ACUHO-I News Blog

Education Trust released two reports Monday on the graduation rates of white, black and Latino students. The nationwide average percentage of minorities who graduate is significantly lower than that of Caucasian students; this fact is both unfortunate and well-known. However, the Education Trust’s reports note there are institutions that have beaten these odds, or at least improved them.  Inside HigherEd has an article that sums up these results. Some institutions have a historical advantage. Their histories of serving minority populations are longer and there are more minorities that go to those institutions, leading to more programs and greater student comfort with the academic and social scene of college. Other institutions have improved their minority graduation rates with concentrated focus on the problem. Wayne State University, for example, has raised its African-American retention rates considerably through need-based financial aid programs and learning communities. Demographics, the quality of the high schools from which the institution draws its students, and students’ feelings of belonging at the institution all play roles, but the institution can attempt to counteract negative issues.

What are the factors your institution has to its advantage and disadvantage when it comes to student success? How has housing participated in programs to emphasize or counteract these?

In 1980, only three of every four Xavier University freshmen would return for a second year. Fewer than that would eventually graduate. These days at Xavier, a university with 6,996 students in Cincinnati, nine of every ten students return for their second year, and eight of ten ultimately graduate in six years. What changed? Not the students–they’re essentially, academically and fiscally, the same. It was Xavier’s retention efforts.

Adrian A. Schiess, as director for student success and retention, devotes his days to ensuring students who want to persist at Xavier are able to do so. He’s held the directorship since 1990; he was a professor at Xavier before that. Students with issues that may prevent them from continuing their educations are referred to Schiess. He’s assisted with many financial concerns–the most common problem–as well as mental health, academic and interpersonal issues. Post-freshmen year “melt” is a big concern for Xavier and most other institutions; freshmen drift and don’t return as sophomores. Thanks to Schiess’s and his staff’s efforts, Xavier’s freshmen retention rate is 86% for the last three years. (It was a bit higher, but the economy tamped it down.) This is better than the national mean for similar institutions, at 81.4%. Many problems that would prevent students from returning can be resolved. Often students who need extra help, whether in the form of financial aid, counseling or tutoring, are simply unsure of where to find it, and unfamiliar with navigating offices and advocating for themselves. Schiess’s office helps them do that, making it more likely the student will graduate, and strengthening the student’s bond with Xavier, the school that stuck with them.

Is there someone–or someones–on your campus whose entire job is devoted to retention? How does the housing office work with that person? If there isn’t a “retention position,” what efforts fill the gap?

Today’s Doonesbury strip mentions retention issues among college students: family, work, children…and the circus?

Colleges and Universities employ a myriad of programs aimed at retention; many, not all of these, are in the student affairs area; plenty of those are in housing. Living-learning communities, mentoring, tutoring, freshman introductory programs, second-year experience programs, et cetera, are all aimed at getting students to graduation and improving their experience along the way. The success of these programs is often measured on retention and graduation rates. But that’s not the only way to measure success; there’s also the more business-like (or callous?) way: do the students who stay (and continue paying tuition and fees) make up for the monies spent on the programs? For the most part, they do, says a report, Investing in Student Success, sponsored by Jobs for the Future and the Delta Project on Postsecondary Education Costs, Productivity and Accountability. Thirteen institutions allowed their retention programs to be evaluated using a costs-to-returns calculator. While the return of a programs could not be accurately calculated because of a lack of necessary data, most did very well, their returns outstripping the costs considerably.

Last week, Public Agenda and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation released a study, With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them, on why students drop out of college. The report, the first of a series of three, says their study found that students leave college for financial reasons, to work to support themselves or their families. Many survey respondents said they couldn’t afford to return to college even if their tuition and books were paid. The report also noted that the students may have not chosen the best college for them, as students who are financially independent have fewer resources to make these decisions, and that most don’t realize the impact dropping out will have on their lives.

These are interesting results, but commenters at Inside HigherEd had a different take when a brief article about the study was posted last week: While there are some students who definitely have financial need, some seem unable to discern between needs (food) and wants (dinners out).

At the Chronicle of Higher Education, some commenters also brought up the needs/wants argument; some wondered if some of these “dropouts” later return and finish their degree (the study was silent on this) and others said they saw these problems at their institutions.

What’s your take?