College Attrition at American Research Universities: Comparative Case Studies

College Attrition at American Research Universities: Comparative Case Studies

College Attrition at American Research Universities: Comparative Case Studies Joseph C. Hermanowicz The University of Georgia

Agathon Press New York

© 2003 by Agathon Press, an imprint of Algora Publishing. All Rights Reserved. www.algora.com No portion of this book (beyond what is permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act of 1976) may be reproduced by any process, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any means, without the express written permission of the publisher. ISBN: 0-87586-189-X (softcover) ISBN: 0-87586-190-3 (hardcover) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data: 2003000306 Hermanowicz, Joseph C. College attrition at American research universities : comparative case studies / by Joseph C. Hermanowicz. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-87586-190-3 (hard) — ISBN 087586189X (soft : alk. paper) 1. College attendance—United States—Case studies. 2. Universities and colleges—United States—Case studies. 3. Research institutes—United States—Case studies. I. Title. LC148.2.H47 2003 378.1'619—dc21 2003000306

Printed in the United States

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

1

Research Universities

4

Interaction and School Organization: A Contextual View 1. DESIGN AND METHODS

6 15

The Schools

15

The Data

18

2. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ATTRITION

23

Gender, Race, and Ethnic Profile

24

Academic Profile

27

Financial Profile

35

Summary

36

3. THE PROCESS OF ATTRITION

41

Departure Timing

42

Departure Reasons

43

The Character of the Departure Process

48

Interaction

58

Students’ Re-assessments

62

Summary

64

4. STRUCTURE AND CULTURE OF RETENTION A Retention Success Story: Case in View

69 70

Cultural Attributes of Schools and Success

75

Summary

78 VII

5. LEAVING RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

83

Summary and Discussion

83

Generalizability

90

Lessons from a Contextual View

92

APPENDIX

95

Interview Protocol

97

REFERENCES

101

VIII

for Nancy Thorgerson in loving memory

Acknowledgements The institutions on which this work is based, while all selective research universities, stand apart physically by hundreds of miles. The students whose voices we will hear about having left these schools speak from locales still further distant, dotting the country from the Texas basin to coastal Maine. This research would not have been possible, therefore, without the cooperation of many people, in many places, over many months. I wish to thank the universities and their staffs—registrars, deans, vice presidents, and provosts—who were part of this study and who were exceedingly responsive to providing information, materials, and data dealing with their schools and students. In turn, I thank those students, nearly all—as it turned out—terribly eager to help in this work and who inevitably form its flesh. Between the students, their schools, and staffs, these helpful individuals number nearly 150. While all have been privately acknowledged individually, my thanks here must remain anonymous. Several scholars provided insightful comments and suggestions at critical junctures in the development of this work. I thank John Braxton, Linda Grant, and Richard Ingersoll for their flair at constructive reading and discussion of the study. I owe special thanks to Jeff Slovak, who helped make this work possible. The Institute of Higher Education at the University of Georgia has provided a rich haven and source of academic sustenance. I thank its members, and in particular Del Dunn and Scott Thomas, in whom one finds incomparable models of university colleagues. Finally, while this work has emerged from lengthy discussion among people nationwide, none of its findings or conclusions are presented as official viewpoints of particular institutions or individuals. All responsibility for the content of this work is borne solely by the author.

Tables 1.

Four-Year and Five-Year Graduation Rates, Cohorts 1986-1990

2.

Classification of Research Universities

3.

Gender Proportions of “Leavers”, by School

4.

Racial/Ethnic Proportions of “Leavers”, by School

5.

Characteristics of Academic Performance, by Gender and School

6.

Characteristics of Academic Performance, by Race/Ethnicity and School

7.

Correlations between Academic Performance and Race/Ethnicity, by School

8.

Distribution of Financial Aid, by Type and School

9.

Leavers’ Length of Stay by School, in Terms

10. Length of Time to Decide to Leave by School, in Terms 11. Reasons for Leaving, by School 12. Reasons for Leaving, by Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and School 13. Institutions that “Leavers” Now Attend, by School 14. Characteristics of School Cultures that Facilitate and Impede Retention

INTRODUCTION Everyone who has come in contact with American higher education, whether their relationship has been brief and fleeting or long-lived and intimate, has been exposed to one of the few phenomena shared by the more than 3500 motley schools in the system: college attrition. Parents, friends, relatives, high school teachers and guidance counselors, college administrators, faculty and advisors all know attrition, albeit from different vantage points. They know attrition not necessarily by the cold-blooded statistics (though some may) but more probably by the warm-blooded stories of students who have experienced college departure, those whose vantage points are undoubtedly the most direct and personal. There is indeed irony in the thought that the failure to educate is the single principal attribute binding schools together in the highly differentiated system we call education. While schools do educate, and do so in relatively large numbers, and thus produce and transmit knowledge as their function prescribes, they do so in proudly different ways that yield different outcomes and identities, both collective and individual. When schools lose students, they fail, and their outcome and identity are one. A leading scholar of attrition has put the problem in perspective: More students leave their college or university prior to degree completion than stay. Of the nearly 2.4 million students who in 1993 entered higher education for the first time, over 1.5 million will leave their first institution without receiving a degree. Of those, approximately 1.1 million will leave higher education altogether, without ever completing either a two- or a four-year degree program (Tinto 1993 [1987]:1) (for full citations, see “References”).

1

College Attrition at American Research Universities

While attrition is felt universally by schools, there is far from a universal rate at which they feel it. It is in rates of attrition and not the sheer phenomenon where variety takes its familiar place among American colleges and universities. Some schools have six-year graduation rates lower than 50 percent (e.g., University of New Mexico, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee), some closer to 75 percent (e.g., New York University, University of Rochester), and others closer to, but still distant from, 100 percent (e.g., Yale University, University of Pennsylvania). According to U.S. News and World Report, the top five schools with the highest six-year graduation rates are: Princeton University (97%); Harvard University (96%); Dartmouth College (95%); Brown University (94%); and Duke University (94%). Among the schools with the lowest six-year graduation rates are: Texas Southern University (10%); University of AlaskaFairbanks (24%); University of New Orleans (25%); University of Texas-El Paso (26%); and Wichita State University (29%) (U.S. News and World Report, 2003). In general, private, selective schools have lower attrition rates, while public, “open-door” schools have higher attrition rates. Yet this is an oversimplification. Even within school types, whether prestigious four-year colleges, comprehensive schools, selective research universities, or some other type, attrition rates differ substantially (ibid.). Among selective research universities — the type that will be of primary interest in this monograph — some schools, such as those noted above, approach perfect retention. Others do noticeably more poorly: Columbia University typically graduates no more than 85 percent of its students after five years, and the University of Chicago does even less well, typically graduating no more than 80 percent of its students after five years (COFHE 1990, 1992, 1996). While graduation rates of around 80 percent are high relative to all postsecondary schools, they are low within the organizational niche of America’s selective research universities. And while officials at some schools might be satisfied with a graduation rate of around 80 percent — despite the room for improvement — officials at the research universities where this work was done and where these rates arise, are less than content. What accounts for these niche differences, and what ultimately can be done to improve the performance of schools and that of students who attend them? The research reported herein was launched to address this question. The study emerged out of interest on the part of officials at four major U.S. research universities to more fully understand attrition at their schools. These four

2

Introduction schools — representative on several dimensions of selective research universities in the United States — form the basis of the research. The research proceeded with the recognition that an understanding of “niche differences” in attrition and possible solutions to it is deepened when two key conditions hold: (1) when attrition is viewed comparatively between schools; and, (2) when the method of research permits depth of detail in examining how and why attrition occurs in these schools, allowing the viewer to see the people and processes behind the many statistics gathered in previous studies of attrition (cf. American College Testing Program 1996; Astin 1971, 1975, 1993; Beal and Noel 1980). A single school alone can reveal insights about attrition, and many such singular case studies have been compiled, particularly of relatively unselective institutions (e.g., Blanchfield 1971; Johansson and Rossmann 1973; Lavin, Murtha, and Kaufman 1984; Matchett 1988). But several schools, when examined in detail, allow a view of patterns that may be peculiar to some schools and general to others. Like people, then, schools are cast in greater light when compared and contrasted with others that possess similar and different symptomatic characteristics and different strategies for contending with these symptoms. The dimensions along which the universities in this study speak to other schools, then, consist of the symptoms of dysfunction — measured in this case by rates of attrition — that can be found in comparable degrees across higher education institutions. In addition, by emphasizing a “person-oriented” approach in the method of research (see Settersten 1999:212-214) — in which the people and processes of attrition come to light amid the numbers — it may be possible to more readily ascertain student and school characteristics under which college departure takes place. As will be described later, much of the data on which this work is based come from interviews with students who have left college. Their accounts put a human face on attrition. Most important, they offer direct evidence and insight into how and why attrition occurs in schools and why rates vary among schools belonging to the same organizational locale. This work thus aims to provide an in-depth look at selective research universities, attending to the ways in which their similarities and differences establish conditions for the variation in attrition we observe among them.

3

College Attrition at American Research Universities Research Universities Research universities comprise just 3 percent of all higher education institutions in the U.S. (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education 1994). Yet while small as a proportion of all schools, research universities graduate fully one-third of all undergraduates in the country (U.S. Department of Education 1999). Within the population of colleges and universities, America’s selective research institutions do among the best in graduating students they admit. But in absolute terms, attrition rates at research universities make clear that there is considerable room for improvement; the number of students who each year enter research universities and leave without receiving a degree reaches into the tens of thousands (COFHE 1996). This trend is particularly troublesome in light of the high costs associated with, and the large investments both schools and students make toward, collegiate education. The trend raises a perplexing issue. Selective schools invest significant time, effort, and money in applying their selective criteria to the students who apply for admission. In turn, students who court these such schools, for the most part, invest significant time, effort, and money in selecting which of these (or other) schools to attend. Recent studies have empirically documented the investments of time and money that selective schools and selective students make in order to be selective (Clotfelter 1996; Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper 1999; Katchadourian and Boli 1994). Why would such care taken by schools and students result in high attrition at some of these institutions? In light of the mutual investment, it seems unlikely that the answer could lie in poor choice or ill fit, although those factors are frequently cited as common causes of attrition (Tinto 1993 [1987]). A more pressing point consists of how research universities are publicly perceived as treating undergraduate education. In its report, the Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University suggested that undergraduate education needs to be “reinvented” (Boyer Commission 1998). Motivated by the claim that undergraduates at the nation’s research universities are short-changed, the Commission argued in favor of expanding learning opportunities for undergraduates, marshalling greater faculty commitment to undergraduate education, and re-directing resources that would effectively place collegiate education in a more central role in major schools of higher learning. A host of earlier studies have similarly criticized the neglect of undergraduate education in the research university setting (e.g., Boyer

4

Introduction 1987, 1990; Kennedy 1997; Keohane 1993; Prewitt 1993). While this criticism is common, the problem is rarely addressed in any sustained way. College attrition can be interpreted as a fundamental consequence of neglect by research universities. Failure to address attrition would only make them — and researchers — more neglectful. Over four decades of research have demonstrated the substantial benefits of college attendance and degree completion (Eckaus 1973; Feldman and Newcomb 1969; Juster 1975; Solman and Taubman 1973; Withey 1971). The advantages are convincingly multifaceted, encompassing demonstrable gains in cognitive development; social skills; attitudes, values, and moral orientations; subjective quality of life; career choice; and economic well-being (Becker 1975; Leslie and Brinkman 1988; Pascarella and Terenzini 1991). Additional work has investigated the various human returns — social, psychological, and economic — found in students who attend selective institutions. Predicated overwhelmingly on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1971, 1973, 1977), this work has suggested how the elite mores of group life in selective institutions work to enhance both the intellectual development and the socioeconomic standing of students who are admitted, socialized, and graduated from them (Berger 2000; Cookson and Persell 1985; Hoxby 2002; Katchadourian and Boli 1994; Tinto 1980; Willis 1977). By extension, the costs of leaving selective institutions without a degree are high, since students leave not just without a diploma but without the force of a socialization process that installs the particular cultural capital that is exchanged for scarcely-distributed human benefits in later life. Yet for the substantial costs at stake, attrition at selective schools is an under-researched phenomenon. Few case studies of attrition at selective institutions have been published. This is most likely true because such studies — to the extent they exist — are intended primarily for internal institutional audiences and because officials at these schools have typically taken a secretive stance toward data on their students and institutions. Next to no comparative work, encompassing a range of selective research institutions, has been completed, most likely for similar reasons. Outside of these institutions, it is may also be the case that most researchers, like most people, believe selective schools enjoy ancillary characteristics — high prestige, large endowments, public visibility, and the like — without costs or interior problems. Yet many officials at these schools, as this work itself testifies, think otherwise. They often are as concerned about attrition in their schools as officials at other institutions. The

5

College Attrition at American Research Universities comparatively high public standing and reception of their institutions may even compel a heightened awareness on their part about problems that can potentially detract from their lofty institutional images. Vincent Tinto has suggested that cures to attrition vary across schools, as students and their special needs themselves vary from one type of school to another (Tinto 1993 [1987]). In other words, there is thought to be no universally effective antidote. If we accept this view, there are benefits to limiting our focus to one type of school. We maximize the depth of inquiry about the conditions and processes of attrition within one sector, cognizant that these conditions and processes perhaps vary among school types. But while research universities are of one type, they are not of one kind (Clark 1987). They often possess different structures and communicate different cultures, manifested in their distinctive institutional identities. Structurally and culturally, some may be more akin to (if not exist as) the liberal arts college or the public state university than to a perceived ideal-typical research university. In attrition rates alone, research universities exemplify a mix, and part of that mix resembles schools that comprise other types within the larger system of higher education. While research universities are our focus, and while the study of their attrition will shed the greatest light on them, it is also likely to inform our understanding of the context and process of attrition at many other schools, both similar and different. If this study expands our view of how attrition operates within research universities, its primary goal will have been met. If this work advances our knowledge of attrition at a variety of schools, it will exceed its original expectations.

Interaction and School Organization: A Contextual View This work has a clear education policy orientation because most schools, and perhaps most students, wish to make strides toward higher rates of student retention. The work is also oriented to theory about attrition. This work aims to provide a theoretical account of the attrition phenomenon as it occurs in U.S. research institutions. In doing so, it seeks to better understand and explain attrition in this sector, or context, of the higher education system and advance discussion and debate about attrition’s causes and cures, sensitive to how those causes and cures may be contingent upon the organizational setting in which they are found and employed.

6

Introduction Research conducted by the Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE), an umbrella group of thirty-one selective colleges and universities, has repeatedly found a single variable that is most strongly correlated with retention: admissions selectivity, where selectivity is measured by the ratio of admission offers to applications received (COFHE 1990, 1992, 1996). The more selective an institution, the higher its graduation rate. The correlation likely results from a combination of institutional and individual factors: schools select students who are the most likely to succeed, as measured by past performance, and students select schools that through their prestige are most able to assure success, as measured by the subsequent life attainments of alumni. Relative to all institutions, the risks at highly selective schools are low, minimized by the lack of failure of students they admit and the perception by students that these schools are themselves short on failure and long on success. Writing in the COFHE reports, Larry Litten has offered several interrelated hypotheses to account for institutional differentiation in attrition and retention (COFHE 1990, 1992, 1996). Five specific hypotheses are identified: the selectivity hypothesis: the more selective an institution, the more likely students are to identify with and succeed at the institution; the positive start hypothesis: students who are at their first-choice school are more likely to stay and graduate than are students not at their first-choice school; the social status hypothesis: students are more likely to persist at prestigious schools, even despite a desire to leave or a lack of fulfillment and personal growth, because departure would be interpreted by others as a sign of failure; the superior benefits hypothesis: the long-term benefits to be gained from graduating at a selective school outweigh the short-term costs; and, the first-and-final hurdle hypothesis: the demands made upon students at the most selective schools are less than those made at less selective schools — admission-to is more difficult than graduation-from an institution (COFHE 1990). It is unclear, however, whether selectivity alone accounts for the success schools see (or fail to see) in retention. Other factors not directly associated with selectivity can in principle come into play. For example, schools may have in place particular structures or programs to facilitate retention. They may also have specific cultures whose normative patterns promote persistence. What is more, most schools cannot afford or are otherwise unable to be more selective than they are presently. They may rely on their applicant base to

7

College Attrition at American Research Universities survive, or their missions specifically open themselves to a wide regional, state, or national college-going populous. Selectivity for these schools becomes a moot point. No less significant, while the most prestigious schools are most able to tamper with selectivity to realize gains in retention, it is not necessarily the only variable at these schools with which to tamper productively. Selectivity does not necessarily lead to a more desirable student population; schools can be and are selective in varieties of ways. The hypotheses above serve as important guides in addressing attrition, and will be used here to help map its possible causes and cures. But they likely guide us through only part of the puzzle to be solved. The hypotheses stress the structural sides of schools, such as admissions and prestige, but then only partly: other structures relevant to attrition and retention, such as advising staff and residential units, require attention. Importantly, the cultural sides of schools, the norms and values that guide communities, also cannot be overlooked, for they too may be found to exert significant effects on students’ desires to leave or to stay in school. In short, more detail is needed to provide, if not a definitive picture, then a fuller and more suggestive one concerning the context and process by which attrition occurs across schools. Tinto’s major theoretic perspective on attrition has arguably enjoyed the most influence in the field of attrition research. His work on the topic spans three decades, out of which the leading treatise, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, emerged in 1987. As Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson (1997) observe, the influence of Tinto’s theory may be indexed by its over 400 citations and 170 dissertations by the mid-1990s. Multifaceted and complex, Tinto’s theory may be summarized as follows. For Tinto, college attrition results from interactions between students and their educational environments. College persistence is a function of the match between students’ motivation and academic ability and a school’s academic and social characteristics. Other factors being equal, this match between individual and institution determines two core individual commitments: a commitment to completing college and a commitment to a student’s respective institution (Tinto 1993 [1987]). The greater the commitment on both counts early in the college career, the greater likelihood of completion at the college in which a student first enrolls. Two key concepts follow to distinguish Tinto’s perspective: academic integration and social integration. Academic integration refers to the extent of congruence between students’ intellectual ability, involvement, and

8

Introduction performance on the one hand and a school’s intellectual expectations on the other. Social integration refers to the extent of congruence between individual students and a college social system, which includes interpersonal and extracurricular involvements and attachments, among other facets of college social life (Tinto 1993 [1987]). In short, the more academically and socially integrated, the less likely students are to leave, precisely because of the density of attachments that keep them in school. Tinto’s theory is interactionist in that it emphasizes the nature and quality of contact students and schools come to establish with each other. The theory may be compared and contrasted to other theories of attrition, less central to the present discussion, that are psychological or economic in their explanatory emphases (for a review, see Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson 1997; and Tinto 1993 [1987]). Tinto’s theory has been said to be near-paradigmatic in its status among attrition perspectives (Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson 1997), and it is used as the major organizing frame of reference in much attrition work, including that here. Tinto’s theory — like all theories — has not escaped criticism, however (e.g., Attinasi 1989, 1994; Cabrera et. al. 1992; Cabrera, Nora, and Castenada 1993). Among its contributions are newly identified points of departure to break new empirical and theoretic ground in attempting to solve what has been called the complex “departure puzzle” (Braxton 2000a). The criticism of Tinto’s perspective centers on the level of empirical support for its theoretic claims. Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson (1997) derive fifteen propositions from Tinto’s theory but, in reviewing empirical studies based on Tinto’s approach, find minimal support for the theoretic assertions. Scholars have begun emphasizing the need to examine the theoretical and empirical disjunctures in Tinto’s approach by testing propositions in the theory directly (e.g., Braxton and Lien 2000) and by offering different theoretic perspectives altogether, including those, as noted previously, that treat college culture (and not exclusively structure) as consequential for attrition (e.g., Kuh and Love 2000). Tinto’s theory of attrition raises problems for the present analysis. While interactionist, Tinto’s perspective is decontextual: students are abstractions in an abstract process that has been removed from the institutional settings in which attrition takes place. The theory asserts that interaction between student and college environment is consequential, but we have yet to ascertain how such interaction transpires, if at all, for students who leave. What character do

9

College Attrition at American Research Universities interactions have for students who have embarked, knowingly or not, on the road to attrition from their schools? With whom do they interact, with what frequency, and what is the content of this interaction? Does the nature of interaction vary where attrition rates vary, and if so, what propels the different modes of interaction and their consequent effects? What is more, we do not know if such interaction is organizationally constrained by the types of colleges students attend. In principle, interaction would be so constrained, since varying institutional structures and cultures (even those found within one school type) are posited to exert different student effects. But it remains unclear how these organizational differences are expressed in the attrition process and by students who undergo it. It is perhaps surprising that few attrition studies actually make substantial use of students’ accounts of departure. Most attrition research is quantitative, often seeking statistical models that portray and attempt to predict attrition, as documented in studies that have codified the major empirical inquiries on attrition (Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson, 1997; Terenzini and Pascarella, 1980). Comparatively little discussion and interviewing has been conducted with actual students who have left their institutions. Exceptions are of course those exchanges between students and advisors or deans that may occur as “exit interviews” at some institutions, but these fall short of the systematic design that would be necessary for research purposes. In the end, student voices are rarely heard in data presentations and analyses of attrition. Students’ accounts offer “a view from the inside.” They likely inform an understanding about how attrition "works,” indicating the ways students interact with, experience and come to perceive the organizations in which attrition occurs. Knowing how attrition “works” (or transpires) in one school and how it is short-circuited in another, as an in-depth comparative study would allow, informs current theory and practice. It also would identify potential areas for effective intervention. Thus, this work “brings organizations in” to the analysis as a result of an explicit need to view attrition in its processual context — how attrition actually occurs from start to finish in a given school setting (cf. Baron and Bielby 1980; Hirsch and Lounsbury 1997; Kallebery 1989; Stolzenberg 1978). The present analysis emphasizes institutional context and will offer what may be called a “contextual perspective.” This perspective, while sensitive to the role that interactions play in forming student-school attachments, underscores the necessity of looking at organizational form — the cultural and structural arrangements of schools where interaction allegedly occurs,

10

Introduction and which help to explain how and who gets through. In its effort to understand schools for their mediating role in the attrition process, this work bridges an organizational perspective with Tinto’s interactionist one, an objective identified in recent work in the field (Braxton 2000b; Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson 1997; Tinto 1993 [1987]). By operationalizing that perspective with students and their accounts, this work departs from quantitatively-oriented work by presenting a more “person-oriented” view. From this view, the qualitative details about the people and processes of attrition come into fuller light. This monograph has five chapters. In chapter 1, I discuss the research design and methods used for the study. In chapter 2, I examine the social context of attrition by discussing the demographic make-up of students who leave compared to students who stay in the four schools. In chapter 3, I closely explore the process of attrition, uncovering how it actually unfolds based upon data furnished by the people who have undergone it. In tapping into this process, I reveal the timing, reasons, and interaction patterns that structure the attrition process in each of the schools. In chapter 4, I discuss the institutional conditions that foster retention in the schools, focusing on the schools’ structural and cultural elements that give rise to their varying attrition rates. I will in this chapter pay particular attention to one of the four schools in the study, highlighting school attributes that facilitate its comparatively high retention. Finally, in chapter 5 I will summarize the results and suggest possible strategies germane to off-setting attrition in these schools and in schools generally. I will close by discussing the lessons learned from this “contextual view” of college attrition, underscoring the ways in which it can advance discussion and debate about this phenomenon’s causes and cures.

11

CHAPTER I

DESIGN AND METHODS

The Schools To achieve the goal of acquiring more contextual detail about attrition, this research was designed to maximize depth of analysis. It is based on four case studies of selective research universities. While the study calls upon both quantitative and qualitative data on these schools and their students to examine attrition, the qualitative data assume a more central role because of the insights they proved to shed. In order to examine attrition as manifests differently across research universities, the four schools in the study were selected on the basis of their differing graduation rates. In rough terms, the study was designed to include “high”, “middle”, and “low” performers to tease out similarities and differences among them. Taking rates for 1990, the closest year for which data were available at the time of the study, School 1 is the “high performer”, with a five-year graduation rate of 92.2 percent; School 2 is the “middle performer”, with a fiveyear graduation rate of 84.1 percent; School 3 is the “low performer”, with a fiveyear graduation rate of 79.2 percent. These three schools represent the distribution of attrition rates among the population of selective research universities, with mid-90 graduation rates on the high end and low-80 graduation rates on the low end (COFHE 1996). The specific schools in the sample were included not only because they satisfied the design of the research by “fitting” one of the high-middle-low performance levels, but also because administrative officials at these schools expressed an interest in the study. These officials normally included deans for 15

College Attrition at American Research Universities student affairs or people in like positions, vice-provosts, and provosts. They agreed to participate in the study with the expectation that it would, given its comparative design, yield important and tangible results and because in three of the cases (schools 2, 3, and 4) officials were actively concerned that their attrition rates were too high and in need of concrete remedy. They agreed to participate also on the condition that school and individual student identities would remain anonymous; hence the use of numerical designations for the institutions. Initial contact people at these schools normally designated other staff, such as their university registrar or student service personnel, to assist in providing data used in the study, and an overall cooperative working relationship was established with them. Schools 1-3 are private research universities. They are akin to universities such as Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and the University of Chicago. School 4 is a public research university whose “eliteness” resembles the other three schools. It is akin to universities such as California — Berkeley, Wisconsin — Madison, and Michigan. School 4 has a five-year graduation rate near School 3’s, at 80.8 percent. But what kind of performer is School 4? Compared to private research universities, School 4’s attrition rate falls in the bottom quarter, making it a low performer. But compared to public research universities, School 4’s attrition rate falls in the top quarter, that is, it’s a high performer. School 4 was included in the study to add comparative insight: it performs better than many of its public peers and comes to resemble private research universities. Viewed from the opposite lens, several private research universities resemble large public universities (in their rates of attrition and in other ways), yet both sets of schools often see themselves serving different clientele and performing different functions. This similarity is of interest to administrators and education policy officials as well as to scholars. The causes of similarity (in attrition) amidst difference (in clientele, mission, and the like) is a matter of both practical and theoretic importance. In light of this complexity, School 4 shall be referred to as a special performer. The attrition rates at the four schools have been relatively stable over the recent past. Table 1 presents the four-year and five-year graduation rates for each school over the five year period between 1986 and 1990.

16

Design and Methods Table 1. Four-Year and Five-Year Graduation Rates, Cohorts 1986-19901 School 1

School 2

Cohort

4-Year Rate

5-Year Rate

Cohort

4-Year Rate

5-Year Rate

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

87.5 86.0 88.4 87.3 85.4

94.5 94.0 94.7 93.0 92.22

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

75.4 78.2 77.0 75.9 74.3

83.7 86.7 85.6 84.3 84.12

Cohort

4-Year Rate

5-Year Rate

Cohort

4-Year Rate

5-Year Rate

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

62.9 63.8 63.0 61.2 61.3

82.7 82.7 82.9 82.2 80.8

School 3

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

School 4

70.4 79.3 77.6 85.2 75.4 82.7 75.2 80.4 72.9 79.23 1 Source: Consortium on Financing Higher Education 2Source: Institution's Office of Institutional Research 3 Source: Institution's Office of the University Registrar

While the respective rates at each school have generally stayed the same, five-year rates are noticeably higher than four-year rates, particularly at School 4, and this is a widespread, national pattern (Porter 1990a). Six-year rates will in turn be higher than five-year rates, at these and at all schools, but the difference in rates beyond six years typically becomes marginal. After six years, college for most traditional college-age students yet to receive a degree becomes a thing of the past (Porter 1990a). Conforming to Litten’s hypotheses discussed in the Introduction (COFHE 1990, 1992, 1996), the four schools also vary in their admissions selectivity, and their selectivity is negatively correlated with attrition. Thus School 1, the most selective of the four, exhibits the lowest rate of attrition, while schools 3 and 4, the least selective of the four, exhibit the highest attrition; School 2, more selective than both schools 3 and 4 but less selective than School 1, exhibits a middle level of attrition. A classification summary of these attributes is presented in Table 2. Table 2. Classification of Research Universities

School 1 2 3 4

Graduation Rate1 92% 84 79 813

Selectivity2 18% 21 58 68

1

Performer High Middle Low Special

Five-year graduation rate for 1990; figures are rounded to nearest whole number. Source: Consortium on Financing Higher Education (COFHE 1996). 2 Measure includes test scores (40 percent); high school class standing (35 percent); acceptance rate (15 percent); and yield (10 percent). Data are for 1996. Source: U.S. News and World Report (1998). 3Source: University’s Office of the Registrar.

17

College Attrition at American Research Universities

A positive correlation between selectivity and retention is evident in the data in Table 2. But the table also suggests, as stressed above, that more than selectivity affects a school’s graduation rate: the difference in graduation rates at schools 1 and 2 is substantial (eight percent), but their difference in selectivity is small (two percent). Comparing schools 3 and 4, the difference in graduation rates is small (three percent), but their difference in selectivity is substantial (ten percent). In short, while past research has underscored the centrality of selectivity in retention (Astin 1971; COFHE 1990, 1992, 1996), selectivity seems far from being a “silver bullet” — a variable that makes or breaks retention in its entirety — so that we need to inquire further. Four schools, and not some other number, were included in the study in order to be suit the theoretic motivations of the research. These motivations, discussed in the previous chapter, are predicted on the need for depth of detail in analysis, attending specifically to how attrition processes might vary among schools of a type. In order to be comparative and thus to cast greater light on schools than a single case would allow, clearly more than one school must be included in the sample. But including too many schools in the sample would undermine our ability to capture depth within cases. Thus, the design called for a balancing of the need for case comparison and the need for case depth. To cover the range of variation in attrition rates at selective research universities, the “high,” “middle,” “low,” and “special” designations were adopted, yielding the four cases. The Data The data for this study come from four sources: • demographic data from each of the schools on students who leave and those who stay; • telephone interviews with students who have left each of the schools; • telephone interviews with key administrators and staff who are directly involved with attrition and retention at each of the schools; • and a site visit to one of the schools (School 1) in which ethnographic work and additional interviews were conducted. As part of the site visit, the author dined and lived among undergraduates for three days; talked informally with college students and interviewed them on a more structured basis; interviewed faculty and administrative staff who are directly in or related to advising and residential arenas of the university; and collected

18

Design and Methods relevant informational materials created and used by the university on “life at School 1.” Of the four data sources, the interviews with college leavers assumed the most central role in the study for two major reasons. First, most studies of attrition rely heavily on quantitative demographic profiles of students (e.g., Astin 1971, 1975; Porter 1990b) or embark on major theoretic objectives, absent of empirical analysis (e.g., Tinto 1993 [1987]). While providing a picture of students who leave and the patterns of their withdrawals, the picture is necessarily blurred by the lack of finer-grained detail offered by interview data. Second, interview data, by tapping the detailed meanings students assign to leaving college, uncovers the process of college departure most directly. Interviews thus afford the best possible position from which to ascertain how students become leavers, shedding light on how their moral status and identity are progressively changed. In so doing, we learn what thinking is involved and not involved in deciding to leave or to stay in school, along with the interaction patterns and actions taken and not taken in the course of such contemplation. The interview protocol had eight parts and is presented in the appendix. Five parts (sections A-E) dealt explicitly with the departure process — understanding when, how, and why students decided to leave and what interaction they had with faculty, advisors (as separate from faculty), and residential staff in thinking through their decision to leave or to stay. The remaining three parts of the protocol (sections F-H) dealt with students’ reassessments of their decisions and reflection on what might have aided in staying in school; their current status and activities; and an open-ended concluding section that allowed students to add, elaborate, and/or clarify important points. A uniform protocol was used for each of the schools, but specific terms were occasionally changed to comply with local meanings and usage (e.g., “advisor” at School 1 was changed to “dean” at School 2, etc.). A total of ninety leavers were interviewed: 10 from School 1; 25 from School 2; 30 from School 3; and 25 from School 4. Interviews with School 3 leavers were done first, during the fall of 1997, as part of a single case study. Subsequently the project expanded into the current comparative set of case studies. Interviews at the other three schools were completed between the fall of 1998 and the winter of 1999. Thirty interviews were done with former School 3 students, and not more, because a “saturation point” had been reached. That is, interview data began to repeat itself in a systematically predictable fashion. The same principle held for

19

College Attrition at American Research Universities the number of interviews done subsequently of former School 2 and School 4 students. Only ten School 1 interviews were conducted because the pool from which to select was necessarily small, School 1 having the lowest attrition rate of the four universities. Designated officials at each of the schools furnished the lists of leavers. The lists were of students who entered college in either 1994, 1995, or 1996 and who withdrew by the fall of 1997. This time frame was established so that interviewees could talk about their experience when it was relatively fresh in their minds. In addition, the lists were of students who left unambiguously. The lists included only those students whose registrations were completely cancelled. Most schools use numerous categories of leavers to calculate attrition, such as students who take temporary leaves of absence, students who are on academic probation, and so forth, but these students are not of central interest here. Of central interest here are those students who leave a school without the intention of returning to that school, the group of students who in greatest proportion consist of those who have unambiguously withdrawn. All of the interviews were conducted by the author and lasted an average of twenty minutes. All but one of the interviews were tape-recorded, and all of these were transcribed and coded for analysis. (A former School 2 student declined to participate in the interview in its entirety, but engaged in a brief unrecorded dialogue about the nature of his departure.) Students were assured that their identities would remain anonymous and were encouraged to speak candidly about the experiences that motivated their withdrawals. They were told that the information they could share would be important to understand students’ experiences more fully and that such information could help solve problems that might exist for college students at their former institution. Moreover, they were assured that their participation was completely voluntary, and that if they chose to participate in an interview, they should also feel free to ask me questions about the interview or the study more generally. In short, interviews were socially defined as an occasion to be frank. Students were exceedingly receptive to the study. Most of the students expressed an eagerness to be part of the project and to share their experiences, which proved to be a research finding in itself. Since their departures, no one from their schools had contacted them. For nearly all of the students, this study presented the first and only time to recall, recount, and reflect upon their experiences in any systematic fashion, in response to questions that reflected an interest in what they had to say.

20

CHAPTER II

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ATTRITION Demographic data on students’ gender, race/ethnicity, academic performance and finances help to place attrition in social context. In principle, these demographic elements can exert independent effects on attrition. Attention to them will thus show what role, if any, they play in the departure process. We attend to these demographic characteristics as they apply to students situated in the research universities under study. Yet any one or all of these characteristics could, in principle, exert independent effects on attrition found in a variety of schools. One might argue that factors such as finances and academic performance play more of a role in attrition in schools that are especially costly or especially demanding academically. But these are, of course, relative variables. Subjectively, many schools for many people are difficult and costly. In this respect, while the data presented in this chapter speak most directly about research universities and their students, they also speak generally to a broad institutional audience. In what follows, data on these demographic characteristics are presented for three groups: • the interviewed subset of leavers in the four schools; • the population of leavers in the four schools from which the interviewees came; and, • the larger school cohorts of students of which all leavers were a part. Comparisons among these groups will allow us to assess whether the above characteristics mark leavers and stayers differently in these schools.

23

College Attrition at American Research Universities Gender, Race, and Ethnic Profile Table 3 presents the gender composition of leavers by school, together with the gender composition of the larger school cohorts. Table 3. Gender Proportions of “Leavers”, by School School l

School 2

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

Total

52

41

93

84

83

167

55.9%

44.1%

100%

50.3%

49.7%

100%

5

5

10

9

16

25

50.0%

50.0%

100%

36.0%

64.0%

100%

College

2067

2013

4080

1905

1548

3453

(Cohorts ‘94-‘96)

50.7%

49.3%

100%

55.2%

44.8%

100%

Population

Sample

School 3

School 4

Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

Total

68

59

127

378

336

714

53.5%

46.5%

100%

53.0%

47.0%

100%

14

16

30

14

11

25

46.7%

53.3%

100%

56.0%

47.0%

100°/a

College

1543

1335

2878

7595

7649

15244

(Cohorts ‘94-‘96)

53.6%

46.4%

100%

49.8%

50.2%

100%

Population

Sample

Generally, men are no more likely than women to leave any one of these schools, and vice versa. Men and women leave in roughly equal proportions, and where the proportions differ, they do so marginally. Moreover, the samples of

24

The Social Context of Attrition leavers roughly approximates the leaver population proportions in the schools, although in the case of School 2 the sample is skewed toward women (64 percent). While these data show that attrition afflicts genders evenly, men and women can, of course, elect to leave colleges for systematically different reasons and their processes of departure may differ — issues treated in the next chapter. Table 4 presents the racial/ethnic composition of leavers against the larger cohorts of students in the four schools. Table 4. Racial/Ethnic Proportions of “Leavers”, by School Population Sample

White

Black

42 45.2% 6

14 15.1% 2

Asian/ Pac. Is. 14 15.1% 0

2184

20.0% 331

53.5%

8.1%

19.6%

White

Black

94 56.3% 16

7 4.2% 2

Asian/ Pac. Is. 21 12.6% 3

8.0% 260 7.5%

60.0% College (Cohorts ‘94-’96)

Population Sample College (Cohorts ‘94-’96)

Population Sample College (Cohorts ‘94-’96)

Population Sample College (Cohorts ‘94-’96)

64.0% 1691 49.0%

12 12.9% 1

Native American 3 3.2% 1

0%

10.0%

10.0%

0%

100%

798

259

33

475

4080

6.3%

0.8%

11.6%

100%

12.0%

4.0%

0%

821

230

9

23.8%

6.7%

0.3%

75 59.1% 21 70.0% 1761

9 7.1% 1 3.3% 116

Asian/ Pac. Is. 20 15.7 3 10.0% 803

61.4%

4.0%

28.0%

White

Black

401

105

56.2%

14.7%

64.7%

School 2

Native American 0 0% 0

Black

13

Hispanic

17 10.2% 1

White

52.0% 9861

School 1

Asian/ Pac. Is. 78 10.9%

Hispanic

School 3 17 13.4% 5 16.7% 183

Native American 0 0% 0 0% 6

6.4%

0.2%

Hispanic

School 4 Hispanic 58 8.1%

Native American 9 1.3%

Unknown/Other 8 8.6% 0

Unknown/Other

Total 93 100% 10

Total

28 16.8% 3

167 100% 25

12.0%

100%

442

3453

12.8%

100%

Unknown/Other

Total

6 4.7% 0 0% 0

127 100% 30 100% 2869

0%

100%

Unknown/Other 63 8.8%

3

4

2

1

2

12.0%

16.0%

8.0%

4.0%

8.0%

Total 714 100% 25 100%

1365

1878

725

104

1310

15243

9.0%

12.3%

4.8%

0.7%

8.6%

100%

Five general conclusions can be drawn when looking at patterns across the schools. First, in all of the schools, the largest number of leavers are White;

25

College Attrition at American Research Universities moreover, the proportion of Whites who leave approximates their proportion of the larger cohorts. Second, excluding Native Americans, Blacks leave college in the smallest numbers (School 4 being an exception, where they exceed Hispanics); however, Blacks leave college at one and a half to two times their proportion of the larger cohorts (School 2 being an exception, where 4.2 percent of all leavers were Black, against the 7.5 percent in the larger cohorts). Third, the pattern of attrition among Hispanics is in general similar to that of Blacks; that is, the number of Hispanics who leave is relatively small, but their proportions are relatively large. Fourth, Asians leave in proportions smaller than that of their wider cohort make-up; however, as a proportion of all leavers, Asians most closely resemble Blacks and Hispanics, with anywhere between ten and fifteen percent of leavers composing each group. Fifth, the percentage of Native American leavers is very small, as are their relative numbers in the larger cohorts. The predominant patterns of Hispanics and Blacks leaving college in greatest proportion without a degree reflect enduring national trends (Massey et. al. 2003). In the leaver sample of interviewees, the proportions fluctuate from school to school and from group to group, which resulted exclusively from the availability of respondents to be interviewed. If one were to take a liberal measure and ask where any gross mis-representation in the leaver sample occurs, only one group in one school arises: no Asians from School 1 were available to be interviewed, despite them comprising 15.1 percent (fourteen in number) of the leaver population at that school. Looking at the numbers, the group at highest risk of leaving is Whites. Looking at the proportions, the groups at highest risk of leaving are Blacks and Hispanics. Looking at these disparities, one might argue that the problem lies in the absence of a critical mass of minorities which, if it did exist, would off-set their attrition — a “safety in numbers” line of reasoning. This line of reasoning is compelling, since when looking at Whites and Asians we see that as their numbers increase, the proportion of these students who leave either equals or is less than the proportions of their larger make-up.

26

The Social Context of Attrition But while this line of reasoning is compelling, is it credible? The available evidence suggests that it is not a sufficient condition for improved retention. If we look at schools that possess a mass of minorities, rates of attrition are among the worst to be found nationwide: Morehouse College’s five-year graduation rate is 62 percent; Howard University’s rate is 57 percent; Florida A&M University’s rate is 44 percent; Grambling State University’s rate is 31 percent; Cleveland State University’s rate is 28 percent (U.S. News and World Report 2003). Another variable, discussed at the outset, co-exists with these low rates: selectivity. The schools above are relatively unselective, admitting on the order of sixty to eighty percent of their applicants (U.S. New and World Report 2003). Thus, while increasing the proportions of minorities may be part of the story of retention, it is not the whole story. Other factors, such as selectivity and oncampus support structures, also likely come into play, and will be discussed later. Academic Profile An academic profile of college leavers can be limned using three measures of performance: Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores; high school grade point averages (g.p.a.’s); and college g.p.a.’s compiled while the students were enrolled. These are of course not the only measures of academic performance; they are, however, the only ones available for each of the schools (and, at that, in select cases where noted, high school g.p.a. data is not available from schools). Table 5 presents characteristics of academic performance by gender for each school. Table 5. Characteristics of Academic Performance, by Gender and School

SAT Mean Median Min. Max.

Total

Leaver Sample Male Female

School 1 Leaver Population Total Male Female

Total

1280 1280 1000 1600

1320 1320 1160 1600

1330 1215 1090 1400

1350 1380 880 1600

1360 1380 1060 1540

1350 1370 980 1580

1381 1390 820 1600

1400 1400 850 1600

1380 1390 850 1600

2.79 2.90 1.76 3.60

2.76 2.95 1.85 3.78

2.82 2.94 0.25 3.94

2.73 2.71 0.47 3.85

2.94 3.08 0.25 3.94

3.38 3.46 0.47 4.00

3.34 3.45 0.47 4.00

3.42 3.51 0.25 3.99

Total College (Cohorts ’94-‘96) Male Female

H.S. G.P.A. n/a Coll. G.P.A. Mean Median Min. Max.

2.77 2.95 1.76 3.78

27

College Attrition at American Research Universities

Total

Leaver Sample Male Female

School 2 Leaver Population Total Male Female

Total

1260 1295 800 1510

1380 1375 1210 1510

1200 1225 800 1340

1324 1340 910 1600

1340 1380 910 1600

1310 1320 980 1510

1300 1320 610 1600

1310 1320 610 1600

1300 1310 830 1600

H.S. G.P.A. Mean 3.62 Median 3.61 Min. 3.05 Max. 4.00

3.67 3.74 3.24 3.97

3.58 3.61 3.05 4.00

3.73 3.73 3.00 4.47

3.68 3.68 3.00 4.31

3.77 3.82 3.05 4.47

3.73 3.78 1.01 4.49

3.70 3.75 1.36 4.49

3.76 3.80 1.01 4.49

Coll. G.P.A. Mean Median Min. Max.

3.31 3.42 2.43 4.00

3.23 3.40 2.43 4.00

3.35 3.52 2.56 3.89

3.35 3.48 1.00 4.00

3.30 3.44 1.90 4.00

3.41 3.51 1.00 3.41

3.34 3.41 1.67 4.00

3.29 3.36 1.67 4.00

3.41 3.47 1.92 4.00

Total

Leaver Sample Male Female

School 3 Leaver Population Total Male Female

Total College (Cohorts ’94-‘96) Total Male Female

1244 1305 790 1480

1277 1310 950 1480

1214 1285 790 1470

1249 1290 790 1510

1263 1300 830 1500

1231 1285 790 1510

1309 1320 800 1600

H.S. G.P.A. Mean Median Min. Max.

3.89 3.95 3.06 4.41

3.86 3.98 3.16 4.18

3.91 3.93 3.06 4.14

3.83 3.87 2.33 5.31

3.79 3.85 2.33 4.85

3.87 3.88 2.75 5.31

Coll. G.P.A. Mean Median Min. Max.

3.00 3.24 1.00 3.91

3.14 3.36 1.80 3.91

2.88 2.85 1.00 3.82

2.99 3.13 1.00 3.91

2.93 3.11 1.13 3.91

3.07 3.16 1.00 3.90

Total

Leaver Sample Male Female

School 4 Leaver Population Total Male Female

Total College (Cohorts ’94-‘96) Total Male Female

1160 1200 770 1480

1180 1215 770 1480

1130 1190 840 1320

1140 1150 720 1470

1160 1170 740 1470

1120 1140 720 1470

1140 1140 530 1600

1160 1150 560 1600

1110 1150 530 1600

H.S. G.P.A. Mean 3.61 Median 3.70 Min. 2.90 Max. 4.00

3.60 3.50 2.90 4.00

3.70 3.70 3.30 4.00

3.49 3.60 2.00 4.00

3.45 3.50 2.00 4.00

3.53 3.60 2.20 4.00

3.38 3.54 1.60 4.00

3.33 3.60 1.60 4.00

3.41 3.58 1.80 4.00

Coll. G.P.A. Mean Median Min. Max.

2.47 2.71 0.69 3.83

2.40 2.50 1.36 3.44

2.47 2.50 0.13 4.00

2.32 2.31 0.13 4.00

2.64 2.82 0.31 3.98

2.86 2.95 0.14 4.00

2.77 2.95 0.13 4.12

2.95 3.08 0.14 4.02

SAT Mean Median Min. Max.

SAT Mean Median Min. Max.

SAT Mean Median Min. Max.

2.42 2.50 0.69 3.83

Total College (Cohorts ’94-‘96) Male Female

n/a

3.19 3.24 1.33 4.00

1330 1340 830 1600

1284 1290 800 1600

n/a

n/a

3.20 3.24 1.33 4.00

3.20 3.23 2.01 4.00

In looking at patterns in the data across schools, four general conclusions can be drawn. First, SAT scores for the leavers in each of the schools are generally strong and generally parallel to the scores of the larger entry cohorts. The distribution of scores among leavers in all of the schools is wide, and 28

The Social Context of Attrition perhaps a source of attrition. However, the distribution of scores among the larger cohorts is also noticeably wide. Second, high school grades among the leavers in all of the schools (where data is available) are notably strong and mirror the scores of the entry cohorts. Third, college grades of leavers are generally lower than that of the entry cohorts (School 2 an exception, where grades are parallel); the marginal difference in college grades at School 3 is small (looking at median scores, about one-tenth of a grade point) and at schools 1 and 4 it is higher (looking at median scores, about one-half of a grade point). In general, therefore, leavers did less well in college than persisters, but it is uncertain whether this performance was a cause or consequence of events that precipitated departure. Fourth, no significant differences in academic performance by gender are detectable in any of the schools. In looking at the performance data, it is evident that these schools lose a range of performers, which raises a key point: attrition in any one of these schools is not comprised primarily of weak students, thus shattering a longstanding myth. Many of the students who have left have done so coming to college with impressive high school records and after compiling strong college records. (While college grades were generally lower among leavers, the grades themselves were not, on the whole, weak, but, rather, average to strong.) Indeed perhaps the most trenchant conclusion to be drawn is the similarity struck between leavers and stayers: schools lose a range of performers, from the relatively weak to the indisputably strong, but retain a similar range of performers as well. Table 6 presents characteristics of academic performance by race/ethnicity for each school.

29

30

1600

Min.

Max.

2.77

2.95

1.76

3.78

Mean

Median

Min.

Max.

Coll. G.P.A.

H.S. G.P.A n/a

1280

1000

Median

1280

SAT

Mean

Total

3.78

1.76

3.04

2.80

1600

1140

1320

1325

White

2.95

1.85

2.40

2.40

1090

1090

---

1

1090

Black

---2

1320

---2

3.60

3.60 2.58

2.58

---

1

---

2.58

1

1160

1160

---1

1160

Nat. Am.

3.60

1320

1320

---1

Hispanic

Asian

Leaver Sample

3 .94

0.25

2.94

2.82

1600

880

1380

1350

Total

3.94

1.76

3.21

3.10

1600

1080

1400

1390

White

3.49

0.76

2.51

2.34

1430

1090

1250

1240

Black

3.86

1.4 3

3.10

3.10

1550

1180

1400

1400

Asian

Leaver Population

School 1

3.63

0.25

2.32

2.41

1430

980

1270

1240

Hispanic

2.64

0.47

2.60

1.90

1270

1160

1210

1210

Nat. Am.

Characteristics of Academic Performance, by Race/Ethnicity and School

Table 6

4.00

0.47

3.46

3.38

1600

820

1390

1381

Total

4.00

1.71

3.52

3.43

1600

940

1400

1400

White

3.89

0.76

3.04

2.96

1580

910

1240

1260

Black

4.00

1.43

3.57

3.48

1600

870

1430

1430

Asian

3.90

0.25

3.27

3.16

1600

890

1290

1290

Hispanic

Total College (Cohorts ’94-’96)

3.85

0.47

3.24

3.14

1590

1040

1270

1300

Nat. Am.

College Attrition at American Research Universities

800

1510

Min.

Max.

31

4.00

Min.

Max.

3.31

3.42

2.43

4.00

Mean

Median

Min.

Max.

Coll. G.P.A.

3.61

3.05

Median

3.62

Mean

H.S. G.P.A.

800

1295

Median

4.00

2.43

3.63

3.40

4.00

3.24

3.62

3.67

1460

1280

1260

1235

White

Mean

SAT

Total

2.79

3.50

2.64

3.10

---1

2.79

3.10

---2

1450

1140

1330

1310

Asian

2.79

3.05

3.05

---1

3.05

1320

1290

1305

1305

Black

Leaver Sample

3.13

3.13

---1

3.13

3.81

3.81

---1

3.81

1060

1060

---1

1060

Hispanic

Table 6

---2

---2

---2

Nat . Am.

4.00

1.00

3.48

3.35

4.47

3.00

3.73

3.73

1600

910

1340

1324

Total

4.00

1.00

3.50

3.35

4.45

3.00

3.74

3.73

1600

800

1340

1325

White

3.70

2.80

3.50

3.30

4.16

3.05

3.32

3.57

1490

1010

1270

1220

Black

4.00

2.57

3.70

3.60

4.47

3.35

3.97

3.90

1490

1140

1380

1360

Asian

Leaver Population

School 2

3.82

2.20

3.14

3.14

4.31

3.10

3.57

3.62

1420

1060

1220

1215

Hispanic

---2

---2

---2

Nat. Am.

Characteristics of Academic Performance, by Race/Ethnicity and School

4.00

1.67

3.41

3.34

4.49

1.01

3.78

3.73

1600

610

1320

1300

Total

4.00

1.67

3.48

3.40

4.49

1.05

3.78

3.73

1600

610

1330

1320

White

3.93

1.81

3.03

3.00

4.46

2.19

3.50

3.50

1450

830

1130

1135

Black

4.00

1.95

3.41

3.34

4.07

1.01

3.86

3.81

1590

940

1340

1325

Asian

4.00

1.89

3.16

3.14

4.47

2.70

3.67

3.70

1560

830

1190

1180

Hispanic

Total College (Cohorts ’94-’96)

3.71

2.64

3.58

3.32

4.11

2.84

3.74

3.60

1440

1190

1260

1300

Nat. Am.

The Social Context of Attrition

32

4.41

Min.

Max.

3.00

3.24

1.00

3.91

Mean

Median

Min.

Max.

Coll. G.P.A.

3.95

3.06

Median

3.89

Mean

H.S G.P.A.

950

790

1480

Min.

Max.

3.91

1.00

3.41

3.13

4.25

3.64

3.99

3.97

1480

1310

1305

Median

1301

White

1244

Total

Mean

SAT

2.85

3.82

1.80

2.70

2.85

---

2.77

1

3.79

2.85

4.41

3.16

3.47

4.41

---

3.47

1

1400

4.41

950

1040

1360

---1

950

1267

Asian

950

Black

Leaver Sample

3.31

2.19

2.71

2.66

3.89

3.10

3.71

3.55

1310

790

1070

1046

Hispanic

3.91

1.00

3.13

2.99

5.31

2.33

3.78

3.83

1510

790

1290

1249

Total

3.91

1.00

3.16

3.02

4.85

3.00

3.86

3.84

1480

950

1310

1286

White

3.31

1.81

2.87

2.85

4.41

2.75

3.13

3.26

1200

920

1000

1046

Black

Leaver Population

3.90

1.80

3.38

3.25

5.31

3.16

4.00

4.10

1500

1040

1345

1308

Asian

3.61

1.47

2.59

2.59

4.69

2.33

3.89

3.75

1510

790

1090

1108

Hispanic

Characteristics of Academic Performance, by Race/Ethnicity and School School 3

Table 6

4.00

1.33

3.24

3.19

n/a

1600

800

1320

1309

Total

4.00

1.33

3.29

3.24

n/a

1600

900

1340

1326

White

3.75

1.88

2.86

2.88

n/a

1540

800

1175

1158

Black

3.97

1.54

3.23

3.18

n/a

1600

960

1320

1307

Asian

Total College (Cohorts ’94-’96)

4.00

1.63

2.89

2.91

n/a

1540

800

1200

1197

Hispanic

College Attrition at American Research Universities

1280

770

1480

Median

Min.

Max.

33

3.83

Min.

Max.

3.83

1.88

2.81

2.81

2

No cases.

1Only one case.

2.50

0.69

Median

2.42

Mean

Coll. G.P.A.

3.30

2.90

4.00

Min.

Max.

4.00

3.80

3.61

3.70

Mean

3.69

1380

930

1220

1215

White

Median

H.S. G.P.A.

1160

Mean

SAT

Total

2.70

1.36

1.94

2.00

3.60

3.50

3.55

3.55

1005

840

1000

960

Black

3.16

1.35

1.49

2.00

3.90

3.30

3.60

3.58

1480

960

1325

1270

Asian

Leaver Sample

2.91

0.69

1.80

1.80

3.40

2.90

3.15

3.15

1000

770

885

885

Hispanic

Table 6

1.61

4.00

0.13

2.50

1.61

2.47

---1

4.00

1.61

3.70

2.00

3.60

3.70

3.49

---1

1470

3.70

1190

720

1150

1190

1140

---1

Total

1190

Nat. Am.

3.96

0.13

2.70

2.60

4.00

2.00

3.70

3.58

1470

810

1180

1180

White

3.61

0.37

1.86

1.92

4.00

2.50

3.25

3.27

1320

720

940

960

Black

3.82

0.32

2.80

2.61

4.00

2.40

3.60

3.60

1440

880

1215

1210

Asian

Leaver Population

School 4

3.65

0.20

2.00

2.00

4.00

2.30

3.20

3.20

1370

800

1040

1050

Hispanic

2.81

0.94

1.66

1.67

3.80

2.50

3.25

3.25

1130

850

1070

1030

Nat. Am.

Characteristics of Academic Performance, by Race/Ethnicity and School

4.00

0.14

2.95

2.86

4.00

1.60

3.54

3.38

1600

530

1140

1140

Total

4.00

0.13

3.22

3.15

4.00

1.60

3.70

3.64

1600

530

1205

1200

White

4.00

0.14

2.49

2.45

4.00

1.60

3.30

3.27

1580

540

970

1000

Black

4.00

0.32

3.15

3.05

4.00

2.30

3.68

3.61

1600

590

1220

1230

Asian

4.00

0.20

2.81

2.75

4.00

2.20

3.40

3.37

1560

640

1165

1100

Hispanic

Total College (Cohorts ’94-’96)

3.91

0.21

2.81

2.60

4.00

2.50

3.43

3.48

1540

690

1135

1105

Nat. Am.

The Social Context of Attrition

College Attrition at American Research Universities

To clarify patterns, in table 7 correlation coefficients of academic performance and race/ethnicity are presented for each school.

Table 7. Correlations between Academic Performance and Race/Ethnicity, by School

Asian Black Hispanic Native Am. White

Asian Black Hispanic Native Am.2 White

School 1 COLL GPA HS GPA1 .158 -.157 -.197 -.154

-.155

.242*

.299**

School 3 COLL GPA HS GPA .214 .181* -.295** -.060 -.062 -.247** .041

SAT .193 -.316** -.306**

.058

Asian Black Hispanic Native Am.2 White

SAT .165 -.361** -.356**

Asian Black Hispanic Native Am. White

.289**

School 2 COLL GPA HS GPA .156 .162* -.112 -.022 -.120 -.150 .010

-.026

School 4 COLL GPA HS GPA .056 .044 -.234** -.256** -.237** -.190**

SAT .095 -.159* -.253** -.049 SAT .165 -.478** -.189**

-.057

-.100

-.062

.270**

.175**

.335**

1Data not Available 2 No Native Americans in leaver population **Correlation significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) * Correlation significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)

Statistically significant differences in performance by group emerge, and the differences are plain: regardless of the school, Blacks and Hispanics have lower high school grades and test scores, and also are prone to have lower college grades. The negative direction of the relationship between the performance measures and race holds for Native Americans, but not as often in statistically significant ways. Whites and Asians have high grades, both in high school and in college, and high test scores, often in statistically significant ways across schools. While these patterns hold generally for each of the schools, School 4 exhibits the extremes: Blacks and Hispanics register moderate, negative correlations (.01 level) on all three performance measures, while Whites register moderate, positive correlations (.01 level) on all of the measures. These patterns pertain to earlier discussion on the proportions of leavers by race/ethnicity. Blacks and Hispanics leave in disproportionate numbers, but they also enroll with track records that are disproportionately below the norm. This finding supports Litten’s major conclusion discussed at the outset: admissions selectivity is highly predictive of retention and graduation. These

34

The Social Context of Attrition data demonstrate that if schools admit students whose academic performance is significantly below the norm, they assume significantly greater risk of attrition. Schools can reduce those risks by upholding selectivity standards across groups. If schools wish to take those risks, and also fulfill their pledge to educate and graduate the academically low-performing students they admit, then presumably other kinds of support structures need to be put in place — or be more effectively administered — for such students. Financial Profile Table 8 provides a profile of leavers and stayers by the type of financial aid they received (no such data was available from School 1; data for School 4 is confounded by in-state and out-of-state cost differentials). Table 8. Distribution of Financial Aid, by Type and School1

(N=25) Mean ($) Median ($) Min ($) Max ($)

Grants 12,250 14,368 268 22,767

School 2 Leaver Sample Loans 3,382 3,825 1,850 6,625

(N=167) Mean ($) Median ($) Min ($) Max ($)

Grants 12,536 12,656 1,260 24,734

Leaver Population Loans 3,316 3,138 550 7,150

Work 1,747 1,975 585 1,975

Parents Contribution 12,042 10,000 265 29,466

(N=1401) Mean ($) Median ($) Min ($) Max ($)

Grants 13,884 14,338 285 32,466

Total College (’96 Cohort) Loans 3,469 3,605 105 7,325

Work 2,571 2,625 105 3,977

Parents Contribution 11,123 9,347 50 32,252

(N=30) Mean ($) Median ($) Min ($) Max ($)

Grants 14,867 16,368 7,340 20,610

School 3 Leaver Sample Loans 1,897 1,900 350 3,500

Work 1,903 2,000 1,150 2,220

Parents Contribution 12,866 7,503 1,000 31,035

(N=127) Mean ($) Median ($) Min ($) Max ($)

Grants 12,844 14,510 1,000 20,000

Leaver Population Loans 1,920 1,769 350 3,500

Work 1,897 2,100 700 3,250

Parents Contribution 11,926 9,475 515 32,615

(N=980) Mean ($) Median ($) Min ($) Max ($)

Grants 12,727 12,775 354 22,415

Total College (’96 Cohort) Loans 2,680 3,055 130 7,300

Work 2,016 2,200 26 4,000

Parents Contribution2

35

Work 1,894 1,975 1,650 1,975

Parents Contribution 12,098 10,320 1,591 25,345

College Attrition at American Research Universities

(N=25) Mean ($) Median ($) Min ($) Max ($)

Grants 5,006 5,344 904 8,741

School 4 Leaver Sample Loans 2,559 2,521 1,277 4,521

(N=127) Mean ($) Median ($) Min ($) Max ($)

Grants 5,585 4,572 148 17,500

(N=980) Grants Mean ($) 3,647 Median ($) 2,420 Min ($) 95 Max ($) 21,830 1Data for school 1 not available 2 Data not available

Work2

Parents Contribution 12,827 10,990 789 28,496

Leaver Population Loans 2,928 2,521 482 7,300

Work 1,014 1,013 57 2,343

Parents Contribution 9,304 6,552 18 32,675

Total College (’96 Cohort) Loans 2,429 1,900 96 7,800

Work 1,159 1,203 7 2,720

Parents Contribution2 7,048 3,688 4 32,675

In looking at the means and medians for the leaver population and the entry cohorts, one major conclusion can be drawn: the financial aid arrangements of leavers approximate, are equivalent to, or exceed the arrangements of students in the entry cohorts, and this holds for each school. A major component of these arrangements involves grants; in all of the schools, leavers left college holding significant, non-repayable award funds in hand, but elected to leave anyway. However, it is also clear that the parents’ contribution component in each of the schools is high, for leavers as for persisters. What is unclear is whether in specific cases the mix of ingredients — in grants, loans, work, and parental support — sufficiently matched the individual need, an issue addressed shortly. What was true for academic performance, holds for money. Just as attrition is not composed mainly of low academic performers (stars leave just as readily), nor is it composed mainly of the financially disenfranchised (the deep-pocketed also walk, and just as easily). Schools lose students whose finances, in aggregate, resemble students who stay. Summary Using quantitative data on students who left the schools in this study, and comparing it with equivalent data on larger groups of students who left and with equivalent data on larger groups of students who stayed, we have generated several important findings. We have found that men and women college students at these schools are as apt to leave as one another. We have also found that White students leave in greatest number, while Black and Hispanic

36

The Social Context of Attrition students leave in greatest proportion. What is more, academic low performers are as apt to leave (or stay) in school as are academic high performers. The same is true about finances: we found that those with money troubles are as apt to leave (or stay) in school are as those without money troubles. This chapter began by stressing the possibility that these key demographic characteristics of students — gender, race/ethnicity, academic performance, and finances — could exert independent effects on attrition. The analysis has remained open to that possibility, but has found contrary evidence. These demographic characteristics make attrition look random. None of the characteristics singularly, or when combined with others, adequately accounts for attrition at any one of the schools. Put another way, if we were to conclude the analysis at this juncture, we would have little to go on in making headway to better account theoretically for attrition in the research university context. This void also would entail a lack of headway in policy and possible intervention designed to remedy attrition, if not fully then partly. Consequently, we must look further. This look takes us beyond the demographic context to the process of attrition itself, attending not only to its quantitative profile but also to its qualitative character. Here, in the finergrained details, we may uncover more powerful explanations of attrition and thus more informed reactions and remedies.

37

CHAPTER III

THE PROCESS OF ATTRITION A substantial portion of research on college attrition characteristically views the phenomenon in static terms (e.g., Lenning, Beal, and Sauer 1980; Mattette and Cabrera 1991). Students enroll in college, and after a period of time, some leave without a degree. This way of viewing attrition may be partly explained by research that has focused on discrete, atemporal reasons why students leave (e.g., Witt and Handal 1984), or on the statistical testing of relationships between variables that might predict persistence (e.g., Astin 1971; Murtaugh, Burns, and Schuster 1999). Attrition is thus known to happen, to be certain, but the experiential paths leading up to that outcome have been less frequently visited and explored in detail for the content and meaning they hold for students. Most typically attrition is not an event isolated in the time or space of which college students are interactive parts. Rather, it may be viewed, as it occurs empirically, as part of a process that results in college departure itself (and probably other personal, social, and economic outcomes) (cf. Tinto 1988). This chapter aims to see attrition in more dynamic than static terms. In taking this longer, “career-like” view (cf. Faulkner 1974; Stebbins 1970), we are able to see antecedents of attrition, identifying several of the conditions — situated as they may be in organizational contexts — that give rise to it, at varying rates.

41

College Attrition at American Research Universities Departure Timing Given the magnitude of the decision to leave college, and the gravity of the consequences that result from the decision, it would stand to reason that students give themselves and their schools the benefit of time to reach a conclusion so severe. All data suggest that this is not the case. As table 9 documents, a large fraction of college attrition occurs in the first year of school. Table 9. Leavers’ Length of Stay by School, in Terms1 Terms