ADVERTISEMENT

Big Ten APR scores

Rutgers85

Senior
Jul 5, 2014
1,577
2,239
113
Selected: Football
Big Ten Conference
2014

Sport School State Academic Year Multi-Year Rate
Football Indiana University, Bloomington IN 2013 - 2014 977
Football Michigan State University MI 2013 - 2014 973
Football Northwestern University IL 2013 - 2014 992
Football Pennsylvania State University PA 2013 - 2014 956
Football Purdue University IN 2013 - 2014 964
Football
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick NJ 2013 - 2014 980
Football The Ohio State University OH 2013 - 2014 973
Football University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign IL 2013 - 2014 973
Football University of Iowa IA 2013 - 2014 966
Football University of Maryland, College Park MD 2013 - 2014 973
Football University of Michigan MI 2013 - 2014 990
Football University of Minnesota, Twin Cities MN 2013 - 2014 975
Football University of Nebraska, Lincoln NE 2013 - 2014 985
Football University of Wisconsin, Madison WI 2013 - 2014 998

Best: Wisconsin
Worst: psu

 
Selected: Football
Big Ten Conference
2014

Sport School State Academic Year Multi-Year Rate
Football Indiana University, Bloomington IN 2013 - 2014 977
Football Michigan State University MI 2013 - 2014 973
Football Northwestern University IL 2013 - 2014 992
Football Pennsylvania State University PA 2013 - 2014 956
Football Purdue University IN 2013 - 2014 964
Football
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick NJ 2013 - 2014 980
Football The Ohio State University OH 2013 - 2014 973
Football University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign IL 2013 - 2014 973
Football University of Iowa IA 2013 - 2014 966
Football University of Maryland, College Park MD 2013 - 2014 973
Football University of Michigan MI 2013 - 2014 990
Football University of Minnesota, Twin Cities MN 2013 - 2014 975
Football University of Nebraska, Lincoln NE 2013 - 2014 985
Football University of Wisconsin, Madison WI 2013 - 2014 998

Best: Wisconsin
Worst: psu

In all fairness, aren't these ALL excellent APR scores, top to bottom? We should be proud of the company we share in the B1G.
 
That is pretty incredible for the B10.


The SEC has 5 schools below the lowest B10 rate. And 6 schools are below the second-lowest B10 rate.

The P12 has 5 schools below the lowest B10 rate. And 7 schools are below the second-lowest B10 rate.

The ACC has 2 schools below the lowest B10 rate. And 5 schools are below the second-lowest B10 rate.

The B12 has 6 schools below the lowest B10 rate. And 9 of their 10 schools are below the second-lowest B10 rate.
 
great job once again by our program and an excellent showing by the league as a whole.
 
Don't the transfers hit State Penn's rate pretty hard?

The transfers only hurt if the student-athlete isn't in good academic standing at the time of the transfer. If they are it doesn't count against the school. Neither does it when a player leaves early for the draft.
 
The transfers only hurt if the student-athlete isn't in good academic standing at the time of the transfer. If they are it doesn't count against the school. Neither does it when a player leaves early for the draft.

You are incorrect. Transfers do effect the APR score. During each regular semester of full time enrollment a student-athlete can earn a two points towards his/her team’s APR score. Each of the two factors (eligibility and retention) is worth 1 point. A student athlete will receive 1 point if, at the end of the semester, he/she is academically eligible to compete in the following regular academic term or has graduated. Additionally, a student-athlete can earn 1 point if he/she returns to the institution (retained) as a full-time student in the next regular academic term or graduates. So if a kid transfers with eligibility remaining and is academically eligible you lose 1 point. If they are ineligible you lose two points.

So if Penn State had 12 out of 85 guys transfer all in good academic standing. Even if every other player stays the max points they could earn is 158 out of 170. To calculate APR you take points earned divided by points possible and multiply that by 1000. So in this case that would mean Penn State at best could get an APR of 929.

The APR is just a formula the NCAA came up with to hide poor graduation rates. It has no correlation to the number of players actually graduating. It sounds a lot better saying Rutgers APR was 980 then saying the last class at Rutgers only 56% of them graduated and the four class average was only 62% graduation rate.
 
Last edited:
The APR is just a formula the NCAA came up with to hide poor graduation rates.

Without taking the time to address the rest of your post, this is a ludicrous statement. The graduation rate is an incredibly flawed metric when it comes to athletics, because it fails to account for students transferring or leaving early to turn pro.
 
Without taking the time to address the rest of your post, this is a ludicrous statement. The graduation rate is an incredibly flawed metric when it comes to athletics, because it fails to account for students transferring or leaving early to turn pro.

Very few turn pro before they graduate and that just an excuse for kid not graduating. This year there were 75 players who declared early to enter the NFL draft. That is less than 1% of the scholarship players in FBS. About 3% of college football players ever go pro. So is that really a big impact on grad rates? Secondly why should school get a pass for kids transferring? As a recruit picking the school do you want to know the chances of you leaving with a degree or chances of you leaving academically eligible? I would think you want to know with a degree because leaving while eligible is worthless. Why not just publish the real data? Percentage that graduate, transfer, fail out or turn pro. Why hide it with calculations like APR or GSR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VA_Lion
Without taking the time to address the rest of your post, this is a ludicrous statement. The graduation rate is an incredibly flawed metric when it comes to athletics, because it fails to account for students transferring or leaving early to turn pro.


PSU_Nut's post was pretty much his opinion without a strong basis in fact.

Without getting into a discussion of whether the Federal Graduation Rate (FGR) metric is flawed or not, the measure is not very useful for taking corrective actions in college athletics. While the FGR may be useful for other purposes, it is not useful for the NCAA or schools to know when they need to take corrective actions. There are 2 major reasons for this:

1) The first issue, as you allude to, it the FGR does not differentiate between students who leave school because they failed out, and those who leave school for other reasons. If an athletic program has a large number of students who are failing, that is a serious academic issue that needs to be corrected. But if the students are passing their classes and leave to continue their degrees at a different institution, that is a less serious academic issue. A school can have a low FGR, due to transfers, but not have a serious academic issue. (Also, FGR only looks at students who enter as freshmen, so transfers-in are not counted. If a student transfers in as a sophomore, and fails out, that student is not counted in the FGR.)

This issue is addressed by the NCAA Graduation Success Rate (GSR). The does not count transfers-out as failures, as long as the student leaves in good academic standing. Plus the GSR includes transfers-in, so the school is accountable for ensuring that student does not fail academically. But the GSR, still isn't a good measure for corrective action because it doesn't address the second major issue.

2) Graduation rates (both FGR and GSR) are long lagging indicators. Graduation rates look at students who graduate in 6 years, which means that you need to wait 6 years plus the time to collect and report the data, before you can take corrective actions based on the data. The federal graduation rate data currently being reported is for students who entered as freshmen in Sept 2007. That is a long time ago. If a school looks at that data and takes corrective action today based on that data, then they would need to wait until 2022 to see if the corrective action had the desired impact.

APR was created to provide a more contemporaneous measure. The APR data reported this week is for students enrolled last spring. And while APR does not directly measure graduation, it measures the 2 key factors needed to graduate: successfully complete your courses and return to continue your education (or transfer to another university to continue your education). And since APR data is only about a year old, it allows schools to take corrective actions, and monitor those actions fairly quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ole Cabbagehead
Very few turn pro before they graduate and that just an excuse for kid not graduating. This year there were 75 players who declared early to enter the NFL draft. That is less than 1% of the scholarship players in FBS. About 3% of college football players ever go pro. So is that really a big impact on grad rates? Secondly why should school get a pass for kids transferring? As a recruit picking the school do you want to know the chances of you leaving with a degree or chances of you leaving academically eligible? I would think you want to know with a degree because leaving while eligible is worthless. Why not just publish the real data? Percentage that graduate, transfer, fail out or turn pro. Why hide it with calculations like APR or GSR.

Schools should get a pass for a kid transferring, because it has no bearing on the school's ability to provide the necessary academic services. It is the kid's decision to leave the school in most instances, usually because they want playing time somewhere else. Why is leaving while eligible something that should reflect poorly on the school? I do agree that it would make sense for the schools to publish actual numbers, but the only categories you really need are graduated, left while eligible to continue, and left ineligible to continue.

More importantly, none of what you said here supports (or has any bearing on) your original statement that APR was devised to hide poor graduation rates.
 
The Academic Progress Reports (APR), taking a look at classes from 2009-10 to 2013-14 have been released. Every Division I sports team calculates its APR each academic year based on the eligibility, retention and graduation of each scholarship student-athlete. Programs that score below 930 on their four-year rate, or 940 over the last two years, can be penalized in a variety of ways from practice restrictions to financial aid losses to coaching penalties to loss of postseason eligibility.

APR rankings of FBS Football Schools for the last year

1. Wisconsin - 998
2. Duke - 992
2. Northwestern - 992
4. Michigan - 990

5. Stanford - 987
6. Nebraska - 985
6. Utah State - 985
8. Clemson - 984
9. Vanderbilt - 983
10. Army - 981
10. Boise State - 981

12. Boston College - 980
12. Rutgers - 980
12. Air Force - 980
15. Alabama - 978
15. Georgia Tech - 978
15. Notre Dame - 978
18. Central Florida - 977
18. Indiana - 977
18. Louisville - 977
18. Virginia Tech - 977
18. Washington - 977

23. Kansas State - 976
23. Missouri - 976
25. Minnesota - 975
25. San Jose State - 975
25. UCLA - 975
25. South Carolina - 975
29. Navy - 974
29. Texas A&M - 974

31. Illinois - 973
31. Maryland - 973
31. Michigan State - 973

31. Middle Tennessee State - 973
31. Ohio State - 973
31. Rice - 973
31. Utah - 973
38. Tulane - 972
39. Florida - 971
39. Mississippi State - 971

41. North Texas - 970
41. Northern Illinois - 970
41. South Florida - 970
41. Toledo - 970
45. Louisiana-Monroe - 969
45. Temple - 969
47. Auburn - 968
47. Syracuse - 968
49. Miami (FL) - 967
49. Oregon - 967
49. Virginia - 967

52. Hawaii - 966
52. Iowa - 966
52. Miami (OH) - 966
55. Purdue - 964
55. San Diego State - 964
57. Oklahoma - 963
57. Pittsburgh - 963
59. Cincinnati - 962
59. Wake Forest - 962

61. Arizona - 961
61. Bowling Green - 961
61. Georgia - 961
61. Texas-San Antonio - 961
65. Appalachian State - 960
65. Baylor - 960
65. Connecticut - 960
65. North Carolina State - 960
65. Wyoming - 960
70. Marshall - 959

71. Ball State - 958
71. Texas - 958
71. Texas State - 958
74. Colorado - 957
75. Penn State - 956
76. Florida State - 955
76. Ohio - 955
76. Western Michigan - 955
79. Texas-El Paso - 954
80. Louisiana-Lafayette - 953

81. Brigham Young - 952
82. Arkansas State - 951
82. Iowa State - 951
82. Memphis - 951
82. Old Dominion - 951
82. Washington State - 951
87. East Carolina - 950
88. Arizona State - 949
88. Central Michigan - 949
88. Fresno State - 949
88. Southern Mississippi - 949

92. Buffalo - 948
92. USC - 948
94. Akron - 947
94. LSU - 947
94. Mississippi - 947
94. Southern Methodist - 947
94. Western Kentucky - 947
99. Oregon State - 946
100. Kansas - 945
100. Kent State - 945
100. Kentucky - 945
100. New Mexico - 945
100. Tennessee - 945

105. Colorado State - 944
106. Alabama-Birmingham - 943
106. Charlotte - 943
106. Florida Atlantic - 943
106. Nevada - 943
106. Georgia Southern - 943
106. South Alabama - 943

112. Eastern Michigan - 942
112. West Virginia - 942
114. California - 941
114. Houston - 941
114. Louisiana Tech - 941
114. Tulsa - 941
118. Georgia State - 940
119. Arkansas - 938
120. Massachusetts - 937
120. North Carolina - 937
120. Troy - 937
120. UNLV - 937

124. Texas Christian - 936
124. Texas Tech - 936
126. Oklahoma State - 934
127. Florida International - 933
128. New Mexico State - 931
129. Idaho - 896
 
What school was number 1?

University of Wisconsin in the Big Ten with 998 and also nation wide for all D1 FBS programs.

For all D1 including FCS:

Football Mercer University GA 2013 - 2014 1000
Football University of Wisconsin, Madison WI 2013 - 2014 998
Football Dartmouth College NH 2013 - 2014 998
 
On the flip side here are the worst:

Alcorn State, Florida A&M, Stetson and Central Arkansas are the only four teams that received postseason bans for the upcoming season. Alcorn State, Central Arkansas and Savannah State also face practice time restrictions, while Florida A&M faces that and other potential penalties including scholarship reductions, coach-specific punishment and contest restrictions.

To avoid a potential postseason ban, teams must achieve a multi-year APR score of at least 930. The power-conference programs with the least margin for error are Texas Tech (935), TCU (937), Mississippi State (938) and Washington State (938).

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab...-postseason-for-low-apr-scores-182807628.html
 
PSU_Nut's post was pretty much his opinion without a strong basis in fact.

Without getting into a discussion of whether the Federal Graduation Rate (FGR) metric is flawed or not, the measure is not very useful for taking corrective actions in college athletics. While the FGR may be useful for other purposes, it is not useful for the NCAA or schools to know when they need to take corrective actions. There are 2 major reasons for this:

1) The first issue, as you allude to, it the FGR does not differentiate between students who leave school because they failed out, and those who leave school for other reasons. If an athletic program has a large number of students who are failing, that is a serious academic issue that needs to be corrected. But if the students are passing their classes and leave to continue their degrees at a different institution, that is a less serious academic issue. A school can have a low FGR, due to transfers, but not have a serious academic issue. (Also, FGR only looks at students who enter as freshmen, so transfers-in are not counted. If a student transfers in as a sophomore, and fails out, that student is not counted in the FGR.)

This issue is addressed by the NCAA Graduation Success Rate (GSR). The does not count transfers-out as failures, as long as the student leaves in good academic standing. Plus the GSR includes transfers-in, so the school is accountable for ensuring that student does not fail academically. But the GSR, still isn't a good measure for corrective action because it doesn't address the second major issue.

2) Graduation rates (both FGR and GSR) are long lagging indicators. Graduation rates look at students who graduate in 6 years, which means that you need to wait 6 years plus the time to collect and report the data, before you can take corrective actions based on the data. The federal graduation rate data currently being reported is for students who entered as freshmen in Sept 2007. That is a long time ago. If a school looks at that data and takes corrective action today based on that data, then they would need to wait until 2022 to see if the corrective action had the desired impact.

APR was created to provide a more contemporaneous measure. The APR data reported this week is for students enrolled last spring. And while APR does not directly measure graduation, it measures the 2 key factors needed to graduate: successfully complete your courses and return to continue your education (or transfer to another university to continue your education). And since APR data is only about a year old, it allows schools to take corrective actions, and monitor those actions fairly quickly.

It depends on what perspective you are looking at it from. I am looking at it from the perspective that the primary focus should be to graduate athletes. Not lets pat ourselves on the back for just keeping them eligible and enrolled. I would rather have a high federal grad rate. Do you think schools need some NCAA derived formula to know if they are doing a good job. They should know it well before. If you are a recruit GSR and APR are useless because your goal is to graduate with a degree. Not just stay eligible.
 
It depends on what perspective you are looking at it from. I am looking at it from the perspective that the primary focus should be to graduate athletes. Not lets pat ourselves on the back for just keeping them eligible and enrolled. I would rather have a high federal grad rate. Do you think schools need some NCAA derived formula to know if they are doing a good job. They should know it well before. If you are a recruit GSR and APR are useless because your goal is to graduate with a degree. Not just stay eligible.

It also rewards outstanding academic achievement, not just remaining eligible.

There is no perfect system. Graduation rates are important, but it also matters what was the student's major. I don't believe any system takes into account whether the student-athlete is being educated and challenging himself in school versus just receiving a paper with a major with the easiest coursework.
 
My mind has changed over the years regarding the so called easy majors. It's true that some coursework isn't likely to get someone a professional job right after graduation, but let's look at most of the kids who take these classes.

We're not typically talking about guys with a strong academic background. They wouldn't likely be able to succeed in a calculus, physics, statistics, or an accounting class. If it wasn't for their sport they wouldn't be in college.

So if they don't go pro they are destined to start at least in an entry level hourly position, which was probably where they would have been without the scholarship. The difference is if they work hard and have the opportunity for a promotion or to,move into management, the piece of paper may either fulfill one of the requirements for the promotion, or at least give them a competitive advantage over others going for that position.
 
It also rewards outstanding academic achievement, not just remaining eligible.

There is no perfect system. Graduation rates are important, but it also matters what was the student's major. I don't believe any system takes into account whether the student-athlete is being educated and challenging himself in school versus just receiving a paper with a major with the easiest coursework.
It doesn't reward outstanding achievement. You get one point for being eligible and one point for staying in school or gradiating. That is it. To be eligible after your first year you must pass 12 credits. The no minimum gpa. To put in perspective how stupid the APR is a student who graduated with a 4.0 earns as many points (2) as a freshmen who passes 12 credits and finishes the first two semester with a 0.4 GPA.
 
It doesn't reward outstanding achievement. You get one point for being eligible and one point for staying in school or gradiating. That is it. To be eligible after your first year you must pass 12 credits. The no minimum gpa. To put in perspective how stupid the APR is a student who graduated with a 4.0 earns as many points (2) as a freshmen who passes 12 credits and finishes the first two semester with a 0.4 GPA.

Graduation rate doesn't differentiate between a student who graduates with a 0.4 GPA and a 4.0 GPA either.

GPA and graduation requirements are set by the schools (just like they are for all students). But NCAA rules on eligibility (needed to earn the APR point) require that a student be on track toward graduation within 5 years, completing 40% of the coursework required for a degree by their second year, 60% by their third year, and 80% by their fourth year. Additionally, their cumulative GPA must meet 90% of the institution's minimum GPA for graduation by the end of their second year, 95% by the end of their third year, and 100% by the end of their fourth year.

So for the first 4 years of a student-athletes' tenure, APR is stricter than Graduation Rate. APR requires you to complete a certain percentage of your coursework and maintain a certain GPA at each milestone during your first 4 years, while Graduation Rate doesn't care what you achieve during your first 4 years.

After your 4th year, for APR you need to have completed 80% of your degree requirements and maintain the minimum GPA, and either graduate or return to school. But after your eligibility expires, you don't need to graduate in your sixth year, because you are no longer counted. After your 4th year for graduation rate, you have 2 years to complete your degree requirements.

The nice thing about the Big Ten is that students get to maintain their scholarships after their athletic eligibility runs out. So having earned 80% of your degree requirements and maintained an acceptable GPA (as required for APR), money should not be a barrier preventing you from earning the remaining 20% of your degree requirements over the next 2 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VA_Lion
Top tier recruits will still want to play for Alabama,Ohio State and Florida State regardless of the APR ranking or any other metric.
 
It also rewards outstanding academic achievement, not just remaining eligible.

There is no perfect system. Graduation rates are important, but it also matters what was the student's major. I don't believe any system takes into account whether the student-athlete is being educated and challenging himself in school versus just receiving a paper with a major with the easiest coursework.

Sad but true...as recent athletic scandals at FSU and now the DECADES long academic fraud at UNC, numbers and even graduation rates can be "gamed" in the system...especially when powerful programs (football and/or basketball) will do almost anything to win.
 
Top tier recruits will still want to play for Alabama,Ohio State and Florida State regardless of the APR ranking or any other metric.

Sure...some (maybe a majority) of the actual few 4-5 star players might do that...but with 129 Div I-A Football Programs...let alone the 14 in the Big Ten...majority of their rosters are filled with very good (not great) football players...and most decisions are made on multiple different attributes...and for RU and others at/near the top of APR and/or grad rates...that's just another attribute in their favor.

While some 17 yr olds may not view this information as greatly important...remember one of the recruiting motto's: "Win the Mom, win the recruit."

Mom's opinion (sorry pops, more important in decision making for most recruits than Dad's), is extremely important in the recruiting process and some Mom's will use APR/Grad Rates in their final decision making too.
 
Last edited:
My mind has changed over the years regarding the so called easy majors. It's true that some coursework isn't likely to get someone a professional job right after graduation, but let's look at most of the kids who take these classes.

We're not typically talking about guys with a strong academic background. They wouldn't likely be able to succeed in a calculus, physics, statistics, or an accounting class. If it wasn't for their sport they wouldn't be in college.

So if they don't go pro they are destined to start at least in an entry level hourly position, which was probably where they would have been without the scholarship. The difference is if they work hard and have the opportunity for a promotion or to,move into management, the piece of paper may either fulfill one of the requirements for the promotion, or at least give them a competitive advantage over others going for that position.
 
The transfers only hurt if the student-athlete isn't in good academic standing at the time of the transfer. If they are it doesn't count against the school. Neither does it when a player leaves early for the draft.
That's not true. Any transfer who has under a 2.60 GPA will hurt their team's APR. That is why APR is BS. Why would you dock a team points when the student is eligible (at say a 2.50 GPA)? If that same student would have stayed at his original school, the APR score would not have been affected.
 
It looks like I didn't fully understand the implications of the APR. That being said, if a 2.6 GPA student athlete hurts the program's score, then It just leads me to not care about the APR score as long as my team isn't at risk of being penalized.

It goes back to good students will do well in school and poor ones won't. Coaches can't change that.
 
That's not true. Any transfer who has under a 2.60 GPA will hurt their team's APR. That is why APR is BS. Why would you dock a team points when the student is eligible (at say a 2.50 GPA)? If that same student would have stayed at his original school, the APR score would not have been affected.
You can earn 2 points per player. One point if the player is eligible and one point if the return the next semester or graduate. So if the player transfer out and is eligible you get 1 point. If they are in eligible and transfer you get 0 points.
 
That's not true. Any transfer who has under a 2.60 GPA will hurt their team's APR. That is why APR is BS. Why would you dock a team points when the student is eligible (at say a 2.50 GPA)? If that same student would have stayed at his original school, the APR score would not have been affected.

The higher minimum for transfers is to help ensure schools don't game the system by encouraging academic risks to transfer.
 
The higher minimum for transfers is to help ensure schools don't game the system by encouraging academic risks to transfer.
And that is stupid. If a kid is eligible and on track to graduate, they shouldn't count against the APR. All that rule does is make coaches have "the talk" with better students. In essence, the NCAA found a way to hurt the better students.
 
You can earn 2 points per player. One point if the player is eligible and one point if the return the next semester or graduate. So if the player transfer out and is eligible you get 1 point. If they are in eligible and transfer you get 0 points.
You are correct, however, if a transfer has a 2.6 GPA when they transfer, they get 2 points and not just one.
 
Not exactly. The school has to appeal on a individual case basis to the NCAA to not count the transfer.
They may need to appeal but it's not like the NCAA denies those. It is well known that 2.6 is the cut off.
 
You can't appeal if a student has less than 2.6 GPA. But it is not automatic with a greater than 2.6 GPA.
It's like a medical redshirt. It's not automatic but if you you meet the criteria it's very, very likely to be granted. The NCAA generally doesn't deny those.
 
It's like a medical redshirt. It's not automatic but if you you meet the criteria it's very, very likely to be granted. The NCAA generally doesn't deny those.

Yes. But the criteria are more than just having a 2.6 GPA.You have to meet all eligibility requirements from the school you are leaving, immediately start classes the following semester at another 4 year institution, and maintain eligibility at your new institution (including required credits to be on-track to graduate at the new institution), in addition to having the 2.6 GPA. Not tough criteria, but essentially a requirement that transferring won't impede your ability to earn your degree within 5 years.
 
Yes. But the criteria are more than just having a 2.6 GPA.You have to meet all eligibility requirements from the school you are leaving, immediately start classes the following semester at another 4 year institution, and maintain eligibility at your new institution (including required credits to be on-track to graduate at the new institution), in addition to having the 2.6 GPA. Not tough criteria, but essentially a requirement that transferring won't impede your ability to earn your degree within 5 years.
True but it's generally the GPA requirement that costs schools since these players all are ahead of schedule due to taking summer classes.
 
It looks like I didn't fully understand the implications of the APR. That being said, if a 2.6 GPA student athlete hurts the program's score, then It just leads me to not care about the APR score as long as my team isn't at risk of being penalized.

It goes back to good students will do well in school and poor ones won't. Coaches can't change that.

APR came about because too many schools with way too many athletes were placed in any classes (many times not even in a major track), just to have them eligible but without any shot at earning a degree.

APR has forced schools to put student athletes on a graduation track...and those with higher APR has been tied to much higher graduation rates.
 
ADVERTISEMENT