The literature regarding student dropout abounds with details of why and when students leave college. Many studies and literature reviews summarize similar sources and thus supply similar conclusions. Landmark studies by Tinto (1975), Pantages and Creedon (1978), Cope and Hannah (1975), Lenning, Beal, and Sauer (1980), and more recently, Tierney (1992) and Cabrera, Nora, and Castaneda (1993), have shaped how researchers and practitioners view the issue of student retention and departure. In particular, Tinto’s attrition model has become a foundation for most research regarding student departure.

Tinto’s Student Integration Model (1975), based in part on Durkheim’s theory of suicide, theorizes that the social integration of students increases their institutional commitment, ultimately reducing the likelihood of student attrition. As Tinto wrote, “It is the interplay between the individual’s commitment to the goal of college completion and his commit-ment to the institution that determines whether or not the individual decides to drop out.” Tinto’s model has been revised or enhanced by a number of researchers used important aspects of Tinto’s academic and social integration theory in the development of a psycho-logical, rather than sociological, model, to help others “visualize how individual psychological processes can be understood in the retention process.”

A number of researchers have found shortcomings in persistence and integration models. However, the complexity of the human condition makes it difficult to definitely prove the validity of one psychological or sociological theoretical model over another.

Factors Related to Retention
There are a number of factors related to retention as found in the research literature. Here is a summation of major findings.

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.

Campus Climate. While researchers agree that “institutional “fit” and campus integration are important to retaining college students to degree completion, campus climate medi-ates 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 popula-tion, 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.

Commitment to Educational Goals and the Institution. Tinto (1993) hypothesized that commit-ment 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.

Social and Academic Integration. 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 ex-perience 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.

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.