The college classroom lies at the center of the educational activity structure of institutions of higher education; the educational encounters that occur therein are a major feature of student educational experience. Indeed, for students who commute to college, especially those who have multiple obligations outside the college, the classroom may be the only place where students and faculty meet, where education in the formal sense is experienced. For those students, in particular, the classroom is the crossroads where the social and the academic meet. If academic and social involvement or integration is to occur, it must occur in the classroom.
Although several theories have been advanced to explain the college persistence process [6, 44, 45, 50, 52], only two theories have provided a comprehensive framework on college departure decisions. These two theoretical frameworks are
Tinto's [50, 52] Student Integration Model and Bean's [7] Student Attrition Model. A review of the literature indicates that the Student Integration Model, for instance, has prompted a steady line of research expanding over a decade [see, for example, 37, 42, 30, 35, 24, 46, 18]. This research has validated Tinto's model across different types of institutions with differing student popula tions. In tum, the Student Attrition Model [4, 5, 6, 7, 10] has also been proven to be valid in explaining student persistence behavior at tradi tional institutions [3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 18], while modifications to the model have been incorporated to explain the persistence process among non traditional students [9, 26].
A 1975 research article by Vincent Tinto,“Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research,” spurred more than twenty-five years of dialogue on student retention and persistence in higher education. Though it has been attacked by some and re- vised by Tinto himself, his work has remained the dominant sociological theory of how students navigate through our postsecondary system.
More than a quarter century later, the issues of student retention and persistence are as pertinent as they were when Tinto first published his student integration model. In the 1970s and 1980s, public policy was focused primarily on access, with federal and state legislation aimed at reducing barriers to higher education. By the mid-1990s, the discussion moved from access to issues of choice, affordability, and persistence. Although gaining entry to col- lege is still a dramatic accomplishment for some, persisting to degree is what really matters in the postcollege world. Unfulfilled academic goals often result in unfulfilled career realities:
lower pay, less security, fewer opportunities, and dreams deferred—if not abandoned.
While budgets are being cut and positions not being refilled, it is no surprise that universities are also beginning to feel the effects of a weakened economy. Student retention has remained a prominent issue in the literature for several decades now, still with no definite answer on why students fail to persist and graduate (Morrow & Ackerman, 2012). In an effort to gain more
insight into this phenomenon, the purpose of this study is to understand retention by assessing resiliency in students who have experienced adverse childhood events. The goal of this study is to identify if resiliency, as a psychosocial factor, influences student persistence in the first year at a university when the student is identified as at-risk (i.e. the student has dealt with an identified past trauma). An agglomeration of Tinto’s Student Integration Model and the Diathesis Stress Model will be used to understand how resilience and psychopathology can affect persistence decisions in the first year. If services can be implemented for students in their first year, it is possible that more students would persist and graduate.
On the surface America’s public commitment to provide access to any individual who seeks entry to postsecondary education seems to be working. Our higher education system enjoys one of the highest participation rates in the world. More than 16 million students currently enroll in public and private two and four-year colleges and universities in the United States. In the past 20 years, enrollments have grown over 25 percent; the proportion of high school graduates entering college immediately after high school has increased from 49 percent in 1980 to over 68 percent today. More importantly, the gap in access between high and low-income youth has shrunk as greater numbers of economically disadvantaged students have enrolled in college; the number entering college immediately after high school having increased by over 60 percent since 1970. By any count, access to higher education for low-income students is greater today than ever.
What is Student Development Theory?
Student development is the way that a student grows, progresses, or increases his or her developmental capabilities as a result of enrollment in an institution of higher education. There are three types of development:
• Change is an altered state, which may be positive or negative and progressive or regressive.
y Growth is an expansion, but may be positive or negative to overall functioning.
i Development is positive growth.
President Obama’s goal is for America to lead the world in college graduates by 2020. Although
for-profit institutions have increased their output of graduates at ten times the rate of nonprofits over the past decade,
Congress and the U.S. Department of Education have argued that these institutions exploit the ambitions of
lower-performing students. In response, this study examined how student characteristics predicted graduation odds at a large, regionally accredited for- profit institution campus. A logistic regression predicted graduation for the full population of 2,548 undergraduate students enrolled from 2005 to 2009 with scheduled graduation by June 30, 2011. Sixteen independent predictors were identified from school records and organized in the Bean and Metzner framework. The regression model was more robust than any in the literature, with a Nagelkerke R2 of .663. Only five factors had a significant impact on log odds: (a) grade point average (GPA), where higher values increased odds; (b) half time enrollment, which had lower odds than full time; (c) Blacks, who had higher odds than Whites; (d) credits required, where fewer credits increased odds; and (e) primary
expected family contribution, where higher values increased odds. These findings imply that public policy will not increase college graduates by focusing on institution characteristics.
According to researchers, better-educated parents generally provide their children with a more favourable learning nvironment, increasing the likelihood that they’ll pursue higher education. These parents also have higher educational aspirations for their children, reinforcing this dynamic. On the other hand,“first-generation” youth – those whose par- ents haven’t attended a
postsecondary education institution – are “less likely to plan for higher education, to be convinced of its benefits or to have above-average high school grades,” according to a report from the defunct Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation.
As the nation slowly emerges from the Great Recession, the patterns of student aid are returning to the paths they were on
before the economy crashed. The federal government, which dramatically stepped up its subsidies to students in 2009-10 and
2010-11, continues to play an expanded role, but not a growing role. Students continue to borrow at levels that are high by
historical standards, but that represent a retreat from the soaring debt levels of a few years ago. New data allow a clear focus
on the characteristics of students who are most at risk from debt. As Trends in Student Aid 2015 documents, those who do
not graduate are particularly vulnerable. Older, independent students, those who take longer to earn their degrees, African-
American students, and those who attend for-profit institutions accumulate more debt than others.
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.
Working with, not on behalf of students with disabilities.
WE mus take a proactive approach to preventing sexual violence in higher education
Key Findings
This report highlights the importance of college readiness for persisting in college to timely
degree completion. Primary findings suggest that:
• Being better prepared academically for college improves a student’s chances of completing a college degree.
• Using multiple measures of college readiness better informs the likelihood of a student persisting and succeeding in college.
• College readiness reduces gaps in persistence and degree completion among racial/ethnic and family income groups.
• Early monitoring of readiness is associated with increased college success.
The federal government is the single largest source of funding for public financial aid for post-secondary students in Canada. Financial aid policy has a major impact on the areas of accessibility and afford- ability of post-secondary education (PSE) in Canada. This paper aims to examine the impacts of those programs, such as student loans, student grants, tax credits and scholarships on the areas of access and affordability.
As our nation strives to have all students graduate from high school ready for college and other postsecondary learning opportunities, we have to confront the reality that we are far from achieving this goal. The problem is most severe with
economically disadvantaged students. For example, in states where all eleventh graders take the ACT® college readiness assessment, only 45% of low-income students in 2012 met the ACT College Readiness Benchmarks in English, 30% in reading,
21% in mathematics, and 13% in science.
In 2011 there was a loud buzz about gamification - theuse of game lements such as point systems and graduated challenges for activities not usually considered games.
ACT defines readiness for college as acquisition of the knowledge and skills a student needs to enroll and succeed in credit-bearing, first-year courses at a postsecondary institution, such as a two- or four-year college, trade school, or technical school.
Simply stated, readiness for college means not needing to take remedial courses in college.
Today, college readiness also means career readiness. While not every high school graduate plans to attend college, the majority of the fastest-growing jobs that require a high school diploma, pay a salary above the poverty line for a family of four, and provide opportunities for career advancement require knowledge and skills comparable to those expected of
the first-year college student (ACT, 2006b). We must therefore educate all high school students according to a common academic expectation, one that prepares them for both postsecondary education and the workforce. Anything less will not give high school graduates the foundation of academic skills they will need to learn additional skills as their jobs change or
as they change jobs throughout their careers.
International learning experiences are invaluable for students. Those who undertake education outside of residence develop leadership, self-re;iance, language skills, intercultural understanding, sensitivity to local and global issues, and specialist skills when they participate in work placement and field schools.
How College Shapes Lives: Understanding the Issues explains some of the ways the payoff of postsecondary education can be measured and provides insights into why there is confusion about that payoff, despite strong evidence. Focusing on the variation in outcomes across individuals helps to clarify that the existence of the high average payoff, and the reality of significant benefits for most students, is not inconsistent with disappointing outcomes for some. We hope to put the disturbing stories of this relatively small segment of students into context and to direct attention to improving opportunities for all
students.
Education Pays 2013: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society documents differences in the earnings and employment patterns of U.S. adults with different levels of education. It also compares health-related behaviors, reliance on
public assistance programs, civic participation, and indicators of the well-being of the next generation. Financial benefits are easier to document than nonpecuniary benefits, but the latter may be as important to students themselves, as well as to the society in which they participate. Our goal is to call attention to ways in which both individuals and society as a whole benefit
from increased levels of education.