-ED 078 802


BE-OO" 436





Tinto, Vincent, Cullen, John Dropout in-Higher Education: A Review anq Theoretica~ Synthesis of Recent Research•. INST:tTt11':tON ColUmbiaUniv., NewYork, N.Y Teachers college •. •. SPoNS AGENCY Office of Education (DREW), Washington, D.C. Office of Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation. PUB DATE 30 Jun 13
OEC-0-13--1409 99p:



- -=-_- -_ ~-


.... _--£-

*Dropout :tden~ification; Dropout Rate. *Dropout Research; *Dropouts, *Bigher Ed~cation; *Literatur~ Reviews; Models .

MF-SO.6S HC-$3.29


*' ---_ - ~~




This doc~ent presents a review and theoretical -~sjnthesis of recent research on dropouu in higher -educatio~._ The__first chapter deal~ _ with- defining dropouts fraIl-college, and in consid~:ing the various meanings applied to that term, suggests sQJlle _neededIlOdifi:cations in the -aefiniti9n. The second pJlapter revie1!'s . ~recent data on dropouts in order to e-stillate both the effect of -ability and social status on current rates of dropout and the degree - -t~lowhich rates of dropout have changed since 19 6~. -Tjle third and _ foith chapters deal respectively with the (ievelopitent of t)l~ basic - ~beOre~ical JROdel which seeks to explain dropout as an prOc~ss between the individual and the -institutiCJll, and with the synthesis of recent research on dropout within that theoretical ~ ~el •. The fifth and final chapter utilizes the findings of the preceding two chapters in order to develop a modi-fied defi.Jlition which seeks to distinguish voluntary fro. nonvoluntary dropout and _ transfer froDl the permanent dropout from higher education. An extensive bibliography is includ~d •. (Author/MJH)·

:: _;_--



00 l"-




~ -'


ViDcent T1Dto John Cullen

Th1a is a report o~ work coDducted
UDder Contract

the Office of Planning, BudgetiDg, and Evaluation of the U.S. Office of Blucation.




Teachers College Columbia UDiversity

30, 1973



~ -~~:-_: t




·~ ~~-.;*~:~


~ApPreciation is hereby expre"sed· to. the Office ofPlaniliDg, Budgeting,· and EValuation of - the U.S. Off'ice of' Education --which made '" ~ ~


:t\mds availabie

Robert Berls of' that of'f'iee f'or his assistance an earlier


for 'chis repor~.


SpeciGl appreciation must go to
and critical


review ot

draft of'"this "report •. Similar exPression

ot thanks

al80 •go to S·al C()~allo of ~the Office of' Pl,w,ing,







and to Alan B~r-aDd.Carol

Van Alstyne. of' the ~ican
in vat'ious stages of' the

COUDcil EdUCationf'or their on research. S~ial.


thaDkS, bovever, must go to A.J. Jatte and Walter

AdlUllSf the Bureau of APPlied Social Reseat'ch, ColumbiaUniversity o tor ha~ng willingly

provided, to the authors, ~

data from their- own


of' college students tor re-analysis

in the present report. '!be

assistance appreciated. this

ot Addie Butler,

Mary Rave, aDd Robin Hecht is also JIllch

Finall.y it must be DOtedthat the views expressed in
They should not be construed

report are those ot the authors. 6f'f'icfal or' unofficial

as reflecting


I)r policies

ot the

.Of'f'ice of' Planning, Budgeting, aDd E'laluat10n, U.S. Office ot Education which contracted f'or the work represented in this report.

__~ _: _ iii ". • • • • • • e• • •••••• ~: .. ! • • • • •••• •• • ••• •••• •• •• • •• 80 .. . aDd Dropout.Theory ot Suicide Cost-Benefit A Theoretical Anaqsis Model as Applied to Dropout. • • • • ••• 32 A SumiJ&ry • • • • • • • 34 36 36 DROPOUT S PROems: A THmRRrlCAL MODEL• • • • • • A • Durkheim' s. . __ '" - . • • Individual.Registration..~3 -5 6 7 10 27 Dropout _ ali Dnployed in the Pl:eseDt Study-..._:_ ACKN<JlJaEDGSfENTS• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . ~1--~ t... ~ -"' ~ . ... .~T.--. ... Chapter I DROPOt1r: A MATTER -OF DEFIBrrIOB ..• • • ' .. . _ ~ _ . Interaction InstitutiOD&l Characteristics Within Dropout. TABDEOF CONTFBrS Page ~. ••••••••• REFERENCES. i~.. .~. •• the College Environment. ntTRODUCTIOB -..~: ::.~ II THE DlMFlfSIOBSOF DROPOt1rlH HIGHER IDUCATIOB• • • • Individual Dropout: ~... • • ii •• Iv-. r -... •••• •• •• •• 53 . • • • • • • • • • • and College IV DROPotrrAS pROems: SYlffHliSIS OF RmaT RmEARCH..65 75 ':5 78 Characteristics v DROPOUTRCMmGHER EDUCATION: REINTERPRETMIOK• • F A Voluntary If Modified Withdrawal Definition aud Academic Dismissal •• of Dropout. ~fJ~- "Y'p -.. Dropout • •_ ~..III Dropout ••••••• The -D:iJIlensions ot Dropout: . as Leaving College to-Obtain ot.-_J_ -~- t:~ .. •••• as Appli!!d to Dropout 38 41 46 46 ot Dropout.. PerSpective...- Characteristics Trends in the Future ~~ and DroIJOUt Since 1965 • Institutions in Different -~ . u • • • ••• 1 1 • ••• Dropout as' Failure -Dropout-: Tl\e ~sence Degree • • • • • • ~t the lDdividuaJ. A'q .. • • • • • ~-.

-_. . f have changed since 1965.ofdropout_ amongcoll~e . Budgetiug. of Planning.".leasures be developed. It should be .' _ _ With respect to tlie tirst two aiIu ot the report. abUityaDd social status. and Evaluation (OPBE).rates students w~r!!relat~ ~ measures of iDdi.elpexplain. _ since -1965 . ball . -Ffrst to detel'irlne how Current . Office . f'rom college have cb&Dg~ since 1965. _ . Nevertheless. .U.&D¥ability measures ot rates ot dropand social statUs because si~ of magnitude-or detail which Wouldhave permitted such D. the year covered in the OPBE model... of Qiucation under contract numberO~-O-13-l409. the . the process of dropout college. of a large DUlllber ot smaller studies ot dropout. but also b.iD.ot enrollment and perSistence developed by Froomkin and Pteterman ot the U. As r~uested.~ to.e. to attempt to develop a theoretical -model of dropout which _ would-not oDly permit the synthesis of recent research on dropout. troll _~ in 10ugitudiDai terms.determ. ~-.. the authors have been able to estimate the directio~ in which present rates of dropout. aim of the 17port Vas t~eef~ld..~.. Third. rom these rates. to given the availability -. C>ttice'of Diucation. the authors It were UDableto develop accurate ~t&tive outamoDg individuals of dittering there bas not been. >_ '_::.. iv t.S.. - INTROpUCTIOI The research r~ported herein was re<tuested and' supported by ~ the Office."idual rates ot droPout _JIg college _students SecoDd.

i I deals with the problem ot detining dropout :trom college. these findings must. in this context. in sidering the various meanings applied to that term.l:Y. The third and tourth chapters deal.- <. these numerousstudies have lelA to a consistent set ot tindings. aDd.: ~.. in view ot .~~.confi. \: '{ developed wbat they b~lieve to be a potentia.-~- ~ " '--~--' . transter. the authors have f >. status upon current rates ot dropout and the degree to which rates ot'dropout have changed since a national study ot'dropout along ::~J " . ~'c ~ .~ . and with the synthesis ot .. that an in the 1 i synthesis by spady (1910) Was greatly intlueSial I f developnent .~-~.ot the theoretical model ot dropout suggested here.h whicl.1 to analyze the process ot dropout tram college. that whU. dropout from coUege. { The second chapter reviews . respective~. be considered suggestive in-nature' until they are . consists ot four chapters. ~. recent data on dropout in order to estimate both the effect ot ability and soci&l. academic dismissal.of ( f t t l ~- It should be 'noted. retical with the developnent ot the basic theoprocess modelwhich seeks to explain dropout as an interactive between the individual and the institution. however. • -. 't .'.. ~ .e comparison of.l.e i~ '~ 1I Synthesis' of reCent research suggests that this framework-can help distinguish between the various torms ot cu-opout behavior. With reg~ ' t " . earlier and permanent ..~ ~'--< - the lines ot Project Talent. . The tirst COD- The report which tollows.l .rmed. the variable quality aDd detail ot the studies. valuable theoretical frameworkwi1:.. namely voluntary withdrawal._ v ~~ '" " noted.. suggests some needed JIIOdifications in the detinition. » to the third a1mot the report.

.nd transfer trom "* . < '\ permanentdropout from higher education.. 2 . The fifth .vi ..chapter utilizes' the findings of the preceding two chapters in order to develop a modifie~'definition of dropout which seeks to distinguish voluntary from non-voluntary dro~ut 8. ~ " .. .andfinal. recent research on dropol1twithin that theoretical model.

~. DROPOUT: A MATTER OF DEFJNl'l'ION Before we attempt to deal with the recent literature/on . <. guidance and counseling personnel.. within two main definitional types. is personwbo leaves their institution geared primarily to the concerns _and policies of specific institutions of higher education. these . the failure of individuals to complete a. invested in his growth as a student. In effect each dropout represents' a to the institution of not o~·a place whicp may have been taken up by another person able to complete the program of instruction.ew. as dropout ~ that is that which clasSifies ' of registration. pei'e~ns whonever receive a degree from any inStitution . For the purposes of this report. as so defined.. iDBtitutional cODlll1tment. aDd to social SCientists aDd others concerned with student DIOral. it is necessary to distinguish between the variety of meanings given to the term dropout".. fore been a criterion both to admissions officers. has thereinstitutional planners.. college -.1 I. . but also of a wide-rauging set of academicresources program for Whichthey are registered represents ineffiCient utilization of scarce institutional 108S resources. and 2) dropout &s referring only t~ those of higher education. Fromtheir point of Vl. with the &ad . - ' dropout. These are 1) dropout as r~ferring to those persons 1tholeave the college at which 1. various meanings can be claSsified. definition of ~pout.Dropout as Leavieg Col1!{e of Registration The firs".heyare registered..

Its data Call strengths lie primarily in the ease vi th wich reliable collected as to dropout in varyiDg tyPes ot institutions . a regular aDd. are updated 011 files. in application. The boundaries of the individua. tor instance. consistent basiS and are usually available for easy access by researchers. more definable thaD are the relevut boundaries ot the wider system ot higher education. . more easily applied Within _ theoretical a model of social behavior because the college more closely approx1mates an enclosed social syst_ Within which definable relationships can be bn»othesized and tested. aubjectable to readY and reliable longitudiDal ana. As such this detini~io~ of dropout is both4met~logiCally and .. College registratioll which have norm&ll.. and prevention of student turmver in institu- tions of higher education. the detiDitiOll. Defining dropout to include anyone leaving a college at which he is registered"has.lyais...DOJily applied. it igaores the phenomena traDIter between colleges and thereof fore tends to overestimate the llUIIIber persau who dropout ot higher ot educatioll altogether..y provided muchof the _ data utilized studies of _dropout. ot higher educa- tion and in its amenability to the application of a rigorous conceptUal . ac~essible It is also '. by most such : ___. at education.." be _.. In so doiDg.. bot~ strengths aDd weaknesses. framework~hich seeks to explain dropout. . ~_ . as Cc:. That is...:Lcollege are. of dropout lies ill the tact that The weakness ot INch a detinition it OV'erlooka the large numbers ot persoDS wbo leave the inatitutioll which they are registered to attend another 1Datitutioll ot h~er . for the most part. explanatioll. 2 predictio~..

" and by goverDllentottici&11 concerned with the allocation of IcU'ce relourcel IUDODg alternative fol'lU of high-levellll&llPOWer production.t ot individuall . among v&r1ing typel ot iutitutioDi &180 ot higher teDda to Finally. or "stopouts... that ''h1Iam capital" il "asted oDl¥ when individuals tail to achieve a certitiable acquiralellt at lome type ot higher educatiODll iutitution. the detinition u perSODs dropouat thole who leave their institution ot registration for a temporary period. levela . treat &I . Dropout &I 'allure The S8COM to 'ObtaiD ADl D!gree detiDi tion of dropout. by locial concerned with problema ot the production of ''humul capital.tioD&l.ently leave ·the 1DItitution 111 which they are regiltered. IIOlt etrective when there . that the Iystem of higher education 1. SiDee the dettDition tocusel attention on the system of higher educatioD&l 1DItitutioDII. thil detinition &alUM. &Del u." this det1Dition of dropout should properq include only those perSODS who permu. in its common sage. Given the iDcreuiDg occurrence ot suChtemporal')' dropouts.3 . tbat which inCludes only' thole persons who'tail to receive a degree tTaIIl aD¥ college.. iD etrect. it has been most often employedby educatio~" Icientilts '\lad social planner. rather thaD to institutional concerna.. il directed primAl'ily toward wider social PO~~~lJ_ at both ltate I '.tends to ignore the_fact that the higher educational systea il a ~c entity within wbiChthere i~ a constant differentiation of varyiDg characteriltics education. level of aldll AI such it argue. in- By taltiDg account of the traDIter of iDdividuala between ditterent Ititutiou.

sotr. . dittereat together with the . . thi.. such a detiDition. inatitutiona - data tor. This is p&rticularl¥ to other 1utit\i'ti~D8· do not iutitution ( cohort ot college entrmts makes such studies ot dropout extrael¥ true when transters d1tt1cult to carry out. such • data bu. 'aDd 1DItitubody. it ~. rather difficult to of dropout more closely approx1aa~es the to a degree. 8IIIODg a yery vide variety ot 1Datitubaa DOt be_ As ot . when occur :1med1ately atter withdr. it is extremely transter and tl'Oal uother atopout occur S1JllultlD8OU8ly).hear ditticuity 1D traciDI out aDd gatheriDg data on "the educational CReers of a l.- a very cliverse b~ For 1D8tmacestudi •• empJ. . On the other baDd. u. ot dropout YOUldrequire the cleY8lo~nt which would perait of a IIUlti-d1MuioD&l 1DatitutiOll&l data bu. adequateq developed."un1tol'lldty data ac~t. system of higher education. ot ca.ed~ ot· ..~ the d1tticulty ot 1D8titutiou. ~o gathe~ reliable ODehaDd.cle t tiou of higher education.ear a CODCept\l&1. not oDly troaL the probl_ ot apecU)'1Ds the . .t.oYiDg such • definition ~ ~. studies splOyiDg by Th~ ~ DOn.earch. multiple COIlPU'ilODlo b.4 exists a sufficiently -: diverse mix of educatioD&l program.student While such a definition concerns ot social plumers ~. but &1. detiDitioll ot dropout does DOt iead to as cl. the tuDCtioniDg ~t the a iluaber ot vealmesses which make it OIl eIIlpl~yin social sCieneere.ocW 'bOUD4&ri •• ot the hisher educatioul par1Dg ayat_.e... tiona to tit the need~ ot a diverse.isation ot dropout as a process as does the Tbil reaultl IIOJ'e siJllple det1D1tion ot cll'opout.


Dropout: The Ab.ence ot the lDdividual Perapc.ti., .. Whether ODe takell dropout to _ail all tboa.




their iutitution

ot l'eI1.tration,
troa .",

or -_

0Ial.¥ tJlc,.e perlO~ vbo tail


to obta1ll a



ot h1Per education, it i.
the l"e.earchuo tac .. two

1mportlllt to recognise that 111 both cue.



iaportut l.1JI1tatloDl; the tea4eDCYto direct att_tlOD


the IO&l



~ rather thaD ettecti., ....

, aD4 the teD4eDcy ,_to 1pon the With recU'Cl to tbe toner, led.

, ,

perapect1"~ ot the iDIlivi4ual at_eat.



il upon iutitutiODal.


CCllCerD8bcNt' ett1C1eDCJbaa ott. a •• i.

educatioDal. pllDDera to oyerlook the tact ,that ettecti~
equalq 1IIportMt CODCer1l education. ot

ADd tbau&h it i. clear that

eUicle'MJ 1Jl the utUlsation

of .caree reacNrce. i. a MCe•• U7 part U ." reaMrCh to .. eat

ot 1DItitutioD&1.plun1.,

there 1. 11ttle,

that eUici8DCY.i. in u;y vq related to ettecti'Y .... tlO1l. ID4eecl it appear. that the two p&1.a _ otber.

ill h1cher ecluc...

be aatitb8ti~&1 to NCb

A .ecoDll IIOl'e 1aportUlt l.1JI1tatio1l 1Dbereat ill both 4eti1litiou ut dropout 11 tbe tea4eDcy to 1&Dorethe perapecti.,e ot the 1D41'Yi4u&1. Speclt1c~, the •• ~11l1tiOlll, u cc.o~.-plOJ8d
ill put re.eU'Ch,

overlook the tact that 1Dd1Ti4u&la enter 1utitutiou with a variety o~ uUiti .. , iIltereat., .otiYatiou,

or hi..,.


UI4 leYW ot

colla1tMDt to the 10&1ot coUese collPletiOll. 11Ie .1apl.e tact that higher ~tiOD,

ot ..

tona, ~

be uuuitecl to the aee4a,









>' :'.~~I






and/or inGerests or a numberor individuals, whonevertheless go on to college, is thus ignored.


',_ ';:-;


Unf'ortunately, by ignoriDgthis f'act, such


,.. ,

~~~--~ ,/,~, ,



of dropout contain, or at least ". imply, connotations of' in. . ~
In so doiDg past

feriority on the part of' the iDdividual who drops out.


research has inadvertentl.y tended to reinf'orce the notion that higher education is, or should be, the onl.y areDa f'or high-level trainiDg be-

• .;

'!.,_', ~...:

yond high school and has theref'ore also reinf'orced the 4;endency to


- '.!~i ~


/ .... -~--

higher education rather than reconsider it.

Dropoutas Employed the Present studyr in



Given the amenabUity of' the more simple definition of' dropout to the application and testing of' a rigorous theoretical. mode1, it 18 that baSic definition which will be employedin the remaimer of the report. Specifi~, college dropout ¥ill be taken to refer to those in which they are

--.~ +

persons who permanently leave the institution registered.

Knowledge, owever, of' its weaknesses, that is its inh

ability to distinguish between transf'er aud DOn-transfer students &lid its tendency to emphasizethe institutional
point ot view over that of'

the individual, will be utilized in the course of' the report in order to develop a moreappropriate def'inition of' dropout, one which can be utilized in a wider variety ot research situationa.

1.rhe resulting phenomena a "captive audience" in institutions of' of higher education, that is, the existence ot large DUmbers atudeDts ot who enter college primarily f'or f'ear of' DOt goiDg, is iDcreuiDgly' becomingan object of' concern on the pa:rt of' both educatioD&l. aDd governmental officials alike. M~ such individuals are otten dis1DCliDed to "':ueintellectual d_ams of' ef'f'ective iDatitutions ot higher education and theref'ore tend to resist attempts at educatioD&1 chaDge.





In this section ot the report, bued upon a survey ot the current literature~ we will 'attempt to aDalyze the

trends in dropout


,,- -



ot different



social status baclrgrouD4a.

Attention, hovev-er, will toeua primarily upon the cbaDgiJIg effect ot Bocial.·status upon dropout because it· is this tactor,
~? ..

JK)retban tbat ot




a.PIJe&rso have increased in its abUicy to diacrDiDate t ... -........ .

between those who persist

college aDd those who dropout. ~ic&l. cluuiges in dropout;

In dealiDg with the sbort-tera

higher education, we v1il. tocus on 1965 u the "betore and atter"
'l'bat is, we will take the Jl&jor studies caap1eted prior to 1965



given aDd thell attelllpt to identif)' c:baDgea in dropout
~ T ._

trends since that- tme.

Our choosiDg

1965 as the standard agaiDllt which

later studies are comparedis largeq the reault ot the tact that the
OPBE (Otf'ice

ot PINIDing,

Budget1Dg, aDd

Evaluation) model eaploya


data gathered between 1960 aDd 1965. it is siDee 1965,

Betore t-tl1"Il1Dg to a SUl"Yey ot the recent literature necelsary to poillt out that there have not been aJ\Y studies,

ot the


or the detail ot tbat ot Project Talent, the data bue That beiDg the cue, it baa not been possible tor coetticients which

tor the OPBE model.

the reviewerl to develop the types ot quaIltitative

par&1.le1thole employed in the OPBE 1IIOdel, and which would haTe pe1'll1tted

p Is the basic dittieul. sample). state. and detail. tvo overriding aDd f'uDdamental robleu in interpretation. rates ot dropoat amongindividuals ot 'n&. ~ which ~ . that ~ - aDalysls such as thiS. the reviewers haVe been able to estimate the direction in which 1965-bu. eape- ciall. even in this respect.ts ot studies that employwidely divergent measures ot social status.-scale'studies. predictions ot present-day" rates ot dropout.g. UDtortunat~. siagle 1Dstitution.u5. we will. has been aurprisiDgly l:iJllited eI1C1 uDimegiDative • . DIUIlely the data tiles ot the AmericanCouncil on Education.ed data wouldbiu. It IIlU8t be DOted..parithe son ot a rather large DUIIlber muchamaller studies ot dropout. there is the difficulty treDda f'r0lll types aDd techniques ot sampl1Dg. varying types ot control variables (if 811¥)" aDIl ~ua Second. I For that reason alone. their utUization.8 a detailed comparisonof pres~t differing abilities . that sutticient~ detailed data do exist tor such a comparative study. it at all..baSed upon JlUIIIerous' 8IIl&ll. In so do1Dg.rely' .ty in First. of identif'yiJ:Ig short·term historical JlUIIlerOUB the comparison ot one-t:iJlleperiod studies.y whenthose studies employdivergent standal'ds ot measurement. and national lIt should be noted. In an attempt to solve 80me ot these ataDdaTdization problema. eJlCOUJl'ters is .. com. studies of which vary ill both quality.. in the past.UPOIl. there standal'diziDg the resul. the reviewers have had to . be sensitive to the type ot social status measure or measures employed and to the level or geographical unit to which the study applies (e.~ . in this regard. throughout this section. and social status backgroundswith those 1n1.

instance. Multi-iDBtitutional studies are E _' ':C: " . ditter~ tiDdiDgsfor single institutional studies result from the fact that different iDBtitutioDS i I~- j.regard to the former. 3Eckland (1964) ~ argued that higher soci&1.9 Sucn sensitivity is required on one band because the choice of social status measure(s) affects the outcomeof comparisonsbetween individuals of different social status categories. tatus persons are. multi- dimensional studies. different institutiona tend to have differential effects upon the perSistence of students of different social status backgrounds.f~ li'c: .~ ~~ h ~::- is income. ale (1970.what crude_measures social status DOtonly'~underestimate 'of the total effect of social status upon college persistence. t b ~ L~ £'i: ~r have different dropout rates even after the Characteristics of the students are taken into account. • L R.. • because previous research has demonstrated somewhat onflicting results c ~~:- whensingle institutional 2 studies are compared with larger.. he suggests that any locial status measurefailiDg to -tap this motivational aspect of social status will UDdereltimatethe effect of social status upon college dropout." t . Thus. morehighly motivated to persist in college. 3 With r~ t~ th~ latter.. they also yield results which vary according to the measure "em:pioyed. "'" .. for .* incomeit only"because parental education is a better measureof the motivational component f social status than o !'? t'::" t. I t: )l~ _. s in fact... even whencomparablemeasuresof social status are employed.:"_. tends to be a..~ ~c:.better p~edictor of the child's ~catioDal attainment than is father's . I:' .. ~"'~~'. on the other hend. ~ . et. ~.y some. With. and. Father's education. 317). 2See Folger. siDgle and therefore necessaril. p. Moreimportantly.

DiCesare. . !lOst post-1965 studies indicate an effect of soci&1'status upon persistence in college. att~ to analyze both the single aDd DIl4-ti- 1nst.rtunately.l Characteristics and Dro~ of higher educa~ion. though very tentative.and (2) determine to 'what degree .. studies at both the state and national level in order.eI .' st. this section of the report will (1). Cohenand Braver.e institutional studies of dropout.ed to se~ate the independent effects of ability and family backgroundupon persistence in college (Anderson. 1967.965there have been a numberof smaller..Tab1.965.968. in college has changedsince 1. Bossen and Burnett.97l.. Turn1l!g DOW to 1nterpr~t but also difficult t~ comp. 1. Augustine. Studies of Dropout . Single Institutional .Cope..itutioD&1. a comparisonof these findiDgs with Eckland's (1964) review of pre-1.Winther. 1. al. Chase. 1970.).10 therefore not only difficult to single institutional are taken int~ account.atu&bave been mediated by changing enrollments in different institutions ~Vidua. Rossman and Kirk.. 1970. Nevertheless. upon perosi~teDC~ ..965 . 1. 1970. and Zaccaria and Creaser. 1966.965studies of dropout reveals someinteresting. First. et. SinCe 1. . 1970.970. . most of these studies have fa1l. Since 1. to determine in whatJDamlerthe effect of social status. Gold. these changing ettects of social.are studies even wheninstitutionsl characteristics to the review of the recent literature. 1970. ~~ . facts (Table I). s1ngl. 1969.. UDto.

. t 'TABLE I FINDINGS FOR'STUDIES OF COLLEGE PERFOru'YANCE7PRE-1964 AND POST-19b5. 41) as refering to any index of grade averages. DiCesare (1970).Cope (1969).ale (1970). Spady (1971).~ - (. The post-1965 studies refer only to withdrawal or graduation.• .. 41).-. Augustine (1966). . Chase (1970)..E. 11 "". ~ . BY INDEX OF S. Anderson (1967). . {-. Bossen and Burnett (19'10).._ ___. at.. Index E Sinf~lc Composite Single Comnosite Findings ·10 6. Br-awor.(1970 ). AND LENGTH OF STUDY . or graduation. *Performance was defined by Eckland (1964.S. " c. Zaccaria and Creaser (1971). 1- Positive . withdrawal.Not Belate~ Negative Positive Not Belated Negative Pre-196l~ 13 0 1 0 3 ·0 0 0 0 0 4 Post-1965 4 1 :3 0 0 3 0 0 SOURCES: Prc-1964·: Eckland (1964. Nicholson (1973). Gold (1970). :post-1965: Cohen and. Length One Year or Less Two or Hore Years S...:.Norrisey (1971)..-S.------------::0 2 'rime Period Study... p._ 2-::'- " c.. .. Rossman and Kirk (1968). Taylor" et..E. _-------_.S.ex . \Hnther. ". S. Ind.ale (1971). p.

that measured'&bility is -itself social status. 1973. and persistence than have studies usiDg siDgle measures of social statuS.. status of comparablecharacteristics. studies which have considered the independent effect of social. Nicholsqn. Panos and As~in.1967.. status upon persistence.reater proportion (gf studies utilizing -j compositemeasures of social status have indicated positive relationShips between social status r ~: . is that there has been -an increase. hoWever.. -&11 effect of socieJ. present analysiS il the fact that thole ff!!tlstudies wbich have used incomeas a measureof social status have been the least consistent in outcome. 1968.---------------------------------------------------------------- - 12 r-. whenability is held' constant (Morrisey.. all have showna direct relationship between family backgr~ '" . ability is c1e8r~ the most important determinant of success in college._. aild Tay. '¥ ~ .. and clearly the most tentative finding one can infer f'romthese _J .-- comparisons.. Of the few siDgle 1971. et.. ~ . aDd st¢Dg " "'- in - college. even . statuS upon college persistence. In all cases. of particular -relevance for the . Therefore one can assumethat these studies somewhat nderest:1m&te effect of social status on perSistence u the simply as a rer~t of bias in the measureof ability. in the av-er-. as it has been in all major studies usiDg pre-1965 data (Bayer. 1971). ~ . and Wegnerand Sewell. 1~71). 4Thoughnot shownin Table I. Spady. a [.lor. 1968. since 1965. It should be noted. 1973.persons of higher locial status are more likely to score higher on tests of ability tbanare perlons of lower social.. 4 Third. Sewell and Shah. Second. affected by the individual's Namely.

~- ~~. ' been carrie_dout since 1965.)~". Again is raised.~. ~.. have ignored the interve~ ability upon persistence in college.:j AmericanCouncil on Educ.:' f~' ~"'.-. ~'i~ . .ation. they..are I incomeis related to both . like a number of smaller studies cited above._ ~' r. Interestingly. one of twenty-three !i'~:. ~'. i. ir (MacMillan.~' i- - 13 r " . Astin (1970) deals primarily with "disadvantaged" students and employsa one-year follow-up of 1966freshmenwhoseinstitutions I~:: XC . finds that though tamily incomeis not significantly related to persistence.~~. tather's occupation il so related ~~: f:~: ~\I' f f: ~~ ...~- f' one study by the TennesseeCollege .~ (~.:. . :-:. ~ first by H. the quest:lon as to the utility of family income&8 a measureof family social status..~ .. The other study.t. Fig.-:.· ~{~ .r .:r.> \~ . The remaining multi-institutional studies are all multivariate The N.fl ?} transfer and permanenttermination. . ~~ . . A "disadvantaged"student was operation~ ~ defined as having: 1) tamily incomeleiS that $6.. h i\" 7. Whileboth indicate a positive relationship between somewhat :i: ~.f. •c ~ Multi-Institutional Stud~es of Dropout studies of dropout that have Of the several multi-institutional . Association (1972) f~ between f~ly effect of -v:: ~ " " ~:.. y"'_ ( f- -: - ~ a slight but significant positive relationship incomeand persistence in college in each of the four .1uniorcolleges.. two have been on the local and/or state level. 1970a. ."':c• ~:: " '~: . ~" <i~ r1~~ r.1969.: nurthern California .{} f ~~ ~ participated in the Cooperative Institutional ResearchProgramof the . .. 197Ob)." analyses of dropout based upon national samplesof V&l'ying sizes.000 and 2) tather's .~...~ years after entry (Figure I). different measures of social status and persistence.. rlo..:'. ~1~: ~~ .

fa1 o· N § CIl C.o ~ S >i .... ~ ~ e ~ ~ CI) H tJl CJ H f.>i t:1 f1. .&c ~ g.) 0 Z H .. r·1 ~ ..14 "1 ~ l. () E-t ~ ~ ~ fIl fIl 0:( QI QI 0 Z 0 H ~ 0 rl rl QI QI fIl fIl QI 8 s:: s:: 00 l!..... s . gJ ~ CI) -..) 0 . .. ell .:> ! ~ ~ .:t 0\ 0\ rl ~ ~ ~ .

findings.exPected d:l. year follow-up of 1965-66high s~l Their five- seniors. As of the Fill 1968 tollow-up (i.e. father's predictor in the regression equation on "return to college Although a possible artifact for a second year" (H. " As with most pre.and post-1965 studies.582). 15 education :'ess than high school. of the types of incomecategories· employedin the study and/or of dealing with only law incomestudents. suggests that education. through its reflection of the motivational cl~te ot the tamily. Astin. after high school). Ability remains. other national data on dropout is provided by Jafte and Adams(1970) of the Bureau of Applied Social Research. levels of father's a significant But more interesting is the fact that even at education remains ~ucAtion below high school. p. status than is iDeome even at these. 1970. is a better measure of social. two year. the siugl.'Ver. whUe in the .~. speculative. provide someinteresting. the study indicates that tamil¥ income. both ability and social. Jaffe and Adams(1970. p. That even small additional amountsof father's education prove significantly related to perSistence. status are related to persistence in college.rection is not a significant predictor ot college progress. underest:illlatethe effect of social status upon college persistence. Thus these data seemto impl¥ that family income. though limited by the small although necessarily size of the sample (N=1. 24) found that iDeome above $7.low income levels. at low levels of social status. 23). ColumbiaUniversity. howf.500 and father's education were both positively' and s1gniticaDtly related to . .e greatest predictor of returning to college for a second year.

. ing to note that father's educatioD&l. ot a it is illterest- ot these three separate measures ot social status.~ social statue. 3.~een~t. in this cue to income. t.level vu.cational level vu clearly at a higher level ot ligniti- cance thaD vu income. to Jatte remained related to abU1ty aDd . As previOllSly DOtedby The relationship between droPP1n8out and tather's 14eatiUl"e social statue deserves special.. proved to positively academ1epersistence.....05 and .D4 education as a in collese completion.. . provided to the revi_ers and Adams.-4. speculative nature due to diUerences in catesori&'tion. best able to distiD8Uish differences in persistence _oDg iDdividuall ot ditteriug especially at the four-year colleses. consideration in that it augens ot intergeneration:6l ~tteru 5Interestiug:~.&lured by high school grader. Again. social status categories.-------------Tables 2. Jatte aDd AdamstiDd that beiDg in a collese preparatory program in hiSh scbool proved to be the siDgle strongest predictor ot college !'8rsistence. Theretore related to edu. UDdoUbtedly.001 levels respfCtively. pertol'MDCe...3.5 Data from the third follow-up. his arises larS~ t from the interaction bei. while both measures of social statue prove to be sigDiticut~ persistence. . occupatioDal.ivatioDl.. t\bUity.iDdicated that persistence by aDd ligniticantly related. and social status. aDd 4).16 persistencd in college at the . in this instance as . and educatiOr&&l Though ) measures ot family social status (Tables 2. " .

. TvIO.5% 33. BY FATHER'S EDUCATION.~** Four-Year Institutions 68.·2% 56.0% 60. 45) * Persistence includes transfers and gr~luates by the last or only college attended four years after high school graduation ** Only six cases .AND FOUR-YEAR Il-!STITUTIONSFather's E(lucation Less than 12 Years 12 Years 1 to :3 Years of College All Institutions 60. ..4% 58.7% 75.• r !. 17 TABLE 2 * PERSISTENCE IN COLLEGE.. p.0% 43. 78. _ .3% 85.2% \ t I ! 4 or more Years of College SOURCE: Adapted from Jaffe and Adams (19?la.6% Ttlo-Year Institutions 41. 1970..5% 69.

BY FATHER'S OCCuPATION.1% Four-Year Institutions 17.5% SOURCE: Adapted from Jaffe and Adams (1971a.18 TABLE 3 PERSISTENCE IN COLLEGE~ 1910.6% 46.8% Two-Year Institutions 4). T'WO. 44) *Persistence includes transfers and graduates by the last or only colle~e attended four years after high school graduation I .6% 69.4% 6). fs i I Father's Occupotj&n White Collar other All Institutions 71. p.and FOUn-YEAR INSTITUTIONS j .

~Y FATHER'S I~1COHE.T}10.19 TABLE 4 PERSISTENCE IN COLLEGE~ 1970.AND FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS sdUnCE: Ada~ted from Jaffe and. 43) *Persistence includes tr~~rers and ~raduates by the last or only college attcnded~four years al-terhigh school graduation . p.Adams (1971a.

Jatte and Adalia(1972a) p!eseDt data tor rates of dropout.dDOt have received as great a return on his investment in college education having completedhis degree and not muchmorethaD a terminated his education after high school. and current enrou. to be discussed in later sections of this report. the results of Table 2 implies an intimate re1ationsh1p betweenthe actual returns from college education experienced by the parents and both their perceptions of the value of college education aDd the perSistence ot their children in college. 14) in their ~sis of the 1968 tlndiDgs. and 7).. Indeed oth~ studies.-. four years at'te. p. graduation. Fromthe tourth follov~p ot the 1966 high school seniors (i. that is persistence in c<~ege 1s related to each ot the _asures ot .nt of different social status categories.e. . reinforce this impression.ompletion the degree (Hansen.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Tables 5. aDd occupation (Tables 5. <-- _' 20 f " Jaffe and \dams (1970.ips hold as were tOUDd the third tollotrin up. Given numerous studies showingthat significantly higher ecoDOlllic returns trom higher education occur at the c. 6. again &8 8Il10118 individuala measuredby tather' s education.-. income. the lowest persistence rates were found among students having fathers with somecollege education but less than a college degrC!e..da perSOD perSOD who bad This being the completeddegree voul. aDd 1 Essenti~ the samerelatioJ'-'.r high school). a tamily ot head with only a partial.1963). &8 voul.-c. 6.




EDUCATIONAL STATUS, 1911, BY FATHER'S EDUCATION Father's Education 13 to 15 12 Years Years 39% (61) 43% (29) 43% (13) 18% (31) 3.5% (24) 22% (18)

.Educational ~C;tatus Some College College Graduate Currently Enrolled

Less than 12 Years 31% (41) 31% (46) 26% (33)

16 or more Years 24% (26) .54% (59) 22% (24)

Total 36%


SOURCE: Aa...lpted from Jaffe and Adams (1912a, p. A-11, Table












EDUCATIONAL STATUS, 1971, BY FATHER'S OCCUPATION Father's Occu~ation Whi te Collar Other 30% 21%




Educational Status Some College College Graduate Currently Enrolled

Total 3.5% 43% 22%

40% (99) 37% (91 )

49% (132)

23% (.57)

SOURCE: Adapted from Jaffe and Adams (1972a, p. A-1B, Table 70)




"{" ,
t~-, ~~, ~;c ~"







EDUCATIONAL STATUS, 1971, BY FArULY INCOHE Famil:l Income $5,000 to

Educational Status Some College College Graduate Currently Enrolled

Less than ~21000 44% (34)


$10,000 and over 35% (66)

Total 39%

40% (98) 41% (100) 19% (45)

31% (24) 25% (19)

44% (84)
21% (41)


SOURCE: Adapted from Jaffe and Adams (1972a, p. A-23, Table 10c)

culatioDS of trends rather than of predictable Nevertheless. ---- . suggests that the over- ot income upon college persistence While this is necessari~ has not changed aignif'icantly a gross approximation.24 family soc~al status with father's difference in rates of persistence. _- --- . a ccxnparison of both sets of data at the respective year reveals that though the overall medium incomes for each beginning trend seems about the SlIDe. the separate effects similar to those of dropouts. resul.. 6 --------. tends to be from respondents of lower social ~lies For our purposes here. concerniDg the the enrollment taken to be indicative quantitative differences in persistence. in Jaffe and Adams (1912a. attrition They estimate that most of this status backgrounds.. spondents had ~haracteristics Unfortunately limitation to isolate persistence. "ay. In this respect. this overall effect that these data underestimate the since non-re- of social. education accounting for the greatest With regard to these differences. status upon college attrition ___. p. aa) advise caution in the interpretation . because the _Jatte and Adams data show a completion rate while the OPBE model is basic~ a perSistence rate which includes both those who have already completed college 8Ild those who are still in college Who may or JDI¥ DOt complete college.d. » these data due to sample attrition.) all effect (Figure 2). in sample size did not permit the reviewer of social. pre-and post-1965 trends. status and ability upon college For this reason &lone.--------Figure 2 6This might be explained however. the latter data tende to overestimate the actual attaiJlDent of the college degree..ts of the above cal. a very rough camparisonwith model developed by Froomkin and Pfeferman (n. ------~----~------------~-----~-~----- . the percentage ot dropouts appears to have increased.

.. l "~ ....: I ~40 .: I .-{-' '<...-..' I .t·.. ..'. both studies....l 30 \.25 1960 median Income 1966 median incane 70 \ \ "\. Q) o A. BY FATHER'S INCONE SOURCES: (1) (2) (3) note : For Jaffe and Adams(1972) OfBE Analysis Paper-females OPBE Analysis Paper-males . ... . . I I I I 20 ! i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Family Income ( in thousands) FIGURE 2 PEHSISTENCE AFTER FOUR YEARS. income ranges are averaged... . I I ._. Q) $.1......_..-". \ : ..

other national data from the AmericanCouncUon Education have been analyzed by A. status upon college attrition.26 It is also interesting to note that the diatribution of the OPBE data more close~ resembles the bimodal distribution of the Jaffe and <>:. latively. families with college and non-college education~coDVerge. Again it is suggested that tamily incometends to underestimate the total effect ot social. tor instance. ther factors o related to-sncial status becomemoreprominent in the motivation to continue in college (later discussed as goal cOmmitment). we argue that this might suggest that. the stu~ is subject to which limit its utility.'. as the incomesof Specu- . the use of over 130 independent variables in regression equations based upon no more than 250 respondents in each institution raises serious questions as to the ability of such education upon persistence..000 1966 college entrants from over 200 institutions education.This ~ also '. ~- . it is increasingly becomingless accurate. we would expect this underestimation to be greatest at the lower social status levels.7 aD equation to measurethe effect of father's 7Father's education. '. Astin (1972). His study represents a 1970 fol10W'-up of over 15. p .' . Adams tabulations for father' s educatdon and college persistence. Giyenthe recent effect of unions upon the earnings of the blue.. ot higher Though Astin finds no relationship between either incomeor llUIIlerous fathe~.'.. was placed twenty-tifth into the regreSSion equation with a total of 134 iDdepeDdent redictor variables.collar workers. In problems particular. imply that though family incomewas a reasonaDly accurate predictor of the effect ·of social status upon college persistenc~"'1n 1960.~education and dropout.

as college entrance becomesincreasingly more "open. of college entrance (Jencks. that the social.'. this has been doneby VanAlstyne (1973). these most recent data suggest that incomeis still somewhatelated to r persistence in college. 1967). it i8 rather difficult to c . especial~ in private tour-year tDatitutioDB of higher education. 1968. given a wider distributfon of ability ~d motivational characteristics among entrants. Table 8 presents someof these preliminary data on the effect of family incomeupon attrition in di:f'terent 8 types of institutions.t ------interpret these data. i . and Sewell and Shah.nction of bigher education will increasingly take place within the colleges aDd universities rather BIt mst be noted that these data are preliminary aDd may be chaaged somewhatn the final version of the study. Dropout: <~nds in Different Institutions It is gener~ concededthat social status is a major determinant However. Table 8 a result But since one can reasonably expect. Giventhe failure to control for individual ability in these preliminary calculations. &8 of the long-term selec~ion process in education.27 AltnoughAstin does not present the ACE data in tabular form. se1ection tu. that very lowest income students in college (especially in four-year colleges) are ot both higher average ability and motivational level than other incomegroups in college." wewould expect.

.... o o o o . a (1 N {J} (1 ~ .. 4- N 0'0 (:) o ~j :-> ..::t ..... ~ '. 0- N \1"\00 \1"\o-..~ .~ co 00 00 0 ~ • \I"\~ t\O OONOO "INN ·.0(1) (Ill C' 28 ~'U ~...•• OC"'\O C"'\NC"'\ OONN O~~ . N o o 000~) V'I N (~ .... .-4 ••• NNN • C"'\ N 0- ~C"'\C"'\ (""\ " \(\C"'\O 00• NNC"'\ .~ <o 00 o o N ~ • f'- " V'I N • OO~O e . .. V'I - 000 o o '-I> ~ N N · NO~ C"'\~ eNNN ••• o ~ o o N · NO-'" ••• V'lNO N N C"'\ (J.. N .... \I"\ C""\. Q) . 00000 0(""\('"'1 C""\ (I. ... o o ....:t NNN ... p .N ••• Ch .. t1J 0 o ~..

The then.-but mdependent effect of social status on the quality of college entered. namely the four-year colleges. 1972). Whythen do most studies indicate no overall change in the effect " of social status upon persistence'? constder l ng Basically. of attaining a four-year degree (Berls. status and persistence -' in in the association between an individual's social. this is an artifact of degree But as these studies do.l an~ AstIn .ller social status s'tudcuts are more llkely to be enrolled in the college preparatory curriculum in high school.y not only an increasing overall dropout rate but also an increa. only enhances the probability it also substantially a two-year college.. hi{!h school and the college (Karabe. ids would l1np1. But attendance at a four-year college not of completing a degree program (Astin. Karabel and Astin (1972) present data from the ACEstudies showing a small ~. as they ar~ue that the role-allocation in developing in n. of social status upon the completion of a four-year college . sta:cus. relative to entrance at increases the probability. . en For our purposes here. they are also more likely to be enrolled in the graduate school preparatory programs in higher education. it is hardly are involved. 1969). the more likely upon entering college.. In effect is he. 1972). the h:igher the person's 50cial.. the attairunent of an associate's equal to the attairunent of the bachelor's though this maybe adequate for statistical acceptable when policy considerations degree (evg . manner simHnr to tracking i n high school. In a recent paper. 1972). effect. that :is. function of higher education Thus.29 than betw. to attend a four-year rather than a two-year college. is even greater than suggested by the studies cited earlier. . purposes. Astin. hir..

ent l research fin:iin. Given the problem of developing parable :i ncome categories .1I the proportionate enrolllnent gains by in the two and gains by these ar persons of family income below the median has differed four-year institutions. it seems clear that while access to college has Table 9 becoming increasingly more 1I 0-pen.o (lrm-l some l mpl icat.l below the median income level simply implies that such individuals from families whose status ranges from low to near the middle of the social status hierarchy.. that these persons have shown does not necessarily SUCll proport:ionate gains in college entrance.c.e in the twores colleges it was nearly twice that much. or social status on the persistence I of 1ndi'liduals to the complet'~n com- of the bachelor s degree ('fable <). The proportionate enrollment persons In the four-year colleges .-:s with a.r nds in enro e Iment. we shou ld h(' nb l e t. enrollment magnitude While lower status persons have alao made gains in they are not of the proportionate class.a nnalysis educat rona.n~inp effect.. imply that lower social status persons have made gains. six percent vht l..I t ut Ions . It is probable in these institutions. necessarily However. Jencks at the (1968) demonstrates that much of the recent gains in enrollment two-year colleges has been made by persons from middle and lower-middle class families. being below the median Being come income does not ~ply that one is lower social status.Ionn as to t. of the recent t.. Indeed. .he che.30 Co' _pUng these fairly cons t st. in different Lypes of higher i ns t. as are the gains of the lower-middle . Therefore.

r. 9 5.1~ 'SOURCES: Adnpted from Panos et.8 6).J. 999 $9.2 hJ~.6 62.999 Above $ *Population median income in 1966 waS 87.(1969.6 ' ~_ I'HOJ'OB'r:rON Ei·!HOf. and Creager ct.' i.J) D! GOLLEGE. . AND APPHOXJHATE 'ABOVE AND BELm. **Population medinn income in 1969 was $9. 39).l '1'1lJo~ P()PULA'l'10?J NEDIA N INCONE Jnsti tnt ions (1966) AI] Tl'io-Year Institutions 42.999 Above ~~7..4 4).433.(1966. p.5 )7. 1966 AND 1969. p. BY HJS'I'J'I'U'l'JO!!AL 'l'YPE.00.[-. 23).0 All Four-Year InstitutiollS f All 36.2 1~6.999 Below Be Low (1969) 53.4 $7. TABLE 9 .1 58.

re occurrinr. fnr pcr's-na of lower and lower-rnjddle socieJ. disproportionately r I likelihooci of attaining lnstjtution college.t. Spady (. doubtful whether lower socie. i t ~ .l status any proportj~nal higher status gains in four-year college completion r~lative counterparts.och. can higher education continue to perform a selection and allocation function for occupational education? Karabel yes.l Similar to that institutiona. and '1'into (l<fn). mos t of the "~a.a rio :.l quality will perform a tracking found in the comprehensive high school.t. a four-year entering a tvo-year is consjderably lower than it is upon entering a four-year effect of social status on H is probable that the overall cOlnpletinv.ins" jn en- rot Imeut. these (lat. four-year degree program is increasing while. although access to of lower social. 'l'hat is. cnncntially (jf)()H). at the same tjme. Jaffe and Adams (l97lb) caution. status persons are making to their higher educat Ion as becoming easier for individuals baekgrounds. status at the twohyear colleges. and function and social mobilit.uf~'~t·:'. degree after cat egortes Since the a.hat. similar to that reached by Jencks ia conclusion i:.l~IU7).l status 'l'h upon entry is decreasing. the effect of ::.&. however. 'i'he basf c question for the 1'uture seems to be. that to avoid "massive dropout" higher education .y while also providing for effective and Astin (10/(2) seem to think that the answer is a qualified that diff'erentia." 1n IU\V Cll:'I~.

.hich have ot"fered.. unl ess special accommodations for these 'new' ~tudents are made ••• there seems to be little question that the national dropout. of Lhe hip.Taffe and Arlfll~m (ltJ72b) support their cont.. IlS re-presented by trends such as open admissions and special.atdve . the basic "feelings" out is aptly summedup by A.tat'i'o and Mams 1'i nd only J') 1.kini~ open enrollment systems in California sympt..H·ornia Y s~r.ln.h regard to the tuture specul.tissio:l students... rates will increase s~4ply as the result of these changes in the entering stUdent population. admitted students had an a'ctrition While rate of J 9.h school seniors co l J .c the same problems. University first actually 'fhe Onen Enrollment Program of the City Af'ter the of Newyork also seems to hav.te . . Astjn '1'0 begin W1th.G for open adr. graduation.usdons wit. increased entrancc produces increased cxamp. data for the New' ork syatem ha.nuch larGer nWllbersof t dropoutprone' s~ud. .'(Clt.~ . "ecederu c emnestv'' even unt Ll. 24). - 33 :ni~ht have to nove in the ri lr-ection in effec1.&.est t..l i Ior-nla where nearly.t« 01' the ruture . data for Cru.omat. opportunities. Althou(~h 'I'a. .ention thai. o!: manyhigh schools . He writes: seems to be little question that the continui~ expansion of educat1onaJ.o yet to appear. 7'~ as compared t. regularly year of open enrollment. admissions and speeiol programs for disuavantaged students will result in .t there has not been o. in Gu..ny proportlonate completion as a result gain in rates of four- year college and university of the past expansion of the higher educat Ionaf system.~e.0 2&~of the entrants complete the baccakaur-eate ..cnts entering the hit~he!"edueational system ••• Conscquently-. p. and riC\<{ york City as earlier For ent.. . there are necessarily of most of those who have studied drop- (1973. attrition.

st.he svst.atun upon Lhe comp.. ne -----_------_. the selection process occur-s increns i lea.hat..lOn. and who are most of' two years of in- of ) ower abil i ty. is also likely will measure of social status status increasingly when the effect of social upon dropout. on coli (:/:e per-s i st.'~l(: of soc i a..3pen•.-:.ns of' i-rooout : '.atus upon dropout.:ary . probably Be. st.tonal.tive due when rami i. conclusions can be dre..ence . a l s t. cosing o t her effect t.atus most. some gener s ince al..r Lt i on rJlte seems if +he overall has increased some' . 1 imens i .-----&..ure ~ntrance different becomes increasingly Lat ion &r. Second. of' differi~~ 'l'h i rd .st when parental abt.gree of underest":- mat ion be in.m as to income or any the total :in i~1"'h~r education measur-e ]9(~5..he propor t. the pressures necessitates that selection and individua. will the increases be pr imarily "rill in the two-year in attrition undoubtedly is also occur in the first likely that of h i gher.:i(~ns w:i th r-egard to fut. continue to do so as long as undergraduate performs -~ As college t he d.---.ivez-s I fied • i. 'I'! ~refOl'e it the effect soc i a l st.... vho are less for more open. .-iII i i .Lab l e du:-u) drl)pout.!'!.ted. -f'llnct. soc j al!.'. among institutions 1~8..v Income is employed to measure social education is used.. it and.iower status In the number or ncr-sons families.v wi thin quat i l. colleges.\ ~·. natur-e of the e neces sar L: ..e -om . seems that s t.~ . especially .-------- .: great. I~ivcn it able to that measure the effect models enploying underestimate of social income as 8.34 ·. liKely underestimates o r' soc. 'rhe rip.est. because fami ly j ncome degree will less also is increasine. hat since education 1965 and ''Iill select inn .y . t.l t ion or the four-year e crease. t.

1.:'.Hre to complete a four-year Pinal Iy .chered data. degree program. these data have been surprisingly . predict :1.: ~'aj_J. it is recomraenned that l'llllPJng dat a available l'se of th is continually l)i)!3'.&.-1. Until recently of institutional under-utiljzed.n Council on ~~ducation data files. I. is def'ineo as tht.35 dropout. could lead to the development of updated for a wide variety ion models \o(!ich are constantly types. and wide- make use of the detailed :in t:1C I\merico..

es of dropout among Jnd Ividual.T of a theoretical model to the proc- characteristics Having dealt with the former in the preceding chapter. i'IIt(' affect the process of dropout.s of differing ability and social status.t theories of human behavior. the report turns to the development of such a theoretical model not a large number of recent studies but also only as a means of synthesizing as a means of suggesting fruitfully directed. Chan a n Imp.. t.t.III. THEORr~ICAJ. ])ROP0\JT AS Pf\OCE:J:. knowledge of the latter requires the development linking various individual and institutional ess of dropout. 1 Durkheim's '~heory of Suicjde as Applied to Dropout Accordi~s to Durkheim (1961) breaking one's ties with a social system stems largely from a lack of integration into the common life of that society. 11m.e compar Ison of the rat. degr-ee an individual's measured ubility and social status r-e Lates to the probab il ity of his dropping out of college is not. howevcr . . what.t I I I sociological theory of suicide and the theory of cost-benefits as originally derived in economics. Given the notion that societies are composed of both lCredit must be given to William Spady (1970) for being the first person to apply Durkhe:~'s theory of suicide to the problem of dropout from college.l.he former requ ircs 1 i t. to know how these at Lr i but. Durkheim's analysis pages springs from two di'" .Le Il\or<.: A. The theoretical in which direction future research might be most model of dropout to be developed in the following . HODEL 'f') know t (.

Specifically. more than in the wider i ve aff. ion are Lack i ng . it is important to distinguish integration pertaining between normative and structural performance from those in dealing with in areas relatjng to occupational to areas external to the job.lthdrawal from the wider hn: nt.nct.. withdrawal e from that social system in rat. Low cormnitment to the institution and increase the probability that individuals ''1il1dropout. in many ways.37 s t. friendship ll from the wider society.he social system of the college should.. insufficient moral (value) integration and ininteractions auf'f c i ent.ruct. of withdrawal And though dropping out is clearly a less extreme form than is suicide.n can lead to increased friendship support and v ice versa. one can t reat.ur.:H~ir.e w i ~hd rnwa l ('rom sr.1 '.-rK·.Y (:nlic ide) Increaacs when two kinds of j nt. one might expect that social conditions affecting dropout in t.y relaLed in that value or normative inte_~tj(.l mood of comp 1 et. Lhey are neces sar t l. When viewjl1G the college as a social system with its own value patterns and soc i n l st.ruct ur-a and value e l eme i)1ll'Y. the Lrke. parallel those that result in "dropout namely the lack of consistent and rewarding the college ~e. manner analogous to that of suicide .g. 'I'houghthese modes of integration are conceptually disti. from thoge of the general social collectivity lack of integration Presumably.~l·. inceraction with others in support) and the holding of value patterns of that are dissimilar the . into the social system of the college will result in.iliat:~n through person-person i t (structu.c~l~t. But in the social system of the college. coLl. dropout from college it is In'portant to distinguish between normative .

gration in the academic domain of the college through poor grade person can conceivably be ina into the social domain of' the college. in the social structure of the college. tegrated 'l11. dec ide to withdraw when insuffic ient social integration the college don.l from college can arise either from voluntary wi thdrawal (like suicide) or from forced withdrml'al (dismissal) which though not necessarily. possibility the theoretical model proposed here includes the notion can be that individual decisions. it is necesGary to take account of the fact that persons may withdraw fronl college for reasons that may have little To deal with this to do with interaction within the college itself.a ln of the college from Such distinctions are that.. with regard to any form of activity. dropout may be either voluntary arise from either insufficient social integration. required because wi thdrawe..chieve integration without doing so in the other.~ and struct u-al i n tef~rati on j n the academ. 'l'hisseparation from the social domain further suggeat s into one area of the college that a per son may a. In performance. . that events in the social system external to the college can affect integration within the more limited social system of the college. a person can achieve high grades and still exists. and thereby become and still dropout from insufficient inte- committed to the institution.9r. of the academic from poor grade performance. Cost-Benefit Analysis as Applied to Dropout academic or forced and may or insufficient integration Recognizing llowever.. ar i ses pnmarily.

a reduction to perceive a de- tbe supply of available creased likelihood jobs may lead individuals that energies invested in the present in college will That being the case. this viewpoint argues that persons will tend to withdraw perceives that an alternative from college when he form of investment of time.nd benefits of ths.s a.n terms of the pcrce.vr:d cost. i nd iv idua Ls will direct taeir sc t ivLt l es toward those areas of endeavor \ hich are perceived to maximize the ratio . may decide to dropout of college vest their time and energies (voluntar. 2 of benefjts to costs. For instance. staying in college.y withdrawal) in alternative forms of activity even though Grhe theory of cost-benefit analysis as employed here takes both costs and benefits to include social as well as economic factors. \'/i th regard to staying in college. suggested here thus takes account of the decision as to staying variety of external forces which affect a person's in college. and relative to costs. through disin alternative as being in which may limit individuals f'rom investing forms of activity even though that activity may be perceived potentially more rewarding. energies.g.39 analyzed . . The theoreti. argues that..t ac~ivlty the theory relative t.ive activities. ~)f cost-benefits modal. it permits one to include the effects of chang Ing supply and demand in the job market on rates of dropout. wlth regard to the former.o perr-eived a] V:rnal.. than does resources will yield greater benefits. individuals in order to in- yield acceptable r~turns in the future. while also taking acccUllt of the existence crimination) of restrictions (e..

. i t. the characteristics Since perceptions are. etc.).g. a variety of reasons.0 that point.lust rates ~OpOut after such an occurrence as seems to be the incr-eased the repeal of the draft law.tion into the academic and social systems of the college and in the evaluation of the costs and benefits of alternative fOrITlSf activity. 1.- recent upsurge in the ~rwernentof more able blacks from black colleges 1. In both integra. the theoretical model proposed here acc~'Pts as central.rl~ely vh i t. The . fo!.e i nst.) environment (e.ul. etc. between the in- . ability. clear that this mudel must also take account of these attributes mannerwhich allows for the sinmltaneous interaction dividual and the institution.0 lll.y then lead to noticeable changes ~::'l')llOut even though there are no not iceable changes in the quant It. persons mayhold differing perceptions of apparently of varying characteristics stmilLr situations. Finally.y and quality o r :"ldividual jnte1'action within the college environment. Conversely. in rates of stay in college because of restrict Eas lng of restrictions ma.c IT:flY have lJf!cn.Locn or ~.g. in turn. of his collegiate it is in a goal commitment. and the characteristics peer-group composition. of the individual (e. quality.Iv I ty. family background. o it is the perceptions of the individual influenced by both that are important. have to the process of dropout the notion that perceptions of reality real effects on the observer.. the moue l also accepts the fact that persons may ions on alternative forms of acr. size.0 their experience ill "oller. entirely ss+Ls- factory.values.~~hc:r educat lon appears to be .1. and.

he individual ~ I <J. t.)~)out. however. e- acteristics of both elements. family backgrounds. ~ «.41 A 'l'heor-e t i ce. As noted ment which most directly relates to continuance above..ped here suggeat s then that dropout is a mu lt. also influence the ezpecbattons " f ~ and motivations for addit iona. it is <' [ " argueu that indiviuullls enter institutions variety of indlvidual educationnl experiences of higher education with a and prior ~ " '. this integration results from varying degrees of both normative ~ . comma tment to the that &1 I~ the higher the level of an individual's the lower the likelihood ~ goal of college completion.~ 3while the paths between the diagrammed elements suggests path analysis. 0. which influence the manner in which the individual Nore importantly. ~' interacts within the college setting. f it is this factor which is argued to be decision to dropout of higher education. that path analysis is indeed appropriate to the study of dropout as an interactive process. central to an individual's Presumably. the diagram is not a path model. longitudlnlll dimension to the -process of dropout.. individUal I I I ~ . . f charact!?ristics. The theor et. j cal mode 1 d eve h. characteristics. will dropout of college.srom t.L ~·Iodel. to here as goal commItment. prior experiences. . 3 Specifically.l1J.l education Rf::ferred i' tt which individuals bring with them into the college emironment.t.he interaction between f t.i.he institution and which is influenced by the char- l ~ < . Given individual commitment. l d i mens iona l process which r-esul. and goal it is the individual's integration into the college environin college. these attributes ~ . It is implied. :. The basic elements of this model are diagranuned in l"igure I in a manner which suggests that there exists a \.)f r:r.

42 Z H I I f r I .c ~ ~ .. ~~ U0 ~ ~ • Q) 0 .

might decide to "stick it out" until the completion of the college degree. Depending on a variety of factors. Sufficiently high commitment to the goal of college completion. the greater will be his commitment to the specific institution and to the goal of college completion.he integration of the individual into these collegiate systems which leads to new levels of goal commi tment and to varying degrees of institutiona. the higher the degree of integration of the '~ individual into the college. either low goal conunitment or low inst:itutionuJ. commitment can lead to dropout. in this case. Given prjor goal comnn tment. specifical.l. even with minimal levels of academic and/or social integration and therefore institutional commitment might not lead to dropout from the institution. t Whether or not he transfers to another institution . The individual. Referred to as inst'~utional commitment.------------------------------- 43 and structural inte~~8tion into the academic and social systems of the college. other things being equal.l commitment. it is t. insufficient integration and therefore institutional commitment can also lead to transfer to another institution of higher education. Given prior commitment to the goal of college completion. At the same time.or simply leaves higher education altogether depends primarily upon the varying levels of both institutional and goal conuuitment.y the . it is the interaction between the individual's commitment to the goal of college completion and his commitment to the ~nstitution which determines whether or not [ " the individual decides to dropout from college. Presumably. the lower an individual's institutional commitment the more likely is he to dropout fl'OIn hat institution.

however. re-evaluation of the goal itself. with research findings. the benefits of one's current experience in college balance out the perceived minimal benefits of the college degree in the external social system. model.44 P"}':. Given levels of institutional commitment. the various relational elements in the dropout process but also to develop suggestions for further research on dropout from college. The synthesis wHl attempt not only to fill in. In effect. Bither as a result of changing external conditions in the job market which affect the "value" of the goal in the occupational sphere. is generally the Ion. integrated into ~he institution.g. fr. the from the college despite having become Voluntary withdrawal. that despite the very large volume of recent studies on dropout. rather than disSufficiently high levels of institutional . o dropout a four-year to a two-year ins~itution).on' ~ ('<louul Lment. the lower the individual's commitment to the goal of college completion the more likely is he J.) t. tte individual may t.. the report nOW' turns to a synthesis of recent research on dropout from factors on college . or as a resQlt of the indiviQ~~'s individual may decide to withdr~ . ~ I 1 J commitment.ransf'er t o an institution of comparable level or to one of a lowe!' level (e. may lead individuals to remain in college even though they are little committed to the goal of college completion.. Having described the basic elements of the theoretical.he goal of co l l ege compl. It should be noted beforehand. t. missal. The phenomena of "getting by" is otten the result. there have been a few multivariate analyses which permit the revievers to isolate the independent effects of vari.

. dropout. the reviewers of the i. " <: ~ . This being the case.JJr~lica- tions of various studies on the process of dropout even vnen those .. . interpretations by in a numberof instances..e studies themselves.45 . the synthesis that follows contains. " ilnplications are not immediately derivable from ~:h.

Family Background As has been true in other areas of educational performance. Panos and Ilstin. the likelihood of an individual's dropping out from college has been shown to be related to the characteristics of the family. Wegner. Lembesis. then to the characteristics associated with individuals' interaction within the college setting. Put tn general terms. and finally to the characteristics of institutions of h1gh~r education which h5Ve also been associated with dropout from college. the family's socioeconomic status appears to be inversely related to dropout (Astin. 1 ! Attention will be turned first to those characteristics of individuals which appear to be related to their persistence in college. 1964. and Wolford. model. 1967. 1967. 1964. McCanmon. 1965. 1965. and his commitment to the goal of college completion. illterms of this model.y described the basic element.s of the th~oretic&l. o.t' recent research on dropout from college. the report now turns to a synthesis. . Individual Characteristlcs and College Dropout or those characteristics of individuals which have been shown to be related to dropout. Eckland. the characteristics of his family. Sewell and Shah. 1968. his educationa! experiences prior to college entry. the more important pertain to the characteristics of the individual himSelf.IV • DROPOUT AS PROCESS: SYN'J.'HBSIS OF RECENT RESEARCH Having broadJ.

it seems that whoseparents are more likely to comefrom t~ilies are more educated (Chase. Merrill. t things.----------------~-------~----~ --- - - - - _- -- 47 1964).9f14. and Van Alstyne. discussed :'n a following section. and Spady. Irfert.ancein (1972) suggests that family incomealone is becomingin~ > I t I creasingly less a determinant of college persistence.ence has been taken into ticcount (Sewell &l1d ShBh. and less conflicted relationships with their children (Co~don. and therefore student social statu~..) the child'. 1970.r. The most important ot these factors are the quality ot relationships within the family. Fenstemacher. to the fact th . democratic. college persisters tend to comefrom families vh. To summarizethese findings." with regard to family.more specific. With regard to the former. 1964. Copeand Hewitt. 1973. this ~ As shall b~ amongother be attributed.. supportive. 1971).t an increas ing numberof dropouts are voluntary I f ~ional research has indicated that other factnrs associated with family backgroundare also important to the child's educational attainment and perfor. 1968. Specifically. Ast. Jaffe and Adams. 1. 1958. Such general findin. college persisters findings as being related t·. al. 1967).Jse parents tend to enjoy more open. 1973). et. .1970. 1958). and are more affluent In this latter (Eckland. and Iffert. aspect. 1969. which d te particular rami~ attributes y persistence in college. 1968. pertain as w~ll to the numerous. chiliren from lower status families exhibit higber rates of dropout than do children of higher status families even ~hen intell. are more urbane (Gurin. 1964. and the interest and expectations parents have fo~·their children's education.

1970). 1971.1970. Lavin. and Wegner. and Taylor and Hanson. in their college experience (Trent and Ruyle.Trent and Ruyle. 1968. are. however. (1967). 1970). for instance. 196').in high school and has shownthat it to is related to persistence in 'college (Blanch£ield. 'Lawhorn. and expressed interest 1965). 1971. standardized test and ability Ability as measured on a . praise. at the college level it is quite clear that the child' s ~"ll ability is even more important (Sewell and Shah. 1970. 1957). Coker. 1971. found that'measured ability y~~ in accounting for dropout as was the social status of the. 1967). but also have parents who express greater expectations for their fUrther education (Hackman and Dysinger. In this respect. 1970. college persisters iHth regard to the latter. it appears that parental levels of expect. Smith. does the child's own ex- pectations for himself (Hackman and Dysinger.nance tends to be the better predictor of .atIons "mayhave as muchinfluence upon'the child's persistence in college. nearly twice as important . and \. Individual Characteristics But as important as the family is in determining the child's educational performance.y related to persistence in college. seem not only to get more parental advice. 1968. Sewell and Shah. aspects of individual competence. While measured ability is undoubtedl.Jeigand. family. Jaffe and Adams. measures of different Of the two. i967. as demonstrated in high school grades. Chase. 1970). past grade perfor.I \-legnerand Sewell. most research on dropout has focused on ability as demonstrated through grade performance. Panos and Astin.

profit as much from past experience. al. ale (1966). . however measured. Droponta also seem to be more unstable. lIn this respect. Vaughan (1968) suggests that dropouts tend to be more implu~ive than persisters. Ability. and unable to .haracteristics of dzopoubs are such as to make. Jones (1955) and Lavin (1965) as characteristic of college dropouts relative to college persisters. and overly active and restless relative to their successful college counterparts (Grace. 1970). is but one of a number of individual characteristics found to be associated with college persistence. more difficult the level of achievement required in the college setting. more anxious.. all. and Vaughan. 1967. it is necessary to point out the existence of a substantial amount of research directed toward the effect of an individual's mental health upon both performance and persistence in college. et.Laekfng in any deep emotional commitment to education. S. 1968). 1966). et. 1957. In research suggests t~at personality c. Pervin. Grand~ and Simmons. studies have indicated significant personality and at~itudinal differences between college persisters and . 1 . This latter lack of flexibility in dealing with changing Circumstances is also cited by E. that is college dropouts seem to be less "mature" than persisters (Spady. Though not of the importance of ability. 1972). Suczek and Alfert (1966). college dropouts (Pervin. and Wedge (1958). . For example see Farnsworth (1957).49 success in college jf only because it more closely corresponds to the individual's ability to achieve within an educational setting whose academic and social requirements are not too different from that of the college (Astin.

the need to distinguish between (academic failures) and dropouts wllo are college withdrawals tended to dropouts who are dismissals voluntary withdrawals. pure necessity then. Sex.. it is clear that . relatively and/or economic necessity. however. 1972. of the individual also appears to be related to college persistence. less often dictated by social As a result it is prob~ble that women are rewarding experiOUt of both freer to deal with college as an intrinsically ence and face less pressure to complete college (Spady. Cope. whereas a greater proportion of women dropouts tend to be voluntary withdrawals dismissals rather than academic (Lembesis. manifest greater oversensitivity and egotism than any other group. in this model. and Spady. 1965. For women the decision to pursue a career is. Experiences experiences have not been explicitly re- Past Educational While past educational ferred to as being directly related to college dropout. It is fairly clear that despite some recent changes in women's a t. and Spady. behavior. On other measures of personality. seem to relate more to social integration th~~ to academic integration. voluntarJ withdrawals missals. 1971). however.s out. it is understandable that a higher proportion of (Astin.50 Vaughan (It)()S) point. men more than women face the necessity of establishing position in the occupational structure. 1970). factors which. 1971). Specifically. Robinson. 1967. men finish college degree programs than do women 1971. tended to be more like persisters than were dis- . speaking. Fenstemacher. 1973.

specifically his commitment to the goal of college completion. or occupational aspirations. but also the individual's expectations and aspirations for college education. it is the person's commitment to the goal of college completion which is most inf1uencial in determining college persistence. Whether measured in terms of educational plans. the characteristics of the high school are important because they also affect the individual's aspirations.51 performance in . it follmTs that they would also affect the individual's performance and therefore persistence in college.high 3chool. Goal Conuni ment t As suggested by a number of researchers. l4oreover. such as its facilities and academic staff. has been shown to be an important predictor of future college performance (Astin. once the individual's ability is tak~n into account. 1970. 1968). the higher the level of plans the more likely are persons to remain in college (A~tin. 1971). 1968. _ educational aspirations. Medsker and Trent. 1971. Bucklin. as measured either by grade point average or by rank in class. are important factors in the individual's achievement (Dyer. From the perspective suggested here. expectations. As suggested first by Davis (1968) and later by Nelson (1972) and St. Coker. since it is also clear that the characteristics of the high school. in other words his goal commitment (Nelson. 1972). the ability and social status composition of the individuals in the school affect not only the individual's perception of his own ability. Krebs. and motivations for college education. 1968. 1964. John (1971). .

Sewell and Shah (1967). et .-------------------------------------~- 52 Sewell and Shah. In a somewhat similar vein. 1970). 1971) and/or need-achievement (Heilburn. and White. 1953. 1970. More pertinent to the theoretical model developed here. voluntary withdrawals. Weig~ld.2 Hackman and Dysinger (1970). and Cullen. al. 1962. ale (1968) note that female dropouts tend to have lower levels of goal commitment relative to persisters than do male dropouts. Spaeth (1971) demonstrated that the individual's expectations for his future occupational status was. and Stone. in terms of their level of commitment to the goal of college \. once family social status and ability were taken into account. 1970. Since voluntary withdrawal tends to be more common among 2Such findings appear to be related to studies in other areas which suggest a relationship between motivation (Demos.. if an individual has an identification of himself as a future college graduate.. he will in fact be more motivated to the completion of the college degree. after ability.~ . found that I ~ it was possible to distinguish between four groups of college students. several studies have indicated a direct relationship between the level of an individual's commitment to the goal of college completion and persistence in colle~e (Hackman and Dysinger. 1971). the single most important independent predictor of actual attainment. Spaeth.. and Spady. 1967. completion. and Smith. Other theories of motivation (Foote. for instance. 19(5) and performance in college. 1966. 1951. et. 19'fl. .. college persisters.Weigel. Marks. transfers. for example. Pervin. and academic dismissals. 19(:((. 1968. Gurin. Relating this to the difference between male and female ~- dropouts. found that level of educational plans held by the individual was by far the strongest independent influence upon college completion. 1973) also imply that. .

As developed . it is again implied that goal commitment is related to dropout in a manner which distinguishes voluntary withdr~al from academic disrr~ssal. Interaction Within the College Environment Persistence in college is. it is suggested that goal commitment is itself a reflection of a multidimensional process of interaction between the individual. Specifically.. t much of the effect of social status upon college dropout is mediated ..-- through its affect upon attitudes and values such as goal commitment. After ability. with regard to ! t t I t the question of the importance of the family upon the individual's persistence in collese. it is the individual's background experiences as measured by the social status of the family. that goal commitment is placed after family background and prior educational experiences in the t > longitudinal theoretical model diagrammed in Figure 3. It should be noted. the I I I i advantages thought to accrue to individuals with particular kinds of attitudes do not exist independently of their family background.----~------ _----- --- 53 female dropouts than among male dropouts.. Simple measures of social status therefore ~end to underestimate its total effect upon perSistence in college. in this context. and his prior experiences in schooling.------... however. In so-doing. it is argued that when social status and attitudinal ! I l factors.. not simply the outcome of individual characteristics or of prior goal commitment. In short. are considered simult~eously. that leads to and accounts for much of the variance in attitudinal differences among individuals.. his family. such as goal commitment.-----------~--.

Blanchfield. Astin. In this respect they represent the extrinsic rewards of the system which can be used as tangible resourcea by individuals for future career mobili t:i \Spady. represents the intrinsic rewards of the system in that they can be viewed as an integral part of the individual's personal development. of the interaction between an individual into dropout is viewed as the result with given commitmentto the college degree and his integration the academic and social systems of the college. With respect to the academic system of the college. one must view persistence an interactive in college as a longitudinal outcome of in process between the individual and the institution which he is registered. 1 3within the academic' system. 1972. 971. the former relates of certain pertains explicit standards of academic performance.54 here. While both elements contain struct":ll'al more directly to the meeting and normative components. here that an individual's the individual's integration it is argued can be measured in terms ot both development grade performance and his intellectual during the college experience. performance in college is the single most important factor continuation in college in his 1971. grades are the nlost visible and most conspicuous form ot reward. on-the other hand. Inte~ectua1 development. 1971). while the latter identification with the norms of the more to the individual's academic system. . may affect an individual's Assumingunchanging external conditions which evaluation of the goal of college completion.3 Academic Integration: Grade Performance an individual's grade As shownby a large number of studies. (Ammons.

55 Coker. however. and Spady. 1971. often I JI to transfer to another institution or re-enroll at the same institution at a later date (i. stopout). ~__--------.----------------~-----. especially during the first year of college (Coker. and (3) students with both low commdtment to I J I • I college completion and moderately low academic competence tended to withdraw from college and not transfer or re-enroll at a later date. and dismissals in terms of the interaction between an individual's level of cormnitment to the goal of college completion and his level of academic . 1970. Greive.e.e. They distinguished several forms of behavior: (1) students with solid academic competence but moderately low commitment to college completion tended to withdraw voluntarily from college. Hanson and traylor. 19(8). 1969). 1968. 19'(0. It is. academic dismissal). they tend to be more important for male students than for female students. transfers.--------------. 1968. J i "'.-------------------- . Jaffe and Adams. (2) students with poor academic quali- ! ! t l fications but moderately high commitment tended to persist in college till completion or until forced to withdraw for academic reasons (i. Kamens. ~: . additional research suggests that though ~ __ ~ _~ t~_~__~_. 1968. voluntary withdrawals. important to distinguish between dropouts who are academic dismissals and droputs who are voluntary wi thdrawals because voluntary withdrawals often score higher on various measures of ability and/or grade performance than do college persisters and therefore certainly higher than do academic dismissals (Coker. 1971). and Vaughan. i grades do generally relate to college persistence. (grade) performance. In this respect. Rossman and Kirk. 1970. and Mock and Yonge. Hackman and Dysinger (1970) have been able to distinguish between persisters. With regard to sex. 1968.

an integral part of personality as development the individual. or had reFrom jected these processes as important parts of their personalities. Daniel (1963). Moreto the point. has also been found to be related to of persistence in college. and therefore integration. were likely to value their college education a8 a process ot gaining knowledgeand appreciating ideas than as a process of vocational developnent. aDd Ros( 'J1d Elton (1966) all indicate that dropouts either lacked or had tailed to develop insight and capacities for Specifical. more than dropouts. critical thinking. with the intellectual norms of the academicsystem of the college. Medskerand Trent (1968) tound that d persisters.Academic Integration: Intellectual Intellectual Development develo!XJlent. As a composit~measure of the general expansion breadth and scope. s of his stimulation in his academiccoursework. of t:te person' a and of the individual's intellectual ability to t~'. Sarnoff and Raphael (1955). it represents the individual's subjective identification. Bayer (1968) found that college graduates had higher scores on indices of interest. Spadyfound that intellectual . For students at a very selective four-year college. ystematically and critically. for Faunce (1966). Spady (1971) suggerts that this may be moretrue ot females than it is of males. creativity. found that failing students usually were unable to see their college experience as a process of intellectual growth and selt-realization. and abstract reasoning than college dropouts. a somewhat ifferent point of view. In a similar fashion.

(J. 1970. more than females. suggested that a similar process ~ four-year institutions occur at two-year institutions lead to transfer to of lower quality aDd ~ higher quality institutions rather than to simple dropout. In this respect Rootman. Rootman. can be viewed as an individual's rei:-ponseto the straHl producedby the . et. found that voluntary leavers of' both aaxes showedsignificantly higher intellectual persisters. other studies (Dresser. than did While similar results were recorded by Rossman and Kirk it was further or (1968) for students at a major West Coast university. interests.57 developmentwas more directly related to persistence amongfemales and amongmales. wouldbe more concerned about the extrinsic rewards of the academicsystem (grades) than a. 1971. ale (1968). Swnmerskill (1962) further suggests that it is not simplYthe absence or presence of intellectual developmentwhich is important in persistence. for example. It was suggt!sted that males. but the degree of congruencybetween the intellectual developmentof the indivldual and the prevailing intellectual of the institution. distinctions between the effect of intellectual developmenton the persistence of males and females was also noted by Gurin. as well &8 academic aptitude. Dresser (1971).972) ugues that voluntary withdrawaJ.1972. and Rossman and Kirk. 1968) further suggest that this notion of congru~ncecan be used to distinguish voluntary withdrawal from other forms of dropout behavior.bout the intrinsic rewards (intellectual development)as a result Similar of the pressure they feel for future occupational mobility. Hansonand Taylor. climate Indeed.

above. mar arile con- fram either insufficient intellectual I developmentor insufficient gruency between the intellectual institution. fUlily background. development. social integration. dropout appears to be related both to academicgrade performance and intellectual. development. which establishes certain roles as appropriate to Voluntary withdrawal then becomesa meansof "coping" with the lack of congruencybetween the individual and his envirolDent. and for voluntary withdrawals and academicdismissals.lack of "person-role" fit betweenhimself and the normative climate of the institution the institution. istics within the college.individual deciSions as to persistence in college mayalso be affected by their integration into the social system of the college_ Seen as the iDteraction betweenthe individue. Given prior levels of goal commitment. it then follows that insuffiCient integration t. developnent of the individual and the Within the academicsystem of the college then. With regard to integrf\tion in the academicsystem through intellectual. and other persons of vary1Dgcharacterlike academicintegration. to Social Integration: Its Varying Forms . and interests) (e.but in apparently different ways tor males and females. implies a notion of congruencybetween the individual aDd his social .g. attitudes.l with given sets of characteristics values. the effects of insutficient ADd&8 DOted integration into the academic qat_ upon dropout behavior must be viewed in terms of the individual's commitment the goal of college completion.

Copeand Hewitt (1969).. Other things being equal..ege. Scott (1m). Rootman(1972). can be viewed as important soci-. results in varying degrees ot social communication.. in turn. and collective affiliation.l rewards which becomepart of the person's generalized evaluation of the cOlts and benefits of college attendance. social integration should presumablyincrease the l:Lkelihoodthat the individual. These. each taking a somewhat sysnbolicinteractionist" " &nd Spady (1971). perceptions ot "social fit" are ummportant in explain1Dg . that is important in decisions of dropout. and Jones (1962). tound that 8. college dropouts perceiVf. semi-formal extracurricular activities. k-' . Specifically. al. interaction found that social integration. (1967). individual perceptions of social interaction was directly associ_ted with f persistence. Integration through inform&lpeer group associations. al. via friendship support. et. that (via friendship) are taken into once perceptions of social. Cope (1969). however.'. will remain in college.z Spad¥ (1911) IlOtes.fri~ndship support.. e.59 environment. faculty support.:<i th~elvc!# as t ~ t having lower social interaction than did college peraistera • Both Pervin. "a~ directly related to persistence in col. et. and/or contact with taculty and administrative personnel. Flacks of (1963).pproach. Social Integration: Peer GroupAssociations With regard to integration in the social system of the college composed one's peers.. (1961) ad Rootman(1972) go one step turther and suggest that it i8 individual perceptions ot "social fit" . Pervin.

as it pertains to persistence in college. Newcomb Flaw 8Zld (1964) lead to social such supportive groups or subculturel is. Social integration.e. through f'l'iendship aasoci!p. of sufficient congruency with somepert of the social system of the college.-vis his peers within the institution. it is irrelevant here. with more "conventional" values. ADd though the statement IIl8¥ be valid tor the entire population ot college students. 4 IJ Absenceof. attitudes. it does seem &8 U students aDd interests. .60 dropout. 1970). seemsthen not to tmply absolute or even wide-raaging congruencewith f_ the prevailing social climate ot the institution as muchas it does the developnent. ot the college suffic:ient friendship support can still In this respect. In ~ Thusthe action of case. moreorten associated.. are IIOre likely to establish close relationships with a wider-range ot peers than are their less conventional co\Ulterparte within the college (SPad¥. than it is with dilll1ssal ~e term ' conventional' as employedhere reters to the individual's position viS-I. subcultures within colleges. This suggests that even whenthe individual perceives himselt as not being congruent with the prevailing social cl~te (i.tions. with voluntary withdr. have observed that "social deviants" (i. persons whoare deviant with respect to the prevailing normative and social climate of the college) are less likely to dropout if they are able to establish triendships with students stmilar to themselves. in turn. lack of "social fit").e.

academic dismissal. tban did either persisters or academic Part of this difference between withdrawals &ad disa1ssala arises from the too orten overlooked fs.. however. and Watley.. and Reed. Rose 5 Hansonand Taylor (1970). integration lIIIOag males teDds to mediated through its effect upon grade perfol"ll&DCe. rarely occurs &8 a result of such excessive social interaction • leads to poor academic Whether excessive social interaction pertormance . one can only hn»othesize that the ettects of social. however. 1968).61 (Grande and Simmons. integration upon males and females is a tunctioll of the sexual composition of th~ 1nat'itution. beyond a certain point. 1960. suggests that the eitect of insufficient sociltl. Spady. while UIODg females its effect appears to occur through its iDtluence upon intellectual develoIBeDt (Spady'. excessive inte:raction in the soci&1 domain (e. found that academically successt'ul students whowithdrew frOID college scc. 1966.eems. O'Shea. usf ng multivariate discriminant analysis. tend to detract trom time spent on academic studies and therefore lead to lover academic performance and eventual. RootllUl. Phillips. 1972. Hanson and Taylor.'ed ~ignific&Dtly laver on measures of social relationships dismissals. 1971). 19(5). for example. Wallace. &Dei (Lavin. '1966). 1965. KewcOilbnd k-"lacks.1964.. and Elton. . to be a function of the types of persoDS with whom the interaction occurs. Sp€c1!'ically.ct that dropout JDa¥ arise tram excessive social interaction interaction as often &8 it does from lack of social 1966. . Lavin (1965) aDdiiasatir (1969) argue that someof the strain between the demandsof the academic system 5Reaults of 8~\dies on the effect of social integration upon males and f_~es have shownlittle consistent difference between sexes (Brown.1967. SolIe a evidence. Voluntary withdrawal I I I .g. Though DO further data exist in this realm. 1969. '0. 1971. dating) may.

tract from continuation in college. Studies by Bemis (1962). Chase (1970). Conversely. of time tak~n up in social activit. providing opportunities mutual assistance. .while excessive social interaction may. if are established with persons having strong academic In this ~ay academic and ~ocial system in~luences may for both social interaction and coalesce. lead to dropcut if the group with whom is itself disinclined detracts toward academic achievement or if from time spent on academic I . - one associates the intensity studies. Given then. - .deal. of interaction Social Integration: Social integration EA~r&Curricular Activities through extracurricular activities appears. it.' effects upon academicperformance in college. y. !-ialloy (1954) suggests that the reverse maybe true -i:f the friendship ties are with persons who themselves are underachievers. al system of the college maybe alleviated friendship ties orientation.ies.' ~ . in somecases. . the importance of acedemic integration (eSpecially . F' however. In this respect.62 and those of the soc. f. to have no such deleterious or persistence . fraternity membersare thougl_1to be disinclined tOW'ard t academic achievement. grade performance) in persistence in cQllege. Insufficient both assist soci~ and de- interaction seemSto lead primarily to voluntary _withdrawal.'social interaction with one's peers (through friendship associations)'can . college fr~ternities are of'ten thought to r-educem~ers' academic pel"formance not 'only because of but also because the great .

. reduce the strain between the demands of the two systems. and Vreeland and Bidwell. reduce the probability (Spady. Spa. but Given the findings arise from the fact that-interaction increases social integration and therefore also increases the individual's institutional intellectual development. extracurricular ~ help More importantly. Given he faculty's more intimate association with the academic system of the college. Gamson. participation activities provides a major link to the~social anu ac~'emic systems of the college. de~elopment greater importance of intellectual for female perSistence in college. 1971). Spady. 1966). it follows that interaction with the faculty. Gekoski and Schwartz. and as suggested above with regard to 'certain types of peer group associations. 1971. of his dropping out The social system of the college consist not only of other students. (1964) all find for both sexes. in certain . Social Integratio~: Faculty Associations and therefore.:y1971) suggests that these ( with the faculty not only cOmmitment.. 1966. and Wolford that participatjJn in extracurricular activities. activities may proVide ~oth social and'ecademic which heighten the person's c~mmitment ~o the institution other things being equal.Goble (1957). but also of faculty and administrative personnel. is in directly related to college persistence. rewards. ~hpse semi-formal and form&l institutional Preslunably. 1971. Spady (1971). 1967. it is not surprisil~ that a number of studies have found that ~vcial iuteraction with the college's fa~ulty is related to perSistence in that college (Centra and Rock. Stone (1965).

. group. neither the students nor the faculty can be said to be representative ot tbe wider student and faculty population. importance in developing commitments the institution. the institution t it is t~e individual's related to per- which is most directly sistence in collep:es (Spady.. Being a very selective college. maybe more important for females then for males.mode of sdcial intesration. commitmento._ . that lack of institutional commitment s. to than any single. i 6caution must be taken in maki~ these interpretations because of the nature of the data upon which the cited B~udy waa based.the ~ meanthe difference commitment o the institution t and persistence. Social 'Integration Of the varying forms of social interaction within the social system of the. 1971).. the interests of the student but also because of its Again. impact upon males and females is implied• and Institutional Commitment differential . between transfer tutional Assuminglow goal commitment. individual's Assuminghigh goal commitment. it is suggested insufficient to penuanent dropout from higher education. peer-group associations (friendship suppor't) appear to be while peer- . both Gamson(1966j and Vreeland and Bidwell (15)66)argue that student inteL'action with the facul"ty is more important in the student I s major area thall it is in other areas not only because of the fOI"'ler s I proximity t. and faculty intera:ctions appear to be of roughly' Andmore equal.64 cases.insti- commitment ~ meanthe difference between persistence or In an::! case. in itself.the most ~lirectly related to individual social integration. ext!acurricular.. 6 While this may be true. a -~ potential impact upon his future occupational mobility. .college._ >0 .

65 explain dropout. ( even at the aggregate level. . have also been shownto relate to differential. facilities. which place limits upon the developmentand integration of I~ individuals within the institution and which lead to the developnent of II academicand social climates. this is also true with respect to the social system of the .. must cometo grips. is not surprising that the characteristics of the institutjon. Characteristics and Dropout Since dropout is the outcomeof a multidimensional process in~-.t largely from a lack of congruencebetween the individual and the social climate of the institution rather than from any specific failure on the part of the individual. and composition of its members. It is the characteristics structural of the institution. college since muchdropout appears to resul. it ~-' ). or "presses. " rates of dropout. volving the interaction between the individual and the institution. . Onthe other hand. arrangements. Sufficiently high go~l commitment maylead to pereven whenlittle commitment the to sistence within the institution institution is present. however.. its resources. Institutional . with which the individual On one hand this is true with regard to achievement of different within the academicsystem if onlY'because institutions quality maintain differing stemd&:dsof academic achievement. '!'hephenomena "sticking it out" maybe of just such a case. as extensive as that relating to . Analysis of the effect of institutional characteristics upon dropout has not been.

or instance. 1973. Size. Institutional Type and Dropout With regard to type of institution. It is also fairly clear that two-year colleges have higher dropout rates than do four-year colleges. and student composition. much of the research that does exist is too simplistic to permit meaningful interpretation. Berls. 8pecific~ly type.- .. 1972. Common to such research has been the failure to control for other institutional characteristics (L. 1973). 1969. and Van Al.e. Astin (19'"{2).e .66 individual characteristics. 1973). Van Alstyne.ed ) which may also -. it is fairly clear that public institutions of higher education tend to have higher dropout rates than private institutions if only because much of the student selection process takes place before entering private colleges. Bayer. 1972.studf. while similar selection normally takes place within the public institutions after -entrance (Astin.styne. !. In any case. finds that f institutional - even though the higher rates of atti-ition at two-year colleges are primarily attributable to the lower 1eY'e~ of motivation ~ academic . Unfortunately. student inputs). affect dropout and the tendency to ignore the fact that differences in dropout rates between institutions is also the result of differences in the types of students admitted (i. other than that being . quality. even after student input characteristics have been taken into account (Astin. enough research does exist to permit us to make some rather general statement~ as to the effect o~ certain large-scale characteristics of institutions upon persistence in college.

Van Al. fact that dropout within these institutions is also a fUnction of the i~dividual's social status (Folger.iminary in nature and therefore ma. • may well be the function of two-year colleges to screen-out. students from going on to senior college (Clark. the retention rates of two-year colleges are still somewhat lower than would be expected from the characteristics . as Cited. other authors have further suggested that two-year colleges may also function to screen out primari1y'lower status persons from going on to senior college and thereby act to reinforce inequality of opportunity within the educational system (Karabe1.67 ability of the entering students. ".or coo1out. that 7It mus~ be noted. subject to methodological problems which cast doubt upon their validity. 1971). 'Spady. .styne's (1973) study of dropouts faces the problem of not having included measures 7 of individual abi1ity.. . .e and Adams.y yield different resul~8 in its final form. On one hand Astin's (1972) study of dropout runs into the problem of attempting to include as many independent variables (134) in a regression equation which is based upon data of limited f'&'·tdent representation each of 217 institutions). however. and Jencks. Despite some contrary find1ng8. and Tinto. Bayer. this appears to arise not only from the fact that theae institutions serve largely lower _status individuals. 1972. and Astin. Van Alstyne {1973} finds. but also from thE. The two majoJ. lower and lower-middle class. Since two-year institutions also tend to be institutions of the t". for example.t the Van Alstyne (1973) study. is prel. 1960). Some authors have concluded from this that it L . 1970. for example. Jaff. studies which tend to dispute this con- c1usion are. (an average of 250 persons in On the other hand. . 1970. of their students alone. 1968). the. 1971.

noted that of income. ~ol-lege Quality.dropout . vas still a fUnction of the individual's s.ur-year colleges). to . occupational.. Jaffe and Adams(If)?O). ...8¥ underestimate the ext dropout varies amongindividuals of different to which soeial status b.. ckgrounds.. As suggested earlier.ystatus w~ less important within the two-year college than it was within the fouryear institutions of higher education. adequate measure for differences whenused in studies of dropout.68 among o-year co)lege students dropout rates are highest among t. used controls -ror both f8Jllily background and individual ability ~ and observed that dropout within both two and four-year institutions status. Student Composition. controls for ability would probably have eliminated or even reversed differences in dropout rates attributable to family incomealone.. family incomewas. that the effect of famiJ. and Dropout Since type of college is roughly correlated with quality of the college. social They did note. they further . the least re1&~ed family incomeIll88' no longer be an in social status between families. however.. high incomefamilies enrolled in the two-year colleges are primarily persons of lower ability and motivational levels than other students in these colleges from lower incomebackgrounds. in both colleges.. ~erestingly. That being the case. and. m. and educational measures of family social ptatus. it is not surprising that the quality of the college ha3 also . Given the nature of entrance requireit is likely that persons from ments at t-woand four-year colleges. for example. persons from families with the highest incomelevels (the reverse being true within the t.

. Since performance and dropout are directly related. 1967). one would assume that these same institutiona! chara~teristics are also related to differential rates of dropout. the composition of its students. Kamens. first termed by James Davis (1966) and 1. For the most part. For the state of Wisconsin. .)and Meyer (1970).. 1970. and Wegner. Jolm (1971) and to high by Nelson (1972. 1971. however. ools direct relationship between . argues that there exists a ih. Wegner (l96 r) and Wegner and Sewell (1970) r find that higher quality institu~ions have higher rates of graduation than do lower quality institutions. Wegner and Sewell. Rock and Centra. and individual performance and therefore persistence in college. applied to elementary schools by St. 1970. 1971. ~e impact of 'college quali ty ~s.the ability level of the student body of . find that institutions whose faculty have a greater percentage of doctorates and/or institutions which have higher income per student are also those institutions in which students appear to over-achieve relative to what one would have expected from student characteristics alone. The "frog-pond" effect. more complex than would comparisons among institutions of differing quality. Rock and Centra (1970) focusing upon specific components of college quality.. " be assumed from smple This is so because simple comparisons tend to mask the fact that there exists an important interaction between the quality of the institution.been found to influence persistence in college (Astin. these interactive effects can be summarized in terms of the "frog-pond" effect and the "social status" effect of educational institutions.

and Nelson. of the higher will be the perceived value of that edy. in turn.. related both to one's expectations for future educational attainment and to the probability of drOPPi~ out. of higher ability. from the generalized theory of cost-benefit cussed earlier. stnce highel quality instit. analysis dis- that rates of dropout wouldbe lower at institutions Indeed. Fromthis perspective alone. this is just th~ ~plication of the few of lower quality.l institutions 1970. and Spaeth. tend to have stUdent bodies which are higher in average social stat~s. the lower will be oneI s expectations and the greater will be the probability of dropping out. it follows. 1971). namelythe "social status" effect of educatjona.a1jion the inby dividuals within the school. 1972). \ Since grades are. might also have higher dropout rates than institutions But while this appears to be true (Davis. and the expectations individuals will hold for themselves. the lower will be the grades of individuals of given 6~ility relative to the . of lower quality. In short the "social status" effect argues that the higher the average social status compo~i~icn the school. the effect of college quality upon persister.C. 1966.70 an institution Specifically. one might which tend to have st~dents then infer that higher quality institutions. there also appears to be countervailing forces which tend to reverse. . (Meyer. on the aggregate level.d grades of persons of s:imilar ability in institutions with students of 10'tleraverage ability. it follows that the higher the ability level of one's peers. the higher the average ability of the student body.utions also . 'e.

p- 1~ t~= . m i. vailing forces interact to produce the aggregate effect and for which types of individuals is the aggregate effect posiUve. 1970.._ ~. ~L fift-~ . Therefore.1. o~ retention rates among a sample of Wisconsin institutions of higher education finds that lower status individuals :) of either lower or higher ability levels are more likely to graduate at very low quality or very high quality institutions than they are at institutions of middle quality.. for example.cteristic8. students in the higher quality institutions. of it ma.. attendance at lowest quality institutions was associated with higher graduation '. have been somewhat mixed.j .71 studies which have looked at the "frog-pond" and "social status" effects simultaneously (Meyer.ywell be that for certain types of' students dropout r&. But while these findings an~ the findings from studies onlche aggregate level have indicated that college quality and persistence is directly related. and Nelson. the reverse was not true. I ( i ..[ } ~ • .. .<".. f ft i f. ! Since dropout is itself a tunet:l. Specifically. t \. For individuals of higher social status.. 1972).1. I K .. Especially for students of lower social statulJbackgroundS. ~ ~ while it is true that graduation rates are highest for all types of .:. ~ f~ - t I ~ (1967). t t.on varying individual char".f . i ~ {. A study by Wegner .. it is by no means clear in which way~ these counter. ~ ~' r.e quality institutions and highest in the upper-middle and higher quality institutions.tes are higher in higher quality institutions.: graduation rates are lowest in the lower-middJ. Studies which have looked at the effect of college quality upon the persistence of students of differing abilities and social status baCkgrounds.. for instan~~.' "'.:~~_: f tt1 ".

" ot students from low s~atus families and less important for those students trom business and professional families. ability. . and voluntary c Institutional Size and Dropout (e. categories are more likely to students of all social status graduate at institutions of lower ~uality.t higher qual ity institutions.-----------------------~-----~----. students at higher qu~lity institutions are to graduate than are similar students at lower quality inSimilar results hold when fami. that with ability and social status controlled.Y b&eltgroundis considered.onrates of all types of students.J. namely academic dismissal.~t vary in terms of its effect upon differing withdrawal. Kamens(1971) finds that at all levels of achievement. but again in a manner which is. tend also to have the Of note is Kaaens Kamensfinds that the lowest quality institutions lowest graduat~. unclear.g.• of dropout. that is. finding that "across quality contexts" grad~s becomemore important tor the "survive]. enrollment) also appears to be reas ot yet. more likely sti tutions. and educational aspirations. f)f higher quality than they are at institutions Andunlike the findings of Wegner's study for Wisconsin. a state which is repres·entative of the national pattern of higher education. For a representativ~ national sample. ]mplied is the notion that the effect of quality upon individuals abilities and social status backgrounds ~ fo. It should be noted students of higher social than are status are more likely to graduate at all types of institutions lower status students.--- 72 rates than at somewhe. however. of differ. Size of the institution lated to perSistence. Wisconsin is not.

though focusing upon achievement rather than dropout.. however.ccount and obtain somewhatdifferent results. may eDh&nce persistence through its ability subcultures and therefore into the institution. finds that sma. they find that at higher levels of institutional hi~her quality institutions) income per student (i. high quality institutions but The smaller institution7 given its DOrmall. Central (1970).! (1966). ratio.y lower student-faculty m. no relationship student characteristics income per Since At low levels of institutional between size and achievement was noted. r. Nels\...a. achievement than did larger colleges even after were taken into account. effective in different ways. Rock ana.e.. achievement and dropout are directly these findings suggest that very good.73 Nelson (1966). even after the quality of the institution students were taken into account larger tended to have <' • lower dropout rates than did smaller ones. take Similar factors into._. . to provide for a wider variety of student through its effect upon social integration . simply categorized institutions ~.:' smaller colleges had higher levels of . The larger il'~titutions.a. student.y be able to enhance perSistence through increased student-faculty interaction and therefore through its effect upon both grades and intellectual development. . above or below a given size without controls while Kamens(1971) DOtedthat and the characteristics institutions of the for type or quality of the institution. normally more heterogeneous in student composition.ller institutions have lower dropout rates than do larger ones. related. Specifically. while Kamens(1971) tinda that larger institutions have lower dropout rates. small colleges might be as effect:tve in promoting students to the college degree as are the larger. for instance.

thus far. upon dropout amongindividuals of differing Whatwe do know is.74 Clearly there remains muchmoreto be known about the effects of institui . until recently. I BIn large part the absence of research in this area has been the result of the absence. quite crude. . smaller. nOW these differences come about or for which types of persons are the differences greater. TheAmericanCouncil on Education data is perhaps the best in this respect. namely private iMtitutions. stitutions have lower dropout rates than do two-y~ar institutions. Unfortunately. of sufficiently detailed data covering large enoughnumbersof students in varying types of institutions aver & auffici~ntly long enoughperiods of time. . and l~~r quality institutions. public institutions. or even reversed is. f t i I I .onal characteristics cheracteristics. and high quality in- that four-year institutions. its utilization has been extremely limited. 8 I . at present. beyondour present reach.

cademic and social systems of collegiate environments.. of climate (normative) and the peer-group locial In this respect. and institut-!onal.-~~--~ _. are otten either lacking in both intellectual and social developnent or are sociaJ. and voluntary withdrsval. That is. volun:"arywithdrawals are most t I frequently found to be both I/social isolates" and/or "deviants" ill terms of the intellectUal normsof the institution. For instance while si:ademicdiJmisseJ. tend to reduce voluntary withdrawal. dismissals have otten been toUDd be UDableto to meet the intellectual and social demandsof the college or haVebeen so integrated into the social system of the college that academicdemands go UDIIlet..itut I tions. In either i!lStance. on the other hand.. by providing for a wider variety ot subculturel and theretora tor a heightened probability for peer-group support. Apparently larse-:" in. it is important to distinguish between academicdismissal. characteristics upon individual integration into the e. Academic dismissals.l¥ lIItegrated to the extreme. dropout in the form of voluntary withdrawal is not._--.tJ. is most cl(lsely associated with grade performance._- - " 75 v• DROPOU'r b"ROMHIGHER EDUCATION: A REm ERPRm'ATION Voluntary Withdrawaland Ace_( ~ic Dismissal In de&lingwith the effects of individu. grade llerformanceis the single strongest . Rather such with- drawal al'pears to relate to the lack of congruencybetween the individual and bo"~h the intell~ctual syst~1D the college.

college. as it is affected and modified by the individual's exper-Ience Given in the college which determines his decision to remain 1n.. . ~ tellectual development than do the average persister.). -'.~ - --- '. _ _) illdividuals approach co'LLege graduation (Sexton. low levels c. as wel:l as that between-transf~r -and permanent dropout. can be more effectively ~yzed by taking account of the individual's c~mmitmento the goal of t college completion.y withdrawal and academic dismissal. voluntary with- drawal becanes a decreasing proportion of the total yearly dropout as . That goal commitmentappears to be an important part of the dropout process is further suggested by the fact that." As suggested by Hackman and Dysinger (1970) and as argued here.A. 1965). It is the level of goal commitment. in this respect. Voluntary withdrawals. generally showboth higher grade performance and higher levels of ~n~.. GoaL Commitmen~ Dropout and ~> per-Iods of stabl. the distinction between voluntar. ~. . Since vol'mt~ withdrawal implies a d~cision on the part of the individual that the benefits of the degree . commitment.~ - ~~:-:- . _As a result.individuals tend to withdraw not so much of poor grade perfonnance as muchas a result of insufficient rewards from the social an ~ academic (normative) systems of the college. it can • ..~ not outweigh the costs of attendance.f commitmento the instit'lltion t and to the goal of college completion set off the voluntary withdrf.76 predictor of academic dismissal. suffiCiently as a'result low goal. among men.-.e market "condrt Ions.wal !rem the academic dismissal.- ~\<:~--~ --'+-.

while tending to showboth lower aptitude and levels of . also increases.also tend to be of somewhathigher average social status.tment amongdismissals will lead to transfer to institutions having lower standards of academic per1"ormance. and therefore goar'colllnitment. '- transfer to institutions perceived to be more matched to the person's ininstances. Presumably. b stop-out. level of goal commitment can also be ut ilized to distiIlE:. whether volunt<1!'y withdrawals transfer or at the aaae institution at a later date. they not only tend to have somewhatlower goal cODIIlitment but Comersely . AIDOng sufficiently high goal cOllllllitment Ii18\Y lead to voluntary vithdravals. In ~i:lt lOW' goal commitment ill tend to lead to permanent dropout from the qsts w of higher education. past costs become an investmen. l1tional coDlnitment. the pe !ived other things equal. nce those costs have been borne. and/or social.. and those who leave the syStem of higher education altogether. tends to' increase as one Goal commitment hen. high goal cODlllli. - . needs and wants. incr~88e with increasing nearness to completion.. argued that perceived benefits. o ratio of benefits to costs. seems to be an outcomeof both goal commitment and inst: . For both dismissals and voluntary withdrawals. "stop-out" to re-enroll Finally. dismissals. t proceeds through college. while voluntary withdr_als tend to be somewhatmore deve10pnent thaD do able and to exhibit h~gher levels of intellectual."1lishetween drope:lts who transfer. ---:r' In a sense. persisters. That is. suf'f'ic1ently tellectuaJ. Social Status and Dropout Interestingly.

commitment omparable to that of peruisters) c affect upon academic performance. In this respect. ot given ability For those per- and goal cOlllllitment.. realistically seeks to ~and the concerns of the institution. of sufficient potential.g. it can be argued that the e:ffect of social. sk1lls appropriate ~ough there are undoubtedly instances in which lower social status persons withdraw "voluntarily" because of ext~rnal needs (e.the. these cases tend to be the minority rather than the majority. financial.l do persisters.amely. .heproper directiOh to enhance their perSistence in college. seeks to achieve a given educational goal and the institution develop in the individuals.:ograms designed to inf1uence the academic~ol'll8llCe schooling of persons whose social backgrounds have often meant interior prior to college seemto be aimed in 4. and cert&irsly of lower social status than withdrawals. A Modified Definition of Dropout Given these couments. family). through its given sutticient J:':. a modified definition namely that dropout represents the failure of dropout is suggested. N.s bu4. status upon persistence in college occurs not thro~ ~oal commitment (since dismissals tend to have leYel. Since dismissals appear to be o£ somewhat lower social status than are persisters. of -goaf. sons whose ability and goal coDlllitment uggest realistic s achieve desired educatioaal goals. of individuals. social interaction. also showsomewhat 1 10'Ier scores on measures of svcial status th&. expectations then implies within given institutional an important interaction the mOdified definition between the needs and desires of the individual. individual. .78 intellectual developnent than the average persister.

To classifY as a dropout ~e~for goal cOlllDi~. it should net follow that higher education should attempt to serve. per- the def'iDitJ. that the college degree is~just not worth the effort. tments are matched to .. is. tends to focus attention on that view of' highex education which argues that the higher educational system should serve to maxim.: of each individual. however. transfer to other institutions as r would intepret ne of' the proeessee through which iJl- dividuals of varying abilities institutions the definition and gOLL cOllllrl. manner. . .79 to the stated goals of' both the individual and the institution. in other words. to suggest that h1g:ter education do just that. irrespective etf'ect.. in an UDCl"itical. each and every person who enters. of varying standards and/or to the goal. At the same time. In so doing. of his interests ~:. too often overlooked faet tbat ~ SODS ill dropout of institutions v if only because of iDsutf'icieut cOllllli:t.on recognizes the all. . ~ persons whose ability and/or goal commitmentsuggest unrealistic the definition For those expecta- tions within a given educatiC'nal setting. in one who leaves. Whiie it seems unavoidable that the demandfor access to higher education will contmue to increaEe in the foreseeable fUture. in the system. ze the potential :-. of' college education.

\'-.c . ~TTI\. ASTDI..-------- < ~ i A~TIN.tional ~file.~ ~ .R..~~ • . .~~ :.' ~. . B 't' ... I"- AUGUSTDm .. 1?~rsist~l!c~~<!_Attritio~ of Engineeri!Jg StuE-entsLA Study' of Freshman and Sophomor~ Engineerj ~ Students at Three Midwestern Uni!"ersffies. ~ .AND JOHN CRFAGER A. 1968 ~ . D. . ~"' ~.mior College. Fall..3).... BF:RI' D.plfcanis_for M04~stoJunrc. ALEXMmm 1973 "Research-based decision IIII!Lldng in Higher Education: Possibility or Pipe Dream?" Paper presented at the meeting of the Higher Educati~tl ColloquiUlll. ERIC ED 063 929._Predicting Academic Performance in College.t:... D.. i':i ~ -.C. r 1966 ~ r If . Comnarison of ~rolled 1967 Fall 1~ and Non-Enrolled I-bdesto Junior College ~p. .. " ~ e~ 1970 l ~ Educational Progress of Dispdvantaged Students. 1966. "The College Drop-Out: Factors Affecting SenIor College Completion. ROBERT.~~TI~. l f s-.. ACE Research Reports.tional NormsFor Entering College Freshmen. HELEN S • >: . Am~rican Council on Education.. Ii . LEXM:DER A ~ 1964 "Personal and Environmental Factors Associated with College Dropouts among High Aptitu~e Students. ALAN E." Sociology of Education 41: 305-31~.c.-' ASTTI'l.. !·lARY ROSE 1971 Academic Persistence 0: Some Students at ·St." Journal o'f Educational Paycho1~ 55: 219-227• ALEXANDER ~ctc. [ .~~ea.0~t_s: A !'!l.:. 1967 "l~e. AIIDERSOU. r 4 t .r-Cofieg~ERic-ED California: 014 303. PANOO J . ~Iiew-York:Free _~rt~ 2 (NO. " 1· s: BAYER. AL!OOUIDER W. Un~ !raity Research Corporation. Chicago• ASTIN.. ~IC ED014 740." !CE. Washington.80 REFEHENCES AN~·!CN~. Washington.: Hnnian Sernce Press.Petersb'urgJ.C. ALEXANDER 1972 Co~le~e D~0. 7. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg Junior College. ROGER D. .

"B~. Office of Education Report. Congress of the United States.-School-PrincTi~ls 54: 66-71." Doctoral Dissertation. 39:" 280-282. " ~ BE}.: JointEconomic C()IlIIdttee.'1) RICHARD EDB "") A R A W 1973 Four Years After College. American Council on Education. J.F.C. AND D. LAN.. .. 1960 "IdentifYing College Dropouts with Minnesota Counseling Inventory. 1970 -.~riment&l 40: 1-4.n:'. DORISA." ~~_~~~r C~!le~'=. II Personnel and Guidance JOll!IleJ. D. happens to the withdrawal student.?urnal 8: 623-634. J.81 BAYER.::>r a.G. D.~ePers~ . University of Washington. CHASE. F~-OO2-l54.ITS.MID 1970 The P~cho~ogir~ Characteristics of t~~ Co3:-!." Bulletin of the National Association of Se-condari. ACEResearch Reports 8. _ DROWN. AlU) COLLINS BURNEl'T W. BUCKLnI.. 1971 "CollegE: .Journal 40: 30.}..IDvironments and Student Achievement. Washington.1f A}ne!_~san "~duc~~~~~ __!!ese_arch -!.CLINTON I. / ROBERT 1969 "Higher Education Opportunity and Achievement in The United States. . 1962 "A Study of Undergraduate Students who Voluntarily Withdrew from ~he University of Washington.C. 1970 "The College Dropout: His High School Prologue. Washington.C.ANlHEOYER." in The Economics and FinanciIijl of Higher EducatIOn in the United i3tates-: " washington. W_C • BLAr~CHFIELD.32. ROBERT MARY LOU BTJCKLm ." Journal ~t:."ldLeaver: A Review. A Case Education _" BOSSEN. 1971 "College Dropout Identification: study. D. F. ROCK CENTRA.

BRA A \offiR 1970 student Chal :eristics: Personality and Qropotif Propensity. "Personality 1964 Factors and Capacity to lote~t Curriculum Demands. ROBERT _-l-969 "College Press and Dropouts. AVID D 1968 Div~~s}~¥." A paper presented at the meeting of the New England Educational nesearch Conference. OHNB~ J 1973 "Social Identity and Motivation. ot Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American EducatioruU Research Association.AGER.flce of Education Report.E." ic~ Reports 33: 338. . Research R~~rts 4 (No. Massachusetts..---- --_- -. JOlL'~ A. Los Angeles." -WashingtC)n:-ERICClearinghouse for Junior Colleges and American Association of Junior Colleges.* . ALEXANDER ASTIN. D. }- . CRF.D.of Coll. COPE.~~~~UBe!. ROBFmAND RAYMOND HEWITT 1969 "A Typology of College Student Dropouts: An Environmental Approach." !~~. COKER..8:. ~opouts. Washington.7). G 1971 An Investigation of Entn ! Characteristics !!elatec! ~fo ~!!S .82 CLARK. URTOH B 1960 "The I Cooling-Out t Funct Ion in Higher Education. COPE. Office of Education Report 3R-0-I-068..choloB- . BR-6-2728.!." Personnel and Guidance Journal 42: 17-31.. Chestnut Hill.-- COHEl'i. CULLEN.C. ROBERT .. Washington. CONGDON. California. . D. PlIl.~tuden~. Of." American Journal of Sociology 64: 569-576:" .ract_eristic_2 B~~~~~~_~rsisti~ S~udent8 ~~J~on-Pt:rsistl~ . RTHUli K AiID rr f"IREl!CE B. ROBERT ORUCH.C.~~~ntellective and Non-Intellect~ve ~I:!. B ALAN BAYER MID DAVID DREW 1969 "!rational Horms for Entering College Freshmen Fall 1969. J. COPE.

College Expectations. BRUCE K.-Cultur&l Study C'enter.. . Reasons. ~KLMro. GID~OOD.. D • American Journal 1968 "Analysis of' College Dropouts-some Manif'est and Covert.K. Personnel and Guidance Journal 46: 681-684. ~laryland UniversitY-. University of Alabama." American Journal of' SOCiology 70: 60-72.1e£~<J_andUniversitie~.. ." Harvard Educational Review D~SER. .L. JR.B. .------tf DI CESARE. SEDLACEK. DA VID LELAND "The Relationship Between Personality Needs. Syracuse University..." Doctoral Dissertation. DAVIS. Harvard P\RNSWORTH. 1964 "Social Class and College Graduation: Sane Misconceptions Corrected. 1968 37: 38-56." Educational R~vi~ 34: 402-420. G. l~HOrrY A C. itA study of Dropouts at the University of' 1963 Alabema with respect to certain Academic and Personality Variables." of Sociol~gy 72: 17-31. ~UCE K. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1971 DYER.DANIEL.JAMES A." Doctoral Dissertation.J 1970 Non-Intellectual Correlates of' Black Student Attrition. 1966 "The Campus as a Frog Pond. DANA 1957 ~e_l!~alHealt_1?. and Undergraduate Attrition in a University College of Liberal Arts. "College Dropouts WhoCameBack._. WILLIAM . -_. Environmental Press. H.E. BROOKS Al~ C.ip.1()3.fol. 1964 . - -- ECI<LAND. DEl. "School Factors and Equal Educational Opportunity. ERIC ED049 714.

. 1957 . 1973 WILLIAM "College Dropouts: Theories and Research Findings." l4-21_. Minnesota Stc:l. 1970 HELEnS. Edw ion and Welfare. ANDS.. FOLGER.. Department of Health.R. As The Basis For a Theory Of American Sociological Review 16: >." Journal of Educational Research 54: 192-194. ."SR. .-> GOBLE. SCHWARTZ "Student Nortality and Related Factors. JOSEPHAND MURRY PFEFERMAN. FOOTE. New York: Russell sage. 1961 N." Doctoral. ASTDI AND ALAN BAYER E. "Perronality Characteristics and ~Jcational 1966 Interests FOC -ted to the College Persistence of Academl. i'fl!:ISON I'.I. computer model to measure the requirements for student aid in higlE r education. !:Iuman Resources and Hi~her Education." Office of Program Planning and Evaluation.--------------~---------:------------------- - --~_- >' 84 FAtmCE. "Study of the Student Dropout Problem at Miami Univ_ersity. FROOMKIN... gifted Women. Office of the Chancellor. In(~iana University... It An unpublished paper. 1951 "Identification Motivation. Off~ ~e of Education..RICHARD 1963 "Adapb vt Lons of Deviants in a College Community. l"ENS'fDlACH. itA GA~ON." Doctoral Dissertation. y Disser:ation. University of Nichigan.s." Doctoral Dissertation.-------~.d.JOHN K.te College System. > .:''\CKS. n.!on 39: 4 -73 6 GEKOSKI. 1966 ZELDA "Utilitarian and Normative Orientations Towar d Education." §_ociology of _E~d<lcat. University of ~tlnnesota.

" ~~abod~_Journ~ of Education 35: 36-40." Final. .: U. 19:. DOUOLD E. . NEWCOMB. LEE 1963 "Total and Private Rates of Return to Invest.f ~ounsel1ng Psycho1~ 17: 540-545. "Retention and Withdrawal of College Students.W." Personnel and Guidance Journal 46: 585-588." Journal (. . E.ment in Schooling. SIMMONS 1967 "Peraonaf.B. JR. GRANDE. GURIN.. Project Nb..A.1. Department of Health. \ r-- HACI<MAN. Government Printing Office. 1969-1970.S. T . II Sociology of Educa~ion 43: 311-324 •. '. 1970 Academic Performance of Financial Aid Recipients. Report. 1957 "Personality Factors and College Attrition.' . ANDROBERI'COPE 1968 . AND J.P. ERIC ED 045-080. Office of Education. Washington D.A.M. RICHARD AND WENDELL DYSrnGER 1970 "Commitment to College as a Factor in Student Attrition. H. Cleveland: CUyahoga Community College.s. HANSEN.B. . ~os Angeles City College Research Study #70-12." ~~ut:ne+~~_A. GRACE. IFFE.C.D!!~d Pl!lycho~ 49: 1-7. G. . Values and Academic Performance Among Engineering Students. S.. Bulletin No. 1970 !_ Study or Student Attrit!on: Part 1. zarc ED 038 976. 1964 "Personali ty Factors in College Dropout.GARYANDRONALD TAYLOR 1970 "Interaction of Ability and Personality: Another Look at the Drop-Out Problem in an 'Institute of Technology.GOLD. 1938. BENJAJIL[N K. "Characteristics of Entering Freshmen Related to Attrition in the L!terary College of a Large State University.." U.P.~c~no~ 71: 128-140.------GREIVE. University of Michigan.." Journal of Pol1t1. U. Ed\lcation and Welfare.HEILBRUN.

CHRISTOPHER 1968 "Soch.L~:-_~ll Techni_cal_!T0gress Re~ort.B. ----':'::~ -=-_----_.----~--.J. 1962 "Some Personal-Social Factors Contributing to Academic Failure at Texas Southern UniverBi ty •" PersoI!_ali!l_ Factors on College ~~us.J. A. A.-------------~-~----~~-- --.J.JAFFE.-JENCKS.S." In WHson and Mills.:_:=---=-=-=-=--:. Y~AMENS. s Bureau JAFFE. A.---JOlmS.J..: American Council on Education.. Sch(1ol: Seniorl and Related Higher Educational MaterieIi: --NewYork~of Applied Social Rese~rch (mimeographed)." !!!." Q~~e: 11." Proceedings of the American Statistical Association._:-=--=:---:::. AN» WAL'l'ER ADAM) 1972b "Two Models of Open Enrollment. DAVID It. 78. Social StatIstics Section-. JAFFE." ~~iol~r Education 44: 270-296.. ANDWALTER ADAMS 1970 ~Academic and Socioeconomic Factors Related to Entrance and Retention at Two. J.. 1971 "The College 'Charter' and College Size: Effects on Occupational Choice and College Att"'ition. eds.:::--:.~rd Educational Review 38: 277-316. Follow. Austin:Ho~g Fodhdation for Mental Health.::_:___ :. Universal H!gher EdUcation: ~~sts.=:. NewYork: Bureau of Applied Social Research (mimeographed). D..27~_l2:'~re~s _ R_~o_rt anUindi~s. JONES. 1955 "The Probation Student: What He Is Like and What Can Be Done About It. r .::..:::.- 86 JAFFE.L!0_llow~f ~:-_SectioE_ of 1~19_~ HigE__.l Stratification and Higher Education.:::--:.-----~--- ~~-~~-~ .J.:- -=---_._Options. ANDWALTER ADAMS 1972a l:_97!_-_1.Year Colleges in the Late 1960's.:: y~_of Cross Section of 1~196 High Schoo~_ Seniors... ANDWALTER ADAMS 1971a !9.and Four. Washington. A." Journal of Educational Research 49: 93-102. E. AND WALTER ADAM> 1971b "Open Admissions and Academic Quality. JAFFE. A. Benefits.C.

~ •. f I LAWHORN. University of Texas. LEi-.~inal: Report. The Univ~rsity of Miami.r~. Office of Research. "1-. . IS "A Study of Students WhoWithdrew from College 1965 During Their Second.~s. J." Doctoral Dissertation.ED '052 690.<?_t: Withdrawal Students on Ten Factor Variables .t\S F. 1972 KARAHEL.fERONE "Community Colleges and Socia 1 St ratif1cat' !!. Hew-York:-Rusself Sage Foundation. D..:1 Investigation of Scholastic Over.. ROBEH'l' ANDPAULLIBERTY 1971 A_C.ject: Phase II.of _!hre~ .----." ~o~]. Final Report. MACMILLAN I THOMAS F. on. 197C'o II NORCAL:The key is cooperation. Amer-f can Counc i L on Education. Third or Fourth Years.and 1954 Under-Achievement among Female College Freshmen.II Unpublished paper.C ED 031 2<+-0. 'Eiffc--]n-6'3cj--Erfej.-. Junior ) MALLOY." Journal of Couns~ling Psycl:l0lo~ 1: 260-263.- -- -. II 1972 xnsrs .L.1.E_~~~_. Austin: ERIC.!-. ~~rJveirf. . !--1ACMILLAN.ffiES .~~r~tiv~. 1970a NorCal Pro.!:. THOtl. JAi'UR T. .!du!!attonal ~e_view 42: 521-562._!.E. JEROME AND ALEXANDER ASTIN W: "Social Class.--_.)_~_~_~~~~: __ P.r. "A Study of Persisters and Dropouts in 1971 The Secretarial Science Program at MiamiDade Junior College.------ MACMILLAN ~ THOMAS F. University of Oregon. 1969 .._eg~Journal 40: 28-31.~.~a~d !.~~o_u_~ . Inventory.. Academic Ability and College 'Quality.o.~~~~)-? Pr~~_~emSefr--=R!iorl. A.C." Doctoral Dissertation.h.87 KARAnEL. 1965 The Prediction of Academic Performance. ~ LAVIN.

San Francisco: Bass. and Performance Correlated.~.h:0_~~ 58: MC~1AMMOi'l.t the University of Tennessee.~dent P~rBonnelt 12: . W. 1\ U r 1tIon of Acn. MEYER.111I.lnp. 1'11. MEDSKER.: Center for Research and-Development in Higher Education. Berkeley. MORaISE':. San Francisco. 1964 "The Relationship of Certain Non-Intellectual F'actors to Lack of Persistence of Higher Ability Students at the University of California.. Doctoral Dissertation.demically Capable 3tudents a. ---reikeley. JR. . D.l. Berkeley. NASATIR. MOCK..~ol~~_e_~t.r>11 ". Personality..'.lIn. GEORGE YDrlGE 1969 St~d:~n!~'. JOHN 1970 "HiGh School Effects on College Intentions. University of Te~~essee. The University of California.279-285.i0l!~l _P~lc. 1971 "Attrition in Probationary Freshmen." Doctoral Dissertation. ROBERT J. JOlsey- MERRILL. NELSON.. f!f_ .ARKS. _~~itude. II"" of' N'lll." A paper presented at the meeting of the American Sociological Association..~y:ond 1!ig!l_~. CORDON 1971 "College Characteristics Associated with Freshman Attrition. LELAiID AND JAMES 'fRENT 1968 E. A.E.II. and Persistence at the Universitx of C8.!~t~llec~':!.88 It." ~e.~Attit~del.of S." The ~o~n~ ." Personnel and Guidance ~~"!. EDMOND 1967 "student Perceptions of College Persistence and Their Intellective.c~_Journal . til I'red I ('t.t:hool.nal 44: 1046-1050:--- .!:i:.ifornia. "'I'h" 210-221.I. 1969 "The Interaction of Antecedent and Contextual Factors in the Prediction of Academic Failure.59-70. KATHLEEN AND R. K.1 Vl\r11lhl ".?c!ol~ 76: ." Journal of !!~':!c:~.

1967 "Relation ('1" Student Persistence in College to Satisfc.ion From College." Ameri£&n ~~iOlo~!ciU. .!!_~ Talent. 1966 L. NICHOLSON._. University of Arkansas.. Princeton: Princeton University Pies's'~ D.ction with 'Environmental' Factors.. 5: 57-72." !~~..A. ROBINSON.1dents. fJ. T. AND W. REIK.L." Personnel and Guidance Jo~Bl:. Ann Arbor: University of Michige.~rch .. . "Deferred Gratification in a College Setting: Some Costs arid Gains. L. HORACE 1968 "College Students' Moti'l&tions Related to Voluntary Dropout and Under-Achievement." Doctoral Dissertation.~~bl~ 13: 333-343. 44: 1046-1051.~t~AND R." t ~~~«:.iant S~~~'!l !~~ .L. . DALRYMPLE The ~~lleg! Dropout and the utili~~tio." Personnel and Guidance Jo~~ 47: 417-42~ PANOS. JOEL 1972 "High School Context and College Plans: The Impact of' Social Structure on Aspirations..----r:F.R. ORDON G 1966 "College Characteristics Associated with Fresr.!._-- REED. NEWCOMB. FLACKS 964 Qe.!~'!ie! 37: 143-148.~o~ 56. 1968 "Attrition AmongCollege St·.._89 NELSON.~I!.q_~al of ~~cati~~ Res~arc~ 61: 412-416. . 1969 "Peer Relationship!'> and Male Academic Achievement: A Review and Suggested Clarification. EVW. AND ASTIN A.---.SOlt.E. \ ~. A.J. J.!_q~le~e Campus.RD 1973 "Predictors of Grae-·." Ameri~ Ed~cation9:?--Re~~~~_J~~!l&l PERVIN.l:.F.n. ~ O'SHEA." Attrition. ACT ~: t.

" Soeiology ." ~. " Doetoral "Dissertation.ROCK. 1966 I" • ROOSf.ssoUrl-ColUllbia.A. " ot E4ueation 40: 1-23. ----:~-_- -- 1955 _" ~----- _-: _. --~-'._-~__~_#" -c-._-=-::. University of California Berkeley.970 . IRVING "Volunt. I JACK CARTm 19'71 "A Stuq ot the Relationship Between Students' PenOD&l PerCeption or Drrlron _ aental Preas and Attrition at a Two-Year College..-JACK AHD BARBARA l'IRK "Factors Related to Peraistenee and Withdrawal ImODg Uniftl1lity· Students. _ -SEWELl.----.:-.eetlon and Context as Factors Af'tec:tiDg the Probability ot Graduation trca College. RAPHAEL "Five Falling College Students. JOHN CEt-'TRA 1Th'D ROBEltT Lnm 1970 ~'Rela:tionship8 :BetweenCollege Charaeteri&ties . SEWELL. 25: scorr." ~ociolo§y ot Edueation 45: 258-270 • AND C. I. DONALD. "1968 .. SHAH " 1967 "SocioecomUc Statu.--- 1971 "The Elsentary SchOol as a Frog Pond. ad the Attd'llPDt ot Higher Edu~tiOD." Aaeriean Edueational ~!8earch Association." Unpublished paper. 7: 109-121. . -" "" . ." Journal ot Counselling PayeholO8l 4: 343-312." RQOrI-WI. - ROOE. JOHN. . \-~="'. -. Intelligenee. ot Orthopycbiatq _- " - 343-372.1ANN. College Dropout. "Sel.". NANCY -- =--.~.-- _- - SARNOFF.:-::-." Aaerie8l!_Joumal .. _WILLIAM AIm VIMAL.E. 1972 . .- AHD T. l-~- ~--.__ .and Student Achievement.y Withdrawal :t'1ul a Total Adult Socialization organization: A .1i:an Joumal of SOeio~ 75: 665-619. .:::-_ .- WIrJJAl-l AND ELDOlf wmNER 1. H.Model.>:::. ELTON "Another "Look 'at the." Social Fo~es 48: 581-595. university ot Mi.t...'" * - S'r.

. "DrOpouts' fram. TAYL<Jt. " Cornell University. ALFERr Personal.. JOHN STEP-liEU 1971 "A Multivariate Combination ot Academie and llon." in H. Ram Arm GAlti R. Co1let{e Student Personnel 12: en-err." The JOUrD&l ot. Counselt'!l. 1966 SUJl4ERSKILL.. SUCZEK.-. D. R.. John Wiley and Sou. . ORALDG.E.. "Dropouts rrc.1967 "Educational Mobility and Access: Growth and Paradoxes. Toward 2: 38-62~ 1965 "Predict1Dg Student Retention aDd Withdrawal in a Seleeted State University ceUege ot HewYork•.Drdpouts. Rev York. Berkel." Doctoral Dissertation. ILLIAM W G.." Int~ _--- C." Journal ot .B. 1962 J. Student Health Serviees. I.. .ity Characteristics ot College . on AchievaleDt and Attrition. I --' SPADY. SPADY. .: Uninrsit7 ot California. College. JOHB D.---. r J J SPADY.Acadeaic Factors Related to Student Attrition. University of Pittsburgh. AJ(D E. ~-- - -~- ." AllericD Journal ot Socio..). ..r.. Departllent 'ot P8ycldatr. TAYLOR. RONALD Arm GARY HANSOB 1970 "Intereat and Peraiatence. Sanford (ed. Higher Education: -An Interdisci-_ -plll1&17 Revi. Doetoral Dissertation. -.~gchology 17:(. The Aaeriean College.. 73: 273-286. 91 'SMITH.· WILLIAM ".HABSOB R 1971 "Exper1IIental Houain& ~ TutoriDg: Etl'ect. . I r _. G. WILLIAM r i I I 1971 STONE.ew and Synthee1a. 1970 . .06:509.' . "ProPout8 fn:a Higher Education: an ~1rical Model. n' _!ntercballje 1: 64-85.

:-~'~-' --'- -- -_- --:. W.!6!:. Center for Higher Education." Journal ot Coun.C. n An unpublished paper.. . VREELAfID.Fall 19bn. 1968 "College Dropouts: Dismissed vs. • VAN Al$n~.d Selectivity of College . Report 4.s.~ __Doctoral Dissertation.e~ E!lc~ol~ 12." ot College £o~~ge·and~iversl~y 41: 6l~76. The University of Wi." Soc. Doctoral.'. of WALLACt:._ ~ ~:-~ _~~~O:_~-:~~:_ -.. M1> C. WEDGE. .and Patte~. WATLEr..•... 1966 Student Culture: Social structure and ~ontiJ!Uity-rnaLiberal Arts _£oll. .. Attendance..-=--:".~~_~~~ ~ ~~~___ ~ '. Entering Freshmen. Flo~.Yale University Pre.!'. RIcHARD P. ! WIDNER. VI!ICLIfr 1971' "The Effect of College Accessibility Upon the· Rates 8. -=-~ - - ~~--=.Dissertation. RUYLE A 1965 "Variations.~_G2!~_~c~ J~~ 46: 685-689. to Grad~OJl._: ---=-~~ ~~ . 1967 . Withdrew." Th~y'_!!~s~nne_1. ~ " . ELDM .Attrition. 1973 CAROL "Attrition Rates of College St~dents. BIDWELL 1966 Classitying University Departaents: An Approach to the Analysis their Ettects Upon Undergraduates' V~ues and Attitudes. JAI-fESND J. Chicago: Ald1ne.American Council on EducatiC)n. 19Q2 I T:rN"rO.} 1~ .L.ol~ of Educa~ion 39: 237-254. COLLEGE ASSOCIATION Student Re!entio~.r j TENIofESSEE... . --. R. Washington.. "The Relationship ot Col-l~ge Ch&raeteriatic. 1965 "The ·Minnesota Counseling Inventory and Persistence in an Ilistitute ot .. .-~:. D. Attendance. NewHaven: . The .. VAUGlWi. BRYANT 1958 _f!zcho-soc!al _charact4!riati~_<!~ ~oll~ ~.J.: 94-91. Tenne.. . tt TRENT.See College :Association.. .!.... University or Chicago. Technology.. '.conain. D.

" Doctoral Dissertation." American Journal of SOci. 518-522.vidual. Institute of Adftilceclstuq in student PerSOJUlel Work in Junior Colleges and Technical Instttutes. . "A Caaparison of Persisters and Bon-persisters in $.aunity College. "Goal Aspirations and AcadelllicSuccess." Docton. University of Oregon. 'lhe George Waahin8ton University • ~e ~si1?1e Student: A ~tudiJia:L StudJ of _ th!. -···!!Factors -Ielated to Persistence in an Urban--..\ .__ --_1. _ .n Attrition at a Multi-CUpua Cc.. L{ WEIGRAND.1." Personnel Get Guidance JoumaL. ZACCARIA. of New Mexico. MRK 1970 WHITE.: -~ --:. '1-- 93 WEGNER.. E. Junior College.· and Environaental Factors -~ WEIGRAND..olOQ'15: 665-679. .. ERIC'ED 030 532." f!~. 1969 '- WOLFORD. e: t ----IE:---------- "A Cm!pa. G.s~nn~!_!n! Gui~ce Jo~ 31: 458-461. Colu.35:.-: '-'--.. 1953 . E'l AL WIRrHER. of Coll~ --_ .. --_. G. SVEN· F . ). SEWELL -.1._ ~ WEIGEL. ." A paper presented at the EPDI\. AND LUCY JAMES REASER C 1971 .._BeginD~ Fres~ Clus of 1963 at the University. "Adaptiveneas and the Role of Parents in ~cademic Suc~eas.'~- .." !he Journal.. 1970 "Selection and Context as F~tors Arrect~ the Probability of Graduation froa Colleg~. 1957 _-- _-J F _ .l'ison Dropouts and Persisters in of A Private Liberal Arts College. "InM.. 1971 - JAMm HOWARD Associated with Fresm. Dissertation'. C~er University. ELDON L •• IUID WILLIAM H.. New Mexico University.bia: University of Missouri. -----Student-Feraonnel-12-:-28b-"29l-.964 rof.