A 1975 research article by Vincent Tinto,“Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research,” spurred more than twenty-five years of dialogue on student retention and persistence in higher education. Though it has been attacked by some and revised by Tinto himself, his work has remained the dominant sociological theory of how students navigate through our postsecondary system.

More than a quarter century later, the issues of student retention and persistence are as pertinent as they were when Tinto first published his student integration model. In the 1970s and 1980s, public policy was focused primarily on access, with federal and state legislation aimed at reducing barriers to higher education. By the mid-1990s, the discus-sion moved from access to issues of choice, affordability, and persistence. Although gaining entry to college is still a dramatic accomplishment for some, persisting to degree is what really matters in the postcollege world. Unfulfilled academic goals often result in unfulfilled career realities: lower pay, less security, fewer opportunities, and dreams de-ferred—if not abandoned.

The issue of retention is a persistent problem in higher education. For the past 100 years, the institutional graduation rate has stubbornly held at the 50 percent mark: half of all stu-dents entering higher education fail to realize their dreams and aspirations based on earning a certificate or degree. As Tinto remarks, “The consequences of this massive and continuing exodus from higher education are not trivial, either for the individuals who leave or for their institutions” (1993, p. 1).

For students of color in particular, the stakes have never been trivial. Access and comple-tion rates for African American, Hispanic, and Native American students have always lagged behind those for white and Asian students. The same is true for low-income stu-dents and students with disabilities (Gladieux and Swail, 1998). But great strides have been made since the War on Poverty of the 1960s. Postsecondary enrollment rates for students of color are at levels similar to those for white and Asian students, although equal access to four-year colleges remains an area of concern, especially at our nation’s most selective institutions. But even if access rates for minority students were on a level with majority white students, students of color have not been able to realize the degree produc-tion rates of other students. In fact, they earn degrees at a ratio between 1:2 and 1:3 compared with white and Asian students.

Given that the United States will become significantly “less white” over the course of the next fifty years, issues of color cannot be ignored. California is already a “majority minor-ity” state, but its flagship public institutions of higher education have embarrassing low participation rates among African American and Hispanic students. Texas, Florida, and several other states host similar problems. If such issues are not urgently addressed, to-day’s retention and diversity problems will seem like child’s play in a few, short decades.
In 2005, Congress will reauthorize the Higher Education Act of 1965. Surely they will tinker with Pell Grant authorizations, loan limits and rules, and other important issues such as teacher training and distance education, but they may also take the opportunity to pres-sure institutions to improve student retention and completion, in view of Congress’s limited ability to force colleges to curb spiraling tuitions. Beyond such measures, concerted action will be required to spur U.S. colleges, on a large scale, to get more serious about retention and persistence and move faster to become more diversity friendly.

This handbook is intended as a reference for key stakeholders regarding the realities of, and strategies for, student retention. It is our hope that it will serve as a compass for those charged with the complex task of improving retention at their campus.