The Pitfalls of First Year Freshmen a Review of Academic Coursework

7/28/2019 The Pitfalls of First Year Freshmen a Review of Academic Coursework

1/23

Thesis

The Pitfalls of first-year freshmen: A review of academic

coursework

or:

Is it the driver or the journey?

Deborah A. Smith

December 2, 2002


2/23

2

All students who journey down the road of higher education do not reach the destination

of college graduate. Researchers have been examining the obstacles that deter students for

decades, especially the pit-falls of first-year students. The freshman-to-sophomore retention rate

generally encompasses the highest numbers of non-returnees in institutions. First-year students

are essential components in the retention spectrum of higher education. Administrators and

officials need to understand the rules of the road, read the signs along the way, and follow the

directions that research has provided them.

Some believe that the student who remains in school after his or her first year has a better

chance of finishing a degree. The federal government, state agencies, college view books,

journals, athletic organizations and newspapers publish retention rates of schools freshmen-to-

graduate - students who enter an institution as a first year student and complete their degree in

four to five years. These institutions with high retention rates are presumably doing a better

job of retaining their students than are institutions with low rates. In short, the prospective

student is being encouraged to avoid institutions with low rates and to prefer institutions with

high rates (Astin, 1993). This driving record can lead to low ranks in college guidebooks,

thus making it less attractive to prospective students. There is also the constant pressure from

administrators, Boards of Trustees, presidents and chancellors, in todays economy, to generate

more income, which equates to more students. Recruiters and admission officers admit larger

freshmen classes. When public institutions experience growth, state governments allocate more

money. If the college does not retain the students for more than a year, however, the college

loses money (Reinsberg, L., 1999). No school wants only halfof their freshman class returning

for their sophomore year. Private institutions struggle as well, presumably more so, with

freshman retention and monetary support, not only from the funds that large classes bring, but


3/23


4/23

4

An analysis of students courses and grades for first-year, non-returnees from the years

1998 and 1999, was studied for this paper. These data were compiled to reveal key identifiers

that administrators and instructors should digest. Demographic information has been compiled,

as well, to overrule any other factors that may askew the results.

REVIEW

Research abounds on the retention efforts across the world on the reasons schools are not

successful in retaining students and why students do not return. First of all, a very important

concept must be stated and absorbed: Administrators and retention task forces need to

comprehend that the higher the selectivity of the university, the lower the rates of first year

attrition. Most selective universities lose only 8% of their beginning full-time students before

the start of the second year, whereas open-enrollment institutions lose 45.5% of their full-time

students (Tinto, 1993). Consider this:

Regardless of where they attend college, the least-well-preparedstudents (those with a C average and high school GPA and composite

SAT scores below 700) are five times more likely to drop out(86% vs. 17 %) than are the best prepared students (those with A

averages and SAT scores above 1300.) Thus, institutions that admit

large numbers of less-well-prepared students will tend to have low

retention rates, and those with well-prepared students will tend to havehigh rates,regardless of how effective their retention programs are.

(Astin, A., Sept 23, 1993, The Chronicle.)

This is not helpful information for schools, however, that are currently (and will

continue) struggling with admission numbers, monetary resources, college image, and support

from outside agencies. In the same way that there must be average students, there must be

schools that will select those students that other schools do not accept. All schools can not be as

selective nor discriminatory of those with less than A averages or SAT scores of 1000 or lower.

These selective institutions are the minority. Colleges do lower their standards. Consequently,


5/23

5

most schools are faced with focusing on retention efforts, especially those of the first-time

freshman. Schools confront the revolving door syndrome: the doors are open, but not everyone

completes the rotation. Some students come in and continue right on out. The driver of the

vehicle, therefore, is not a professional driver, nor is he guaranteed that he will finish the course.

Nor, however, should it be assumed that every student is college material, or capable of earning a

drivers license.

As stated earlier, the critical time frame to capture a freshman so that he or she will

persist is within the first year. It is during this year that freshmen form the beginning bonds of

acceptance, adjust to challenging college life, become involved in the campus community, and

gain a sense of his/her academic preparedness. If freshmen experience a successful first year, the

chances that they will return the next year greatly improves.

One study, however, shows that nearly one half of all leavers (sic) depart before the start

of their second year, especially during the first ten weeks of school, when the transition is not

complete and personal affiliations are not yet cemented (Tinto, V., 1998). Other documented

research emphasizes that the students first six to eight weeks are the most important: it is during

this first, short intermediate college introduction that the student establishes and integrates his

connections with the college community (Tinto, 1993; Kalsner, L.; Retention, 2000, Virginia

Commonwealth University). This suggests that the academic structure of the beginning weeks of

school is not the problem. The problem could be several things: lack of transitional skills,

sociological issues, pressures of home, work, school, or emotional factors, to name a few.

Many universities and colleges offer two, short, eight-week sessions inside the main

semester. Courses for one or two credits are offered during the first eight weeks, with another

round of eight-week courses being offered after mid-semester break, or mid-term. By the time


6/23

6

the student has reached mid-term, and has received his grades, either from his professor, on-line,

or on a grade report, he knows whether he is successful. This time frame (of eight weeks) allows

the student to witness his knowledge of the first half of the semester: his first eight-week courses

are permanent grades and there is no chance of improving himself in the course in which he has

received a final grade. If he is doing poorly, in many instances and institutions, he will withdraw.

Of course, not all universities offer this eight-week structure; but most institutions have a mid-

semester grading point. This suggests an academic reason why students withdraw before the first

ten weeks of class. This is when students are able to gauge their strengths and weaknesses.

There are many issues that surround the retention of the first-year student. Most research

concludes that a students involvement within the social sphere of college life is crucial to the

students success. If the student has positive experiences, integrates himself into the institution,

and perceives himself as a meaningful member of the campus community, he will probably

continue. As one administrator stated at a Southwestern Texas University: The real reason

students leave is that we have failed to significantly engage them in the campus community.

Students on athletic teams dont leave, students in marching bands dont leave, students on the

campus newspapers dont leave. (Reisberg, L., 1999). While involvement in campus activities

and social atmosphere is the students responsibility, thriving retention programs in institutions

realize that it is the institutions responsibility to involve the student; it is even theirobligation.

Even in highly selective environments, such as the University of Notre Dame, student success is

not left to chance, and the institution takes a highly active role in ensuring students success. It is

because of this that they have a freshman attrition rate of only 1% - the lowest in the nation

(Noel Levitz, 2001, pg. 135). Noel Levitz also points out that, sadly, todays students do not


7/23

7

walk in the door with the level of independence, skill, and savvy of students in years past (2001,

pg. 135).

Student involvement may also include faculty contact. Frequent contact with faculty

outside of the classroom appears to be one of the most important forms of interaction impacting

upon student persistence (Noel, L., Levitz, R., 1985). Virginia Commonwealth University

found that success in academic work and connection with faculty are major factors in student

retention (2000). Attrition would improve if faculty were encouraged and allowed to cross the

disciplinary and departmental borders that divide them from the students (Tinto, 1998). New

students need this type of informal, but professional, contact with faculty, in order to feel

involved, to belong, even to boost their self-esteem. Other contributors to the successful college

freshmans experience include staff members, as well: the cashier, the cafeteria server, the

department secretary all play an important role (Noel Levitz, 1985).

Research has also explored the psychological and social factors that discourage the first-

time freshmen from returning. Some students have difficulty adjusting to college life, experience

isolation and incongruence (Tinto, 1993). These are not easy elements to track, however, and

often administrators and faculty discover these factors after the student has withdrawn, through

the students classmates or in professional discussions. Students may have depressed motivation,

poor abstract and conceptual skills, poor self-concept, or unclear goals. Other elements that

surface in research include lack of cultural tolerance, the inability to express ones self, and lack

of an educational background suitable for college (Noel Levitz, 1985). Identifying these student

characteristics before the end of the students first semester is essential, and this identity will

intervene with early withdrawal. Many schools do not attempt to study this because it is too

time-consuming, and it would require the way we approach students.


8/23

8

Other reasons the first-time freshman does not return may be categorized into external

and internal factors. External forces include lack of monetary resources, living and personal

expenses, housing and/or roommate difficulties, transportation problems, family demands, and

social and/or work demands. Even the peer pressure of family and/or friends who do not value a

college education, or who are threatened by the students participation in education, or the

college life, play a part in retention as well (Noel Levitz, 1985; Liu, E., Liu, R., 1999).

Internal reasons cover a broad range, such as procrastination, self-management

problems, fear of failure, inability to assert needs and seek help for problems, self doubt, fear of

success, fear of rejection, value conflicts, career indecision, and boredom (Noel Levitz, 1985).

While these are all legitimate reasons, one wonders why these factors are not researched further.

Unless administrators are trained to extract this information from the student, by the way of an

exit interview, a statement of submission, or by body language, there is no real way to gather a

direct motive. Even when confronted directly, a student is not necessarily going to reveal the true

reason he decides not to return. Once a student has made up his mind, he might be afraid of

someone persuading him to change his decision.

The size of an institution and its classmates has led some researchers to re-examine the

process of educating students in large classroom settings. Though students gain much from its

diversity and extensive resource base, their involvement in the life of the institution, especially

its academic life, suffers from the size of the institution and the physical remoteness of its faculty

and staff. Large, remote, frequently un-involving lecture classes do little to illicit student

interest (Tinto, 1993).

Noel and Levitz list several myths that administrators should expel. One of these is that

dropouts are flunkouts (2001, pg. 132). While there is solid evidence to support this claim,


9/23

9

grades of individual students and the courses in which they enroll are a very important factor in

the retention process.

Vincent Tinto offers this advice concerning academics:

While we have witnessed changes in programming for students

we have not seen comparable changes in the academic side of the

house or in the organization of Higher Education. In this regard,the educational experiences of students have remained largely

unchanged, their education relatively unaffected by the research

on student persistence (Tinto, 1998).

There is very little documentation published on student coursework and grades for non-

returning first-time freshmen. This researcher decided that such a study should be conducted. A

database was compiled of the basic general education courses and grades of non-returning first-

year students at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke. This study will help other

institutions realize that, indeed, the academic side of the house needs to be addressed. This

study will show an interesting fluctuation of student grades. It will also reveal that, in some

cases, there is no relationship between SAT scores and high school grade point averages before

students enter college.

DATA

Data were collected on the first-time freshmen from the years 1998 and 1999. These data

included the county, state, high school grade point average, college grade point average, dorm

status, full or part-time status, race, age and gender. Further data was collected on the non-

returnees for these two years, including coursework and individual grades. Excel was used to

compile descriptive charts for the purpose of viewing the actual grades and courses in which

students enrolled.

The fall welcomed 468 new freshmen in 1998. The data originally supplied stated that

158 did not return for the Fall, 1999. Further inspection reduces the net total to 153. One actually


10/23

10

returned and four were inconclusive: no name or data, when entered into the student information

database, produced any information. Of these 153 freshmen, 98% of the students were from

North Carolina. Thirty-two percent were from Robeson County. This is predictable because

this is the county in which the college is located. The third largest group of non-returnees was

from Wake County (7.3%), and more students withdrew from this county than other neighboring

counties (Scotland 6%; Cumberland 19%). The majority of those that withdrew (62) had

SAT scores within the 800 890 range. (21 students were in the 700 range; 33 were in the 900

range.) Twenty-six of these 153 had an SAT score over 1000. The students were mostly between

18 and 19 years old. There was no correlation between gender, race or student status (meaning

part-time or full-time).

Of these 153 non-returnees, fourteen had a 0.0 cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA).

Seven of these records were blank; no name appeared when entered into the database. This could

mean that the students 1) changed his or her social security number, 2) never matriculated, 3)

were admitted but did not enroll. There were seven who actually attended. Two of these students

took and passed the freshman orientation course, and it was the only course these students took.

One of these seven took only two business courses (1 F, 1 W), and a math course (F). This is not

a true, first-semester freshman; otherwise this student would have taken the freshman orientation

course. The remaining four students took six courses each; two students passed the freshmen

seminar course and two received W grades in two of their courses. So, actually, only one

student failed all of his attempted courses. SAT total scores for these 0.0 GPA students ranged

between 800-940; two had high school grade point averages of 1.7; the other five had high

school grade point averages above a 2.0.


11/23

11

The following table breaks down some of the most interesting characteristics of the non-

returning students in the .001 - .999 range from the Fall semester only.

.001 - .490 Cumulative GPA 1998

Number courses Avg No. Avg Sat Avg Cgpa Dorm Comm PED courses No of Highest Which Freshmen Seminar Cours

Students took Courses Pass Failed Fs grade Course Pass Failed Withdrew

16 109 6.8 920 0.29362

13 3 4 4 64 B+ PED 6 9 1


Number courses Avg No. Avg Sat Avg Cgpa Dorm Comm PED courses No of Highest Which Freshmen Seminar Cours


33 204 6.18 873 0.6882 22 11 24 3 85 A PED 28 4 0

This grade point range (0.0 - .999) is severe. All of these students should have received

academic warning letters and would have been placed on warning. Two of the students in the 0.0

GPA range returned in the Spring (and made all Fs); five in the .001 - .499 GPA range

returned Spring but also received all failing grades (with the exception of physical education

courses). Fifteen in the .500 - .999 range returned but faired much better, hence, the higher GPA.

The fact that the PED courses recorded the only high grades, or even the only grades that the

student received, should probably alert institutions that these one-credit courses could mistakenly

affect a grade point average.

Consider the figures below for Biology, Fall, 1998, in the less than 1.0 GPA range (not

including those with 0.0 GPAs). Of the thirteen that participated in the course, only one made a

C+, all but four lived on campus. The variation between the SAT score and the high school GPA

is misleading. While a student with a 3.2 high school GPA might appear to have an advantage

over his or her peers, this particular students grade of a D+ is unimpressive, as well as his or her

SAT score. In the F range, there is also students with a low SAT score (790) and a B GPA (3.0).


12/23

12

Number Grade SAT score High School GPA Dorm/Comm (D,C)

4 Ws

1 C+ 890 2.7 D

3 D+ 820 3.2 C

910 2.5 D (lab F)

950 2.1 D

2 D- 980 2.1 D

850 2.1 D

7 F 910 2.6 C

790 3.0 C

850 2.6 D (lab D-)

950 2.5 D

850 2.1 D

870 2.5 D

860 2.5 C

In the less than 2.0 range, for Biology 100, grades appear better. But the relationship

between the SAT score, the high school GPA and the dorm status prove nothing.

1 B 830 2.8 C

2 C+ 930 2.9 D

840 2.7 D

4 C 870 3.9 C (lab D)


13/23


14/23

14

students. The SAT scores ranged from 820 to 1260 (!) and high school GPAs ranged from 1.9 to

3.8. There is a student with a 1260 SAT, and a high school GPA of 2.5; but there is yet another

with an SAT score of 1160 and a high school GPA of 3.8! Those students on the higher end of

the SAT score grid and high school GPA are probably students who quit attending class. These

could also be students who have weak English, spelling, comprehension or grammatical skills.

One would hope that a student with a high school GPA of 3.8 would be able to pass an English

composition class. This also leads one to wonder if all those who made Fs (with the exception

of the one commuter) resided in the same dorm.

Of those with less than a 2.0 GPA, there were, again, a little better grades. This is English

105.

B B- range 6 SAT: 810 1030 HS GPA 2.4 3.5

C+ - C- range 20 SAT: (0); 780 1190 HS GPA (0) 2.1 3.9

F 1 SAT: 950 HS GPA 3.9

W 1

Incidentally, the student in the C range that had a 3.9 high school GPA also had an SAT score of

870.

The group that returned for the spring, in the 1.00 1.99 range did the following in

English 106, the next composition course in the universitys sequence.

B 1 SAT: 1190 HS GPA 3.6

C+ - C 6 SAT: 810- 1000 HS GPA 2.1 3.6

D 3 SAT: 860 900 HS GPA 2.3 3.1

F 6 SAT: 810- 1030 HS GPA 2.1 3.4


15/23

15

The attached Appendix A shows the percentage of grades that students received for the

general education courses.

The pie chart in Appendix B shows the percentage of coursework in the general

education courses, in relation to the other course that the student took for the Fall, 1998 semester.

For example, only 28 of the non-returning students took an ARTMUST (Art Appreciation,

Music Appreciation or Intro to Theatre) course. This number was divided by the total number of

general education, graded courses (772), to equal the 4% (.036). Of these 28 students, 14 passed,

9 failed, and 5 withdrew.

Other than PED and FRS (freshmen seminar), more students took English (104), History

(85), Math (73) and Biology (72). History enrolled 85 students. General education requirements

may be reached by taking (and passing) American Civilization I or II, or World Civilization I or

II. Fifty-two students passed (D- and above 61%), 23 (27%) failed. Of those that passed,

however, only three made As; 15 made above a B-.

Of the 153 first-time freshmen non-returnees, 91 returned for the Spring, 1999 semester.

One of these 91 had a GPA of 4.0. This student, however, took only four courses, withdrew three

of them (W grades) and received an A in one of them. The courses were all music courses.

This student was not a true first-time freshman. Fifty-five students did not return for the spring.

Of these 55, seventeen of them had a GPA greater than 2.0, with the highest GPA of 3.5. These

are the students that the university needs to focus their retention efforts on. It is the life-blood of

institutions to keep the freshmen enrolled, especially those that prove successful.

The attached Appendix C has the break down of courses and grades for the full 1998

year.


16/23

16

The Fall of 1999 had 481 new freshmen. Of these, 160 did not return for the Fall, 2000.

Further inspection revealed that four had to be removed from the data set for the same reasons

that were evident in the 1998 data: one student was still here; three others had no data

whatsoever. Upon investigation of the remaining 156 freshmen, nine were blank records. (This

happened also in 1998). The majority of non-returnees hailed from Robeson County (27.6%),

and the second largest group of students were from Wake (12.2%). A larger number of these

1999 students were from out of state (5.1%) than were in 1998. The majority of those that

withdrew (47) had SAT scores within the 900 990 range, while 41 students were above an SAT

score of 800. (18 students were in the 700 range.) Twenty-four of these 156 had an SAT score

over 1000. The students were mostly between 18 and 19 years old. There was no correlation

between gender, race or student status.

Of those with a 0.0 Cumulative GPA, there were two College Opportunity Program (a

program for at-risk students) students who only attended the Summer semester of 1999. While

they passed the freshmen seminar course, and made Cs in the required accompanying Education

104 (EDN 104), they still had a 0.0 GPA. This is due to the fact that EDN 104 does not count in

the courses required to graduate, therefore, it is not counting in the cumulative GPA. The other

students in this GPA bracket actually were freshmen and took between 3 and 7 courses (a total of

59 courses).

The following tables have been created to show the interesting data on the 1999 Fall

semester, this time including the 0.0 GPA students.

.000 Cumulative GPA Fall 1999

Number courses Avg No. Avg Sat Avg Cgpa Dorm Commuters PED courses No of Highest Which Freshmen Seminar Cour


11 59 5.3 960 0 5 6 1 4 47 P PED 7 4 0


17/23

17




9 58 6.4 868 0.2562 5 4 6 2 36 A Mus L 6 3




27 168 6.2 918 0.71 12 15 21 2 63 A HST 18 9

There are also pie charts that will show what students actually did in the general

education courses. See Appendix D.

Of the students (65) who did not return for the Spring, 2000 semester, there were 18 who

had cumulative GPAs over 2.0, with the highest being 3.31. Of the remainder who did not return

(91) for the Fall, 2000, 44 of them had GPAs over 2.0. This is a significant number of potentially

good students!

The attached Appendix E shows the break down of students by courses and grades for the

Fall 1999 and Spring 2000.

Conclusion

The first obvious conclusion is that there is no relationship between the cumulative

GPA, the high school GPA and the SAT scores at this school. While Astin may

propose that this is a predictor of retention, it does not prove true at UNCP.

Variations are too wide between SAT scores and high school GPAs. While it is

common knowledge that some people, in general, just do not test well, it is strange

for a student to have a 3.9 high school GPA and an SAT score or 870. (Further

investigation of the students high school transcript might reveal that the student

moved and transferred from another high school and only the grades from the


18/23

18

degree granting high school is counted.) Lesson number one: not everyone who

passes the written test will be able to drive.

There is no relationship between students who stay on or off campus. It might be useful

in future studies to determine exactly in which dorm and suite each student lived. This

would reveal any connections between students and their classmates, if there were any.

Students who pass freshmen seminar are not necessarily successful students. In both

years, the majority of students passed the course (108, Fall 1998; 80, Fall, 1999).

Passing this course by no means ensures the success of the freshman, even though the

course content supposedly teaches the student how to succeed in college. Intervention

should begin immediately for the students who fail this class, as this is a red flag to

those retention inspectors, or, as we will call them, driving instructors. Lesson number

two: Students who pass the driving test, are not necessarily capable of handling an

automobile on the road.

Another interesting factor is that most students pass or receive grades for PED

(physical education activity courses). This was the group in both years that received

the highest numbers of As. Most of these courses are eight-week classes. This is

important because it reveals that a student can focus on something for eight weeks

at a time. Of course, most coaches and professors of these courses record good

grades for the students if the student simply attends the class. One must suppose, as

well, that there is not much more than participation in these courses; there are really

no academics involved. Perhaps in academic measurements, the PED courses

should not be included.


19/23

19

While there were not an abundant number of students enrolled in Math, Geography,

Psychology, Political Science and Biology courses, it is important to examine the numbers of

failures in these courses. Further investigation of these courses (i.e., instructor of each course,

grade distribution versus class level of student per course, time of day the course is taught) could

hold valuable solutions for administrators, department chairmen, and faculty.

Data Quality Issues for Others Who Choose to Collect Data

Without actually viewing the record of every single person who did not return, it is

impossible to accurately trust the original data that most institutions use for

retention analysis. (In this analysis, a list was supplied by the Institutional Research

Office, of the first-time students for each year. There were separate worksheets for

the returnees and non-returnees. As inspection revealed, there were many errors:

miscoded identifying numbers, students miscoded as first year freshmen, students

that never matriculated.) It would also be helpful to have a printed copy of the

syntax or wording of the program that pulls the students from the Informational

database. This might help eliminate errors if one knows which codes or flags were

being used to extract the data.

Do not be fooled by the 0.0 cumulative GPA. Most institutions have a grade of P,

which counts in the credits attempted and earned, but not in the credits from which

the GPA is calculated. Students with P grades (although it might be only a

freshmen orientation class or a physical education activity) do not totally flunk

out.

When a student makes nothing but Fs, his first semester, it might not necessarily

mean that he academically failed. The student might not have ever attended the


20/23

20

college, or just quit attending classes without following the withdrawal procedure.

There have been many instances in which students are on the attendance lists for

two different institutions at one time. Institutions need to find a better way to track

this. While one goal of a college is to make students responsible for their actions,

mistaking a student as academically unintelligible (and not permitted to continue) is

different than recognizing an irresponsible student, one who does not follow the

proper procedures. Grade distributions for an academic department, for example,

with many of these types of failures, would certainly be misleading.

Also beware of W grades. In most institutions, a student must get a withdrawal

form for the course (or for the semester), and process the form with proper

signatures. This is the procedure that registers the W grade in the information

system. Some colleges, however, accept a W grade, given by a professor on an

official grade roll. If a student has all Fs and a few Ws, one might want to

discover whether the W was on the grade roll or assigned through the proper

manner. If the professor assigned the W, the student might not have even been on

campus; if the student had followed the proper procedure, it would mean that he/she

had to actively process the withdrawal form. The student cannot make the claim

retroactively that they never attended if a withdrawal with signatures is found on

file.

Institutions need to find a better way to track commuters. Those that dont attend,

even if they pre-registered and have financial aid, might still be on the rolls. A

check-in of commuter students would ensure that all are planning on participating

in the semester. Administrators need to also form stronger bonds with dorm


21/23

21

students. A dorm student should definitely not fail (make all Fs) all course work

unless they are simply not attending class. There should be a procedure to make

sure that each person responsible for the dorm or suite has a class schedule of all its

inhabitants. This would enable the supervisor to know when students are supposed

to be in class.

The cumulative GPA used for calculations is as it states: cumulative. One needs to

keep this in mind when looking at individual records; the term GPA for a student

could be excellent for one semester, but become tainted with the addition of the

next semesters grades.

A first-time freshman needs to be ready for college. Many of these students in this

study seemed incapable of handling much more than eight-week physical education

activities and the eight-week freshmen seminar. What does this say of our current

K-12 education program? There are so many teacher workdays and holidays

scattered throughout the year that the student is not accustomed to attending a

variety of courses on certain days of the week, accompanied by weeks of straight

classes with only one day off here and there for a holiday. This does not praise our

current elementary education system, but it is something administrators below the

college level need to contemplate.

While the data did not show any correlation between the high school GPA and the county

in which the student lived, there could be something more to inflated high school GPAs than

was evident here. More research should be done on this. (For example, it seemed that the non-

returning students with higher high school GPAs were from Robeson County.)


22/23

22

More intense college preparation needs to be done at the high school level, as well,

especially in the math and sciences. Institutions need to have a retention program to examine

these issues of frequent F grades, extreme differences in SAT scores and high school GPAs, and

the dorm versus the commuter student aspect. A case-by-case study, such as this, is very

revealing and can inform departments, faculty and administrators which factors need

improvement. This is regardless of each institutions retention rate. Not every student will

make the journey from freshman to graduate; not every student is capable of driving.

Bibliography

Astin, A. (September, 1993). College retention rates are often misleading. The Chronicle of

Higher Education.

Brundsden, V., Davies, M., Shelvin, M., Bracken, M. (2000). Why do higher education

students drop out? A test of Tintos model.Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24.

Cope, R., Hannah, W. (1975).Revolving college doors: the causes and consequences of

dropping out, stopping out and transferring.New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Geraghty, M. (July, 1996). Data shows more students quitting college before sophomore year.The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Kalsner, Lydia.Higher Education Extension Service REVIEW. Issues in college student

retention.

Liu, E., Liu, R. (1999) An application of Tintos model at a commuter campus.Education, 119. Retreived from the www on April 11, 2002:

www.web1.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw...xm_15_0_ 45470982?sw_aep=ncliveuncpem

Noel, L., Levitz, R., Saluri, D., & Associates. (1985).Increasing student retention:

effective programs and practices for reducing drop out rate. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass, Inc.

Reisberg, L (1999). Colleges struggle to keep would be dropouts enrolled. The Chronicle


23/23

of Higher Education. 46.

Sydow, D., Sandel, R. (1998) Making student retention an institutional priority.Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 22.

Thomas, S. (2000). Ties that bind. The Journal of Higher Education. 71.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recentresearch.Review of Educational Research. 21.

________ (1993).Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

__________ (1998). Colleges as communities: taking research on student persistence

seriously. The Journal of Higher Education. 21.

Toutkoushian, R., Smart, J. (2001). Do institutional characteristics affect student gain

from college? The Review of Higher Education. Retreived from the www onApril 11, 2001: wwyswlg:1184/http://muse.jhu.edu/journ...

r_education/v025/25.1toutkoushian.html.

Virginia Comonwealth University, Retention 2000 recommendations. Retreived from the

www on April 10, 2002 at: www.students.vcu.edu/dsa/retention2000/appendc.html.

Documents

The Pitfalls of First Year Freshmen a Review of Academic Coursework