely. The top colleges will take the top students and a lot of the middle students to make their numbers. The mid-range colleges will then have to take poor students to make their numbers. In the end you have twenty-two year olds with big college debt who have dropped out from Harvard instead of having degrees from places like Ohio State. Those students who had potential were sacrificed on the altar of affirmative action.
“These students end up having to take high school level remedial classes in college as a result.”
....my wife taught remedial English in junior college...only the juco now calls it “developmental” English....don’t want to hurt anybody’s self esteem don’cha know!
PS...if you can teach remedial Math or English you will have a job for life...in any part of the country you care to live....it’s the most secure job in academia.
Looking at the lists, race is not a factor. Money appears to be. If you pay enough, they’ll graduate you, whether you deserve it or not, seems to be one possible conclusion.
When I was in college signup for classes was governed based on how many credits you had completed. That is, the more credits you earned the sooner you could sign up for class. "Professional students," as they had the most earned credits, would always get first dibs at the expense of people who just wanted to graduate. I wonder if some colleges address this aspect of it too... I would imagine by making a rule that if you have 150 credits or more (the average bachelor's degree is about 135 to 140 credits) you go dead last to pick classes.
“The easiest way for colleges to do this would be to end the teaching of remedial classes.”
Well, the difficulty lies in drawing a line between remedial (realistically, high-school level) classes and introductory classes. I’ve taught first-year composition several times, and have learned to prepare for a pretty broad range of student abilities: some are already well-versed in serious research papers, and some don’t know how to put a sentence together. I don’t know what that range looks like in the official remedial English class, but I do know that it’s exceedingly rare for a student to get “demoted” to the lower class once they enroll in a regular section of composition.
“A prospective college student who is ill-prepared for college could then take the necessary remedial work at a community college for far less in tuition than a traditional school would charge.”
I don’t think the community colleges would go for that— a huge portion of their marketing is devoted to the idea that students can take equivalent courses at the CC and then transfer to the 4-year, rather than using CC as a warm-up. In fact, the only times I’ve heard of students using CC as preparation have been cases of dual enrollment, often involving homeschoolers (no surprise there). But in any case, I think it’s more efficient to increase difficulty at the 4-year level, which will have the free-market effect of weeding out students unable to handle the advanced material.
....I think your suggestion would be a good one...and btw, the local 4-year state school in our area has been told they’ll have to give back 6% of their budget....with the economy being what it is, something’s got to give.
I don't know about math, but while teaching remedial/introductory English may be secure, it's also about the most mind-numbing class on the planet. :-)
I know, and many others here do also, many VERY successful people who never went to college. I don't know of one, not one, lawyer that can fix his toilet, wire an outlet, or change his vehicle's motor own oil.
My wife has her doctorate and makes good money. I have 35 years of hands on experience and make just a little more.
BTW, has anyone every figured out how BO got his way paid through Harvard in four years? Or even how he got named the editor of the Harvard Law Review without writing anything?
The very fact that colleges all have “REMEDIAL whatever” classes is an open acknowledgement that the PUBLIC EDUCATION IS A ABJECT FAILURE. What has been successfully taught for generation after generation in public schools is now considered a “Hinderence” to the development of the child. Thus, we award a “diploma” to student who cannot read it and wish them luck in college. Right.
This, I believe is NOT a problem of the colleges making, but a problem they make WORSE by quietly putting poorly prepped students into REMEDIAL classes. Colleges, armed with their vile conceit at the top of the so-called education pyramid, are fully to carry their share of the blame in this failure. They should be screaming.
If the technical schools, turned out (ie)jet engine mechanics who’s failure rate was 40% of planes crashing, the outcry would be heard on the surface of the sun. Not so with the failure of the public school system and the silence from the colleges.
There is a fake drive to bring America’s education status to that of other countries. Hey, take a look at the high schools in those other countries, then look homeward.
Get the problem now???
I knew it was a racket when I was there. I’m not an idiot. It’s pretty obvious when someone is running a scam on you. To me a college degree means you stuck around long enough to blow thousands and jump through the hoops for them.
Just trying to get precise information for graduation requirements in a given major can be a nightmare. Then they change the requirements for that major every year!
That's where the money is going to be as the population ages. The smaller colleges are getting smart. It's the larger, "tony" big-name Universities who are stuck on their "image" and liberal dark-age philosophy.
Any discussion of higher education needs to start with the unspoken but basic factor: money.
Money is the driving force here, not education. Colleges are money makers, even those institutions that graduate only 6% of their students.
Colleges recruit kids who take out thousands of dollars in student loans. The schools get the money, regardless of whether the kids graduate.
I figured that out too. That's what get when you go for higher education later in life after saving the money to do it. The types of things they teach in there boggles the mind. Coming from the perspective of a life-experienced person, college is not school, it's a bizarre collective of liberal-think designed to confuse you.
Some professors are intimidated by older students because they know they won't buy the liberal BS they are ladling out to the young and impressionable. They have the life experience to know different.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.