Skip to main content

Three ways of looking at graduation rates, 2020

 A lot has been made of graduation rates at America's colleges and universities.  Some point to what they see as rates that are too low, while others think that high graduation rates are a testament to something happening inside the college.

And I, of course, think graduation rates are mostly inputs, rather than outputs.  If your admissions process simply takes the most capable children of wealthy, college-educated parents, it's almost a certainty your graduation rates will be higher.  If you take more risks in admitting students--either by mission or economic necessity--your graduation rates are going to be lower.

But there is still some interesting stuff in the IPEDS data.  A few caveats about this data:

First, I've started the views showing only traditional doctoral, master's and baccalaureate institutions.  Other types, which tend to be smaller, have noisier data.  You can look at them if you wish by using the Carnegie rollups, region, and control filters along the top.

Second, the four-, five- and six-year rates here are from consecutive years, not from the same cohort.  So it's technically possible that the four-year rate from 2016, for instance, could be a bit higher than the five-year rate from 2015.  But these numbers are largely stable over time, so the chances of that are probably slim.

Finally, on some of the displays, there are a lot of colleges that report grad rates of zero from some groups (a college in Alabama, for instance, might not enroll any Asian/Pacific Islander students in a given year, so there is no data to report.)  Because of that noise, I've changed the axis to start at 5%.  There could be some colleges that report 3% or 4% grad rates, but not many.  If so, you won't see them here.

If you find Higher Ed Data Stories useful in your work, you can support it by buying me a coffee. Just click here to do so, unless you're a high school counselor, or you work at a CBO that focuses on low-income students.  You should always use this resource free of guilt and cost. 

The views: The first view shows six-year graduation rates using rough approximations of student financial need. Notice, if you will, how the orange point is almost always lower on the scale than the purple point.  That shows the difference between Pell students and those who get no federal aid (which does not mean they're wealthy, of course).  Extrapolate from that as you might.  The pink point shows students with no Pell but Stafford loans, and the gold point shows the overall six-year grad rate for all students.

The second tab shows six-year rates by ethnicity.  It's a little messier than I like my visualizations to be, but there is a point there, too: Notice the spreads.  Use the highlight control to focus on a single ethnicity across all colleges, and the other filters to limit the colleges shown.  Sometimes the lesson is not in the details, but the 30,000 foot view.  Ethnicity still matters in America, despite what some people would tell you.

Finally, a different view on the third tab.  Note that it does not show the actual graduation rates.  There's a reason for that.  The premise on this visualization is simple: That when a student enrolls at a college, it's very likely that they plan to graduate from that college.  So if they do, what's the chance they'll graduate in four or five years?  This uses the universe of six-year graduates as the denominator, and the four- and five-year rates as numerator.   The two data points on the left side show the chance that a student graduates in four; the line on the right shows the gap between the two.

As always, let me know what you see here.  I'm always eager to hear your thoughts.  And follow me on Twitter if you want to see these new posts while they're fresh. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Educational Attainment and the Presidential Elections

I've been fascinated for a while by the connection between political leanings and education: The correlation is so strong that I once suggested that perhaps Republicans were so anti-education because, in general, places with a higher percentage of bachelor's degree recipients were more likely to vote for Democrats. The 2024 presidential election puzzled a lot of us in higher education, and perhaps these charts will show you why: We work and probably hang around mostly people with college degrees (or higher).  Our perception is limited. With the 2024 election data just out , I thought I'd take a look at the last three elections and see if the pattern I noticed in 2016 and 2020 held.  Spoiler: It did, mostly. Before you dive into this, a couple of tips: Alaska's data is always reported in a funky way, so just ignore it here.  It's a small state (in population, that is) and it's very red.  It doesn't change the overall trends even if I could figure out how to c...

First-year student (freshman) migration, 2022

A new approach to freshman migration, which is always a popular post on Higher Ed Data Stories. If you're a regular reader, you can go right to the visualization and start interacting with it.  And I can't stress enough: You need to use the controls and click away to get the most from these visualizations. If you're new, this post focuses on one of the most interesting data elements in IPEDS: The geographic origins of first-year (freshman) students over time.  My data set includes institutions in the 50 states and DC.  It includes four-year public and four-year, private not-for-profits that participate in Title IV programs; and it includes traditional institutions using the Carnegie classification (Doctoral, Masters, Baccalaureate, and Special Focus Schools in business, engineering, and art/design. Data from other institutions is noisy and often unreliable, or (in the case of colleges in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and other territories, often shows close to 100% of enro...

Changes in SAT Scores after Test-optional

One of the intended consequences of test-optional admission policies at some institutions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic was to raise test scores reported to US News and World Report.  It's rare that you would see a proponent of test-optional admission like me admit that, but to deny it would be foolish. Because I worked at DePaul, which was an early adopter of the approach (at least among large universities), I fielded a lot of calls from colleagues who were considering it, some of whom were explicit in their reasons for doing so.  One person I spoke to came right out at the start of the call: She was only calling, she said, because her provost wanted to know how much they could raise scores if they went test-optional. If I sensed or heard that motivation, I advised people against it.  In those days, the vast majority of students took standardized admission tests like the SAT or ACT, but the percentage of students applying without tests was still relatively small; the ne...