Monthly Archives: September 2009

A colleague of mine sent me a link to this New York Times article, “Colleges Are Failing in Graduation Rates,” one where EMU is actually specifically mentioned. The article is in large part a book review ofCrossing the Finish Line by “William Bowen (an economist and former Princeton president) and Michael McPherson (an economist and former Macalester College president).” The argument, basically, is that American universities are failing because of horrible graduation rates.

Here’s the passage where EMU figures in:

About half of low-income students with a high school grade-point average of at least 3.5 and an SAT score of at least 1,200 do not attend the best college they could have. Many don’t even apply. Some apply but don’t enroll. “I was really astonished by the degree to which presumptively well-qualified students from poor families under-matched,” Mr. Bowen told me.

They could have been admitted to Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus (graduation rate: 88 percent, according to College Results Online) or Michigan State (74 percent), but they went, say, to Eastern Michigan (39 percent) or Western Michigan (54 percent). If they graduate, it would be hard to get upset about their choice. But large numbers do not. You can see that in the chart with this column.

In effect, well-off students — many of whom will graduate no matter where they go — attend the colleges that do the best job of producing graduates. These are the places where many students live on campus (which raises graduation rates) and graduation is the norm. Meanwhile, lower-income students — even when they are better qualified — often go to colleges that excel in producing dropouts.

I think there are a host of problems with this idea of graduation rates and this point about EMU vs. U of M, but I guess I’ll focus on three:

• There are a bunch of reasons why students who have a choice between EMU and U of M choose EMU, but this article ignores the difference in cost. U of M is a lot more expensive than the likes of EMU, WMU, and CMU. A lot more expensive. So, call me crazy, but it seems odd that Bowen and McPherson focus on graduation rates as if that figured into the decision of the typical entering first year student at all. It’s especially crazy since they are talking about students from low-income backgrounds.
• As anyone in Michigan knows, one of the main reasons why the graduation rates are so different between EMU, WMU, and U of M is because of the students they admit. Basically, U of M doesn’t admit any students who they don’t think can graduate; as I heard one suit-type say a number of years ago, given their admission standards, the real question is why U of M doesn’t graduate 100%. In contrast, EMU admits a lot of students who are at risk/on the margins. To put it in bank loan terms, U of M (and similarly competitive universities, including Bowen’s Princeton and McPherson’s Macalester) only takes folks with perfect credit scores; in contrast, EMU is willing to take folks with, well, less than perfect scores.
• It’s interesting the extent to which these things have changed over the years. My wife and I both went to college in the mid 1980s, and she tells the story of being at that classic orientation meeting where a dean said “look to your left, look to your right, and one of these people will not be here next year.” Or something like that. And when I was in college at the University of Iowa, I recall the perception back then (at least from students) was that Iowa was an easy enough place to get into but not as easy to graduate from. My point is this: it really wasn’t that long ago where the mark of “excellence” of a university in this country was measured in its “failure” rate. Or maybe a better way of putting it: if the graduation rate was really high, maybe that meant it was a really “easy” school.