Student Attrition, Retention, and Persistence

Journal of Hispanic Higher Education
http://jhh.sagepub.com
Student Attrition, Retention, and Persistence: The Case of the University of Texas Pan American
Alfredo Salinas and Jose R. Llanes
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 2003; 2; 73
DOI: 10.1177/1538192702238728
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jhh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/2/1/73
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education, Inc.
Additional services and information for Journal of Hispanic Higher Education can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jhh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jhh.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://jhh.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on November 5, 2007

© 2003 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Journal and
Salinas ARTICLE
10.1177/1538192702238728
of Hispanic
Llanes Higher Education / January 2003
Student Attrition, Retention, and

Persistence: The Case of the
University of Texas Pan American
ALFREDO SALINAS AND JOSE R. LLANES
PLS. CUT ABSTRACTS BY 67 WORDS TOTAL Abstract: This article

reports on a causal-comparative study of 1,425 students constituting the entire
cohort of 1992 entering freshman at the University of Texas Pan American
(UTPA). The study compares the characteristics of the cohort who left UTPA
before graduation, those who were retained and graduated within 6 years,
those who left and did not return, and those who returned and ultimately grad-
uated from the institution. Using persistence models, the study reveals a pat-
tern of student behavior and student characteristics to each group that provides
indications of how to identify and assist students in danger of not completing
their education.
Resumen: Este manuscrito es un reporte causal-comparativo de 1,425

estudiantes, los cuales constituyeron el grupo total de los estudiantes de
primer año en la Universidad Pan Americana de Texas (UTPA) en 1992. El
estudio compara las características del grupo que dejó UTPA antes de
graduarse, los que se quedaron y se graduaron en 6 años, aquellos que dejaron
la institución y se dieron de baja, y los que regresaron a la institución y se
graduaron. Usando modelos de persistencia, este estudio revela un patrón de
conducta estudiantil y características de los estudiantes en cada grupo, lo cual
proporciona indicadores para identificar y asistir a estudiantes que se
encuentren en peligro de no terminar su educación.
Key words: Hispanic student attrition, retention, persistence
The prospect of a higher education for Mexican Americans in the United

States is not promising. When compared with other racial and ethnic groups,
there are a disproportionally low number of Mexican American or Hispanic
students completing high school and entering, as well as completing, col-
Authors’ Note: Alfredo Salinas was partially supported in this work by a grant from the Kellogg
Foundation through the Hispanic Border Leadership Institute.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, January 2003, 73-97
DOI: 10.1177/1538192702238728
 Sage Publications 2003
73

74 Journal of Hispanic Higher Education / January 2003
lege. The 2000 census showed that in the United States, Mexican Americans
with high school diplomas amounted to 51% of those older than 18 years
compared with 84.9% of non-Hispanic Whites and 78.5% of non-Hispanic
Blacks. These data showed that only 6.9% of all Hispanic students had grad-
uated from a 4-year college compared with 26.1% of White students and
16.5% of Black students. At the 2-year-college level, only 5.0% of Hispanic
students reported earning associate degrees compared with 8.0% of White
and 6.8% of Black students (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Hispanic individu-
als and, in particular, Mexican Americans have a long way to go before they
achieve the quality of life and income education promises.
Although the absence of Hispanic students from higher education can
be said to stem from lower high school graduation rates, a portion of the
problem resides in the retention and graduation of students who do manage
to enter college. The retention of Hispanic students in higher education until
graduation provides a great challenge for institutions that primarily serve
this population. The University of Texas Pan American (UTPA), located in
the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, enrolls a majority of its students from local
high schools where Hispanic student enrollment ranges from 82% to 99%.
Hispanic students at UTPA represent 85% of its enrollment and consti-
tute 95% of its attrition before graduation. Of all students enrolled at UTPA
from 1990 to 1994, only 22% managed to graduate with bachelors’ degrees
(Office of Institutional Effectiveness, 2001 PLS. PROVIDE COMPLETE
REF).
This problem is so serious that studies by the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board, such as “Closing the Gap,” warn that a continuation of
this condition will inevitably lead to a decline in the economic output of the
region and the state. Findings indicate that a growing unskilled, underedu-
cated population cannot meet the demands of a technology-based workplace
and that the average household income in Texas will decline by $4,000 in
constant dollars by the year 2030. The Coordinating Board’s plans call for
adding, by the year 2015, another 500,000 students to the numbers currently
attending, including 370,000 new students. However, the total number of
new students enrolling could be reduced by 30% if student retention were to
be improved by 100% (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2000).
The purpose of this study is to analyze the social behavior and academic
characteristics of the cohort of 1992 entering freshman at the UTPA, which
may contribute to the attrition and persistence of students, particularly His-
panic students, at UTPA.
Models of Persistence
The literature on persistence in higher education starts with a seminal
study by William Spady in 1970. Although other studies have been done,
Spady’s was the first comprehensive study of persistence and the most
quoted in subsequent studies. Following Spady, Vincent Tinto’s (1975,

Salinas and Llanes 75
1982) studies published in 1975, 1987, and 1993; John Bean’s study pub-
lished in 1980; and Alexander Astin’s study published in 1984 were the next
generation of studies on the phenomena of higher education persistence. The
model of persistence prevalent in the 1970s focused on the traditional popu-
lation of college students and on traditional residential institutions. As de-
mographics of higher education changed, this model became less useful in
explaining retention behavior, particularly for nontraditional students.
Tinto’s model has been studied and reconceptualized to fit other populations
of students and less traditional institutions (Pascarella, Duby, & Iverson,
1983).
In 1975, Tinto’s review of research literature led to the formulation of
hypotheses about college student departure. Tinto’s criticism of the lack of
theoretical formulations to explain these phenomena led to his postulation of
the interactionalist theory of college departure (Braxton, 2000). Table 1 pro-
vides a summary of these studies and their contributions.
Because the purpose of this study is to analyze social and academic fac-
tors that contribute to persistence, Tinto’s model will be used as the concep-
tual base for the analyses of findings.
Tinto’s Integration Model

Building on Spady’s (1970) work, Tinto devised the most widely used
model of student departure today. Essentially, Tinto’s integration model
consists of four factors related to persistence of students in college, namely,
the preentry characteristics of students, the institutional characteristics, the
academic integration of students, and their social integration with the institu-
tion (Gatz & Hirt, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979, 1980 PLS.
PROVIDE COMPLETE REFS; Tinto, 1975, 1982).
Tinto (1988) theoretically linked these four factors to students’ chances
of persisting in college. Social integration, according to Tinto, occurs when
students have gone through the following three different stages: separation,
transition, and incorporation. The three stages of social interactions are es-
sential to the model. In separation, Tinto refers to students moving from one
community, or home, to a new community, or college. During this stage, stu-
dents leave their known worlds to learn new ones. In the transition stage,
Tinto argued that students encounter numerous difficulties as they shift from
their known worlds to their new worlds. The last stage, incorporation, is
when students have been able to establish themselves in the new college
communities (Tinto, 1975,1983 PLS. PROVIDE COMPLETE REF,
1988, 1993).
In his 1975 study, Tinto formulated a theory explaining the process that
leads students to withdraw from college (see Figure 1). Tinto’s theory attrib-
utes this withdrawal to the lack of “fit” between individuals and institutions
(Tinto, 1975). Using Durkheim’s (1951) theory of suicide, he postulated that
“egotistical suicide occurs when individuals are not integrated into commu-

76
Table 1
Contributors to Higher Education Literature
Decade New Ideas Contribution to Higher Education Literature

1960-1970 William Spady’s (1970) PLS. PROVIDE Theoretical applications to the study of college attrition
COMPLETE REF application of Durkheim’s
(1951) theory of suicide

1970-1980 Tinto’s (1975) elaboration on Spady (1970) Tinto’s dissatisfaction with lack of theoretical formulations in the study of higher education
leads to the development of the theory of departure
Chickering’s (1975) PLS. PROVIDE REF analysis Reinforcement of the importance of having students live in the institutions (academic);
of residential versus commuter institutions Chickering’s work mentions the significant advantages of residential university students
as to their social and academic development
1980-1990 Simpson et al.’s (1980) PLS. PROVIDE REF Findings indicate Tinto’s contention for the separation of voluntary and involuntary
voluntary versus involuntary withdrawals withdrawals should be done; voluntary withdrawals in this study were more academically
prepared then were persisters, and their academic performance in college was better than
that of persisters
Pascarella, Duby, and Iverson (1983) study of Leads to the reconceptualization of Tinto’s (1975) model; findings indicate that social
commuter institutions integration in commuter institutions functions in ways that conflict with hypothesized
patterns of influence
Tinto’s (1987) revision of his 1975 model Addition of Van Gennep’s work of rites of passage to the study of persistence in college;
more theoretical base to the study of student persistence; addition of intentions and
external commitments factors to the 1975 model.
1990-2000 Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) PLS. PROVIDE Findings indicate that academic achievement is a more significant predictor of persistence at
REF study of persistence at commuter institutions commuter institutions
Tinto’s (1993) revision of his 1975 and 1987 models Addition of emphasis on external commitments and/or external communities of students in
the influences on persistence or withdrawal; there is greater emphasis given to the
external commitments in Tinto’s model from 1975 to 1987 to 1993; evidence of the
changing demographics of students and of the influences of communities on students
COMMITMENTS ACADEMIC SYSTEM COMMITMENTS
GRADE
FAMILY PERFORMANCE
BACKGROUND ACADEMIC
INTELLECTUAL INTEGRATION
DEVELOPMENT
GOAL
GOAL COMMITMENT
COMMITMENT
INDIVIDUAL
ATTRIBUTES DROPOUT
DECISIONS
INSTITUTIONAL
COMMITMENT
INSTITUTIONAL
COMMITMENT
PRE-COLLEGE
SCHOOLING PEER GROUP
INTERACTIONS
SOCIAL
FACULTY INTEGRATION
INTERACTIONS
SOCIAL SYSTEM
Figure 1
Tinto’s (1975) Theoretical Model of College Withdrawal
77
nities in society” (Tinto, 1987, p. 101). Tinto (1987) argued that when indi-
viduals depart from their institutions of higher learning, they leave because
their values and beliefs are different from prevailing attitudes and beliefs at
the institution and therefore they experience isolation.
Although Tinto’s student integration model has served as the concep-
tual framework for numerous studies, critics see the lack of attention to ex-
ternal forces as a setback in using this model (Cabrera, Castañeda, Nora, &
Hengstler, 1992). This model, for example, admittedly does not account for
variables such as financial aid and other environmental factors. According to
Tinto (1982), his model attempted to ask how institutions themselves were
partially responsible for the dropouts despite the obvious fact that some stu-
dents are unwilling to attend to the demands of higher education. According
to Tinto, his model fails to distinguish between students that transfer to other
institutions and those whose departure from higher education is permanent
and thus may be described as performing economic suicide.
The model also fails to highlight the important differences in educa-
tional career paths that are available to students of different gender, race, and
social status background (Tinto, 1982). Tinto’s (1975) early model gave less
emphasis to precollege characteristics and external influences on persis-
tence than did his later reviewed models (see Figure 1). It was not until
Tinto’s (1987, 1993) later revised models that he sought to explain the influ-
ence of precollege characteristics and external influences on a theory of de-
parture (see Figures 2 and 3).
Tinto then modified the model (see Figure 3) and based his theoretical
departure on Van Gennep’s rites of passage (as cited in Tierney, 1992). Van
Gennep’s (as cited in Tierney, 1992) anthropological studies on tribal societ-
ies, specifically rites of passage, led him to theorize that rituals were neces-
sary mechanisms to every tribal society. According to Van Gennep, the indi-
viduals in a tribe went through rituals in order to reach adulthood. This rites
of passage occurred in three stages: separation, transition, and incorporation.
Tinto used these concepts from Van Gennep and mentioned that college stu-
dents go through a similar process. In separation, students separate from old
high school friends and family.
It is important to keep in mind that in making these refinements to his
earlier model, Tinto (1993?) intended to develop a theoretical framework to
fit the traditional institution—that is, residential and majority serving.
Bean’s Model
Bean (1980) proposed an alternative model of college persistence. He
argued that students leaving college is analogous to employee turnover
(Bean, 1980; Cabrera et al., 1992). According to Bean’s student attrition
model, “behavioral intentions are shaped by a process whereby beliefs shape
attitudes and, attitudes, in turn, shape behavioral intentions” (Cabrera
et al.?, 1992, p. 145).

PRE-ENTRY GOALS INSTITUTIONAL PERSONAL/NORMATIVE GOALS OUTCOME
ATTRIBUTES & EXPERIENCES INTEGRATION &
COMMITMENTS (T1) COMMITMENTS (T2)
FORMAL
FAMILY ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC

INTEGRATION
INTENTIONS
INTENTIONS FACULTY/STAFF
ACTIVITIES
INFORMAL
SKILLS &
ABILITIES DEPARTURE
DECISION
FORMAL GOAL
GOAL &
& EXRACURRICULAR INSTITUTIONAL
INSTITUTIONAL ACTIVITES COMMITMENTS
COMMITMENTS
PRIOR
SCHOOLING SOCIAL
INTEGRATION
PEER-GROUP EXTERNAL
INTERACTIONS COMMITMENTS
INFORMAL
SOC S S
Figure 2
Tinto’s (1987) Model of Institutional Departure
79
80
PRE-ENTRY GOALS INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION GOALS OUTCOME

ATTRIBUTES & EXPERIENCES &
COMMITMENTS COMMITMENTS
FORMAL
FAMILY ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND PERFORMANCE ACADEMIC
INTEGRATION
INTENTIONS
INTENTIONS FACULTY/STAFF
ACTIVITIES
INFORMAL
SKILLS &
ABILITIES DEPARTURE
DECISION
FORMAL GOAL
GOAL &
& EXRACURRICULAR INSTITUTIONAL
INSTITUTIONAL ACTIVITES COMMITMENTS
COMMITMENTS
PRIOR
SCHOOLING SOCIAL
INTEGRATION
PEER-GROUP EXTERNAL
EXTERNAL INTERACTIONS COMMITMENTS
COMMITMENTS
INFORMAL
SOCIAL SYSTEM
EXTERNAL COMMUNITY
TIME (T)
Figure 3
Tinto’s (1993) Model of Institutional Departure
This model recognizes the importance of external variables and how

they can affect attitude and decisions. Cabrera et al.’s (1992) comparison of
Tinto’s (1982, 1987) student integration model and Bean’s (1980) student
attrition model mentions that “whereas the Tinto model regards academic
performance as an indicator of academic integration, Bean’s model regards
college grades as an outcome variable resulting from sociopsychological
processes” (p. 145; Bean, 1980). He continued by comparing the two models
and mentioned that Tinto’s model appears to suggest that academic integra-
tion, social integration, institutional commitment, and goal commitment ex-
ert the highest effect on retention, whereas Bean emphasized the role of in-
tent to persist, attitudes, institutional fit, and external factors. Another major
difference between the Tinto and Bean is the issue of finances. Whereas
Tinto (1987) stated that financial issues are secondary rather than primary,
Bean clearly stated that students who perceive financial difficulties are
likely to leave their institution of higher learning.
Both Astin (1984) and Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993) attributed persistence
to the involvement of students in the academic and social lives of the institu-
tions. Astin’s model reflects much of Tinto’s last stage, that of incorpora-
tion. Astin’s model also focuses on student involvement in the campus envi-
ronment. He postulated that involvement can be measured by the amount of
physical and psychological energy students exert in any educational en-
deavor. That involvement “can be measured both quantitatively and qualita-
tively” (Astin, 1984, as cited in Gatz & Hirt, 2000, p. 299). Astin stated that
the more academically and socially involved are the students, the more
likely they are to persist. In his 1975 study, Astin found that although a lack
of academic performance was a strong predictor of departure, many students
with poor academic records do manage to persist. Astin found that the most
departure-prone students were those with poor high school grades, low aspi-
rations, poor study habits, relatively uneducated parents, and small-town or-
igins (Astin, 1984, as cited in Gatz & Hirt, 2000).
Setting
UTPA is located in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, an area com-
posed of the counties of Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy, which ex-
tend south to the Mexican border. The area is home to approximately 85% of
the students attending this institution. Hidalgo County, the county where this
institution is located, is home to more than 82% of the students (Office of In-
stitutional Effectiveness, 2000). About 85% of the population of these coun-
ties is of Hispanic descent (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). UTPA was
founded as Edinburg College in 1927 and became Edinburg Junior College
in 1933 and Edinburg Regional College in 1948. On September 1, 1952, the
college became a 4-year institution and its name was changed to Pan Ameri-
can College. In 1965, it began receiving state support, and in 1971, its name
changed to Pan American University. On September 1, 1989, Pan American

officially merged with the University of Texas system, at which time it be-
came the University of Texas–Pan American WITH DASH?. In 1994,
UTPA began offering two doctoral degrees, a Ph.D. in international business
administration and an Ed.D. in educational leadership (MGT of America,
1998). UTPA is the largest institution serving a majority of Hispanic stu-
dents in the United States, with Hispanic students comprising 87% of its un-
dergraduate enrollment in the year 2000, for example.
During the spring 2000 semester, 87% of the university’s total enroll-
ment was in undergraduate programs, whereas graduate students accounted
for 13% of the enrollment. Hispanic student enrollment in the graduate pro-
grams was 77%. White, non-Hispanic students, and those classified as other
represented 15% of undergraduate and 23% of graduate student enrollment.
Female students represented 58% of undergraduate and 64% of graduate
student enrollment. Male students represented 42% of undergraduate and
36% of graduate student enrollment. Almost all of these students are “com-
muter” students, with less than 1% residing on campus. The majority of the
tenure-track professors at the University are Anglos, with Hispanic tenure-
track professors at the university representing only 22% of tenure-track fac-
ulty members. Non-tenure-track faculty is composed of 36% Hispanic pro-
fessors (Office of Institutional Effectiveness, 2000).
The economic and educational conditions of the area have not kept pace
with the attainments and prosperity of the rest of the state and nation. In
1959, the area’s average income was $3, 397 or 47% of the U.S. average in-
come. In 1979, the Rio Grande Valley average income was $6,358 or 52% of
the U.S. average income. By 1989, the average income of this area had
dropped to $5,995 or only 42% of the U.S. average income. The educational
attainment of people in the Rio Grande Valley who are 25 years or older is
lower than the rest of the state and nation. In 1970, 60% of the population 25
years or older did not earn high school diplomas and only 7.2% of the popu-
lation had college degrees (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 PLS.
PROVIDE COMPLETE REF). The 1990 census reported that 40% of the
population 25 years or older did not have high school diplomas, with college
graduates representing only 11% of the population. In contrast, in the state as
whole, the population 25 years or older with less than a high school diploma
accounted for 28% of the population and population 25 years or older with a
bachelor’s degree or beyond was 20% (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990
PLS. PROVIDE COMPLETE REF).
Method
Participants
The entire 1992 freshman enrollment consisting of 1,425 students was
identified as the sample for the study. These students were identified by
UTPA as meeting the following characteristics: 1(a) first-time entering

freshman, (b) enrolled full-time (12 credit hours), and (c) enrolled in the in-
stitution during the fall semester of 1991. Some of these students could have
enrolled during the previous summer sessions but not before, unless they
were enrolled in the Concurrent Enrollment Program, which is part of their
high school curriculum. The 1992 cohort is 91.5% Hispanic. There were
58.1% identified as female students and 41.9% identified as male students,
which is similar to the gender characteristics for the institution. There are
some slight differences within the groups. The institution’s graduates and
persisters’ gender representation are similar, with 63.7% female students
and 36.3% male students for graduates and 63.8% female students and
36.2% male students for persisters. The nonpersisters have a greater repre-
sentation of males, with 52.9% female students and 47.1% male students.
Community college graduates have 60.7% female students and 39.3% male
students. Transfer graduates have similar gender representation as do
nonpersisters, with 53.5% female students and 46.5% male students (Office
of Institutional Effectiveness, 2000).
The American College Testing (ACT) (1992) Class Profile Report indi-
cates that all students entering the institution in 1992, which includes part-
time and full-time students (N = 3,134), had an ACT composite score of
16.0, an ACT English score of 15.2, an ACT mathematics score of 16.2, and
an ACT Reading score 15.5.
The student characteristics of our sample are much different than
Tinto’s populations. The great majority is minority students (Hispanic); only
1% reside on campus, whereas 99% commute to campus every day; 72% are
low-income; and 85% are first-generation college students.
Procedure
The method used to conduct this study is known as causal comparative

or ex post facto research. This method attempts to determine the cause for
outcome differences in the sample, which can be linked to preexisting differ-
ences. It is similar to descriptive research because it describes conditions
that already exist, but it differs in that it attempts to determine the reasons for
the existing condition.
We began with a review of the quantitative data comparing other mem-
bers of the cohort to the persisters group. The 1992 cohort was divided into
five groups. The five groups are (a) nonpersisters (those who have not re-
ceived degrees from institutions of higher learning within the state of Texas
and are not registered at UTPA during the fall 2001 semester), (b) commu-
nity college graduates (those who received degrees from community col-
leges within the state of Texas), (c) persisters or students (those who are still
enrolled at UTPA and have not received college degrees), (d) UTPA gradu-
ates (those who received degrees from UTPA), and (e) transfer graduates

(those who received 4-year degrees from other institutions within the state of
Texas.
Results
In the process of reviewing the data, we noted several classification er-

rors. For example, UTPA’s attrition statistics fail to account for students
who transferred into other institutions and completed their degrees there.
Within the 1992 cohort, 127 students (9% of the sample) whose academic
performance at UTPA was above average (2.62) failed to return after the
first and the second years. These students were found to have graduated
from other institutions in Texas. The semester grade point averages (GPAs)
for those students who transferred and graduated from 4-year institutions
were the highest for seven of eight of the first semesters. UTPA acts as a 2-
year institution for many of its most qualified students. This is explained by
cultural as well as financial reasons. Hispanic parents are less likely than are
non-Hispanic parents to let go of their children when they reach college age,
and there is a great deal of pressure for students to enroll in local institutions,
at least for the first and second years. While at UTPA, these students often
live at home and work part-time (or full-time) to save money for the last 2
years, which they usually complete at more selective institutions. As a re-
sult, UTPA students seldom “leave” their traditional high school cohorts or
home environments, which has consequences to be discussed later.
Table 2 indicates that the persister group’s academic indicators are
lower than are those of the other four groups for two of the indicators. The
Group 3 average ACT mathematics score of 16.87 (SD = 2.61, p = < .001) is
the lowest of all the groups. The high school percentage rank of 55.94 (SD =
23, p = < .001) is also the lowest of the groups. The other eight indicators are
split in half, with 4 indicators in which the persisters were higher than were
the nonpersisters and 4 in which the persisters were lower than were the
nonpersisters. Similarly, the SAT SPELL OUT composite (English and
mathematics) scores of the persisters were lower than were all the other
groups except the community college graduates.
It is interesting to note that all SAT indicators show nonpersisters as
having better scores than do persisters, whereas another indicator, the Texas
Assessment of Skills Program data, places persisters above nonpersisters.
The college GPA for persisters is 2.46 (SD =. 415, p = <. 001). This
places persisters in the middle range of all the groups. Because persisters,
nonpersisters, and community college graduates exchange places at the bot-
tom of all the indicators, it is interesting to note that the persisters’ GPAs are
significantly higher than arethose of the other two groups. Also, the differ-
ence in GPAs between persisters and nonpersisters and community college
graduates is greater than is the difference between persisters and UTPA
graduates and graduates from other 4-year institutions. This unexpected

Table 2
1992 Cohort Academic Factors
Community College UTPA Transfer

Nonpersisters Graduates Persisters Graduates Graduates

Factor n M SD p n M SD p n M SD p n M SD p n M SD p
ACT-C 656 16.28 3.44 0.001 56 16 3.63 0.001 69 16.23 2.76 0.001 573 17.68 3.25 0.001 71 19.07 3.87 0.001
ACT-E 656 15.61 4.27 0.001 56 15.43 4.79 0.001 69 15.72 4.12 0.001 573 17.29 4.14 0.001 71 18.97 4.43 0.001
ACT-M 656 16.89 3.61 0.001 56 16.89 3.22 0.001 69 16.87 2.61 0.001 573 18.25 3.74 0.001 71 19.42 4.29 0.001
SAT-C SPELL OUT
139 873 141.64 0.001 12 787 169.83 0.001 16 855 114.19 0.001 170 902 141.2 0.001 39 957 153.4 0.001
SAT-E SPELL OUT
139 431 87.27 0.01 12 376 105.69 0.01 16 416 82.21 0.01 170 444 83.61 0.01 39 469 86.52 0.01
SAT-M SPELL OUT
139 441 79.5 0.01 12 410 73.73 0.01 16 439 44.85 0.01 170 458 77.11 0.01 39 483 80.31 0.01
TASP-R SPELL OUT
607 242 29.29 0.001 54 243 28.5 0.001 69 248 21.31 0.001 570 255 19.39 0.001 70 263 21.42 0.001
TASP-M SPELL OUT
604 239 34.26 0.001 54 245 32.88 0.001 69 245 26.18 0.001 570 259 22.8 0.001 70 263 27.88 0.001
TASP-W SPELL OUT
594 231 27.3 0.001 54 228 24.88 0.001 69 237 24.05 0.001 570 243 17.05 70 247 21.73 0.001
H.S. % SPELL OUT
545 56.82 23.77 0.001 52 63.69 21.96 0.001 63 55.94 23 0.001 495 73.64 21.26 0.001 65 71.58 22.85 0.001
Composite 656 2.13 0.609 0.001 56 2.2 0.642 0.001 69 2.46 0.415 0.001 573 2.7 1.016 0.001 71 2.62 0.926 0.001
grade point
average?
NOTE: UTPA = University of Texas Pan American; ACT = American College Testing; SAT = SPELL OUT; TASP = Texas Assessment of Skills Program.
85
Table 3
1992 Cohort Personal Factors
Community
College UTPA Transfers
Nonpersisters Graduates Persisters Graduates Graduates
Factor N % N % N % N % N %
Ethnicity
Hispanic 594 46 52 4 67 5 533 41 58 4
White 50 55 2 2 2 2 25 28 12 13
Black 5 50 2 20 0 0 2 20 1 10
Gender
Male 309 52 22 4 25 4 208 35 33 6
Female 347 42 34 4 44 5 365 44 38 5
Academic action
Fall 1992
(probation) 148 23 12 21 22 32 49 9 7 10
Fall 1993
(suspension) 17 3 1 2 6 9 3 1 0 0
Financial aid
Received
fall 1992 545 83 51 91 60 87 478 83 49 69
NOTE: UTPA = University of Texas Pan American.
finding might indicate a higher level of academic integration of persisters as

compared with the other two groups—nonpersisters and community college
graduates.
In interpreting the information provided in Table 2, we noted that 6-year
persisters have academic characteristics similar to 4-year college graduates
as well as similar characteristics to those who have not received 4-year de-
grees (nonpersisters and community college graduates).
Table 3 shows persisters’ academic action to be significantly different
from that of other groups. Of the persisters, 32% were placed on probation at
the end of the fall 1992 semester. All the other groups had smaller percent-
ages of students placed on probation for the same period. The persister
group also experienced greater rates of suspension. Of the persisters, 9%
were placed on suspension in the fall of 1993. Transfer graduates did not
have any students placed on suspension, and whereas the other groups
have a representation under this category, it is significantly smaller than
that of the persisters.
Financial aid factors had similar representation by each group. Commu-
nity college graduates and transfer graduates showed the biggest difference,
with 91% and 69%, respectively, receiving financial aid. Of the persisters,
87% received financial assistance, and the institution’s graduates and

nonpersisters showed 83% of students receiving financial assistance (see

Table 3.)
Table 4 shows the attendance patterns of the different groups. UTPA
graduates had the highest attendance rates throughout the first 6 years. The
nonpersisters, community college graduates, and transfer graduates start
showing lower attendance rates immediately after the first semester. These
last three groups experience a decrease in attendance due to the number of
students who opted out of the higher education system or transferred to 2-
year or 4-year institutions of higher learning, respectively, for each of these
groups.
The retention rate after 1 year is 74.3%. Students who were retained (N =
1,059) are more representative of the eventual graduates of the institution.
Of those who graduated in 6 years, 94% were retained for the fall semester in
September 1992. The retention rate for the entire 1992 cohort for the second
year was 64.2%. The third year retention rate was 53.0%, and it was 45% for
the fourth year. The graduating group did not drop to less than the 90% atten-
dance rate until the fall of 1996. The drop in attendance of this group, shown
in Table 4, is simply due to the graduation of these students.
The graduating group’s attendance throughout the 10-year period is
consistent after the first year. In contrast, the other groups, UTPA graduates
leaving because of graduation and other groups due to transfer to other insti-
tutions or out of the higher education system, the persisters’ attendance has
kept consistent until the end of the investigation period of 10 years. PLS.
CLARIFY THIS LAST SENTENCE
Table 5 shows the academic indicators of those students exiting by se-
mester. It is interesting to note that student performance, as measured by the
number of hours accumulated by semester and by the GPAs of nonpersisters
and persisters, is similar. There is a striking difference in those
nonpersisters’ performance during the last semester attended. The similari-
ties between the persisters and nonpersisters in academic indicators are hard
to ignore, yet had it not been for this study’s look at the end of the 10-year pe-
riod, it would be impossible to distinguish the two groups.
The similarities between persisters and nonpersisters are very interest-
ing. This similarity has increased the focus on these groups for further quali-
tative examination, which will be reported in a subsequent article. The aca-
demic indicators are indistinguishable, but what has made the difference
between the two groups, one deciding not to continue and the other group
deciding to continue, is not clear.
Persisters
From the original cohort of 1992, there were 1,425 entering freshman,
with 571 graduating from the institution, 71 transferring and graduating
(Text continues on page 91)

Table 4
1992 Cohort Attendances
Community
College UTPA Transfers
Nonpersisters Transfers Persisters Graduates Graduates
Year N % N % N % N % N %
1992 (1) 656 100 56 100 69 100 573 100 71 100

1992 (2) 595 91 53 95 65 94 568 99 65 92
1992 (3) 237 36 16 29 29 42 336 59 27 38
1992 (4) 154 24 11 20 18 26 238 42 20 28
1993 (1) 394 60 33 59 44 64 541 94 47 66
1993 (2) 390 60 33 59 44 64 541 94 42 59
1993 (3) 167 26 16 29 21 30 345 60 20 28
1993 (4) 128 20 6 11 15 22 272 48 14 20
1994 (1) 299 46 23 41 35 51 535 93 23 32
1994 (2) 247 38 19 34 34 49 525 92 20 28
1994 (3) 115 18 5 9 15 22 358 63 15 21
1994 (4) 99 15 3 5 18 26 297 52 8 11
1995 (1) 177 27 12 21 37 54 521 91 8 11
1995 (2) 142 2 9 16 35 51 517 90 5 7
1995 (3) 75 11 4 7 20 29 368 64 9 13
1995 (4) 67 10 5 9 13 19 311 54 6 9
1996 (1) 129 20 6 11 29 42 474 83 4 6
1996 (2) 103 16 4 7 26 38 424 74 4 6
1996 (3) 55 8 2 4 18 26 257 45 4 6
1996 (4) 27 4 1 2 15 22 221 39 4 6
1997 (1) 75 11 2 4 26 38 340 59 4 6
1997 (2) 72 11 3 5 21 30 269 47 4 6
1997 (3) 39 6 1 2 14 20 172 30 3 4
1997 (4) 22 3 0 0 12 17 136 24 3 4
1998 (1) 57 9 6 11 25 36 224 39 3 4
1998 (2) 47 7 2 4 20 29 198 35 5 7
1998 (3) 19 3 1 2 15 22 117 20 3 4
1998 (4) 13 2 0 0 11 16 80 14 1 1
1999 (1) 36 6 2 4 22 32 151 26 1 1
1999 (2) 48 7 0 0 17 25 140 24 1 1
1999 (3) 21 3 2 4 13 19 81 14 1 1
1999 (4) 16 2 1 2 9 13 54 9 1 1
2000 (1) 36 6 2 4 23 33 108 19 2 3
2000 (2) 36 6 4 7 30 44 86 15 2 3
2000 (3) 16 2 1 2 18 26 47 8 2 3
2000 (4) 15 2 1 2 17 25 23 4 0 0
2001 (1) 31 5 5 9 43 62 51 9 3 4
2001 (2) 27 4 4 7 48 70 44 8 3 4
NOTE: UTPA = University of Texas Pan American; 1 = fall semester; 2 = spring semester; 3 =
first summer session; 4 = second summer session.

Table 5 SHOULD COMMAS BE DECIMALS?
Nonpersisters Leaving by Semester
Last Semester
Nonpersisters Leaving College Grade ACT High School Mean Number of Attended
Year by Semester Point Average (GPA) Composite Graduation Percentile Hours Earned Hours Earned GPA
1992 (1) 37 1, 21 14, 7 31 4 4, 1 1, 2

1992 (2) 86 2, 13 16, 1 42, 5 13 5, 3 1, 44
1992 (3) 11 2, 19 17, 1 37, 5 18 3, 3 1, 64
1992 (4) 11 2, 03 14.7 35.2 17 3, 8 1, 83
1993 (1) 40 2, 26 15, 4 50.8 19 3, 8 1, 54
1993 (2) 65 2, 22 16, 6 53, 4 27 3, 9 1, 27
1993 (3) 7 1, 98 15, 4 42, 4 33 3 1, 43
1993 (4) 7 2, 17 17, 7 51, 9 31 2, 7 1, 93
1994 (1) 44 2, 34 16, 6 51, 1 37 4 1, 26
1994 (2) 52 2, 19 16, 2 48, 9 39 4 1, 25
1994 (3) 7 2, 33 16, 1 57.8 48 2, 3 .95
1994 (4) 15 2, 16 15, 5 48, 9 41 2, 7 1, 2
1995 (1) 28 2, 2 16 49, 9 41 4 1, 5
1995 (2) 17 2, 27 16, 1 53.7 52 5, 5 1, 27
1995 (3) 9 2, 23 15, 9 60.0 60 2.4
DECIMAL? 1
1995 (4) 7 2, 7 16, 4 49, 3 65 2, 9 1, 43
1996 (1) 23 2, 22 17 60.8 50 4 .67
1996 (2) 28 2, 08 16, 8 49, 4 58 5, 5 1, 22
1996 (3) 4 2, 02 14, 3 13, 5 64 3 0, 88
1996 (4) 3 2, 17 15 65, 3 87 4 1, 67
(continued)
89
90
Table 5 continued
Last Semester
Nonpersisters Leaving College Grade ACT High School Mean Number of Attended
Year by Semester Point Average (GPA) Composite Graduation Percentile Hours Earned Hours Earned GPA
1997 (1) 15 2, 12 17, 1 64.2 79 5, 3 0, 89

1997 (2) 16 2, 25 17, 6 67 83 7, 4 1, 42

1997 (3) 9 2, 21 15, 8 55, 1 58 3, 5 1, 59
1997 (4) 3 2, 05 15 71, 7 74 2 1, 67
1998 (1) 11 1, 96 16, 5 52, 3 71 2, 9 0, 59
1998 (2) 9 2, 11 18.1 60 71 3.2
DECIMAL? 0, 52
1998 (3) 3 2, 58 17 44 98 2 1, 33
1998 (4) 1 2, 52 13 — 54 0 0
1999 (1) 11 2, 02 18.1 48.3 86 3.4
DECIMAL? 1.05
1999 (2) 11 2,05 17 49,5 55 2.4
DECIMAL? 0, 36
1999 (3) 3 2, 08 19,7 36, 3 97 3, 7 2, 17
1999 (4) 1 2, 36 20 53 42 0 0
2000 (1) 13 2, 28 17, 3 52, 9 79 2, 5 0, 94
2000 (2) 6 2, 30 16, 3 72.4 101 3 1.17
2000 (3) 3 1, 99 17 60, 3 80 2 1, 33
2000 (4) 3 1, 67 16.3 52.7 102 3 0
2001 (1) 10 2, 28 16, 7 62.6 105 5.6
DECIMAL? 1, 28
2001 (2) 27 2, 46 16, 2 54.1 115 — —
NOTE: 1 = fall semester; 2 = spring semester; 3 = first summer session; 4 = second summer session.
from other 4-year institutions, and 55 transferring and graduating from 2-

year institutions. There are 626 students who did not persist until fall 2001
and 69 students who persisted until the end of the 10-year period. Out of
these 69 students, there are 67 Hispanic students and 2 White, non-Hispanic
students.
The focus of the ongoing qualitative study is to discover and analyze the
academic and social factors that affect the persistence of Hispanic students
at a Hispanic-serving institution. The group of Hispanic, 10-year persisters
(N = 67) has been an intriguing group. What accounts for the persistence of
this group of individuals, and what makes them different from
nonpersisters? Why does this group continue, whereas a majority of the stu-
dents who did not graduate within the 5- to 7-year period have opted out?
The group of persisters is composed of 67 Hispanic students. There are
24 (35.8%) male students and 43 (64.2%) female students. Their average
GPA is 2.46 (SD = .415, p = <. 001). Tables 4 and 5 compare the academic
indicators of this group relative to the other four groups.
As previously stated, much of the research on students in higher educa-
tion literature centers on residential institutions, with some attention given to
commuter institutions only recently. There is also a lack of long-term re-
search data on groups other than White, non-Hispanics, and this is due to the
recent opening of institutions of higher learning to these groups.
Table 6 shows that the academic performance, as measured by GPA, for
the persister group is the lowest for the first six semesters. For the students
who did not completely withdraw before the end of the first semester, the
persisters’ GPAs were just less than 2.0 on a 4.0 scale. The transfer gradu-
ates had the highest GPAs for seven of the first eight semesters, and institu-
tion graduates showed the highest GPAs in one semester. This appears to
give credence to the theoretical models of persistence in that only early aca-
demic and/or social integration of the two 4-year graduate groups can ex-
plain their academic performance early in their higher education careers.
Conversely, the lack of academic integration of the three other groups ap-
pears evident in the persisters’ experience of the lowest grade performance.
The persisters’ GPAs were lower than 2.0 for five of the six first semesters
(see Table 6).
Table 7 shows the academic action taken by the institution against the
1992 cohort. Academic action taken each semester by the institution is more
prevalent for the 10-year persisters than for any other group. The persisters
were more likely to be placed on probation and eventually suspension than
were any of the other groups. For example, for the 1992 academic year, 22 of
the 67 Hispanic persisters were placed on probation after their first semester
in college, with 13 of the 22 eventually being placed on suspansion after
their second semesters. At the end of the second semester, 8 more of the 67
persisters were placed on probation besides the 13 placed on suspension. For
the first 3 years of the cohort’s presence in the institution, persisters’ likeli-

92
Table 6
First Semesters Grade Point Average (GPA)
a
Groups GPA 1992 (1) GPA 1992 (2) GPA 1992 (3) GPA 1992 (4) GPA 1993 (1) GPA 1993 (2) GPA 1993 (3) GPA 1993 (4)
Nonpersisters
M 2.16 2.07 2.27 2.21 2.07 1.98 1.98 2.19
N 610 535 200 124 351 338 141 97
Community
college graduates
M 2.16 2.00 2.21 2.37 2.18 2.42 2.11 3.00
N 54 49 14 9 30 28 14 4
Persisters
M 2.00 1.83 1.96 1.65 2.03 1.84 2.52 2.21
N 64 57 27 16 42 35 17 14
UTPA graduates
M 2.57 2.59 2.76 2.75 2.49 2.48 2.64 2.73
N 563 559 304 219 536 528 327 246
Transfer graduates
M 2.62 2.79 3.09 2.70 2.64 2.67 2.86 3.34
N 70 63 26 18 47 42 19 14
Total
M 2.35 2.32 2.55 2.52 2.32 2.29 2.45 2.60
N 1361 1263 571 386 1006 971 518 375
a. p < .001 for all group means for each of the semesters.
Table 7
PLS. PROVIDE CAPTION
Number (and No Academic Action

percentages) of Students Academic
Year Leaving by Semester Action Probation Suspension
1992 (1) 37 12 (32) 25 (68)

1992 (2) 86 20 (23) 23 (27) 43 (50)
1992 (3) 11 2 (18) 0 (0) 9 (82)
1992 (4) 11 3 (27) 2 (18) 6 (55)
1993 (1) 40 13 (30) 5 (13) 22 (55)
1993 (2) 65 17 (27) 12 (19) 36 (55)
1993 (3) 7 1 (14) 1 14 5 (71)
1993 (4) 7 0 (0) 3 (43) 4 (57)
1994 (1) 44 6 (14) 11 (25) 27 (61)
1994 (2) 52 12 (23) 10 (19) 30 (58)
1994 (3) 7 0 (0) 1 (14) 6 (86)
1994 (4) 15 2 (13) 4 (27) 9 (60)
1995 (1) 28 6 (21) 3 (11) 19 (68)
1995 (2) 17 2 (12) 4 (24) 11 (65)
1995 (3) 9 0 (0) 2 (22) 7 (78)
1995 (4) 7 0 (0) 0 (0) 7 (100)
1996 (1) 23 4 (17) 6 (26) 13 (57)
1996 (2) 28 2 (7) 7 (25) 19 (68)
1996 (3) 4 0 (0) 1 (25) 3 (75)
1996 (4) 3 1 (33) 0 (0) 2 (67)
1997 (1) 15 1 (7) 5 (33) 9 (60)
1997 (2) 16 0 (0) 3 (19) 13 (81)
1997 (3) 9 0 (0) 2 (22) 7 (78)
1997 (4) 3 0 (0) 1 (33) 2 (67)
1998 (1) 11 2 (18) 3 (27) 6 (55)
1998 (2) 9 2 (22) 1 (11) 6 (67)
1998 (3) 3 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (100)
1998 (4) 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (100)
1999 (1) 11 2 (18) 3 (27) 6 (55)
1999 (2) 11 1 (9) 0 (0) 10 (91)
1999 (3) 3 1 (33) 1 (33) 1 (33)
1999 (4) 1 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (100)
2000 (1) 13 1 (8) 2 (15) 10 (77)
2000 (2) 6 1 (17) 1 (17) 4 (67)
2000 (3) 3 1 (33) 0 (0) 2 (67)
2000 (4) 3 1 (33) 2 (67) 0 (0)
2001 (1) 10 1 (10) 1 (10) 8 (80)
2001 (2) 27
Total 656 117 (18) 120 (18) 392 (60)
hood of having academic action taken against them was higher. The 10-year
persisters were also more likely to experience more than one academic ac-
tion throughout the 10-year period used for this study. Academic action

against persisters was more evident during their first 4 to 5 years. Even-
tually, 62% of persisters had experienced some form of academic action
throughout their 10-year period at this institution. Only 26 of the 67 students
had not experienced academic action by the end of the 10-year period of this
study.
Finally, persisters’ academic and attendance characteristics have some
similarities with the two groups who did not graduate from 4-year institu-
tions as well as some similarities with the two groups who eventually gradu-
ated, those who graduated from UTPA and those who gradated from other 4-
year institutions within the state of Texas.
Summary of Findings and Conclusions
The academic indicators (ACT, Texas Assessment of Skills Program,

and so forth) of persisters and nonpersisters are similar. The UTPA and the
transfer graduates’ academic preparation are higher for every indicator cho-
sen for comparisons (see Table 2). The similarity between those who per-
sisted and those who did not continues until the last semester attended. Dur-
ing the semester before they opted out, students greatly reduced their
academic loads, taking sometimes only one course per semester. Regardless
of how they were doing academically, this reduction was a precursor for
dropping out and thus a signal to administrators that an intervention was nec-
essary.
Nonpersisters, community college graduates, and transfer graduates
start showing a decrease in attendance immediately after the first semester.
The three groups start experiencing a decrease due to the number of stu-
dents not returning because of either opting out of the higher education
system or transferring to 2-year or 4-year institutions of higher learning,
respectively, for each of the latter groups. This indicator is present regard-
less of student ACT, SAT, or Texas Assessment of Skills Program scores
and of GPAs earned in previous semesters. This reduction in student credit
hours taken should be closely observed as a potentially reliable indicator of
future attrition.
In our sample, we find that about half of the students who are placed on
probation or suspension in one semester tend to not enroll the following se-
mester (see Table 7). Rather than working to overcome the probation or sus-
pension status, most students give up and opt out. We have two hypotheses
we hope to clarify in subsequent qualitative studies. The first hypothesis is
that rather than rejecting the institutional judgment and working to prove it
wrong, these students have internalized the feeling that they are not “sup-
posed to be in college,” and when these feelings are confirmed by the proba-
tion and suspension designations, these students quietly leave. The second
hypothesis, involving those who were on probation or suspension in the
spring semester, is that most of these students cannot enroll in the following

summer semesters because they need to work. Because only the summer se-
mester can provide the opportunity to overcome their deficiency, they fail to
return.
The similarities between persisters and nonpersisters are very interest-
ing. This similarity has caused the authors of this study to focus on these
groups for further qualitative examination. The academic indicators are in-
distinguishable, but what has made the difference between the two groups,
one deciding not to continue and the other deciding to continue, is not clear.
Interviews with some persisters in the sample that followed this study re-
vealed that the intention to persist is often not present. College is not viewed
as the most important part of their lives. It is regarded as a pursuit, which
they may “try out for a while” to “see what happens” rather than as a long-
term commitment to result in graduation. This is another hypothesis that re-
quires further qualitative analysis.
In fitting this sample to the models previously discussed, the typical
UTPA commuter student does not separate from old high school friends and
very often continues to live at home. These friends and family members are
not college aware, and peer pressures to work full-time, start a family, or
continue to socialize with individuals without academic demands are great.
The second stage, that of transition, means students are exposed to new com-
munities of friends, sports, and other activities involved in college. For
UTPA students of the 1992 cohort, few opportunities for a transition are
taken. Sports provide the greatest opportunity for transition, but in terms of
class percentage, few freshmen participate in the university’s sports pro-
gram. The last stage is that of incorporation. This includes adapting the
norms and behavior of the new community. Most UTPA students of this co-
hort are first-generation college students; thus, the norms and practices of
the institution are not understood, appreciated, or modeled by members of
their families. From some of our own students, we have noted that some stu-
dents failed to correctly understand the meaning of GPAs because they are
given on a 4.0 scale rather than a scale of 100, which their high schools used.
Whereas financial considerations are given relatively little importance
in the models discussed, in the UTPA sample, they are of paramount impor-
tance. Students need funds not only to support their education but also to
support their families. Students in this sample are often contributors to their
families’ total income in significant ways. Working part-time during the se-
mester or full-time during the summer, for example, is a necessary part of
their survival.
In conclusion, this case study points to some early warning indicators,
which can be empirically linked to opting out or transferring to 2-year col-
leges. These indicators primarily reside in a reduction of student credit hours
taken after the first year but also include the students’ reactions to probation
and suspension. The lack of integration into the college student life seems to
come from students’ commuter status, lack of intention to persist, and finan-

cial situations that cause them to remain employed while attending school and
limit their ability to participate in sports and other extracurricular activities.
A follow-up qualitative study of the 67 long-term persisters is being un-
dertaken to provide answers to the questions and hypotheses raised by this
study.
References
ACT, Inc. (1992). Class profile report. Iowa City: Author.

NOT CITED IN TEXT Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping
out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A development theory for higher educa-
tion. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of
student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.
Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN:
Vanderbilt University Press.
Cabrera, A. F., Castañeda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. S. (1992). The conver-
gence between two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Educa-
tion, 63, 143-164.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology (G. Simpson, Ed., J. A.
Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
Gatz, L. B., & Hirt, J. B. (2000). Academic and social integration in cyberspace: Stu-
dents and e-mail. The Review of Higher Education, 23, 299-318.
MGT PLS. SPELL OUT of America (1998). Enrollment management study: Final
report. Austin: Author.
Office of Institutional Effectiveness. (2000). Institutional factbook. Edinburg: Uni-
versity of Texas–Pan American WITH DASH?.
Pascarella, E. T., Duby, P., & Iverson, B. (1983). A test and a re-conceptualization of
a theoretical model of college withdrawal in a commuter institution setting. So-
ciology of Education, 56, 88-100.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2000). Closing the gap study. Re-
trieved DATE? from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/0463/K_Ap-
pendix.pdf
Tierney, W. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college.
Journal of Higher Education, 63, 603-618.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Education Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice. Journal of Higher Education, 53,
687-700.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal charac-
ter of student leaving. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 438-455.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college. Rethinking the causes and cures of student attri-
tion (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

U.S. Census Bureau OR BUREAU OF THE CENSUS?. (2000). Demographic sta-

tistics on Hispanics. Available from http//www.uscensus.Hispanics PLS.
CHECK WEB SITE
Alfredo Salinas is a doctoral student in the educational leadership pro-

gram at the University of Texas Pan American.
José R. Llanes, Ph.D., is a professor of educational leadership at the the

University of Texas Pan American.


Student Attrition, Retention, and Persistence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Student Attrition, Retention, and Persistence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Hispanic Higher Education

The online version of this article can be found at:

American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education, Inc.

Email Alerts: http://jhh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Downloaded from http://jhh.sagepub.com by Constantin Ticu on November 5, 2007