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

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

On Rankings, 1911, and Economic Mobility

If you're alive today, you have lived your whole life with college rankings.  Yes, even you.  You may not have knows you were living in the time of college rankings, but indeed, you have been, unless you were born before 1911 (or maybe earlier.)  If you're interested, you can read this Twitter thread from 2020 where I discuss them and include snippets of those 1911 rankings as well as those from 1957, written by Chesley Manly. You can read for yourself, or you can trust me, that in fact the rankings as we know them have been surprisingly consistent over time, and most people would have only minor quibbles with the ratings from 1911.  Perhaps that's because they have always tended to measure the same thing. But what if we did different rankings?  No, not like the Princeton Review where they make an attempt to measure best party school, or best cafeteria food, or worst social life.  Something more quantifiable and concrete, although still, admittedly, a hard thing to get rig

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