Institutional Strategies. A New Three-Part Series

The discussion of why students leave campus takes us back to some theoretical underpinnings initially discussed by Spady (1970), Tinto (1975), and others. These researchers connected dropout with Durkheim’s theory of suicide, stating that when individuals are separated from the social fabric of society, they withdraw, and at worst, decide to sever the relationship completely. This theory is now used as the cornerstone of why students leave higher education and why we focus so much on the “social integration” of students on campus. Without this soft-touch social connection, students become isolated and begin to withdraw from campus. This is, in one respect, academic suicide.

In the 1980s, then-University of California-Berkeley researcher Uri Treisman (who was named “Scientist of the Year” by the Harvard Foundation on February 6, 2006) conducted a study to look at the differences of academic study habits of Asian and Black students. Treisman found that the Asian students were likely to study and socialize together. In effect, they formed their own social microcosm on the campus of an institution that was largely white and largely American. Conversely, Black students were “loners,” often studying alone and less likely to “integrate” themselves into a subgroup or into the institution. The Asians prospered; the Blacks suffered. The findings from Treisman’s study formed the basis for the Emerging Scholars Program (ESP), a program which provides students with an integrated supplementary program for learning. ESP is used on campuses across the United States.

Treisman’s work was truly important because it showed all that social systems on campus are uniquely and unequivocally connected to the academic progress and success of students. The two are inextricably connected, and campus officials must concern themselves with that reality. In my work, I’ve identified five areas that campuses should concern themselves with in the effort to support students. Each area is as important as the other, and often the dearth of resources in one area can undermine all progress. Thus, administrators must ensure that there is support across campus in these areas in order to support students.

1. Social and Academic Integration. As discussed above, the process of becoming socially integrated into the fabric of the university has also been found to be both a cumulative and compounding process, and the level of social integration within a given year of study is part of a cumulative experience that continues to build throughout one’s college experience. The establishment of peer relations and the development of role models and mentors have been defined in the literature as important factors in student integration, both academically and socially.
   
2. Academic Preparedness. Academic integration and preparation are primary features of many models of retention. Research shows that between 30 and 40 percent of all entering freshman are unprepared for college-level reading and writing and approximately 44 per-cent of all college students who complete a 2- or 4-year degree had enrolled in at least one remedial/developmental course in math, writing, or reading.
   
3. Campus Climate. While researchers agree that “institutional “fit” and campus integration are important to retaining college students to degree completion, campus climate mediates undergraduates’ academic and social experiences in college. Minority and low-income students inadequately prepared for non-academic challenges can experience culture shock. Lack of diversity, with regard to income and race/ethnicity, in the student population, faculty, staff, and curriculum often restrict the nature and quality of minority students’ interactions within and out of the classroom, threatening their academic performance and social experiences.
   
4. Commitment to Educational Goals and the Institution. Tinto (1993) hypothesized that commitment to occupational and educational goals and commitment to the institution in which one enrolls significantly influence college performance and persistence. The stronger the goal and institutional commitment the more likely the student will graduate. Research shows that congruence between student goals and institutional mission is mediated by academic and social components, and that increased integration into academic and social campus communities causes greater institutional commitment and student persistence.
   
5. Financial Aid. Attending college and persisting to degree completion is most often rewarded with higher annual and lifetime earnings. But for many low-income and minority students, enrollment and persistence decisions are driven by the availability of financial aid. In 1999-2000, 77 percent of financially dependent students from families with less than $20,000 in family income received some financial aid, with an average award of $6,727. In contrast, 44 percent of those from families with income of $100,000 or more received aid, with an average award of $7,838.

Low-income and minority students who receive grants generally are more likely to persist than those who receive loans. However, given the rising costs of attending college, it is unlikely that low-income students will be able to receive bachelor’s degrees without any loan aid. At the same time, the research also suggests that the shifts in aid from grants to loans and from need-based to merit-based programs adversely affects both enrollment and persistence for minority students. Reversing these shifts may be needed to increase college access and success for low-income and minority students.

Back to the top

A Framework for Student Retention

The importance of understanding the above discussion is knowing how to pull it together and what it means to the student in its entirety. I employ a simple graphic to illustrate the interaction of the student and the institution through the use of a triangle, where one side represents the cognitive attributes or skills that a student brings with him or her to campus; a second side which represents the student’s social attributes or skills; and a bottom side of the triangle which represents the level of support or, in a negative context, “interference,” that the institution applies to the mix. This framework is discussed in length under Retention 101 section of the studentretention.org website as well in the publication, Retaining Minority Students in Higher Education, under the publications section of EPI’s website (www.educationalpolicy.org).

Quickly stated, the cognitive, social, and institutional factors must be in some balance to support student success. When a student is deficient in cognitive skill, other factors must rise to make up for this deficiency. The same goes for social skills, and so on. The important knowledge gain here is that institutions must understand what each student brings with him or her in order to provide the appropriate support to ensure student success. If not, there is no guarantee that the institutional services are providing the right set of support to the right students.

This discussion is somewhat academic. Ultimately, we need to understand what the specific factors that influences a student’s decision to leave higher education. When I conduct workshops for campus officials, I typically ask participants to think back to their college days and what factors supported or detracted from their experience. the purpose here is two-fold. First, it puts the professional in a situation of a student, hence developing an opportunity for reflection. Second, it provides us with a rich discussion of what matters to students on campus. When we ask about the experiences that negatively impacted persistence and the college experience, responses include:

• Poor Relationships
• Bureaucratic Processes
• Isolation
• Connections
• Bias/Prejudice
• Sense of Failure
• Interaction
• Unsupportive Environment

The above list is a truncated version of our discussions, but you get the idea. Now compare this list with the “positive” list reported by these professionals:

• Positive interaction with a person or activity that boosted self-confidence. The “light” eventually came on
• Quality instructions, relationship with faculty, interactions, feeling of connectedness
• Relationships with faculty, advisors, peers
• Connecting with some group
• Academic growth
• Engaged, meaningful connections (personally, with peers or superiors, academically, etc.)
• Relationships with key people: instructors, students, administrators (US TOO)
• Encouragement
• Connecting with other students and/or faculty in and out of the classroom
• Interaction with outstanding faculty/staff

Notice that in both lists the issue of academics seems almost secondary, even though college is an academic pursuit. What you should notice is the importance of “connections” between students and their peers or to their instructors. This certainly underscores the “social integration” theory proposed by Spady and Tinto over a quarter century ago. Remember, this isn’t something pulled from research or even from students. It comes from people like you who have experienced these issues first hand and through their students.

As a campus professional, you should be asking what matters on your campus. What is it that your students need to succeed, and what are the major reasons that students leave? Do the items above resonate with you and your staff? What are you doing in these areas? Are your services getting to the students that actually need them? And perhaps most importantly, are your current services effective?

If you are not currently working closely with your institutional research staff, start now. Find out what makes your students tick. Conduct exit interviews, especially of students who leave, and actually use that information for strategic planning. This isn’t a “don’t ask--don’t tell” policy. Ask and tell. Otherwise, opportunities to improve campus services are squashed.

In Part II of our series next issue, we’ll discuss strategies for success in serving students.
Dr. Swail is the President of the Educational Policy Institute.

Throughout the series, we look forward to getting feedback from you about your experiences and how they related to our discussion. Feel free to email us at: info@educationalpolicy.org.

EPI SPONSORS

Back to the top