Ten years ago this month, after the summer of American Pie and The Blair Witch Project, roughly 94,000 students arrived as first-time freshmen at 21 American flagship public universities. Four years later, 49 percent of those students had graduated from the institution where they began. Two years after that, an additional 28 percent had done so, for a total six-year graduation rate of 77 percent.
At less-selective public universities, the numbers are even worse. For one recent cohort, the six-year graduation rate at the University of Cincinnati was 46 percent, according to federal data. At the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, it was 51 percent.
All of those rates will need to improve—a lot—if the nation is going to come remotely close to the Obama administration's goal of restoring America's position as the country with the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.
In Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at America's Public Universities, released on Wednesday by Princeton University Press, three scholars dissect the experiences of the entering class of 1999 at those 21 flagship universities, along with the entire public-university systems of Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.
"Graduation rates are hugely consequential for what's going to happen to the country down the road," says William G. Bowen, a former president of Princeton University. Mr. Bowen wrote Crossing the Finish Line with Matthew M. Chingos, a graduate student in government at Harvard University, and Michael S. McPherson, president of the Spencer Foundation and a former president of Macalester College.
Among the book's central themes: Large disparities exist in graduation rates by gender, ethnicity, and family income, even after accounting for differences in standardized test scores and high-school preparation. That is not exactly news, but the book grounds those findings in an unusually rich set of data.
Imagine two students with, say, SAT scores of 1050 and B-minus high school grade-point averages. The only visible difference between them is social class: One of them comes from a family whose income is below the national median, and neither of his parents completed college. The other comes from a family with above-median income, and both of his parents completed college. At all but one of the universities studied in Crossing the Finish Line, the more-privileged student would have been significantly likelier—between 6 and 17 percentage points likelier, depending on the institution—to graduate within six years. (The exception was the State University of New York at Stony Brook, where the graduation rate for less-privileged students is slightly higher than the rate for their wealthier peers, after controlling for differences in high-school background.)
The gaps shaped by gender, race, and ethnicity are more complex. At the 21 flagship universities in the study, African-American women and Hispanic women did relatively well. Their six-year graduation rates (72 percent and 76 percent, respectively) were close to the rate for white men (75 percent). But African-American men and Hispanic men lagged far behind, with rates of 59 percent and 66 percent, respectively. Even after controlling for differences in test scores and high-school preparation, black male students' graduation rate was 5 percentage points behind that of white men.
"What we were struck by," Mr. Bowen says, "is just how pervasive and persistent and substantial these disparities are."
Money Matters, and So Do Grades
So what to make of all this? Mr. Bowen and his colleagues put forward two arguments that are likely to fuel debate for several years (much as Mr. Bowen did with his 1998 study of affirmative action, The Shape of the River, which he wrote with Derek Bok).
The first argument is that money matters. Some analysts have recently suggested that families are so eager for college educations that they will shrug off tuition increases, at least up to a point. But Mr. Bowen and his colleagues found that students from low-income families are quite sensitive to tuition levels, even at relatively inexpensive public universities. For students whose families are in the lowest income quartile, "our estimates imply that an increase in annual net price of $1,000 is associated with a decline of 3 percentage points in the six-year graduation rate and a decline of 4.5 percentage points in the four-year graduation rate," the authors write.
The second argument is that admissions offices should downplay the SAT and ACT, and instead lean heavily on students' high school grades, even if they come from weak school districts. High school grades, the authors found, are much stronger predictors of college completion than SAT or other "ability test" scores. (In an aside, the authors suggest that admissions offices should also start to put more weight on Advanced Placement test scores, which also seem to be strong predictors of college graduation.)
The Alchemy of Selective Colleges
The tuition and SAT debates are, of course, evergreens of education policy, and they might still be running long after everyone who reads this article is dead. But some of the most provocative sections of Crossing the Finish Line have to do with a third, less familiar debate: Why, exactly, are graduation rates stronger at selective colleges?
At first glance, the answer might seem obvious. Selective colleges bring in stronger students, so of course they're going to be more likely to graduate. But Crossing the Finish Line, like several other recent studies, finds that even after controlling for students' test scores and high-school preparation, the pattern persists. In general, the more-selective universities in this study had higher graduation rates for students of all backgrounds, including those who might have seemed on paper like poor prospects.
To return to our hypothetical student with a 1050 SAT score and a B-minus average: If that student wants to maximize his odds of completing college, he should enroll in the most-selective institution to which he has been admitted. He should not worry that his classmates there will be better prepared and that he'll be in over his head.
Critics of affirmative action often talk about "mismatch," in which unprepared students flunk out of highly selective colleges. But Mr. Bowen and his colleagues believe that the opposite problem—"undermatch"—is actually more prevalent. Students are more likely to graduate if they enroll at the most-selective college that will let them through the door.
The question is why. "The truth of the matter is that no one understands very well why graduation rates for comparable students are stronger at selective colleges," Mr. Bowen says. "The pattern is relentlessly consistent, but no one has a firm idea why it is the case."
One plausible hypothesis has to do with peer effects. If you're at a selective college surrounded by smart, ambitious kids, you're likely to apply yourself to your studies because that's the local norm. The classic examples here are small liberal-arts colleges. "If you go to a small college, you're part of a quote-unquote class, and everyone expects to graduate," Mr. Bowen says. "There's a lot of pressure to live up to that expectation. That's less true at a big complicated place."
The universities in this study were generally much larger than liberal-arts colleges, but Mr. Bowen and his colleagues found echoes of the same phenomena. All else equal, the universities in this study with a higher proportion of students in residence halls had higher graduation rates. "Honors colleges" within the 21 public flagships also had significantly higher graduation rates than the campuses as a whole.
The Value of Great Expectations
Could less-selective universities somehow bottle some of the selective colleges' intensity, and thereby improve their graduation rates? "Our broad finding," Mr. McPherson says, "is that institutions that create a higher expectation of student success have higher graduation rates. And that seems like something that should operate up and down the line, for anyone who goes to school."
Maybe so—but how to accomplish that remains an open question. One approach that is drawing favor is the creation of "learning communities" for all first-year students, a strategy that has been promoted by, among others, Vincent Tinto of Syracuse University.
This is not the only high-profile study of graduation rates that has emerged this year. Last week, Washington Monthly released a set of rankings that are based partly on whether a college's graduation rate is unusually high or low, given the number of Pell Grant recipients on campus. And in June the American Enterprise Institute released its own analysis of graduation rates at colleges of various selectivity levels.
All three of these studies concede that graduation rates aren't the final word in college accountability. It would be a disaster, Mr. Bowen says, if colleges responded to government pressure to boost their graduation rates by handing out diplomas like candy. A full accountability system should also include measures of student learning and attention to what happens to students in the labor market, Mr. Bowen says.
But at the same time, he says, policy makers need to pay more attention to graduation rates, and to the many kinds of waste that are involved when people start college but do not finish. College graduation, much more than college attendance alone, seems to transform adults' lives. In the entering class of 1999, for example, students were much more likely to complete college if their parents were college graduates. By contrast, having a parent who started college but did not finish had very little positive effect.
"That implies that the social benefits of crossing the finish line, of getting that degree, are really larger than what happens to that one person," Mr. Bowen says. "These are intergenerational benefits."
Comments
1. myemotan - September 09, 2009 at 08:05 am
AUTHENTIC EXPERIENCES OF STANDARDIZED DIFFERENCES DIFFER.
Unfortunately, large disparities STILL exist in graduation rates by gender, ethnicity, and family income mostly because PEOPLE EXPERIENCE THEIR GENDER, THEIR ETHNICITIES, THEIR FAMILY INCOMES, AND THEIR SOCIAL CLASSES ... NOT JUST AS GROUPS BUT MORE CRUCIALLY AS HUMAN INDIVIDUALS, and pedagogy that places premium on this subtle DIFFERENCE often makes a difference. Very small classes with close faculty interaction tend to be more productive, and schools with very low faculty-student ratios tend to have better graduation rates. (Dr. Okhamafe)
2. evbiii - September 09, 2009 at 08:21 am
I look forward to the day when we have a sophisticated analysis of the impact of co-curricular engagement on college graduation rates. Perhaps then we will have something 'original' to talk about.
3. intered - September 09, 2009 at 11:47 am
In higher education and elsewhere in life, there are many causes for observed failure in goal attainment, including causes related to the goal holder. In higher education, some causes are not amenable to intervention by the school and may lay beyond their reach or responsibility.
With the above acknowledged, some failures to graduate students arise directly from the school's way of doing business. Among these business practices are: (a) making the faculty rather than the student the customer, leading to needed courses not being available when students need them (the research did not address course scheduling as a proximate cause), (b) offering degrees that interest a few members of the faculty but for which there are few or no jobs; the external incoherence of these degrees is sensed by the student and translates into inaction, (c) maintaining financial incentives for the student and the instructor beyond target graduation dates (I believe taxpayers will eventually refuse to provide taxpayer subvention past a certain reasonable time to attain a degree), (d) the complete lack of a precision retention management system including metrics, role definitions, and business rules (we estimate that precision retention management systems can achieve at least a 15:1 financial ROI to say nothing of the mission and culture benefits), and (e) an institutional culture that fails to require responsible behavior from its employees; most instructors act responsibly but internal analyses will generally reveal that a large proportion of drops in an academic area are accounted for by a small proportion of instructors (they will tell you the cause traces to their academic rigor and high standards but the facts will reveal otherwise and the picture will be uninspiring).
Robert W. Tucker
President
InterEd, Inc.
4. 11167997 - September 09, 2009 at 04:06 pm
Who is Bowen kidding? No one walks away from a Princeton degree.
No one. This song has been sung to minority kids since "The Shape of the River": if you go to Harvard, you will have a good life; if you don't, you won't. Now ain't that just inspiring? This is just another in a long line of "the usual."---Zorch
5. 11272784 - September 09, 2009 at 06:16 pm
Many students are in college but are not prepared. Some don't even want to be there, but they want to get away from their parents. In many cases, those students end up enrolling years later in distance ed programs to earn a degree while they work - because they have achieved a level of maturity that enables them to succeed.
There are many reasons that students don't complete - and let's not lose sight of the fact that some of those reasons are in the student and can't be changed by anything we do.
6. mbelvadi - September 10, 2009 at 11:33 am
To 11167997: I walked away from a Harvard undergrad degree. Don't assume your stereotypes apply to other people's lives. And I walked away in good academic standing, and not for financial reasons either. I finished my education on the West Coast, and haven't regretted it, and yes, I do have a "good life". I normally don't debate with anecdotes, but in this case one counterexample seems sufficient to defeat the argument made in such absolute language.
7. mrmars - September 10, 2009 at 03:49 pm
Is it possible that the stated goal - to a large extent - is responsible for its own unattainability? The premiss that we need to have the highest college graduation rate on the planet (percentage-wise), IMHO, makes no sense. Far too many "students" come to college these days with little or no real motivation to learn what we feel we must teach them. So they drop out when the required effort exceeds what their ambitions and interest will allow. Or they muddle through with a transcript full of Cs and Ds and re-takes, then find that graduate schools and the world of work have little respect for their struggles, and end up in one of the many jobs that require a college degree, but for no good reason - underemployed, usually in an area outside of their major. So just how well has the pressure that society placed on these kids to go to college served them, or the society at large? Even those who do well often find furthering their career beyond the bachelors' degree a real struggle due to the intense competition for limited positions in graduate and professional schools, and/or find suitable employment after an MS or PH.D. degree to be illusive.
At the same time this is transpiring, needed technical expertise becomes ever more complex and sophisticated. How many of the kids who struggled through four years or dropped out, especially males, would have been better off directing their efforts and energy there? Does society really need technicians conversant with the details of mitosis or the works of Shakespeare?
One final point. I strongly suspect that the reason graduation rates are higher in private schools has something in common with the fact that they are lower in public schools -peer pressure. I'm sure this will elicit a howl from some of my colleagues in private schools who also are challenged by their under-motivated students (who according to what I've been told, also come with a healthy sense of entitlement due to the high cost of tuition). Be that as it may, excelling in a non-selective public school, I suspect, must feel like constantly swimming against the tide to those students who are determined to do well in spite of their peers. Flawed or not, this theory was my basis for encouraging both my daughters to attend private schools, even though they could have gone to the public college where I teach tuition-free. So far, it seems to have been a reasonable gamble - time will tell.
8. briefcase - September 10, 2009 at 10:50 pm
We have three children, now grown, and all three attended and graduated from state universities. All three were in the top ten percent of their high school graduating classes. One was salutatorian. Their high school classes ranged in size from 110 to 138.
When they enrolled in college classes, it seemed to me that the state university counselors did not sign our kids up for as many hours as they could handle. The stated reasons were: to keep their workload low so as not to traumatize them or the fact that there weren't enough sections of the class. To me, recommending a load of 12 or less semester hours to young people with obvious academic talent and motivation is a way to "sandbag" them into having to stay around for an extra semester, or year if need be, until they finally have the credits to graduate. Not offering enough sections of required courses is poor university management. These techniques, willful or not, make enrollments higher because of the longer stay required AND the extra tuition of that stay adds revenue to the university.
I took as many as 21 hours in one semester at the private college I attended to get my money's worth. I didn't have time for binge drinking or partying but I did make my way through college with excess hours at graduation and some elective classes I wouldn't have been able to explore if I had been "dumbed down" by an advisor. (I also managed the college print shop and held positions in student government)
I realize there are marginal students applying to college and they need to have loads they can handle but I know of other students, similarly talented and motivated as our kids, who were "counseled" into light loads. I suspect this practice is commmonplace.
There would be no way to document this action as a policy at any university, but where enrollment numbers and tuition revenue are tempting indicators of an institution's success; keeping talented students around for an additional year of their lives seems a selfish waste. The universities should move these kids along and count on their revenue coming back to the university in the form of donations by successful alumni and let them live their productive lives.
9. briefcase - September 10, 2009 at 10:51 pm
We have three children, now grown, and all three attended and graduated from state universities. All three were in the top ten percent of their high school graduating classes. One was salutatorian. Their high school classes ranged in size from 110 to 138.
When they enrolled in college classes, it seemed to me that the state university counselors did not sign our kids up for as many hours as they could handle. The stated reasons were: to keep their workload low so as not to traumatize them or the fact that there weren't enough sections of the class. To me, recommending a load of 12 or less semester hours to young people with obvious academic talent and motivation is a way to "sandbag" them into having to stay around for an extra semester, or year if need be, until they finally have the credits to graduate. Not offering enough sections of required courses is poor university management. These techniques, willful or not, make enrollments higher because of the longer stay required AND the extra tuition of that stay adds revenue to the university.
I took as many as 21 hours in one semester at the private college I attended to get my money's worth. I didn't have time for binge drinking or partying but I did make my way through college with excess hours at graduation and some elective classes I wouldn't have been able to explore if I had been "dumbed down" by an advisor. (I also managed the college print shop and held positions in student government)
I realize there are marginal students applying to college and they need to have loads they can handle but I know of other students, similarly talented and motivated as our kids, who were "counseled" into light loads. I suspect this practice is commmonplace.
There would be no way to document this action as a policy at any university, but where enrollment numbers and tuition revenue are tempting indicators of an institution's success; keeping talented students around for an additional year of their lives seems a selfish waste. The universities should move these kids along and count on their revenue coming back to the university in the form of donations by successful alumni and let them live their productive lives.
10. superdude - December 16, 2009 at 01:13 pm
I don't understand why our goal should be to have the highest proportion of college graduates. Frankly, I think we already have TOO HIGH a proportion. Higher education needs to be more selective, not less. It needs to be more difficult and rigorous. Drop out rates should be higher.
We've watered down a college degree in the US so much that students in many states are able to "earn" college credits while still in High School!