Despite
piles of research showing what works in raising retention and graduation rates, more
emphasis on the need for college graduates, and
new instruments to measure student engagement, ACT published
data yesterday showing we still lose about a quarter of college students after one year and only manage to graduate about half of our students in five years. These are nearly identical to the rates of twenty years ago.
Here's what the rates look like in a chart (because ACT's charts are designed to show year-to-year changes, the chart below utilizes their data to show how minor the change has been):
Over a period when enrollment increased more than twenty percent, it is the failure of our nation's colleges and universities to increase student retention and graduation rates that are causing our higher education
stagnation.
Over a period when enrollment increased more than twenty percent, it is the failure of our nation's colleges and universities to increase student retention and graduation rates that are causing our higher education stagnation.
4 comments:
I've been away from higher ed for three decades, so I can't comment on the substance of your post. But for the record, your logic is backwards.
Stable retention rates, when enrollment has increased 20% is a victory. That would be especially true if suburban schools are failing as badly as some claim.
Suburban schools are another subject about which I know little. But fair is fair.
And speaking of fair, after billions spent on NCLB, we should be seeing kids with higher skills entering high schools, community colleges, and universities. Shouldn't we have an honest discussion about that?
And included in the definition of honest discussion, shouldn't we all acknowledge the limitations of our perspectives and both sides of the evidence?
john thompson
Not sure I agree with John on the NCLB stuff, but I think raises an interesting point. If enrollment is up 20% and all rates are stable that seems pretty good. Certainly not great, but I wouldn't say its bad.
Chad, comments?
To me it means we've focused too much emphasis on one part of the college equation (access) while leaving the other part (completions) alone. For an individual college or university, it means they let in a whole lot more students (and graduate more too), but also leave an ever larger percentage of the population with "some college, no degree."
And, almost surely, these stagnating rates are the cause of our overall college graduate problem, the reason why we no longer rank #1 in the world in producing college graduates.
Is the one year retention data showing all students who continue on to a second year, or only those who continue on at the same institution? I.e. - if a student transfers between years 1 and 2, is he counted as being retained? As a general rule the first year institution doesn't distinguish between the two, and I can't find info on what definition ACT is using. If it's counting transfer students as drop outs, the numbers are misleadingly low..
Post a Comment