The increases in tuition and fee prices in 2015-16 were, like the increases in the two preceding years, relatively small by historical standards. However, the very low rate of general inflation makes this year’s increases in college prices larger in real terms than those of 2014-15 and 2013-14. Significantly, and perhaps counter to public impressions, price increases are not accelerating over time. However, the average published tuition and fee price of a full-time year at a public four-year institution is 40% higher, after adjusting for inflation, in 2015-16 than it was in 2005-06.The average published price is 29% higher in the public two-year sector and 26% higher in the private nonprofit four-year sector than a decade ago.
The retirement patterns of senior faculty are an issue of ongoing interest in higher education, particularly since the
2008-09 recession. If a significant share of tenured faculty works past “normal” retirement age, challenges can arise for institutional leadership focused on keeping the faculty workforce dynamic for purposes of teaching, research and service. Buyout packages and phased retirement programs have been common responses to encourage faculty retirement, but colleges and universities are increasingly interested in alternative and complementary strategies to manage faculty retirement patterns.
Addressing financial and psychosocial barriers to retirement can benefit both faculty and their institutions.
About a third of tenured faculty age 50 or older expect to retire by “normal” retirement age, while fully two-thirds anticipate working past that age or have already done so. This latter group is sometimes called “reluctant retirees,” and when their numbers swell on campus, it can lead to productivity declines, limited advancement opportunities for junior faculty, a lack of openings for new hires, and difficulty reallocating institutional resources. To address a reluctant retiree pheno- menon and better manage faculty retirement patterns, college and university leaders need to understand the thought process among senior faculty regarding whether and when to retire.
It seems that nearly every major media publication in the United States these
days wants to rank colleges. The latest outlet to get on board? The Economist
A College-Rankings World
The proliferation of such lists could mean more choice for students—or just
more confusion.
This document attempts to provide useful advice for graduate students, particularly Ph.D. students, just starting out on their research careers at the Autonomous Networks Research Group, Dept. of Electrical Engineering-Systems, USC. It should also be useful for graduate students at other institutions working in similar research areas.
Students with no prior experience often have several misconceptions about the nature of research. For example, they may think that doing research is similar to or requires the same skill as acing courses; that research projects are like homework sets - the advisor will assign well-formulated problems and provide the student with the tools to solve them. Hopefully, this document will help clear some of these misconceptions and help them get started on the right foot in their research.
Many of the pointers here may seem like common sense, but as they say, common sense is by no means common… and very little of it is taught in a classroom.
This is an active document, and as such is subject to modifications. To begin with, I have just listed my main points under each heading. I will be working to convert this into a coherent narrative over the course of the next couple of months.
This article is intended for people who are considering going to graduate school or who are currently in the first year of graduate school. It is primarily focused on the decisions you will make on the path towards a Ph.D., but many of the same issues would certainly arise in a M.S. thesis-based program. The context of most of the discussion is an engineering program at a top research institution, but many of the comments would also apply at different level institutions as well as in science, medicine, and the humanities. This article is equally targeted toward all students in science and engineering, but there are certainly issues of representation, bias, and treatment that apply especially for students coming from underrepresented groups; I have drawn from conversations with students from these groups for these issues, but the issues raised here should
be understood by everyone. Even though this article is intended for students, I hope that some faculty and advisors take the time to refresh their perspective on the “student side” of their relationships.
Research is hardly easy. As Martin Schwartz points out in his 2008 essay “The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research,” solving research problems requires us to immerse ourselves in the unknown. However intimidating it may be to overcome this infinite amount of ignorance, we believe there is a special set of traits that will equip an under-graduate researcher to successfully solve research problems. Creativity, judgment, communication, organization, and persistence are all equally important skills to make the leap from gaining knowledge from others’ discoveries to making discoveries on your own. Having and honing these skills, skills that encompass every level of research in every disci-pline, are key to an undergraduate developing the founda-tion for a successful career in research. As a group of under-graduate researchers and mentors, we want to motivate students to solve problems and make discoveries, and to start a discussion on how to forge the right path for each student toward research success. Following is our list of key skills.
In the United States, slightly more than half of all students (51 percent) who begin university study complete their degree in their initial institution within six years. Though some students eventually earn their degrees via transfer to another university or college, it remains a fact that for many institutions in the United States dropout is often as frequent as graduation. Of course, universities and colleges vary considerably. Some elite private universities such as Harvard and Princeton graduate over 90% of their students and several very selective public universities such as the University of California at Los Angeles, the University of Virginia, and the University of Michigan, graduate over 80% of their students. On the other hand, many open-enrollment universities, especially those in the large cities, graduate less than 30% of their students.
“Collaborative learning” is an umbrella term for a variety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual effort by students, or students and teachers together. Usually, students are working in groups of two or more, mutually searching for understanding, solutions, or meanings, or creating a product. Collaborative learning activities vary widely, but most center on students’ exploration or application of the course material, not simply the teacher’s presentation or explication of it.
Tinto vita
Many colleges speak of the importance of increasing student retention. Many even invest substantial resources in programs to achieve that end. Witness, for instance, the growth of the freshman seminar. Some institutions even go so far as to hire retention consultants who promise significant gains in retention if only you use their programs. But while many colleges have adopted a variety of programs to enhance retention, most programs are add-ons that are marginal to the academic life of the institution. Too many colleges have adopted what Parker Palmer calls the “add a course” strategy. Need to address the issue of diversity? Add a course in diversity studies. Need to address the success of new students? Add a freshman seminar. Need to address student retention? Bring in a consultant and establish a committee or office charged with that responsibility. The result is a growing segmentation of services for students into increasingly autonomous fiefdoms whose functional responsibilities are reinforced by separate budget and promotion systems. Therefore, while it is true that retention programs abound on our campuses, most institutions, in my view, have not taken student retention seriously. They have done little to change the way they organize their activities, done little to alter student experience, and therefore done little to address the deeper roots of student attrition. As a result, most efforts at enhancing student retention, though successful to some
degree, have had more limited impact than they should or could.
Vincent Tinto (1993) identifies three major sources of student departure: academic difficulties, the inability of individuals to resolve their educational and occupational goals, and their failure to become or remain incorporated in the intellectual and social life of the institution. Tinto's "Model of Institutional Departure" states that, to persist, students need integration into formal (academic performance) and informal (faculty/staff interactions) academic systems and formal (extracurricular activities) and informal (peer-group interactions) social systems.
Vincent Tinto’s Student integration Model (SIM) (Tinto, 1975) remains the most influential model of dropout from tertiary education. This paper outlines the problems associated with student attrition and examines how the SIM models the factors that drive attrition behaviour. Three criticisms that have been made of the SIM are evaluated; 1: The SIM is not an adequate model of student attrition, 2: The SIM does not generalise beyond traditional students, 3: Academic integration is not an
important predictor of student attrition. It is argued that the papers which provide evidence in support of criticisms 1 and 3 are methodologically flawed and that criticism 2 is potentially invalid as, according to Tinto (Tinto, 1982) the SIM was never meant to generalise beyond typical students. Tinto’s later additions and alterations of the SIM are discussed and evaluated. The paper
concludes that it is impossible to properly asses venting student dropout until the model itself is satisfactorily verified.
Many colleges speak of the importance of increasing student retention. Indeed, quite a few invest substantial resources in programs designed to achieve that end. Some institutions even hire consultants who promise a proven formula for successful retention. But for all that effort, most institutions do not take student retention seriously. They treat student retention, like so many other issues, as one more item to add to the list of issues to be addressed by the institution. They adopt what Parker calls the "add a course" strategy in addressing the issues that face them. Need to address the issue of diversity? Add a course in diversity studies. Need to address the issue of student retention, in particular that of new students?Add a freshman seminar or perhaps a freshmen mentoring program. The result is that student experiences are increasingly segmented into smaller and smaller pieces; their relationships with faculty, staff, and each other becoming more narrow and specialized; their learning further partitioned into smaller disconnected segments.
Students persisting to completion of their educational goals is a key gauge of student success, and therefore institutional success. Two most frequently cited statistics in connection with student success are the freshman-to-sophomore retention rate, or first-year annual return rate, and the cohort graduation rate. The freshman-to-sophomore retention rate measures the
percentage of first-time, full-time students enrolled at the university the following fall semester. The cohort graduation rate is defined as the percentage of an entering class that graduates within three years with an associate’s degree, and within four, five, or six years with a baccalaureate degree. Since the annual return rate of students as they progress through a program
is directly related to their degree/certificate completion, the concept of retention usually includes year-by-year retention or persistence rates as well as graduation rates. Together, these statistics represent student success.
This morning I will speak to what we must do next to more effectively address the continuing problem of student attrition in higher education. To do so I will briefly look back on what is now a thirty-year history of research & practice on student retention and reflect on the lessons we have learned over that time. I will argue that we have yet to attend to the deeper
educational issues that ultimately shape student success in higher education. Until we do so, our efforts will always be less effective than we desire.
The purpose of this study is to estimate the effects of organizational attributes on social integration in particular, and more generally on the student withdrawal process. Theory elaboration (the application of new concepts borrowed from other theoretical perspectives to explain the focal phenomenon) is used to help with the revision of Tinto's interactionalist theory of individual student departure. The existence of empirical evidence supporting the importance of organizational attributes in the persistence process makes the addition of organizational characteristics a logical choice as a possible source of social integration in an elaboration of Tinto's theory. The results from this study provide strong supp elaborating the revised version of Tinto's theory through the inclusion of concepts from organizational theory.
Though research on student attrition is plentiful and debate over theories of student persistence vigorous, less attention has been paid to the development of a model of institutional action that provides institutions guidelines for effective action to increase student persistence and in turn student success. This report describes a model of action for institutions that is intended to increase student persistence. The report does so by reviewing not only the growing body of research on effective institutional practices, but also studies of effective state and federal policy. In doing so, it seeks, for the first time, to situate institutional action within the broader context of federal and, in particular, state policy.
The field of student attrition has grown tremen dously over the past two decades. The demographic characteristics of the population have induced us to consider how our institutions can more effectively serve their students and hopefully retain more of them until degree completion. As a result, studies of dropout and policy-oriented workshops concerned with prevention of attrition have become commonplace.
This article describes the major findings from a longitudinal study of the impact of learning communities on the success of academically under-prepared, low-income students in 13 community colleges across the country. In this study, we employed both quantitative longitudinal survey and qualitative case study and interview methods. We utilized the former in order to
ascertain to what degree participation in a learning community enhanced student success and the latter to understand why and how it is that such communities do so. The findings strongly support adapting the learning community model to basic skills instruction to improve learning and persistence for this population.