Attrition Rates

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by YoungEconomist

I wasn't saying that those stats were accurate. I was setting up a hypothetical scenario between 2 programs. I guess I could have said this instead: "If the #1 program failed 75% of 1st year student, but the #15 program only failed 10%..."

If the #1 program failed 75% of its first year students, it wouldn't be the #1 program.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

If the #1 program failed 75% of its first year students, it wouldn't be the #1 program.

Not neccesarily. You could have a top program that has very high attrition rates.

[GymShorts]

Originally Posted by YoungEconomist

Not neccesarily. You could have a top program that has very high attrition rates.

I've never seen a single ranking that takes attrition into consideration. Most ranking take into account research output of the faculty, and sometimes placement, which means that yes it could happen. Now whether any of the top schools do actually a greater attrition problem than some of the lower schools is another question.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by GymShorts

I've never seen a single ranking that takes attrition into consideration. Most ranking take into account research output of the faculty, and sometimes placement, which means that yes it could happen. Now whether any of the top schools do actually a greater attrition problem than some of the lower schools is another question.

Exactly. I would also like to add that Chicago supposedly had very high attrition rates for years, and I believe they were generally in the top 3 during this period.

[argmax]

I will disagree here. Harry Lime is refering to the number 1 program. In general, at any time, the difference between the second and first program in economics is hardly observable. So if one has an attrition rate of 75%, it would´t be the number one program, because people would choose the other program. I am considering that both programs give the same amount of money, have similar faculty quality and all that.

[GymShorts]

Originally Posted by argmax

So if one has an attrition rate of 75%, it would´t be the number one program, because people would choose the other program.

Assume all of the high-quality applicants go to the number 2 program instead of the number 1 program because of attrition. This probably wouldn't change the ranking of the institution, because almost all rankings are based on faculty output. Indeed, a program with great faculty and horrible students could be ranked high; and a university with a relatively weaker faculty and stronger students could be ranked low.

You analysis is correct if and only if the ranking were based on the quality of students, and if students are willing to sacrifice rank for a school with lower attrition.

[YoungEconomist]

Originally Posted by GymShorts

Assume all of the high-quality applicants go to the number 2 program instead of the number 1 program because of attrition. This probably wouldn't change the ranking of the institution, because almost all rankings are based on faculty output. Indeed, a program with great faculty and horrible students could be ranked high; and a university with a relatively weaker faculty and stronger students could be ranked low.

You analysis is correct if and only if the ranking were based on the quality of students, and if students are willing to sacrifice rank for a school with lower attrition.

For the most part I agree.

I'm also saying that it'd be possible that to have a #1 program with very high attrition. Here's a hypothetical: program #1 fails 75% of their first year students, but the other 25% always go on to be professors at top 5 programs and are generally the top economists in their respective fields. In fact, most noble prize winners come from this program. The #2 program only fails 25% but their placements are much less spectacular. You better believe that many people would gamble and attend the #1 program if the rewards are great.

I realize it's somewhat of a rediculous scenario, but I'm just trying to point out that attrition rates and program quality can be fairly independent (I would even say there are many real examples of this among grad programs).

My original statement (many months ago) was that attrition rates could definitely play a role on where I choose to attend (assuming I'm lucky enough to be accepted to more than 1 program). Maybe I'm just more risk averse when it comes to this topic than many other TMers.

[argmax]

Originally Posted by GymShorts

Assume all of the high-quality applicants go to the number 2 program instead of the number 1 program because of attrition. This probably wouldn't change the ranking of the institution, because almost all rankings are based on faculty output. Indeed, a program with great faculty and horrible students could be ranked high; and a university with a relatively weaker faculty and stronger students could be ranked low.

You analysis is correct if and only if the ranking were based on the quality of students, and if students are willing to sacrifice rank for a school with lower attrition.

I agree that of the official rankings. But do not forget there are other subjective rankings, formed in places like this forums. Where quality of students does matter. We can also look at a more long term variable. The interaction between faculty and students could improve faculty quality also. So i think attrition rate can have some impact in real factors.

On the other hand high attrition rate can have some impact in relative placement If that attrition effect only leaves great people at that university, it will have few people but it is probably its placement/students will be better. But then attrition rate usually (not always) measure ability for exams and no for research.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by YoungEconomist

Not neccesarily. You could have a top program that has very high attrition rates.

I think I should have said, "If the #1 program failed 75% of its first year students, it doesn't deserve to be considered the #1 program."

If the #1 ranked program fails 3 out of every 4 students, from their own pick of the litter, they may as well close up shop and stick to research, in my opinion.

[econgirl11]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt it possible that high attrition rates also signal the rigor of the program?? I have heard from my own professors that MIT's PhD is probably the most rigorous one and that lots of students are unable to cope up with it.