Skip to main content

Graduation Rates by Selectivity: Freshmen, 2007

This is the second part of my visualization of graduation rates from NCES. Part I is right below this one, or if  you want, you can click here to open it in a new window.

People in higher ed, and especially in government, talk a lot about graduation rates, and the presumption is this: That graduation rates are something we credit or blame on the colleges; that is, something a particular college does determines whether or not its graduation rate is high.  If Princeton stopped caring, presumably, its graduation rate would collapse.

Well, maybe.  Probably not, though.

We can see that a single factor, such as percentage of students in the freshman class with Pell, or the mean SAT score, can predict with some precision the graduation rate of a college or university.  If you don't believe me, see for yourself.

There is some variation in rates of colleges with similar profiles, of course, and people believe--correctly, or incorrectly, I'm not sure--that this is the important difference, or the value added by the particular college.  Maybe, but given the percentage of variance explained by single variables, I'm willing to guess other pre-college characteristics explain a lot of that unexplained variance.  Even as dull an instrument as US News and World Report realized years ago that having more Pell students lowered your graduation rate, all other things being equal.

Which leads us to this: The entering freshman class of 2007, and their six-year graduation rate, broken out by gender, ethnicity, and the selectivity of the college. You can see the pattern: The more selective the school, the higher the graduation rate.

Consider this.  You are headmaster at a college where they only thing they teach is dunking a basketball.  At the end of the course of study, students are given a test: 100 attempts to dunk the basketball.  And your school has a dunk percentage of 74.3%, the highest in the nation, and far better than any other Dunking College in the US.  All the people in Tallsville, where you're located, are very proud of you, as you educate mostly local kids from Tallsville, named for the Tall family.

The next year, you get ten times as many applicants.  And, being a college that wants to turn out the best dunkers (it's in your strategic plan, of course), you are suddenly able to admit only the tallest applicants, with the biggest vertical jumps and the largest hands.  Using the same instructional tools you've always used, your dunking percentage skyrockets to 98.2%.  And next year, guess what happens to applications? And guess whom you select from that pool?

The nation's oldest and wealthiest colleges mostly had a head start of several hundred years on the rest of us. And in times when college was almost exclusively the bastion of wealthy, white men from the upper crust of society, they have long histories of turning out men who end up, not surprisingly, wealthy and white.

Their reputation ensures that their position in the market will be strong for as far as the eye can see, and will allow them to select only students who, albeit not always white, wealthy men anymore, are destined to graduate from college.  If you're a little less selective, you have a little less luxury of choice.  And so it goes.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with that.  But choosing a college because of its graduation rate is backwards: The college will select you based on your propensity to graduate. Ponder that.

Do you agree? Or not?  Either way, I'd love to hear from you.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Highly Rejective Colleges

If you're not following Akil Bello on Twitter, you should be.  His timeline is filled with great insights about standardized testing, and he takes great effort to point out racism (both subtle and not-so-subtle) in higher education, all while throwing in references to the Knicks and his daughter Enid, making the experience interesting, compelling, and sometimes, fun. Recently, he created the term " highly rejective colleges " as a more apt description for what are otherwise called "highly selective colleges."  As I've said before, a college that admits 15% of applicants really has a rejections office, not an admissions office.  The term appears to have taken off on Twitter, and I hope it will stick. So I took a look at the highly rejectives (really, that's all I'm going to call them from now on) and found some interesting patterns in the data. Take a look:  The 1,132 four-year, private colleges and universities with admissions data in IPEDS are incl

Freshman Migration, 1986 to 2020

(Note: I discovered that in IPEDS, Penn State Main Campus now reports with "The Pennsylvania State University" as one system.  So when you'd look at things over time, Penn State would have data until 2018, and then The Penn....etc would show up in 2020.  I found out Penn State main campus still reports its own data on the website, so I went there, and edited the IPEDS data by hand.  So if you noticed that error, it should be corrected now, but I'm not sure what I'll do in years going forward.) Freshman migration to and from the states is always a favorite visualization of mine, both because I find it a compelling and interesting topic, and because I had a few breakthroughs with calculated variables the first time I tried to do it. If you're a loyal reader, you know what this shows: The number of freshman and their movement between the states.  And if you're a loyal viewer and you use this for your work in your business, please consider supporting the costs

Yes, your yield rate is still falling, v 2020

I started doing this post on a regular basis several years ago, in response (if I recall) to a colleague talking about their Board of Trustees Chair insisting that "all we need to do" to bring enrollment back to its former level is to get the yield rate up.   That's the equivalent of saying all you need to do is straighten your drives and cut ten putts from each round, and you'll be a great golfer.  Moreover, it's based on the assumption that a falling yield rate is based on something you're doing or not doing.  The challenge is much larger, and a lot harder to address.  It's not a switch you flip. So we've got this: A look at applications, admits, and enrolls over the last twenty years, and three key ratios that are based on those numbers: Admit rate, or the percentage of applicants offered admission; yield rate, or the percentage of those offered admission who enroll; and the lesser-known draw rate, which is calculated by dividing the yield rate by t