http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Artic...ersities-with-the-Worst-Graduation-Rates.aspx Yes, I know it is over 3 months old. But I had not realized how low graduation rates were in the United States or how long it takes students to complete their education. When I went to Rutgers in the mid-70's, I think the general expectation was 4 years - in fact I knew several folks that were in a 5 year "master's" program. As to the individual schools, the first 10 are all minor campuses of larger schools, it was the over-all stats that shocked me. The 11th, sadly, is an HBCU that has had long term retention and graduation issues, as many of their students are quite underpriveledged.
My son goes to Georgia Tech, as most regular posters know by now. It is very unusual for students to graduate in 4 years. Current stats from the College Board is that 79% graduate within 6 years. Students are not referred to as freshman, sophomore, etc. They are referred to as first year, second year, and so on. Right now, my son is on track to graduate in 4 years, thanks in large part to the number of AP and UConn co-op classes he took in high school for which he received like college course credit at Tech. Really, that is the only way GT students can get their degrees in four years. The academics are extremely rigorous, particularly in the engineering and computer science programs. Tech students have to get a minimum of a C in courses required for their major, and my son had to take one course twice, but only one. He is a good student who fully applies himself, which in any college student makes a difference is success and graduating "on time" or giving up and deciding to drop out. Your college education is what you make of it, just like every thing else in life. The payback for the longer time to get a degree is that Georgia Tech graduates in the engineering and computer science disciplines are well regarded for the quality of the education they receive and are heavily recruited by some of the biggest names in business. There was a time in the not too distant past when The Walt Disney Company only recruited electrical and mechanical engineers from Georgia Tech. Not from MIT, not from Cal Tech. I heard this first hand during a first year parent orientation session for Tech's College of Computing from a former Disney electrical engineer. Presently my son has a guaranteed job offer with the software company he did his internship with this past summer. He could take it TODAY (yes, without graduating - but momma said an emphatic" NO" to that!). Microsoft is flying him out to their HQ sometime in the next month or so for a second interview. The first was for an internship for this past summer, this one for a post-graduation full time job. They are skipping over the on-campus interviews that are the normal process. They are recruiting him hard. This is in large part due to his choice of school, and not necessarily driven by his gpa. At 3.0 this is considered very good for Tech. Unfortunately, some companies are still drive by this number and not necessarily the quality of the student and their experience on prior internships (yes, Google, I am talking to you). Some of the "lesser" schools (in the link by the OP) who have the low graduation rates also have lower admission standards and lower tuition. As a result, they get the students that are not as academically motivated or "gifted" or may not have the financial means to afford a higher education. They may struggle to pass classes or be able to pay the tuition so opt to drop out and enter the working world without a degree. I think these rankings and stories cast an unfair light on those schools and the types of students that attend, who in all likelihood are doing the best they can but struggle in one way or another and opt out. Not everyone is cut out for college. These colleges certainly have a higher percentage of these types of students that deserve kudos for giving it a try anyway. It is unfair to cast the institution as "failing" to graduate students when some of those students were not well suited for success due to personal circumstances.
A college degree has become something that society has put a premium on. As if you cannot be considered successful if you don't have a degree. I think a lot of high schools do not do a good job of steering kids that have a low probability of collegiate success into vocational tech programs after graduation. There will always be a need for mechanics to fix cars, machinists to manufacture products, plumbers to keep the water flowing and back to sanitation systems, electricians to keep the power on, long distance truck drivers to get the products we buy from the manufacturers to the distribution centers and then to the stores where we buy them, etc. Somebody has to pick up our garbage in order to keep our living conditions clean and healthy. And I thank God for that. Some of those professions have higher earning potential than some college degrees. There is also severe shortages in available, trained workers in many of these vocations. Steering a kid who has struggled with academics into college rather than into an area where they are more likely to have success and find a vocation leads to such low graduation rates. But that is just my perspective.
This is a long-standing failure of our education system. We have turned universities into some kind of weird hybrid of their actual charter and vocational schools, and it doesn't work for a lot of people. The French system tracks students as "University track" and "vocational track" with the understanding that college isn't for everyone and that there are very important functions in society not requiring a classical education that a new generation needs to be trained to serve (and there's added benefit that your job can't be offshored- no one is going to fix your toilet or wire your house from India). I'd much prefer the French system to what we do have.
Next time you call a plumber to fix the toilet take a look at his bill. My guess is that he's making a lot more than the Duke educated waiters.
I agree completely. I spent 33 years in public education, 15 on the high school level. There are kids that are not immediately "college material" but their parents and guidance counselors don't see it. That is a major failure of our education system. College is not for everybody. In the high school I taught at, the number of graduates who survived their freshman year was just over 50 percent. And this is from an affluent community. Our second son, a Uconn grade in 4.5 years, saw over half of his freshman class disappear by the end of the first year. The trades are hurting for good people but we have become convinced as a society that a college education is a must for success. Our oldest son went to college after high school and was not successful at all. He wasn't ready and did not see the need. So off to work at age twenty. Flash ahead - he is 31, married, the father of two great boys, and has a successful career in sales. This spring he will finally graduate with a BA in business. There is no patented formula for success.
Interesting take. So the salary projections are 5 to 15 years into their careers? My son may be making more than the Dukies in his first year. And he "only" goes to Georgia Tech. You can make numbers do anything you want them to, if you set the criteria right.
I don't see this as a particularly big problem. By looking at the average SAT scores it is obvious these schools exist for students who are not the best. The acceptance rates also reflect this. But what these schools do is give a chance to kids who could not ordinarily get into college. The fact that many of them do not graduate is no surprise, but for the few who do it was a wonderful opportunity that they otherwise might have missed.
I agree with you, and the many responses to my original post. What I particularly was shocked by was the amount of 6 year and more college experiences. I had known that it had gradually gone from 4 to 5 years being typical, not six - and I admit I'm not 100% certain I understand why. I had to go spend hours in a computer lab - no laptops; had to take and decipher hand-written notes; a chem major I had hours of lab classes - but yet it didn't seem hard to get through in 4 years. I had all what are equivalent to "A" and "B" grades but for one "D" in a one semester lab that I sort of was bad about. What has changed?
As a University Prof, I always tried to emphasize life opportunity in addition to monetary limits/potential… as I see it, young people today have enough on their plate, w/o adult derision directed at future and present compensation issues. Duke, btw, is incredibly difficult to get into, and produces vast numbers of engineers and physicians, individuals who can build safe bridges for crotchety, and many times thankless, people to get to medical appts…we need to encourage, not depress our youth.
Cost for one. Lots of kids and families simply can't afford to go full time so they work and take less than a full time class load. Back in the late seventies, my parents could pay my way to a private college, no student or parent loans and I didn't have to work. Costs of higher education has far out paced the cost of living. Today my husband and I work full time and do not have the financial means to fully pay my son's way, despite the fact that proportionally we make far more than my parents did in their working years. Also, co-op programs are becoming very popular. Depending on the major and the school, doing a co-op extends your time to graduate by as much as a year and a half. Times are very different now.
It took me five years to graduate from college, but I only took four year's worth of courses. Took off one year to work to earn the tuition and room and board money. Question: does anyone know if that makes me a four year or a five year college student for the purpose of this discussion?
Yes, cost is a HUGE factor. At many of these schools financial aid is inadequate, and many either go part-time or have to drop out. In contrast, at schools in the Ivy League, Patriot League, or NESCAC, students either have wealthy parents or get very good need-based aid packages. Thus these schools have 95%+ of freshmen return for their second year and almost all of them graduate in four years - including the engineers and others in the toughest majors. This is why it's such a joke when the NCAA or its network stooges brag about how their "student-athletes" in football or basketball have a higher graduation rate than the student-body at large. It helps more than a little when the athletes have a 100% free ride, as opposed to the rest of the students who often don't have enough money to stay in school. (Also helps to have tutors for every course, an academic advisor, and, on many occasions, professors who will give a passing grade to athletes who have not earned one.)
One thing is more and more people going to college who are doing so simply because that is what one is expected to do when one graduates high school. They don't have a clear direction and it impacts their ability to complete a course of study in a timely fashion. I graduated five and half years after when I started because I took a year off and changed majors. Taking that year off was one of the better decisions I've ever made. When I came back, I knew what I wanted to do and kicked serious butt in the process. Before that, I was just going through the motions.
