Search News


Browse Archives

News

Similar Selectivity, Dissimilar Graduates

June 3, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Graduation rates vary dramatically among colleges and universities with similar levels of selectivity, a new report from the American Enterprise Institute reveals. And it’s calling out the underachievers and lauding the exemplars by name.

The report compiles the federal government’s six-year graduation rate for all the four-year undergraduate institutions in the United States and ranks them in subcategories based on their admissions selectivity. Aside from some brief analysis of the data provided, the highlight of the report is a series of top- and bottom-ten lists of institutional graduation rates among college and universities “that have similar admissions standards and admit students with similar track records and test scores."

Other education scholars have conducted similar research to the report just relesed by AEI. For example, Kevin Carey, research and policy manager of Education Sector, outlined comparable data in a column last year for Inside Higher Ed.

The six levels of selectivity cited in the report are those defined by Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges. The categories are noncompetitive, less competitive, competitive, very competitive, highly competitive and most competitive. A plurality of four-year students in the United States, nearly 42 percent, attend institutions that are considered competitive.

Percentage of Enrolled Students by Selectivity Category

Barron's Selectivity Noncompetitive Less Competitive Competitive Very Competitive Highly Competitive Most Competitive
Percent of Students 4% 8.8% 41.5% 24.9% 12.9% 7.9%

Student Right-to-Know graduation data was used with the caveat that it only represents “full-time, first-time, degree-seeking students.” Though this only equates to roughly a 25 percent of all full-time students enrolled in higher education in the United States, the report argues that it is the “only common metric available for comparing graduation rates across the nation’s array of institutions of higher learning.”

Also, recognizing that transfer students are counted as “non-graduates” by this metric, the report acknowledges that they are a “complication factor.” Still, it argues that “their impact ought not to be exaggerated,” given that differences in the relationship between transfer and graduation rates among institutions of similar level of selectivity were minimal.

“When two colleges that enroll similar students have a graduation rate gap of 20 or 30 percentage points or more, it is fair to ask why,” the report reads. “More important, students, parents, guidance counselors, and taxpayers (who foot the bill for many student costs) all deserve to know which schools graduate most of their students and which graduate only a few.”

Average Six-Year Graduation Rate and Range By Selectivity Category

Barron's Selectivity Noncompetitive Less Competitive Competitive Very Competitive Highly Competitive Most Competitive
Graduation Rate 34.7% 39.6% 48.6% 62.3% 75.2% 87.8%

As expected, the average graduation rates of institutions within the six levels set by Barron’s increase as they move from less to more selective. The report, however, draws particular attention to the gaps within these groups.

“Take, for example, Heritage University and Walla Walla University, both in Washington,” the report reads. “On the surface, the schools look similar — both are noncompetitive, private master’s degree-granting colleges located in the same state. However, Walla Walla graduates 53 percent of its students, while Heritage graduates only 17 percent. Our analysis reveals that such substantial differences between similar schools are quite common.”

It should be noted, however, that Heritage is located on the Yakama Indian Reservation and primarily serves Native American and other minority students, many of whom may not have had the same college preparation as other students.

The most dramatic gaps come in the noncompetitive category. Southern University in New Orleans graduates 8 percent of its students in six years, while Arkansas Baptist College graduates 100 percent. Cutting the numbers another way, institutions ranked in the bottom third of graduation rates in the noncompetitive category have an average graduation rate of 20 percent, while institutions in the top third have a graduation rate of 52 percent. Outcomes of similar students, it appears from this data, can depend heavily upon institution.

The gap between the best and worst graduation rates remains severe through institutions considered very competitive, totaling greater than 77 percent in the bottom four levels. Among highly competitive institutions, the gap drops to 45 percent. Finally, in the most competitive, all graduation rates were above the national average of 60 percent, and none of the top ten institutions were below 94 percent.

Among other findings – institutions were further divided by geographical region – colleges and universities in the South had the lowest graduation rates in the report’s sample. Also, most historically black colleges and universities post graduation rates that are less than 50 percent. Most institutions of high Hispanic enrollment – or those with at least 25 percent Hispanic students – post similarly poor numbers. None of these Hispanic-serving institutions had a graduation rate greater than 60 percent. Many of the minority-serving colleges, of course, educate many students who are low-income and/or graduates of poor high schools, while many of the institutions with much higher ratings educate many more affluent students.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Similar Selectivity, Dissimilar Graduates

  • Why not associate financial aid with graduation rates?
  • Posted by Joe Beckmann , Consultant at K-12 schools, community organizations on June 3, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • How do we justify high rates of financial aid for tuition to those insitutions with low graduation rates? Why do we not link the interest rates, particularly to federally financed financial aid, to the graduation rates, and incent students to actually finish? incent colleges to support their admitted students through to graduation? and incent private investors to support more successful colleges? On the other hand, universities like Southern in New Orleans, serve both higher ed and other purposes, some social, some economic, and some cultural. Should not those institutions seek alternate funding for those non-educational missions? while we focus more concretely on higher ed outcomes for higher ed financing? And where, on the graduation rates scale, do the proprietary schools belong? Should we use public funds for private goals that exclude, or, rather, defer or diminish, academic outcomes? Why not a table or a chart denoting those institutions with the highest graduation rates (per selectivity level) contrasting with those with the highest default rates and those with the highest rates of reimbursement? Why do we never link outcome to public investment in higher ed? And why, finally, do we never assess the public outcomes against the tax exemption for some and the failure to graduate for others?

  • Garbage in. garbage out
  • Posted by Trace Urdan , Analyst at Signal Hill on June 3, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • I'm all in favor of naming names, but this report is irresponsible, as it relies on IPEDS data which is notoriously inaccurate and reports only on first-time college students. Therefore it completely misstates the effectiveness of institutions serving working adults that are returning to school. Most of the less competitive and non-competitive institutions are aimed at accepting students with continuing credits who are not measured. The government has no good way to track this data and yet they should given the growing trend of students attending multiple institutions before successfully completing their college career.

  • Success vs. Failure
  • Posted by James , Faculty at SCU on June 3, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • When the student succeeds, we attribute it to the University, the Faculty, the Program, the School, the Mission, and the rest of the institution.

    When the student fails, we blame the student.

  • Posted by Leo on June 3, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • Graduation is clearly a desired goal, but at what price? There is an unspoken assumption here that standards are applied equally at all institutions. The pressure to pass students, especially graduating seniors, is not uncommon. One question is how does the institution approach this issue?

  • Where is the Institutions Accountability
  • Posted by Mike on June 3, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • This is the typical article that cries wolf. It attempts to place the blame for a lack of institutional performance on the ills of society. It would be a great world if all students graduated from high school fully prepared to engage in the academic rigors for a college degree. Unfortunately, this is not possible.

    It is required of urban public universities to create a university infrastructure that is purposeful and directed to influence student academic achievement. This includes first rate summer orientation programs, developing an 8 semester academic plan for each student, consistent and professional academic advising and career counseling, class registration and class availability that keeps students on track for graduation, tutorial programs, early warning assistance for students in academic jeopardy, engaged faculty and an exectutive administrative team that is committed to improving retention and graduation.

    Performance measurement is the key to improvement. Data keeps the campus informed in real time of its progress. We often get confused on graduation rates and look to make excuses for low graduation rates as compared to national standards.

    Therefore, I would offer the following as measures of performance for the types of institutions referenced in this article.

    Student Progression for Full Time Students:
    The number of students completing 40% of degree requirements after 4 semesters; the number of students completing 60% of degree requirements after 6 semesters and the number of students completing 80% of degree requirements after 8 semesters.

    The above will provide the campus a real good indication of coruse enrollment, course pass rates and persistence towards degree.

    The success of any university is attainment of the degree. Universities prime function is to provide a knowledge based citizenry for its state economy.

    Likewise, universities can also measure the progression of part time students. The following might assist.

    Student Progression for Part Time Students:
    The number of students completing 24 hours of course requirements after 4 semesters; the number of students completing 36 hours of course requirements after 6 semesters and the number of students completing 48 hours of course requirements after 8 semesters.

    Similar to tracking full time student progression, the above would assist the campus to better express the campus perofrmance for the different classification of its student body.

  • Apples and onions?
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on June 3, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • What are we really comparing, easy diploma-mill degrees to challenging curricula?

    Why not send all college graduates through a series of GRE, GMAT, etc. post graduate exams?

    Let's focus on learning, not just degrees. What can these graduates do once out of college?

  • Posted by Faculty Person on June 4, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • Dr. F. Gump writes:

    Why not send all college graduates through a series of GRE, GMAT, etc. post graduate exams?Let's focus on learning, not just degrees. What can these graduates do once out of college?

    If we really want to know what graduates can do these standardized tests are not the way to do it. At least in my field Computer Science the GMAT is a series of multiple choice questions, cheap for the testing service to produce but our graduates need to be able to build software and systems not just answer multiple choice questions. I'm not sure what an appropriate test would be -- employment and graduate school admissions may be a reasonable measure.