A report published byThe Pell Institute for the

Study of Opportunity in Higher EducationDecember 2004

Raising the GraduationRates of Low-Income

College Students

Raising the Graduation Ratesof Low-Income College Students

December 2004

Lana MuraskinJohn Lee

withAbigail Wilner

Watson Scott Swail

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research and analyses that were conducted for this project were the efforts of manyindividuals. We would like to thank the following for their contributions.

• From the Pell Institute and the Council for Opportunity in Education — Scott Swail(former Director), Colleen O’Brien, Nicole Norfles, Andrea Reeve, Manya Walton(former Research Associate), Wayne Upshaw, and Holly Hexter.

• From JBL Associates, Abby Wilner and Barry Christopher.• In addition, we would like to acknowledge Ken Redd and Dawn McCoy, who also worked

on the project.

Most importantly, we would like to heartily thank those institutions who agreed to participatein this study, and in particular the individuals at these colleges and universities who made itpossible for the research teams to gather information and conduct site visits. While theparticipating institutions are not named in this publication, we want to acknowledge theircontributions to this project.

Finally, in addition to funding this research, Lumina Foundation for Education also providedsupport to the Pell Institute to publish and disseminate this report. The opinions expressed inthis report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or positions ofLumina Foundation for Education, its officers or members of its board of directors.

The Pell Institute for the Study ofOpportunity in Higher Education

T he Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunityin Higher Education conducts and disseminatesresearch to encourage policymakers, educators,and the public to improve educational opportu-nities and outcomes of low-income, first-genera-

tion, and disabled college students. Named for SenatorClaiborne Pell (RI-D), the Pell Institute is the first researchinstitute to specifically address the issues impacting educa-tional opportunities for this growing population.

THE PELL INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDYOF OPPORTUNITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1020Washington, DC 20005Phone: (202) 638-2887

Fax: (202) 638-3808www.pellinstitute.org

Sponsored by the Council for Opportunity in Education

Pell Institute Staff and Senior Scholars

Colleen O’Brien DIRECTOR

Andrea Reeve DIRECTOR OF CLEARINGHOUSES

Nicole Norfles FELLOW

Kelley Downs PROGRAM ASSISTANT

Marshall Grigsby SENIOR SCHOLAR

Thomas Mortenson SENIOR SCHOLAR

Lana Muraskin SENIOR SCHOLAR

Louis Stokes SENIOR SCHOLAR

Vincent Tinto SENIOR SCHOLAR

Wayne Upshaw SENIOR SCHOLAR

Pell Institute Advisory Committee

M. Christopher Brown PATTERSON RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Alberto Cabrera UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

David Evans EDUCATIONAL POLICY CONSULTANT

Leonard Haynes FUND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF

POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

Donald Heller PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

Gary Orfield HARVARD UNIVERSITY

Sara Melendez GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

Orlando Taylor HOWARD UNIVERSITY

Elizabeth Thomas HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMY

(YORK, ENGLAND)Thomas Wolanin INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER

EDUCATION POLICY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 7

STUDY DESIGN 11

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT

INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS

AND COLLEGE PERSISTENCE? 17

A COMPARISON OF INSTITUTIONS WITH

HIGH AND LOW GRADUATION RATES 25

COMMONALITIES AMONG THE “HIGH

GRADUATION RATE” INSTITUTIONS 33

CONCLUSION 47

REFERENCES 49

ENDNOTES 57

APPENDICES 59

TABLE OF CONTENTS

31

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A s a group, colleges that serve large percent-ages of low-income students have lowergraduation rates than other colleges. How-ever, among the colleges that serve low-income students there is also considerable

variation in graduation rates, differences that suggest astrategy for studying and improving college outcomes. Thisreport presents the findings of a study designed by the PellInstitute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education toidentify the institutional characteristics, practices, and policiesthat might account for differences in retention and gradua-tion rates among colleges and universities that serve highconcentrations of low-income students. Lumina Foundationfor Education supported the study in an effort to learn andshare effective practices for fostering student success.

This research is a preliminary inquiry intended toprovide the groundwork for further efforts to identify theinstitutional policies and programs that contribute to studentretention. Most studies observe retention efforts at individualinstitutions. By including 10 high graduation rate (HGR)colleges in the research, we have generated a more completelook at the factors in retention than has been previouslyavailable.

STUDY DESIGN

To conduct the study, we sought to identify 20 four-yearinstitutions with large shares of low-income students,10 with higher than average graduation rates (HGRs)

and 10 with lower than average graduation rates (LGRs).Two key issues in site selection were determining whichinstitutions serve large percentages of low-income students,and identifying graduation rates for these and other institu-tions. To estimate the portion of low-income students enrolledin each institution, we determined the percentage of studentsreceiving a Pell Grant, the federal program that awards grantaid to low-income, undergraduate students pursuing a degreeand attending at least half-time. We used data supplied fromvarious offices of the U.S. Department of Education, includ-ing data on Pell Grant recipients per school from the Officeof Postsecondary Education, and enrollment data from theNational Center for Education Statistics (NCES) IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

The information on graduation rates came from the 1999National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Gradua-tion Rates Report, which determines institutional graduationrates by calculating the percentage of undergraduates who

▲

Among thecolleges that

serve low-incomestudents there isalso considerable

variation ingraduation rates,differences that

suggest a strategyfor studying andimproving college

outcomes.▼

▲

HGR institutionshave more full-

time faculty,lower student/faculty ratios,some graduateofferings, and,

most importantly,far greater

resources for theireducation thanLGR institutions.

▼

2

enroll full-time at the outset and subsequently graduate witha baccalaureate degree from the same institution within sixyears.

SITE SELECTION

Once the universe was established, colleges anduniversities with a high proportion of Pell Grantrecipients were assigned to a high or low group

based on their graduation rates. Public and private institu-tions were compared separately, which resulted in fourinstitutional categories:• Private/highest graduation rates• Private/lowest graduation rates• Public/highest graduation rates• Public/lowest graduation rates1

Five considerations determined whether an institutionwas included: 1) at or near the top of the ranking in its group;2) agreed to participate in the study; 3) geographic distribu-tion — we did not want to select all the institutions from theSouth, where many colleges and universities with the highestpercentages of low-income students are located; 4) enroll-ment size — included institutions of different size anddifferent missions; and 5) mix of students by race/ethnicity —we sought a mix of Historically Black Colleges and Universi-ties (HBCUs) and non-HBCUs, as many of the institutionswith the highest percentages of Pell Grant recipients areHBCUs.

Once we identified the colleges and universities andreceived permission to visit them, we collected quantitativeand qualitative data about each institution. We made sitevisits of 2 to 2.5 days to 19 of the 20 institutions. During thevisits, we collected additional descriptive information on arange of policies and practices. We also interviewed faculty,staff and students, asking them about the factors contributingto institutional performance in retaining and graduatingstudents.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN HGRS AND LGRS

There are important systematic differences in studentbody and resources between the HGR and LGRinstitutions in the study, differences that likely play a

major role in explaining their differing graduation rates. Theyare more likely to draw students of “traditional” college age(i.e., recent high school graduates). Limited data on priorperformance suggests that students at HGR institutions mayalso have better academic preparation for college. HGRinstitutions have more full-time faculty, lower student/facultyratios, some graduate offerings, and, most importantly, fargreater resources for their education than LGR institutions.Ironically, the students at high-cost HGR institutionsprobably pay no more out of pocket for education than do theLGR institutions because the HGR institutions with hightuition also offer larger institutional subsidies to more students.

These findings also suggest that the LGR institutions inthis study face extraordinary challenges in providing educa-tion, let alone retaining and graduating students. Theseinstitutions are spending much less than average to serve apopulation with much greater than average academic need.Given their resources and student bodies it is quite possiblethat the LGR institutions are performing relatively well inretaining and graduating students, even at the low absolutelevels that led to their inclusion in the study. Unfortunately,we were unable to address this issue — performance relativeto student body and resources — with the data at hand.

COMMON PRACTICES AT HGR INSTITUTIONS

The HGR institutions in the study are a diverse group offour-year colleges and universities, ranging from a largeland-grant state university with 12,500 undergraduates

and modest selectivity, to a rural private university with1,400 undergraduates that is relatively selective, to a private,religiously-oriented Historically Black college with 800students.

▲

Much of thedifference in

student outcomesmay be due tofactors so basicthat they are

hardly amenableto “tweaking”institutionalpolicies orpractices.

▼

3

We have identified common elements among the HGRinstitutions that may help to explain their performance. Notevery institution demonstrated each element, nor is thereevidence that these elements are directly responsible for thegraduation rates we observed. Without a controlled experi-ment, it is not possible to say that these elements explain thehigher graduation rates we observed. Nevertheless, common-alities among the institutions include:

■ Intentional academic planning: through intrusiveadvising, freshman orientation courses, andacademic reviews for students in trouble, theinstitutions make sure that students pursue a well-structured academic program;

■ Small classes: most classes, even those for fresh-men, are small, giving students opportunity forrecognition and class discussion;

■ Special programs: many students, especially those atacademic risk, participate in programs that provideadvising and academic support, and give them agreater sense of belonging on campus;

■ A dedicated faculty: most faculty members teachfull-time and are easily accessible to students;

■ Educational innovation: these institutions havecourses to ease freshman entrance and helpstudents adjust to college life, and offer a wealth ofacademic support through tutoring, group study,supplemental instruction, and mastery classes;

■ Developmental education: although formaldevelopmental offerings are fading, they wereactive at most of these institutions at the timethey were selected;

■ Geographic isolation: most of the institutions are inrural areas or small cities, making campus life andwork on campus the center of the students’ lives;

■ Residential life: half the institutions require fresh-men to live on campus.

■ Shared values: at many of the colleges, studentsshare rural and small-town backgrounds, some sharea religious orientation, and in some schools thefaculty reflects similar backgrounds;

■ Modest selectivity: institutions do not intentionallyattract students from low-income families but theydo seek students likely to graduate, setting modestbut important admissions requirements — at least aC average in high school and decent SAT/ACTscores.

■ Financial aid for high achievers: the institutions usestate and institutional merit-based aid to attracthigh-performing students; and

■ Retention policy: the colleges are explicitly con-cerned with retention and graduation rates, andseveral have set ambitious goals well beyond currentperformance.

CONCLUSION

Among the institutions serving large shares of low-income students there are widely differing gradua-tion rates. We have seen, however, that among

those institutions, much of the difference in student out-comes may be due to factors so basic that they are hardlyamenable to “tweaking” institutional policies or practices.They may require, at least in public institutions, systematicconsideration at the state level. These factors include prior

▲

Often, theinstitutions facing

the greatestchallenges —

lower priorstudent

performance,older and part-

time students, etc.— also have theleast resources to

address thosechallenges.

▼

4

student performance, available institutional resources, anditems that are directly affected by resources such as levels offull-time faculty. In this study, we also see that the LGRinstitutions serve a population that is, on average, older andmore likely to be enrolled in college part time, factors thatare independently associated with lower rates of graduationin other studies. Often, the institutions facing the greatestchallenges — lower prior student performance, older andpart-time students, etc. — also have the least resources toaddress those challenges.

The opportunity to look across 10 institutions with largeshares of low-income students but higher than averagegraduation rates and the identification of common policiesand practices among some or most of these institutionsprovided some interesting results. We found, for example,that many of the HGR institutions have or had developmen-tal or remedial programs that enrolled large shares of fresh-men. While increasing numbers of states are eliminatingdevelopmental education from four-year institutions, itremains to be seen how this will affect enrollments andgraduation rates of low-income students.

Another intriguing finding is that many of the HGRinstitutions are located in small towns or rural areas (or smalltowns in the middle of rural areas) and that their studentbodies are relatively homogeneous from a cultural standpoint.This finding suggests that they may have a comparativeadvantage in building the kinds of group cohesion and socialattachment to the institution that many have argued arecritical to student persistence.

Because we made only brief visits to each of the institu-tions, there were fairly severe constraints on what we wereable to see and record. There may be other importantcommonalities — or combinations of factors — that weresimply overlooked or go well beyond what we could observein a short period of time. For example, we have reported ondiscrete factors that we observed, but success may be due to acombination of those factors or conditions. It may be that itis not enough to have a caring faculty if an institution doesnot also have leadership, faculty, and staff that share a visionof the institution’s purposes or goals. It may not be enough tohave sufficient resources if an institution does not have anactive advising system that directs new students to coursesthat sufficiently structure their initial educational experience.

7

INTRODUCTION

A s a group, colleges that serve large percent-ages of low-income students tend to havelower graduation rates than other colleges.However, among the colleges that serve low-income students there is also considerable

variation in graduation rates, differences that suggest astrategy for studying and improving college outcomes. Onepotential means to identify successful retention and gradua-tion strategies is to study the differences in institutionalcharacteristics, policies, and practices among low-incomeserving institutions with higher and lower graduation rates,practices that may help explain their differential perfor-mance. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity inHigher Education designed this study to explore this ap-proach to retention research and begin to identify theinstitutional practices and policies at four-year colleges anduniversities that might account for differences in retentionand graduation rates among colleges and universities thatserve high concentrations of low-income students. LuminaFoundation for Education supported the study in an effort tolearn and share effective practices for fostering studentsuccess.

This report presents the findings of the study. It beginswith a brief description of inequities in college retention. Itthen describes the design of the study, explaining how theinstitutions were selected for participation and the informa-tion that was collected. This section of the report provides abrief profile of institutions that serve large shares of low-income students. Following the design discussion is a sum-mary of the literature on institutional practices that affectretention. The findings of the study are presented in twoparts — first, a comparison of institutions with relatively highand relatively low graduation rates and, second, a descriptionof the common elements among the institutions withrelatively high graduation rates. The conclusion summarizeswhat we have learned that may be applied more widely. Wehope the results of this study will be of use to institutions asthey try to improve the educational success of all students,especially those at risk of not completing their education.

Inequities in College RetentionDespite the current mix of public and private subsidies,

students from low-income families do not enter college at thesame rate as more affluent students. Academic, cultural, orfinancial factors limit low-income students’ educational

▲

Despite thecurrent mix of

public and privatesubsidies,

students fromlow-income

families do notenter college atthe same rate as

more affluentstudents.

▼

$70,000 or greater

$45,000–69,999

$25,000–44,999

Less than $25,000

Asian/Pacific Islander

Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic

White, non-Hispanic

Figure 1. Rate of Permanent Postsecondary Education Departure forStudents Who Begin at a Four-Year Institution

After first year After second year After third year After fourth year or later

8

opportunities. Students from low-income families are lesslikely to receive high quality K-12 education because they aremore likely to attend schools with limited resources. Aninferior K-12 education may, in turn, limit their collegechoices and financial aid opportunities. In addition, thesestudents may not receive the sameinformation and encouragement toattend college from families,teachers and counselors as do theirmore advantaged peers. Even withencouragement and financial help,however, many students from low-income families cannot afford tolose the income they must foregoto attend college.

Even when they attendcollege, low-income studentsremain at a disadvantage. Low-income students leave withoutdegrees at higher rates than theirwealthier peers (Figure 1). Ifaffluent students leave college,they do so at a later stage in theireducation than do students fromlower income families. Studentsfrom low-income families appearto face more problems and aremore sensitive to the costs ofcollege than are students fromwealthier families.

In some ways, leaving collegebefore graduating is a greater liability than never havingattended. The majority of research on the economic returnsfrom college suggests that the earning power of a student whodoes not complete college is roughly equivalent to that of ahigh school graduate (Barton, 2002). In addition, the non-completing student has likely foregone income to attendcollege, and may be burdened with a loan payment that willreduce his or her income even further.

As already noted, previous research has shown that thereare considerable differences in graduation rates amonginstitutions. Mortenson (1997) used the average ACT/SATscores of entering classes to predict an institution’s graduationrate and compare it with the institution’s actual graduation

rate. He found considerablevariations from the predictedgraduation rate for many schools— some institutions with high-performing students have muchpoorer than expected graduationrates, while others with academi-cally at-risk students showedgraduation rates well aboveexpectations. Clearly, factors otherthan student academic abilityinfluence retention and graduation.

As states and federal agencieshave demanded more accountabil-ity from colleges and universities,persistence and graduation rateshave received more attention. Avariety of programs have beencreated to try and increase bothcollege access and completion.College access programs now startas early as middle school, offeringknowledge and encouragementabout college, academic support,and help in making the transitionto college (e.g. applying, securing

financial aid, and settling in). Many colleges have alsoadopted pre-college “bridge” or orientation programs duringthe summer before freshman year that allow new students tolearn about the campus, get a head start on registering forclasses, and, in some cases, improve their basic skills or get afew credits under their belts.

State and federal governments and institutions haveinvested in these pre-college programs, especially for low-

0 5 10 15 20 25

Percent Departure

Source: Berkner, Lutz, He, Shirley, and Cataldi, Emily Forest (2002). Descriptive Summary of the 1995-96 BeginningPostsecondary Students: Six Years Later. U.S. Department of Education, NCES 2003-151.

1 2 2 3

2 2 1 5

5 3 2 5

4 3 3 5

1 1 3 6

4 5 3 5

5 6 5 6

3 2 2 4

Race/

Ethnic

ityInc

ome

▲

It is the efforts ofthe institution as

a whole thataffect the degree

to which low-income — andall — students

persist andgraduate.

▼

9

income and minority students. The Federal TRIO TalentSearch and Upward Bound programs provide academic andsocial support to low-income and first-generation middle andhigh school students.2 The Federal GEAR UP programprovides encouragement and the potential for financial aid tomiddle and high school students in schools with large sharesof low-income students. In addition, state and institutionalopportunity programs aimed at attracting and retainingminority students often provide similar academic and socialservices. State higher education opportunity programs andfederal programs sponsored by the National Science Founda-tion, the U.S. Department of Energy and others providefunding for pre-enrollment programs.

Once students reach college age, financial aid is animportant component of educational opportunity. Nothaving enough money to attend college, or to stay in onceenrolled, is an important consideration for low-incomestudents. A number of programs provide student aid to low-income students. The Federal Pell Grant program is the bestknown, but numerous state, institutional and private pro-grams provide aid to low-income students. Subsidized loanprograms are also a critical component.

For students enrolled in college, programs aimed atimproving retention are increasingly available. Some pre-college programs continue to provide assistance to studentsonce enrolled. In addition, there are many federal, state andinstitutional programs that supplement instruction withacademic support, including additional instruction, studygroups, writing centers, learning centers, labs, workshops onstudy and test taking skills, and similar support. Servicesoften include more extensive advising and counseling thanmay be otherwise available. Institutions provide a wide array

of special programs to help bring students together, espe-cially students who share interests or backgrounds. Theseinclude ethnic/racial affinity programs, special housingprograms, freshman interest groups, or other special pro-grams. Two of the Federal TRIO programs also support low-income undergraduates: 1) Student Support Services (SSS)program, which offers a wide range of academic and socialsupport to participants from low-income and first-generationfamilies, as well as students with disabilities; and 2) theRonald E. McNair Post-Baccalauerate Achievement Pro-gram, which offers eligible students opportunities forresearch experience and encourages them to attend graduateschool.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is the efforts ofthe institution as a whole that affect the degree to whichlow-income — and all — students persist and graduate.Many institutions have re-designed instructional programsto ensure that their offerings integrate students into thecampus, both academically and socially. Structured freshmanyear experiences that organize course-taking and socialinteractions, learning communities that offer intellectuallylinked courses, and team approaches to instruction — are allefforts to make the college experience more engaging andsatisfying to students.

This study focuses on the full range of institutionalactivities that may affect student outcomes, especiallyretention and completion. By identifying and studyinginstitutions that appear particularly successful at retainingand graduating students, we hope to better understand howboth the programs that are specifically designed to addressretention, as well as overall institutional practice and policywork to affect student outcomes.

▲

Pell Grantrecipients are

more likely thanother students to

leave collegeprior to

graduation, butthe reasons maybe unrelated to

finances.▼

11

STUDY DESIGN

T o conduct the study, we sought to identify 20four-year institutions with large shares of low-income students, 10 with higher than averagegraduation rates and 10 with lower than averagegraduation rates. We then compared them using

widely available institutional data and visited each of theinstitutions.

Selecting the InstitutionsThe first step in selecting the institutions to study was to

identify the universe from which they would be drawn. Twokey issues in site selection were determining which four-yearinstitutions serve large percentages of low-income students,and identifying graduation rates for these and otherinstitutions.

Percentage of low-income studentsTo estimate the portion of low-income students enrolled

in each institution, we determined the percentage of studentsreceiving a Pell Grant. The Federal Pell Grant Programawards grant aid to low-income students. Eligible students —defined as undergraduate students pursuing a degree andattending at least half-time — receive grant awards up to an

annual maximum award of $4,050, based on their familyincome, cost of attendance, and other factors. In 1999-2000,the median income of Pell Grant recipients was $15,098; over80 percent of aid applicants with income of less than $10,000received a Pell Grant (King, 2003).

Previous research (Lee, 1998) indicated that Pell Grantrecipients are more likely than other students to leave collegeprior to graduation, but the reasons may be unrelated tofinances. Pell Grant recipients are probably more likely thanhigher income undergraduates to have financial problemsthat can cause them to leave school, but they are also morelikely to have non-financial risk factors. These factors includebeing financially independent, being a single parent, delayingenrollment after high school, having inadequate academicpreparation, having extensive family obligations, and lackingexperience with the college environment.

To identify four-year institutions with large percentagesof low-income students, we used data supplied from variousoffices of the U.S. Department of Education. Data on PellGrant recipients per school for 1998-99 (the most recent yearfor which data were available) were obtained from the U.S.Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education.Comparable enrollment data came from the Department’s

12

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) for theacademic year 1998-99. The full-time equivalent (FTE)enrollment estimate — which calcu-lates three part-time students asequaling one full-time student — wasused because some students attendingless than full-time may receive a PellGrant.3 The combination of data fromthese sources provides a measure of therelationship between the share ofundergraduates receiving a Pell Grantand institutional graduation rates.

To determine whether the share ofstudents receiving a Pell Grant was astable indicator from which to selectinstitutions for further study, wecalculated the percentage of under-graduates at an institution receiving aPell Grant using data from two con-secutive years. Institutional percentagesdid not change appreciably between thetwo years and we were satisfied thatinter-year results did not vary signifi-cantly. The stability in measures maynot extend to graduation rates, how-ever. Some of the colleges with largeshares of Pell Grant recipients have small enrollments thatmay result in volatile graduation rate changes between years.4

A more rigorous study with more precise data would probablylead to the same general conclusions, but the results forspecific institutions might change.

Graduation ratesThis study uses data from the graduation rates survey of

the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA),which determines institutional graduation rates by calculat-ing the percentage of undergraduates who enroll full time atthe outset (most frequently called first-time, full-time

freshmen) and subsequently graduate with a baccalaureatedegree from the same institution within six years. Theinformation on graduation rates used in this report came from

the 1999 NCAA Graduation RatesReport, which analyzed the portion of thefreshman cohort entering college in 1992that graduated by 1998. (For example, if100 students entered an institution in1992 and 60 graduated by 1998, thegraduation rate would be 60 percent.)

The NCAA graduation rates data setis one of the few that includes systematicinstitutional data on six-year graduationrates for first-time, full-time freshmen.There are limitations to this data though.First, the NCAA report does not includeall four-year colleges and universities,only those participating in NCAAsanctioned sports programs. As a result,only 27 percent of all private colleges and64 percent of all public colleges reportgraduation rates to the NCAA (seeTables 1 and 2 for further details on theshare of schools reporting). Second, this isa freshman-based rate; transfer students arenot included.

Determining graduation rates for low-income studentsTable 3 shows the distribution of private and public

colleges divided into quintiles defined by the share of theirundergraduates that receives a Pell Grant. In both public andprivate institutions, graduation rates decline as the share ofFTE undergraduates with a Pell Grant increases:

■ In the quintile of private institutions with the lowestshare of Pell Grant recipients (an average of 10percent), the average six-year institutional gradua-tion rate is 77 percent.

■ In the quintile of private institutions with the

Table 1: Number and Percentage of Four-Year InstitutionsReporting Graduation Rates to NCAA, 19995

College IPEDS NCAA Reporting NCAA as a Percent ofControl Four-Year Institutions IPEDS Universe

Universe

Public 686 442 64%

Private 2,009 549 27%

Total 2,695 991 37%

Table 2: Median FTE per Institution, 1999

College IPEDS NCAA ReportingControl Four-Year Institutions

Universe

Public 4,693 7,250

Private 873 1,825

Sources: 1999 NCAA Division I, II, and III Graduation Reports, U.S. Department ofEducation’s Office of Postsecondary Education, and National Center for EducationStatistics, IPEDS.

13

highest share of PellGrant recipients (anaverage of 49 percent),the average six-yeargraduation rate is only 41percent.

■ Among the publicinstitutions (which enrollfar greater percentages ofPell Grant recipients),disparities in graduationrates are slightly smaller,but still substantial. Thequintile of institutionswith the lowest share ofPell Grant recipients (anaverage of 16 percent) hasan average graduationrate of 57 percent.

■ The quintile of publicinstitutions with thehighest share of PellGrant recipients (anaverage of 58 percent) hasan average graduationrate of only 30 percent —quite low in relation tonational averages forpublic institutions, 43percent.

As shown in Table 4, both theshare of the student body receiv-ing a Pell Grant and the gradua-tion rates themselves differ by Carnegie classification6

(research, doctoral, master, bachelors/specialized) and control(public, private).

■ In all cases, public institu-tions have higher percent-ages of Pell Grant recipientsand lower graduation ratescompared with privateinstitutions.

■ Research institutions havethe lowest percentages ofPell Grant recipients and thehighest graduation rates.

■ Bachelors/specializedcolleges have the highestpercentages of Pell Grantrecipients and the lowestgraduation rates.

■ Combining the two indica-tors (control and Carnegieclassification), privateresearch universities havethe smallest shares of PellGrant recipients and thehighest graduation rates.Public baccalaureate andspecialized institutions havethe highest shares of PellGrant recipients and thelowest graduation rates.

These results suggest that arelationship exists between theenrollment of low-incomeundergraduates, as measured bythe share receiving a Pell Grant,and an institution’s graduation

rate. The statistical relationship is not inevitable, however.The instances of institutions with high proportions of PellGrant recipients and higher than average graduation ratesprovide evidence that it is possible to beat the averages. Thetables on the next page show the range of the high and low

Table 3: Baccalaureate Graduation Rates for Private and Public Institutionsby Percent of FTE Students Receiving a Pell Grant in Quintiles

Percent of Private (N=547) Public (N=432) FTE Students Receiving a Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Pell Grant (in FTE Receiving Graduating in FTE Receiving Graduating inDescending Order) Pell Grant 1998 Pell Grant 1998

First quintile 49 41 58 30

Second quintile 29 51 38 39Third quintile 23 56 30 42Fourth quintile 17 63 25 49

Fifth quintile 10 77 16 57

Table 4: Baccalaureate Graduation Rates and Percent Pell Grant Recipientsfor Private and Public Institutions by Carnegie Classification

Private (N=546) Public (N=430)

Institutional Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean Percent Mean PercentCarnegie FTE Receiving Graduating in FTE Receiving Graduating inClassification Pell Grant 1998 Pell Grant 1998

Research 11 80 24 59

Doctoral 20 64 28 43Master 24 53 36 39BA/Specialized 29 57 42 36

Sources: 1999 NCAA Division I, II, and III Graduation Reports, U.S. Department of Education’sOffice of Postsecondary Education, and National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS.

14

percentages of undergraduates with a Pell Grant and themedian for each quintile (Table 5) and institutional control(Table 6).7

The next two tables show the range of graduation ratesby quintile (Table 7) and institutional Carnegie classificationand control (Table 8). Again, the median graduation rate isshown.

Site SelectionOnce the universe was established, four-year colleges and

universities with a high proportion of Pell Grant recipientswere assigned to a high or low group based on their gradua-tion rates. Public and private institutions were comparedseparately, which resulted in four institutional categories:• Private/highest graduation rates• Private/lowest graduation rates• Public/highest graduation rates• Public/lowest graduation rates

Table 5: Percent of Undergraduates with Pell Grants by Institutional QuintileDefined by Percent of FTE Receiving a Pell Grant

Percent of FTE Private PublicStudents Receivinga Pell Grant (in Median Highest Lowest Median Highest LowestDescending Order) % Pell % Pell % Pell % Pell % Pell % Pell

First Quintile 49 97 34 58 98 45

Second Quintile 29 34 26 38 44 34

Third Quintile 23 26 20 30 34 27

Fourth Quintile 17 20 14 25 27 21

Fifth Quintile 10 14 2 16 21 2

Table 6: Percent of Undergraduates Receiving Pell Grants by InstitutionalCarnegie Classification and Control

Private PublicInstitutionalCarnegie Median Highest Lowest Median Highest LowestClassification % Pell % Pell % Pell % Pell % Pell % Pell

Research 8 32 2 23 98 7

Doctoral 17 68 5 27 79 8

Master 23 93 5 33 89 10

BA/Specialized 26 97 3 41 97 10

Table 7: Graduation Rates by Institutional Quintile

Percent of FTE Private PublicStudents Receivinga Pell Grant (in Median % Highest % Lowest % Median % Highest % Lowest %Descending Order) Graduation Graduation Graduation Graduation Graduation Graduation

First Quintile 41 99 6 28 57 6

Second Quintile 53 83 19 37 80 19

Third Quintile 58 86 23 40 82 17

Fourth Quintile 65 88 17 48 83 21

Fifth Quintile 78 97 37 60 92 20

Table 8: Graduation Rates by Institutional Carnegie Classification and Control

Private PublicInstitutionalCarnegie Median % Highest % Lowest % Median % Highest % Lowest %Classification Graduation Graduation Graduation Graduation Graduation Graduation

Research 83 97 45 61 92 30

Doctoral 66 94 46 40 89 9

Master 55 99 17 39 80 9

BA/Specialized 60 97 6 33 74 6

Sources: 1999 NCAA Division I, II, and III Graduation Reports, U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education, and National Center for Education Statistics, IPEDS.

15

Table 9: Selected Institutions, By Control and Graduation Rate

High Graduation Rate, Private Graduation rate % 1. A1* 65

2. B1* 52

3. C1* (HBCU) 56

4. D1 (HBCU) 50

5. E1 55

6. F1* 56

7. G1* (HBCU) 49

8. H1 61

9. I1 43

Low Graduation Rate, Private Graduation rate % 1. A2* 6

2. B2 19

3. C2* (HBCU) 15

4. D2* (HBCU) 20

5. E2* 21

6. F2 14

7. G2 23

8. H2* 15

The four institutional groups areshown in Table 9. Those marked withan asterisk were included in the sitevisits. The participating institutions arenot named to assure confidentiality. Notall of the highest ranked institutionswere selected for site visits. Fiveconsiderations determined whether aninstitution was included:

■ At or near the top of theranking in its group.

■ Agreed to participate in thestudy.

■ Geographic distribution — wedid not want to select all theinstitutions from the South,where many colleges anduniversities with the highestpercentages of low-incomestudents are located.

■ Enrollment size — we includedinstitutions of different size anddifferent missions.

■ Mix of students by race/ethnicity — we sought a mix ofHistorically Black Colleges andUniversities (HBCUs) andnon-HBCUs, as many of theinstitutions with the highestpercentages of Pell Grantrecipients are HBCUs.

One factor that might influence the institutionalgraduation rate is the share of the student body that attendsschool part-time. Part-time students take longer to graduatethan do those who attend full-time; thus, a college thatenrolled a high proportion of part-time students might reporta lower average graduation rate. Although only full-timestudents are used for the cohort, these students may at some

point leave school and return in a part-time capacity. Wefound only a small average variation in the share of under-graduates enrolled part-time among the five institutionalquintiles for both public and private institutions.

Site VisitsOnce we identified the colleges and universities and

received permission to visit them, we collected quantitativeand qualitative data about each institution. Data were

* Institutions selected for further analysis and site visits.

High Graduation Rate, Public Graduation rate % 1. A3* (HBCU) 49

2. B3 (HBCU) 47

3. C3* 43

4. D3* 41

5. E3* 41

6. F3* (HBCU) 45

7. G3 41

8. H3 43

Low Graduation Rate, Public Graduation rate % 1. A4* 6

2. B4 (HBCU) 9

3. C4* 9

4. D4 12

5. E4* 14

6. F4* 9

7. G4* 11

8. H4 18

▲

In all cases,public institutions

have higherpercentages of

Pell Grantrecipients and

lower graduationrates compared

with privateinstitutions.

▼

16

obtained from IPEDS, the Peterson’s Guide to Four-YearColleges, the US News and World Report guide to colleges, andother sources. We made site visits of 2 to 2.5 days to 19 of the20 institutions.8 Each site visit was conducted by a two-personteam. During the visits, we collected additional descriptiveinformation on a range of policies and practices. We alsointerviewed faculty, staff and students, asking them about thefactors contributing to institutional performance in retainingand graduating students. Site visitors completed a report usinga uniform outline as a site visit protocol (included in Appen-dix A). Once the site visits were complete, a matrix offindings allowing the comparison of qualitative data collectedwas created. The matrix is included in Appendix B of thisreport and is the basis for the analysis in sections 4 and 5.

It is important to keep in mind that these visits were briefand sought information on a wide range of possible influenceson institutional performance. This research is a preliminaryinquiry intended to provide the groundwork for further effortsto identify the institutional policies and programs thatcontribute to student retention. Most studies observe reten-tion efforts at individual institutions. By including 10 high

graduation rate colleges in the research, we have generated amore complete look at the factors in retention than has beenpreviously available.

We recognize, however, that there are substantiallimitations to this study. First, in selecting institutions, noeffort was made to control for institutional admissionspolicies or prior student academic performance. Second,other factors that could well account for differences ininstitutional performance were not controlled — includinginstitutional resources, location, religious affiliation, size,percentage of students residing on campus, or percentage ofstudents attending full time. Third, we do not know whetherthe overall graduation rates reported by the institutions alsoapply to low-income students at those schools. The authors ofthis study are now conducting an expanded study, including amultivariate analysis of institutional and student characteris-tics that might explain institutional performance. In selectinginstitutions for in-depth examination, the new study willcontrol for prior academic performance (ACT/SAT) and mayalso control for other student factors that are associated withgraduation rates and are systematically available.

▲

This reviewfocuses on what isknown about how

institutions canimprove student

retention andgraduation.

▼

17

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL FACTORS AND COLLEGE PERSISTENCE?

M uch of the research on persistence inpostsecondary education concentrates onthe student characteristics that predictsuccess. High school GPA and SAT andACT scores have been identified as the

strongest retention predictors (Astin, Korn, and Green,1987). Socioeconomic status, first- (or later) generationcollege attendance, non-traditional characteristics, out-of-state residency, and race/ethnicity are also predictive factors(Hoyt, 1999; Murtaugh, Burns, and Schuster, 1999; Somers,1995b). Adelman’s (1999) recent study based on longitudinaldata finds that a rigorous high school curriculum is thestrongest predictor of postsecondary persistence and success.Once in college, the level of a student’s social and academicintegration, along with his or her intent to complete college,can affect decisions to stay in school (Tinto, 1993; Beil et al,1999; Okun et al, 1996; Cabrera et al, 1992; and Pascarellaand Terenzini, 1991).

This review focuses on what is known about how institu-tions can improve student retention and graduation. Tintosuggests that researchers should “direct our studies to forms ofpractice so that we can better understand the impact ofpractice on persistence and let the knowledge gained from

those studies inform our theories of persistence ... Too muchof our research has been blind to practice and its recentinnovations” (1998). Following Tinto’s suggestion, wereviewed evaluations and other studies of instruction,programs, and other campus factors that address five impor-tant elements needed to complete college: academic skills,financial support, academic direction, instruction andacademic support, and campus participation.

Academic SkillsPoor academic preparation is a significant factor in

leaving college. Students must have the basic reading,writing, and math skills necessary to persist through morechallenging coursework and to graduate. There is consider-able evidence that students who enter college with poorerhigh school records (as measured by GPA), and lower SAT orACT scores are more likely to leave before completingcollege. A wide range of programs that address academicdeficiencies have been studied, including summer bridge anddevelopmental education programs.

Summer bridge programsTypically, summer bridge programs take place during the

▲

Studies ofsummer bridgeprograms are

almost unanimousin showing

positive effects oncollege retention.

▼

summer between high school graduation and the fall semesterof a student’s first year. They have a strong curricular compo-nent, developing basic skills and improving academic perfor-mance. Bridge programs often include remedial or develop-mental coursework for under-prepared students. They alsoaim to make students comfortable in the college environmentthrough advising, social events, and other activities.

Studies of summer bridge programs are almost unanimousin showing positive effects on college retention. Evaluationsof programs at Georgia State University (Gold, 1992),University of California-San Diego (Buck, 1985), theUniversity of Maryland-College Park (Boyd, 1996), andCalifornia State University (Garcia, 1991) all showedenhanced retention through at least the first year of college.Bridge students also become more involved in campus life(Buck, 1985). A six-week summer bridge program for under-represented and low-income freshmen and transfers at UCLAhelped students to become part of a community, adjust tocollege, and persist through their first two quarters(Ackermann, 1990).

Developmental courseworkDevelopmental or remedial courses are designed to

provide students with the academic skills to succeed inpostsecondary education. Typical developmental offerings arecourses in math, English, and writing. In some institutions,students must complete these courses before taking college-level classes, while in other institutions students may enrollin developmental and regular courses simultaneously.

Unlike summer bridge programs, the results of develop-mental programs on retention are more mixed. Not surpris-ingly, students who need extensive remediation have lowerretention and graduation rates (Hoyt, 1999; Haycock, 2000;McDaniel, 2001; Windham, 1995). The negative effect is notfound, however, when students take remedial reading only(Adelman, 1999). Furthermore, students who perceiveremedial courses as valuable are more likely to stay in school(Garcia, 2000). Of course, most studies do not comparestudents with comparable academic skills, some of whom take

developmental courses and some of whom do not. Such adesign might reveal more positive effects of remediation.There is also some evidence to suggest that when develop-mental education is linked with regular course-taking theeffects are more positive (see discussion of learning communi-ties below).

Financial SupportLike academic skills, having the money to pay for

education is a necessity for college completion. Low-incomestudents are at a disadvantage in attending college and, notsurprisingly, graduate at lower rates (Mortensen, 2001, Choy,2002). Federal, state, institutional, and private financialassistance programs are aimed at making college affordablefor low-income students so that they can complete theireducation.

Overall aid effectsStudies conducted across four-year institutions are

inconclusive with respect to the effect of financial aid ongraduation (Braunstein, McGrath, and Pescatrice 2000).Because of state and federal government changes in theamount and types of aid packages, one recent study con-cluded that the evidence concerning the effects of studentfinancial aid “is mixed at best, and contradictory, at worst”(Astin, 2001). The effects of aid may vary by institution type.Hoyt (1999) found that aid has a positive impact on commu-nity college students. A study using data from the 1996NCES National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)showed that, at two-year colleges with higher tuition rates,students with grants, loans, or work-study participation weremore likely to persist than those without such assistance(Cofer and Somers, 2000). One study found that minority aidrecipients persist at higher rates than non-recipient counter-parts, especially when grants and loans are combined (Huand St. John, 2001). However, as the amount of need-basedaid decreases and tuition increases, overall persistencedeclines (Hu and St. John, 2001).

18

▲

Students withclear academic

and career goalsare more likelyto persist than

those who havenot articulated

their goals.▼

19

Type of aidThe effects of aid often vary by type and amount. Grants,

scholarships, and work-study are more consistently related tohigher persistence; conversely, loans are more consistentlyrelated to lower persistence (Blanchfield, 1971, 1972; Li andKillian, 1999; Somers, 1995a). Work-study or other on-campus work seems to produce positive effects more consis-tently than other types of aid, most likely because studentsbecome more involved and attached to the campus and itsstaff (Adelman, 1999; DesJardins, Ahlburg, and McCall,1999). Not every study shows this effect, however (McGrathand Braunstein, 1997). For an institution seeking to increaseits overall retention rate, partial scholarships for a largernumber of applicants may be more effective than a smallnumber of large scholarships to attract as well as retainacademically strong students (Somers, 1995a, 1996).

Amount and timing of aidA longitudinal study of college-leaving behavior found

that although students who receive financial aid generallyhave higher completion rates than comparable studentswithout financial aid, results vary by the amount of aid andby when the students receive it (Ishitani and DesJardins,2002-2003). Overall, it appears that in each of the first threeyears of college, the higher the amount of aid, the greater thepersistence. The beneficial effect of financial aid was actuallystrongest in the third year, when the risk of dropping out was93 to 99 percent lower for students who received assistance.

Institutional aidSome studies suggest that institutional aid is less effective

in increasing retention and graduation than outside aid,largely because the amounts provided are small (Somers,1995a; Shields, 1994). Nonetheless, some studies find anindependent effect for campus-based aid (Nora, 1990).Institutional aid can also have positive effects when thestudent perceives the aid as a reward for personal achieve-ment, unlike need-based federal aid, which low-incomestudents expect to receive (Astin, 2001).

Perceptions of the role of financial aidLike developmental education, attitudes and perceptions

of aid might be more important than the receipt of aid itself.Persisters are more likely than non-persisters to report thatthe financial aid office was helpful (Heverly, 1999). At anurban, open-admission, commuter university, persistence ofstudents in developmental classes was predicted by percep-tions of difficulties in financing their education (Garcia,2000). A study at an urban commuter university found thatattitudes associated with financial aid had significant totaleffects on persistence. Satisfaction with financial support hada direct effect on academic integration, which had an effecton educational goal commitments. Students also felt a senseof commitment to the institution that provided them withfinancial aid (Cabrera et al, 1992).

Academic DirectionStudents with clear academic and career goals are more

likely to persist than those who have not articulated theirgoals. Early identification of a major is also related to reten-tion (Hagedorn, Maxwell, and Hampton, 2001-2002; Kim,1996; Leppel, 2001). In this section, we explore what isknown about the effectiveness of college programs that helpstudents develop academic and career goals, select coursesand majors, and other similar efforts.

Freshman year structureThere are a variety of college programs that help students

adjust to college and select their courses and majors. Theseprograms range from highly structured freshman year pro-grams (directive advising, seminars, linked classes, studygroups, etc), or may be as brief as a one- or two-day orienta-tion program that helps students clarify their academic andcareer plans. Evaluations of freshman year programs arelargely positive. Students who enroll in these programs showgreater persistence, higher GPAs, etc (Sidle and McReynolds,1999; Williford, Chapman, and Kahrig, 2000-2001; Pascarella,Terenzini, and Wolfle, 1986; Colton, Connor, Shultz, andEaster, 1999; Simmons, Wallins, and George, 1995;

▲

Freshman yearexperience

programs doappear to

positively affectinstitutionalpersistence.

▼

20

Murtaugh, Burns, and Schuster, 1999; Martin and Hodum,1994; Fidler and Moore, 1996; Muraskin, 1997). However,students who enroll in voluntary programs may already bemore motivated or committed to college. Nevertheless, giventhe consistency of evaluation findings, freshman year experi-ence programs do appear to positively affect institutionalpersistence.

Advising and counselingAdvising and counseling by professionals and peers can

also help students develop their academic and career goals.Counseling and encouragement help to foster clear, realisticgoals and commitment, and have been found to be signifi-cantly related to retention (Seidman, 1991). While orienta-tion programs allow for interaction with other students,advising allows for more personalized interaction with facultyand staff.

Evidence on the effects of advising and counselingservices is weak, however. Most studies have focused onstudent perceptions of advising or counseling, rather than onthe impact of the services themselves. Astin and his col-leagues (1987) found that students who left public institu-tions had poor perceptions of advising and other services.Carroll (1988) found that persisting students at a two-yearurban community college had positive perceptions of counse-lor effectiveness. Non-returning students at a large easternpublic university were less satisfied with guidance counselingthan were returning students (Mohr, Eiche, and Sedlacek,1998). Heverly (1999) also reported that persisting studentsare more likely to find college advisors helpful. On the otherhand, the National Study of Student Support Services(Chaney et al, 1997) found that greater hours of counseling/advising were negatively associated with retention, probablybecause the students having the greatest academic andpersonal difficulty got the most counseling.

Mentoring programsMentoring programs link students with older peers,

faculty, administrators, or other professionals in one-on-one

relationships. They also help students develop career plansand get to know faculty or peers. These programs usuallytarget students who are under-represented, either at theinstitution or in a specific department, and who may needextra encouragement and role models. Often under-repre-sented students “unlike middle- and upper-class students, ...lack the advantage of coming from a background where theimportance of attending college is emphasized from an earlyage” (Tierney, 1999). Only a limited amount of informationon the impact of mentoring programs on college retentionexists. Much of the evidence is positive. (Campbell andCampbell, 1996; Schwitzer and Thomas, 1998; Newton andWells-Glover, 1999). Because mentoring is almost alwaysvoluntary, however, there is no way of knowing whether itattracts students who are already motivated to stay in schooland graduate.

Overall support service useAccording to Pascarella and Terinzini (1991), “degree

completion may be a function of the extent to which aninstitution provides supportive personnel services ... Studentswho get the help and information they need may be morelikely to persist.” At a highly selective research institution,non-persisting students reported less satisfaction with campussupport services and the standards of service than persistingstudents (West and Michael, 1998). At a regional stateuniversity, at-risk freshmen who received regular telephonecalls from faculty or student affairs staff had significantlyhigher retention rates. Overall, outreach by phone contactprovided students with a caring, nurturing environment thatimproved retention and grades (Volp, Hill, and Frazier,1998). A study on the role of organizational attributes inintegration and persistence found that institutional commu-nication, fairness in enforcing policies and rules, and partici-pation in decision-making have a positive effect on faculty-peer relations, which in turn aid students’ social integration,commitment, and intent to stay (Berger and Braxton, 1998).

▲

Participation inthe Learning

Community was asignificant

independentpredictor of

retention, evenafter controlling

for studentcharacteristics.

▼

21

Instruction and Academic SupportNo matter how good the support services or financial aid,

the quality of instruction is a critical element in the collegeexperience, especially in building academic competence andintegration. A host of curricular reforms have been devel-oped, designed to foster a more intellectually cohesiveeducational experience, enhance learning, and, ultimately,increase retention and graduation. Among these reforms are:Freshman Interest Groups (FIG), Learning Communities(LC), and Blocks or Clusters, all of which use group learningapproaches to enhance learning. In addition, academicsupport programs that offer a “home base” on campus and arange of support services (supplemental instruction, groupstudy, mastery classes, workshops, etc.) target additionalacademic support to at-risk or other groups of students. Onceagain, though, because most of these programs are voluntarythere is no way of knowing whether more motivated studentsare also more likely to participate.

Freshman Interest Groups (FIG)FIGs bring together freshmen who share interests and

allow students to pursue those interests in a supportiveeducational environment. FIGs can focus on academics, arts,sports, or a wide range of other shared interests. Some FIGsinvolve college classes, while others do not, and many arelocated in residence halls. Evidence from several institutionalstudies suggests that FIGs help to build a sense of communityamong students or increase retention (Dale and Zych, 1996;Tokuno and Campbell, 1992; Goodsell and Tinto, 1993).

Blocks or clustersBlocks or clusters (also called “block rostering”) are

course-scheduling methods in which students are groupedtogether for two or more classes. Sometimes, they are groupedfor a freshman experience course and one or more othercourses. For example, the First Year Experience Program atNorthern Michigan University pairs a freshman seminar withother classes in “blocks.” Blocks may include other compo-nents such as study groups that emphasize collaborative

learning among peers and foster communities of students.Blocks may also involve collaborative relationships betweenfaculty who team-teach or otherwise coordinate severalclasses. Sometimes, participating in a block also offers registra-tion and scheduling priority, and increased interaction withfaculty and advisors.

Studies of blocks and clusters show improved retentionrates for participants (Soldner, Lee, and Duby, 1999; Mangoldet al, 2002-2003). The benefits of clusters are perhaps greaterat larger, commuter institutions where students may not be oncampus for extended periods and developing relationships ismore difficult. At least one study of a small, private institutionwith a high graduation rate showed no additional benefit fromclustering students (Crissman, 2001-2002).

Learning CommunitiesLearning communities are programs of linked courses. In

a learning community, students are not only block rostered,but the linked courses are intellectually integrated as well.Studies of these programs show higher retention rates ofstudents. For example, at the University of Southern Maine— a commuter institution with a large number of part-timeand older students — learning communities for at-riskstudents retained significantly more students than less struc-tured retention programs, and surpassed the institution’s two-year persistence rate (White and Mosely, 1995). Students at ametropolitan commuter university who were in a learningcommunity of three linked classes had higher fall-to-springretention than non-participating students, although thedifference was not significant (Baker and Pomerantz, 2000).Tinto found that members of a learning community at SeattleCentral Community College reported significantly higherlevels of campus involvement, satisfaction, and personal,social and academic development than other students.Participation in the Learning Community was a significantindependent predictor of retention, even after controlling forstudent characteristics (Tinto, 1997).

▲

A nationalevaluation

[of SSS] foundthat students in

the program hadhigher GPAs, took

more credits,and had

higher retention(through the thirdyear of college)than comparison

groups.▼

22

Academic support programsColleges also offer a wide range of academic support

programs. Many are geared specifically to at-risk or under-represented populations. For example, Student SupportServices is a national TRIO program that provides counsel-ing, mentoring, and academic support services (tutoring,group study, supplemental instruction, developmentalinstruction, etc.) to low-income, first-generation students andstudents with disabilities. A national evaluation found thatstudents in the program had higher GPAs, took more credits,and had higher retention (through the third year of college)than comparison groups (Chaney et al, 1997). An evaluationof the Undergraduate Research Opportunity Program(UROP) — a home base program for minority freshmen andsophomores at the University of Michigan — found apositive effect on retention. The program helps students formrelationships with faculty through workshops, presentations,peer advising, mentoring, and interest groups. The programcreates a collaborative, academic and intellectual environ-ment between students and faculty, and constantly monitorsthe effects on retention. This program had a significantpositive effect on retention for each racial/ethnic group, withthe strongest effect for low-achieving African-Americansophomores. Low GPA students participating in UROP hadhigher persistence than a control group of low GPA students(Nagda et al, 1998).

Classroom approachesCurricular approaches and faculty performance appear to

be related to persistence (Braxton, Vesper, and Hossler, 1995;Somers, 1995b; Tinto, 1997; Johnson, 1997). Several studiescomparing students who leave and those who graduate findthat students who stay report more positive interactions withfaculty (South Texas Community College, 1998; Heverly,1999; Lundquist, Spalding, and Landrum, 2002-2003; Li andKillian, 1999). Braxton et al, (2000) found that an activelearning approach through class discussion and higher-levelthinking activities had a significant effect on academicintegration, which in turn influenced students’ “intent to

stay” at the institution. Examples of effective classroomactivities identified in the study include “the pause proce-dure, short writes, think pair-share, formative quizzes, lecturesummaries and classroom assessment techniques.” Not everystudy finds a strong association between faculty interactionand persistence, however (Ruddock, Hanson, and Moss,1999).

Positive effects may be enhanced by faculty characteris-tics. At a Midwestern university, first-time, full-time fresh-men who did not return the next semester took a largerproportion of their coursework from part-time facultymembers than did the freshman cohort as a whole(Harrington and Schibik, 2001). At SUNY Binghamton, thepresence of women faculty in science, mathematics, andcomputer sciences courses increased the likelihood of womenstudents returning (Robst, Keil, and Russo, 1998). Forwomen who took at least one-third of their classes in themath or sciences, the percent of credit hours taught bywomen was a positive predictor of one-year retention rates.

Campus Participation

Residence hallsLiving on campus also helps to foster retention. The

positive effects likely occur through the opportunities forsocial integration that residence halls afford (Mallinckrodtand Sedlacek, 1987; Skahill, 2002-2003; St. John, Musoba,and Simmons, 2001). Residence hall living also has positiveeffects on graduation (Astin, 2001; Fidler and Moore, 1996).The influence of campus residency can vary by student type.At North Carolina State University, on-campus residencypredicted persistence for African-American students only(Kim, 1996). At the University of Maryland, campus resi-dence had significant effects on both persistence and gradu-ation for white and African-American students (Gallicki andMcEwen, 1989). At institutions with high overall retentionrates, the effects of residence halls appear to be lower or notsignificant (McGrath and Braunstein, 1997; Crissman, 2001-2002; Kanoy and Bruhn, 1996).

▲

Finances weremore of an issuefor older students

than theiracademic

performance.▼

23

Retaining commuter studentsBecause they do not live on campus, commuter students

face a greater challenge in becoming integrated or attachedto the institutions they attend. In addition to the factorsalready cited (academic interventions, counseling/advising,mentoring, etc.), there is some evidence that a welcomingenvironment can affect retention and graduation for bothresidential and commuting students.

Use of campus facilities may have an independent effecton retention. At the University of Maryland, hours spent oncampus studying, conducting research, and in the campuslibrary were connected to retention of second semesterfreshmen. Specific uses of the student union (but not overallhours) were also related to retention. Non-academic activi-ties such as attending a dance or concert in the studentunion, eating at the campus dining hall, and working as acampus employee also influenced retention. For African-American students, studying in the library, working out at thecampus gym, and participating in student union sponsoredtrips were related to retention (Mallinckrodt and Sedlacek,1987).

Campus flexibility for non-traditional studentsThe retention issues for older and returning students may

differ from those of younger students. Older, non-traditionalstudents at two-year institutions often work full time whilethey are enrolled in college and have less time for socialactivities; therefore, flexibility in college offerings may bemore important than fostering campus integration (Baker,1996). Baker found that low-income, full-time workers leavecollege at higher rates. Part-time work did not seem to haveas much of an impact. Baker (1996) also found that financeswere more of an issue for older students than their academicperformance. For students over the age of 23 at two-yearcolleges, persistence was negatively influenced by tuition

charges to a greater degree than for younger students(Hippensteel, St. John, and Starkey, 1996).

Non-traditional students enrolled in the College ofBusiness Administration at a metropolitan commuteruniversity cited work conflicts and loss of income, notacademic problems, as reasons for leaving (Tom, 1999). Workconflicts led to a lack of participation in extracurricularactivities, as well as problems in scheduling classes. The studycited the lack of social integration and a lack of funds asfactors contributing to their decisions to leave. The studentsneeded to work to afford college, which left them little timeto participate outside the classroom. The majority said theyhad stopped out rather than leaving permanently — 43percent planned on returning, and 47 percent had alreadyinterrupted their education.

SummaryIn addition to the student characteristics that predict

college graduation, there are a variety of institutionalprograms and approaches that appear to have positive effects.These include summer bridge programs prior to freshmanyear, freshman year experience programs, freshman interestgroups, block rostering of students, learning communities,and other academic support programs. There is evidence thatgrant aid and work-study are also associated with higherretention and graduation. Because students who participatein some programs at high levels are likely to be the ones mostat risk, there is less evidence about the positive effects ofcounseling and developmental education. Studies with anexperimental component would be needed to understand theimpacts of these offerings. Living on campus is positivelyassociated with retention but use of campus facilities mayincrease retention for commuter students. Older or returningstudents can benefit from flexible academic scheduling.

▲

The HGR

institutions have

full-/part-time

enrollment

patterns that

differ

substantially from

the LGRs.

▼

25

A COMPARISON OF INSTITUTIONS WITH HIGH AND LOW GRADUATION RATES

A s described in the study design, we firstidentified institutions for inclusion basedupon their relatively high percentages of PellGrant recipients. We then selected fromamong those institutions two groups for

study: those with the highest and lowest six-year graduationrates.9 We have compared the two groups using indicatorsavailable from national data sets to identify any systematicdifferences between the groups that might help to explaintheir differing student performance. This section reports onthe results of that comparison, using indicators of studentenrollment, faculty characteristics, institutional resources andexpenditures, and prior student performance. It should benoted that, while some of these data have been obtained fromhighly reliable national education data sets, such as IPEDS,others are institutionally self-reported to guidebooks forcollege applicants and may be less reliable. In the discussionand tables that follow, we indicate the source of each dataelement as we consider its implications.

Enrollment DifferencesThe high graduation rate (HGR) institutions have full-/

part-time enrollment patterns that differ substantially from

the low graduation rate (LGR) institutions. The HGRinstitutions are more likely than the LGR institutions toenroll undergraduate students on a full-time basis (Table 10).Of the 10 HGR schools, eight have full-time enrollmentsabove 72 percent — the national average for four-yearinstitutions. None of the 10 institutions has a full-timeenrollment rate below 67 percent. In comparison, among theLGR institutions, only four of 9 institutions have full-timeenrollment rates above the national average and five havefull-time enrollment rates below 67 percent.

Although this study did not conduct such an analysis,these substantial differences in enrollment patterns may helpto explain the differences in student retention and gradua-tion. Part-time enrollment may reflect less of a commitmentto higher education, with students reluctant to invest theirfull effort or time. At the least, part-time students will takelonger to graduate and, if they are low-income, are likely toexhaust financial aid before completing college. In nationalstudies using longitudinal student data, full-time enrollmentis strongly associated with college completion. Among theHGR schools in this study, high rates of full-time enrollment,compared to national full-time enrollment rates, may also

26

help to offset the institutionalgraduation disadvantage associatedwith a large share of low-incomestudents.

It is impossible to know howthe higher full-time enrollmentrates in HGR institutions cameabout. Did these institutionsestablish policies that largelydemanded full-time enrollment ordid they somehow attract studentscommitted to college full timebecause of other factors — such asrecruitment efforts, location, orofferings? We do know that theHGR institutions in the studyappear more likely to attractentrants of “traditional” collegeage, and traditional-age studentsare more likely than others toenroll full time:

■ In six of the 10 HGRinstitutions, 80 percent ormore of the undergraduatestudents are 24 years ofage or younger (see Table10).

■ Only one of the eightLGR institutions forwhich age data areavailable has more than80 percent of its undergraduates in the “tradi-tional” age range.

These data suggest that theLGR and HGR institutions may bequalitatively different in otherways as well, with LGR institu-

tions attracting students who mayhave enrolled for many yearswithout completing, are returning tohigher education after enrollmentsometime in the past, or are startinghigher education at a later age. It ispossible that at least some of theLGR institutions are “secondchance” institutions, with enroll-ments not unlike those of commu-nity colleges.10

The HGR institutions are alsolarger institutions, on average, thanthe LGR colleges (see Table 10):

■ Combined, the HGRinstitutions have anaverage head countundergraduate enrollmentof 4,222, compared with anaverage head countenrollment of 2,973 at theLGR institutions.

■ The HGR institutions arealso more likely to offergraduate education andenroll graduate students(see Table 10). Nine ofthe 10 HGR institutionsenroll some graduatestudents, and seven of thenine enroll more than 100graduate students. Fourenroll more than 1,000graduate students.

■ In contrast, only four ofthe nine LGR institutionsenroll graduate students,with three of the fourenrolling more than 100

Table 10: Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment, HGR and LGR Institutions, Fall 2000

Undergraduate Undergraduate Undergraduate Graduate Head Count Percent Full Percent 24 Years Head CountInstitution Enrollment Time of Age or More Enrollment

HGR (avg: 4,222)InstitutionsA 1,361 95 91 148B 5,353 69 62 1,042C 2,022 88 82 235D 853 94 93 65E 702 100 94 0F 12,453 78 73 1,682G 5,755 76 70 1,216H 3,639 89 81 549I 7,613 67 45 2,956J 2,467 96 87 103

LGR (avg: 2,973)InstitutionsK 1,398 77 88 0L 4,988 56 64 245M 4,455 43 60 0N 4,614 51 41 0O 6,897 62 43 1,246P 2,785 95 – 0Q 1,183 79 78 0R 1,241 95 78 13S 2,165 58 51 215

National 4,573 72 64 245Average

Source: IPEDS, Fall 2000 institutional data.

27

but only one enrolling more than1,000 graduate students.

In short, the full-/part-time enroll-ment differences may also reflect differ-ences in broader institutional scope andinterests — between smaller institutionswith few graduate offerings and largerinstitutions with more graduate offerings.

Limited data from the Peterson’sGuide to Four-Year Colleges suggest thatstudents at the HGR institutions may besomewhat more academically advantagedat entrance (Table 11). Institutions reportto Peterson’s Guide on the percentage oftheir entering freshmen class that wereranked in the “top half” of their highschool graduating class.

■ Among the nine HGRinstitutions reporting, thepercentages of freshmen inthe top half of their highschool class ranged from 63 to82 percent.

■ Only four of nine LGRinstitutions reported compar-able high school rank data,and they indicated from 31 to54 percent of enteringstudents were in the top halfof their high school class.

The limited data from the LGRinstitutions may also reflect the olderaverage age of students — older orreturning students may not report highschool class rank.

There are few systematic differencesbetween the HGR and LGR institutions

on other undergraduate student character-istics available from our data sets:

■ Both sets of institutions haverelatively high percentages ofminority students (see Table 11).Each of the sets includes severalHBCUs. Minority enroll-ment among the remaininginstitutions in each group rangesfrom 12 to 51 percent.11

■ Both HGR and LGR institutionsappear to draw most of theirstudents from the states wherethey are located. Although dataare limited, only three of eightHGR institutions for which dataare available show out-of-stateenrollment rates above 20percent. Similarly, only two ofsix LGR institutions show ratesabove 20 percent. Of the fiveinstitutions with relatively highrates of out-of-state enrollment,three are HBCUs.

■ Most of the institutions in thestudy have higher female enroll-ments than the national average,although LGR institutions havesomewhat higher female enroll-ments than HGR institutions.

Faculty CharacteristicsHGR and LGR institutions have

substantially different faculty:■ The HGR institutions have

much larger percentages of full-time faculty (Table 12). In theHGR institutions, nine employ60 percent or more of their

Table 11: Student Characteristics at HGR and LGR Institutions, Fall 2000

Percent in Percent Percent Percent from Top Half of Minority Female Out-of-StateInstitution High School Class

HGRInstitutionsA 80 12 53 31B 73 38* 66 1C 70 78 63 12D 73 94 70 72E 63 100 49 42F 81 51* 53 20G 72 33* 42 14H N/A 97 58 N/AI 72 30 56 10J 82 98 58 N/A

LGRInstitutionsK N/A 13* 64 13L N/A 28 70 5M N/A 47 65 2N N/A 93 78 1O 45 70 71 N/AP N/A 95 N/A 38Q 31 18 53 50R 54 99 58 N/AS 40 51 59 N/A

National N/A 29 56 26Average

*More than 10 percent of students are of unknown race/ethnicity.Sources: Class rank from Peterson’s Guide. Percent minority, female, and out-of-state fromIPEDS, Fall 2000 institutional data.

28

five of nine LGR institutions show student-to-faculty ratios below 17 to 1.

The combination of high percentages offull-time faculty and lower student-to-faculty ratios suggest that the HGR institu-tions may offer students smaller classes andmore opportunity to interact with faculty.There are more FTE faculty availableoverall at the HGR institutions and stu-dents are more likely to attend classestaught by faculty who are committed to theinstitution for their livelihood. (As we shallsee in the later discussion of commonalitiesamong the HGR institutions, students andfaculty report that the opportunity forinteraction is a major factor in institutionalsuccess.) Finally, there do not appear to besystematic differences between HGR andLGR institutions with respect to thepercentages of minority faculty when HBCUstatus is taken into account (see Table 12).

The Cost of Education: Institu-tional and Student Spending

Given the greater use of full-timefaculty and the lower number of studentsper faculty member, it is not surprising tofind that the HGR institutions spend moremoney per FTE student.12 What is surprisingis how much more they spend per FTEundergraduate enrollment than the LGRinstitutions (Table 13):

■ Across the 10 HGR institutions,total expenditures per FTE studentranged from $12,400 to $35,800.Only three institutions showed per-FTE expenditures below $15,000and four had expenditures above$20,000.

Table 12: Faculty Characteristics, HGR and LGR Institutions, Fall 2000

Percent Student/Faculty PercentInstitution Full Time Ratio Minority

HGRInstitutions (average 80%) (average 15:1)A 78% 13:1 1%B 61 15:1 22C 96 17:1 74D N/A N/A N/AE 100 16:1 67F 96 17:1 15G 38 23:1 18H 96 16:1 72I 64 28:1 11J 90 10:1 81

LGRInstitutions (average 62%) (average 17:1)K 46 26:1 3L 49 17:1 5M 41 25:1 19N 31 24:1 85O 78 29:1 14P 49 28:1 89Q 91 20:1 10R 83 13:1 78S 88 18:1 16

National 59.7 17:1 27Average

Student faculty ratios assume that part-time faculty are employed on a1/3 time basis.Source: IPEDS, Fall 2000 institutional data.

instructional personnel on a full-time basis, and five of the ninewith such data show a full-timefaculty rate of 90 percent orgreater.

■ In contrast, only four of the nineLGR institutions have more than60 percent full-time faculty. Inthe other five LGR institutions,full-time personnel account forfewer than half the faculty.

■ The rates of full-time employ-ment for faculty in HGR institu-tions are high, not only inrelation to the LGR institutions,but in relation to nationalaverages. Nationally, four-yearpublic institutions have anaverage of 72 percent full-timefaculty and private four-yearinstitutions have an average of 60percent full-time faculty.

Furthermore, the greater use of full-time faculty does not appear to affectadversely the ratio of students to faculty(see Table 12). In fact, the HGR institu-tions have somewhat lower ratios ofstudents to faculty, on average, than theLGR institutions. Lower student to facultyratios occur despite the fact that a largelyfull-time faculty is likely to cost more perFTE faculty member than a faculty rich inpart-timers. When part-time faculty aredefined as one-third of an FTE, we findthat among the nine HGR institutions forwhich data are available, eight havestudent-to-faculty ratios at or below thenational average of 17 to 1. In contrast,

29

■ Among the LGRinstitutions, expen-ditures per FTEranged from $10,500to $17,900, and onlytwo institutions hadexpenditures above$15,000.

■ The median expen-diture among theHGR institutions($18,600) is 59percent higher thanthe median for theLGR institutions($12,019). Themedian per-studentexpenditure amongthe HGR institu-tions in fact exceedsthe amount spent byany of the LGRinstitutions.

Nationally, public four-year institutions spend, onaverage, about $20,000 perFTE undergraduate enroll-ment, meaning that half ofthe HGR institutions in thestudy spend slightly less thanthe national average and allof the LGRs spend onlyabout half the nationalaverage. These large differ-ences in per-student resourcesmay well play a major role inexplaining the differences instudent outcomes.

Yet at the same timethat the HGR institutionsspend much more perstudent than the LGRinstitutions, the nominalcosts of education to thestudents who attend theseinstitutions do not appear todiffer commensurately.Bearing in mind that theofficial costs of attendance(tuition, room and board,books, etc.) often do notreflect actual student costs— because large numbers ofstudents receive subsidies ordiscounts — we see that theinstitution-reported costs oftuition are slightly higher atthe HGR institutions (seeTable 13):

■ Among HGRcolleges (in-state)tuition and feesrange from $1,840 to$19,200, with themedian cost atapproximately$5,200.

■ Among LGRinstitutions (in-state) tuition andfees range from$2,000 to $12,600,with the mediancost at $3,282.

Table 13: Institutional Expenditures and Students Costs, HGR and LGR Institutions, Fall 2000

Institution Expenditures In-State Full Costs Average Percent of per FTE Tuition (and (Inc. Room, Institutional Full-Time

Undergraduate Percent per Board, Other) Grant (to First-Time Student Student First-Time Students

Expenditures Students) Receiving Tuition Reflects) Institutional

Grants

HGRMedians $18,600 $ 5,200 $12,006 $ 3,407 50A private $35,799 $19,196 (54%) $28,962 $12,200 94B public $14,959 $ 1,875 (13%) $11,775 $ 1,710 45C public $19,162 $ 1,840 (10%) $ 8,154 $ 2,740 15D private $18,621 $ 9,790 (53%) $19,472 $ 5,731 71E private $12,398 $ 6,370 (51%) $11,980 $ 2,395 77F public $20,767 $ 3,006 (14%) $12,032 $ 1,226 33G private $28,016 $17,030 (61%) $26,850 $ 6,311 75H public $18,174 $ 4,096 (23%) $10,796 $ 980 17I public $13,767 $ 3,296 (24%) $ 8,096 $ 4,074 49J private $27,313 $10,496 (38%) $19,358 $ 4,153 55

LGRMedians $12,019 $ 3,282000000 $14,269 $ 1,274 35K private $10,938 $11,395(104%) $21,285 $ 4,374 97L public $12,019 $ 2,314 (19%) $11,768 $ 1,532 23M public $16,279 $ 2,322 (14%) $11,582 $ 1,040 8N public $13,599 $ 3,282 (24%) $14,269 N/A 0O private $ 9,525 $ 8,950 (94%) $18,635 $ 1,796 35P private $17,852 $ 12,592 (71%) $20,362 $ 5,000 48Q public $10,510 $ 2,022 (19%) $ 6,172 $ 604 41R private $10,764 $ 9,640 (90%) $16,508 $ 1,274 27S public $12,816 $ 2,124 (17%) $ 9,218 $ 519 37

National $16,329 $15,064000000 $21,423 $ 4,165 15average

Source: IPEDS, Fall 2000 institutional data.

▲

Even though their

tuition costs may

be somewhat

higher, students at

the HGR

institutions are

more likely than

those in LGR

institutions to

receive grants

that offset the

costs of

attendance.

▼

30

But if other costs, including room and board, are added,the differences in cost between HGR and LGR institutionschange, with the HGR institutions showing a range of $8,100to $28,950 and a median of $12,006, while the LGR institu-tions range from $6,200 to $21,300 and a higher median cost— $14,300. Overall, tuition and living costs at most of theinstitutions in the study, HGR and LGR alike, fall below —and often well below — the national average for four-yearinstitutions.

Even though their tuition costs may be somewhat higher,students at the HGR institutions are more likely than thosein LGR institutions to receive grants that offset the costs ofattendance (see Table 13). For first-time, full-time students,both sets of institutions offer federal grants of roughly similarsize to low-income students, and public institutions in bothsets of schools also offer state grants at similar rates (seeAppendix B). Institutional grants differ dramatically, how-ever, and substantially offset the costs of attendance, in thehighest-cost HGR institutions.

■ At the highest-cost HGR institution (tuition$19,200), 94 percent of first-time, full-time studentsreceive an institutional grant and the average grantis $12,200.

■ At the next most expensive school (tuition:$17,000), 75 percent of the first-time, full-timestudents receive an average of $6,300 in institutionalgrants.

■ Overall, institutional grants at HGR institutionsrange from $980 to $12,200, with a median grant of$3,407 and a median 50 percent of students receiv-ing an institutional grant.

■ Among the LGR institutions, grants range from zeroto $5,000 with a median grant of $1,274 and amedian of 35 percent of students receiving institu-tional support.

Thus, the somewhat higher cost of attending an HGRinstitution is more than offset by institutional assistance (i.e.,discounting).

If we compare the per-student institutional expendituresdescribed earlier with the tuition students pay, we find that,even without taking tuition offsets (i.e, institutional grants)into account, tuition accounts for a smaller share of institu-tional expenditures in the HGR than the LGR institutions.We would expect tuition to be a small share of costs at publicinstitutions and that is largely the case:

■ Among HGR public institutions, tuition accounts for10 percent to 24 percent of per-student expenditures.

■ In the five LGR public institutions, tuition accountsfor 14 percent to 24 percent of per-student expendi-tures (similar to the HGR institutions).

What is particularly noteworthy are the differences intuition as a share of costs in the private institutions.

■ Among HGR private institutions, tuition accountsfor between 38 percent to 61 percent.

■ But in the four private LGR institutions, nominaltuition ranges from 70 percent to 104 percent of per-student institutional expenditures. In three of theseinstitutions, nominal tuition is 90 percent or more ofper-student expenditures.13

While there are some small institutional grants thatoffset tuition costs for small percentages of students, theseprivate LGR institutions would appear to have few sources ofincome beyond tuition. Thus, they are at the mercy of year-to-year enrollment fluctuations and federal or other paymentsto students.

Even without considering their higher graduation rates,what these financial data suggest is that the HGR institutionsmay be a better buy. The HGR institutions appear to spendmore on education without greater student outlays.14 Thesehigher expenditures are true for both public and privateinstitutions. Further, the private HGRs have more resourcesto spend beyond tuition than their private LGR counterparts.Greater resources appear to translate into considerably higherrates of full-time faculty and the opportunities such facultyoffer for faculty-student contact. Finally, the greater resources

▲

HGR institutions

have more full-

time faculty,

lower student/

faculty ratios,

some graduate

offerings, and

more importantly,

far greater

resources.

▼

31

of the HGRs are available to students without much addi-tional student cost, once institutional grants to students(essentially tuition offsets) are taken into account.

Summary and DiscussionThere are important systematic differences in student

body and resources between the HGR and LGR institutionsin the study, differences that are likely to play a major role inexplaining their differing graduation rates. As we haveshown, HGR institutions are more likely to enroll studentson a full-time basis. They are also more likely to drawstudents of “traditional” college age (i.e., recent high schoolgraduates). Limited data on prior performance suggests thatstudents at HGR institutions may also have better academicpreparation for college. HGR institutions have more full-timefaculty, lower student/faculty ratios, some graduate offerings,and most importantly, far greater resources for their educationthan LGR institutions. Ironically, the students at high-costHGR institutions probably pay no more out of pocket foreducation than do the LGR institutions because the HGRinstitutions with high tuition also offer larger institutionalsubsidies to more students.

These findings also suggest that the LGR institutions inthis study face extraordinary challenges in providing educa-tion, let alone retaining and graduating students. What ismost striking is their level of per-student resources. Only fourof the nine LGR institutions and none of the LGR privateinstitutions are even in the same range of per-student expen-ditures as any of the HGR institutions. Their per-student

expenditures are substantially lower than national averages aswell. Not surprisingly, they must employ relatively largeshares of faculty on a part-time basis in order to keep costslow. When coupled with student bodies that are older, arelikely to have had poorer academic preparation, and areattending school part-time, this financial profile takes oneven greater significance. These institutions are spendingmuch less than average to serve a population with muchgreater than average academic need. Given their resourcesand student bodies it is quite possible that the LGR institu-tions are performing relatively well in retaining and graduat-ing students, even at the low absolute levels that led to theirinclusion in the study. Unfortunately, we cannot address thisissue — performance relative to student body and resources— with the data at hand.

What we can learn are the factors that HGR institutionsshare. We know that, compared with other institutions (inthe NCAA data set) that have substantial shares of low-income students, these institutions are some of the mostsuccessful at retaining and graduating students. We also nowsee that most of them have student bodies that are largelyyoung and enrolled full time. Nonetheless, most of the HGRinstitutions still spend less than the national average perundergraduate student to provide education and, as we shalldescribe later, they are not highly selective. Clearly, theymust be doing something right. The next section of thisreport looks at the commonalities in policy and practice thatwe observed at the HGR institutions that may help toexplain their performance.

▲

For institutionswith large

percentages oflow-income

students, theseHGRs have some

of the highestgraduation rates

among NCAAinstitutions.

▼

33

COMMONALITIES AMONG THE “HIGH GRADUATION RATE” INSTITUTIONS

The HGR institutions in the study are a diverse group offour-year colleges and universities. They include:

■ A public, Historically Black land-grant college ofabout 3,600 undergraduates with a six-year gradua-tion rate of 45 percent. Located in a rural area, theschool is nominally open enrollment, but studentswho have not completed a college prep curriculumor do not have a 2.0 high school GPA are admittedas provisional only. Popular majors include engineer-ing technology and sciences, and applied professionalsciences.

■ A large land-grant state university with 12,500undergraduates, “slightly” selective (2.5 GPA,college prep curriculum completed), and a six-yeargraduation rate of 41 percent. The institution islocated in a small but growing urban area andpopular majors include business, education, engi-neering, and the social sciences.

■ A private, Historically Black college of 2,400undergraduates with a strong religious base and six-

year graduation rate of 43 percent. The institution ismodestly selective, seeking students with at least a2.5 GPA, 720 SAT or 15 ACT, but conditionallyadmitting some students without those qualifica-tions. The institution is located in a rural area andpopular areas of study include engineering, healthand natural sciences, and business.

■ A rural private university with 1,400 undergraduatesthat is relatively selective (at least 1000 SAT forregular admissions, some special admits accepted)and has a six-year graduation rate of 65 percent.Largest majors include business and the socialsciences.

■ A state university campus with 7,600 students that ismodestly selective (2.0 GPA, 18 ACT/870 SAT) butconditionally accepts some without those grades orscores. Its six-year graduation rate is 43 percent.Located in a small town, popular majors includeeducation, criminal justice, accounting, and nursing.

▲

Because low-income students

are largepercentages of allstudents at theseinstitutions ... it islikely that theirgraduation rates

do not differsubstantially fromgraduation ratesfor students as a

whole.▼

34

■ A private, religiously-oriented Historically Blackcollege with 700 students, located in a mid-sized city.The institution has an open admissions policy, and asix-year graduation rate of 56 percent. Popularmajors include business and the natural sciences.

■ A modestly selective state university campus (seekstop third of high school class, or for out of stateapplicants, a 2.5 GPA and 900 SAT) with 5,400students and a six-year graduation rate of 42 percent.Located in a rural area, the most common majors areliberal studies and business. Many students arepreparing for teaching careers.

■ A public, Historically Black college with approxi-mately 1,800 students that is modestly selective (atleast a 2.0 GPA, 700-800 SAT for most students),and reports a six-year graduation rate of 49 percent.Located in a small town, social science, business, andprotective services are the largest programs.

■ An urban, private university with 5,800 studentsthat may be described as moderately selective (two-thirds of entrants score at least 500 on the mathSAT). The six-year graduation rate is 52 percent.Popular majors include business, marketing, com-puter sciences, and health.

■ An urban, private, Historically Black university with850 students that is modestly selective (2.5 GPA,“competitive” SAT/ACT, and good recommenda-tions). Its six-year graduation rate is 56 percent.

As can be seen from these brief descriptions, half of theinstitutions are HBCUs. The high percentage of HBCUsamong the institutions is due to the high percentages of low-income students at HBCUs in general.14

Some of the six-year graduation rates among the 10institutions may not seem terribly impressive by national

standards — about half of all students who enter four-yearcolleges have graduated from the same institution six yearslater — yet all but three of the institutions have higher ratesthan the national average. However, for institutions withlarge percentages of low-income students, these HGRs havesome of the highest graduation rates among NCAA institu-tions.15 Furthermore, by national standards these are rela-tively small colleges and universities overall. The averageundergraduate enrollment for the 10 HGRs is below thenational enrollment average.

We selected these institutions based upon their overallgraduation rates. We do not know whether low-incomestudents who attend these institutions have the same gradua-tion rates as students as a whole. Most of these institutionshave not studied whether low-income students performbetter, worse, or the same as other students. In preparation forour visit, one university did carry out such an inquiry andfound that Pell Grant recipients had the same graduationrates as students as a whole. Because low-income students arelarge percentages of all students at these institutions — PellGrant recipients represent between 38 percent and 82percent among the 10 institutions and more than half of allundergraduates in all but three institutions — it is likely thattheir graduation rates do not differ substantially from gradua-tion rates for students as a whole.

COMMON PRACTICES AT HGRS

The following section describes commonalities in policyand practice observed among these 10 institutions thatmay help explain their relatively good performance.

The discussion reflects 2 to 2.5 day visits to each of the 10schools during 2002. The findings are organized under fourthemes:• A Personal Education• A Commitment to Undergraduate Education• A Community Apart, and• A Hospitable Policy Environment.

▲

One importantcommon elementis the extent to

which theinstitution creates

a personalizededucationalexperience.

▼

35

Under each theme, common elements in policy andpractice are described that reflect the theme and may help toexplain the graduation rates we have observed. It is importantto keep in mind that not every institution in the study fitsneatly under every theme or engages in every practice. If weobserved a particular policy or practice at several institutionsit is described here, whether it was observed everywhere.Furthermore, the common elements described may or maynot explain their high graduation rates. It can simply bestated that institutions with these characteristics also showrelatively high rates of student retention and graduation.

A Personal EducationAcross the HGR institutions, one important common

element is the extent to which the institution creates apersonalized educational experience. The faculty and staff seetheir roles as directive, helping students to make the rightcourse choices, keeping close track of their educationalprogress, and intervening if problems arise. During the sitevisits, we heard repeatedly from students, faculty and staffsuch sentiments as “Nobody gets lost here,” or “You can’t beanonymous in classes here.” The institutions personalizeeducation in a variety of ways — through advising, smallclasses and special programs.

Intentional, intrusive academic plans. The HGR institu-tions put a great deal of effort into shaping students’ educa-tional experiences. Seven of the 10 institutions employintrusive advising aimed at ensuring that students makeinitial course choices that will ensure academic success andsteady progress toward graduation. These institutions gener-ally require students to attend multiple meetings (three ormore) with their advisors each semester, although not allstudents show up for all “required” visits. Faculty and staffadvisors encourage students to declare majors as soon aspossible so they will know exactly what courses they will needto graduate. Some of the institutions place strict limits on thenumber of units entering students may take, regardless oftheir past performance. Advisors in some of the institutions

conduct mid-term reviews with students who appear to behaving academic difficulties (two of the institutions sendnotices to parents as well). Making sure that students com-plete general education requirements early is also a goal.Here are some examples:

■ At a public HBCU, all new students are enrolled ina freshman program and assigned a professional orfaculty advisor. At the initial meeting, the advisorprovides the student with an already-developedschedule for the semester. At the conclusion, thestudent receives a PIN number for online registra-tion. The online system also allows advisors to trackstudent progress each semester, while students canget accurate information on the courses they stillneed to graduate. Dropping or adding classes requiresan advisor’s signature. If students do not declare amajor by the end of the freshman year they stay inthe freshman program for additional advising.Faculty advisors are required to complete training.At-risk students have both freshman program andfaculty advising from the outset. Typically, studentshave multiple meetings with their advisor eachsemester.

■ At a large private university, all new students areassigned to professional advisors for the first semes-ter. The advisors tell the students to take 12-15credits so as not to overextend themselves. Bysecond semester, students switch to faculty advisorsin the colleges that reflect their areas of interest andthe faculty advisors provide more directive, guidedassistance. In some popular majors — such asbusiness — the four-year curriculum provides littleroom for student choice in courses. Students whoperform below a 2.0 are targeted for intrusiveadvising that requires multiple meetings during thesemester and plans for improvement.

▲

Most of the HGRinstitutions takepains to ensurethat studentsget directiveassistance inselecting aneducationalprogram.

▼

36

Summing it up succinctly, students at one HBCU saidthe advising system was “parental.”

Most of the institutions in the study use faculty advisors.Advising loads ranged from 10 or 12 to 30 per faculty mem-ber, depending on the institution. These relatively lownumbers provide advisors an opportunity to get to know thestudents they advise. No one reported that faculty advisorsprovided insufficient time for student assistance, and respon-dents at several institutions indicated that faculty advisorsspend considerable time with each student. The amounts andkinds of training for faculty advisors differ — some institu-tions provide intensive annual faculty training, whereasothers send out information as needed. Faculty also teachfreshmen orientation classes that help students plan theiracademic programs, learn study skills, and plan careers.

A few institutions use different advising systems. Onelarger public institution conducts small group advising byprofessionals in the summer prior to freshman year. Oncestudents are enrolled, they are advised by faculty in somecolleges but professional counselors in others. Special pro-grams including Student Support Services (SSS) and ethnicaffinity programs also serve as advising resources for thestudents who participate. Most faculty advisors have 30 orfewer advisees and some faculty are more directive thanothers in steering students to particular classes or teachers.In another institution, a “summer bridge” for low-income orat-risk students prior to freshman year offers academicadvising followed by enrollment in one of several specialprograms (SSS, Educational Opportunity Programs, etc.)One private university conducts an orientation week for newfreshmen the week before school starts with placement testsand advising.

When students are having academic difficulties, theadvising systems become particularly active. Many of theHGR institutions have strict policies about academic proba-tion and suspension but nevertheless make substantial effortsto improve the performance of students who perform below aC average. One private college holds meetings in eachsemester at which faculty and administrators review the

performance of every student in the college. Students withlow GPAs are asked to present plans for how they will addressacademic deficiencies. The committees review the plans andthen decide whether to require additional advising, place thestudent on probation, or take other action. In another publicinstitution, mid-term reviews that show academic deficiencymay lead to action plans that require tutoring or other action.One HBCU sends out a list of students with GPAs below 2.0to retention counselors. Students below 2.0 must write anessay about why they did not perform well and how they willimprove before being allowed to register for the next year.Students at one institution said they were “grounded” by the“reality check” of mid-term advising and valued faculty helpin devising corrective actions for academic deficiencies.

In short, most of the HGR institutions take pains toensure that students get directive assistance in selecting aneducational program. Much of the direction is provided atcollege entrance, and it is aimed at ensuring that studentscomplete requirements and do not overextend themselves.The colleges reinforce their direction with firm efforts to getstudents to declare majors early and with active interventionwhen students experience academic difficulty. The relativelylow numbers of students per advisor and the amount of timedevoted to guiding students allow entering students theopportunity to develop strong relationships with advisors.Not every student may take equal advantage of the system,but the option is there to do so.

Small classes. One of the most consistent findings amongthe HGR institutions is the predominance of small classes,even at the freshman level. When asked what institutionalfactors were responsible for the institution’s success inretaining and graduating students, faculty and staff oftenmentioned small class size as the first or second most impor-tant factor. We have already seen that HGR institutions havea greater percentage of full-time faculty members than theLGR institutions as well as student-to-faculty ratios that areabout average for all higher education institutions. Qualita-tive information collected during the site visits shows that

▲

Students indicatethat small class

sizes figureprominently in

why they like theinstitutions andwhy they and

their classmatesare likely to stay.

▼

37

typical freshmen classes are small and, in many of theseinstitutions, no larger than those found in high schools.

While we do not have information on typical class sizesfrom every institution, large lecture classes were not commonin any of these 10 institutions. One relatively small privateuniversity reports that 35 students are considered a large classand that a typical freshman class in arts and sciences includes17 students. There are a few introductory lecture classes butthey typically include 30-35 students and are held to amaximum of 60. Another public state college reports that allfreshman courses are taught by full-time faculty members andthat the largest classroom on the campus holds 110 students,but that most classes are quite small. Officials at one publicHBCU indicate that the school offers no large lecture classes.At the largest private college in the study, the average classhas 22 students. Even at the largest state university in thestudy the average lower division class size was reported as 39students; in the upper division, class size was lower, at anaverage of 22 students. Officials at several institutions stressthat all freshmen classes are taught by full-time faculty — nopart-timers or adjuncts.

Students indicate that small class sizes figure promi-nently in why they like the institutions and why they andtheir classmates are likely to stay. In group discussions withstudents conducted at each site, students noted the smallclasses in which they were enrolled offered a great deal ofpersonal attention and opportunities for discussion. Studentssaid they were able to talk to professors easily and get toknow their fellow students. They contrasted the small classesthey take with the large lectures that they know to be thecase at other institutions. Faculty know students by name andsome faculty take attendance at each class. Students maybemoan the fact that they can’t be anonymous, but mostappreciate the personal attention small classes afford.

Making students special. Almost all of the HGR collegeshave special or professional affinity programs that enroll sub-groups of students on the campus. Many of these programsserve low-income students explicitly, or serve students that

are disproportionately low-income ( first-generation, minor-ity, or at-risk students). While not every targeted studentparticipates in these programs, many do. Other specialprograms focus on high-achieving students; several of theseinstitutions have honors programs or colleges. Some of thespecial programs offer financial aid for participants —especially the state educational opportunity programs — andsummer employment linked to the students’ professionalgoals. These programs include the TRIO program, SSS,which enrolls first-generation and low-income students;state-level educational opportunity programs focused on at-risk low-income or minority students; other public agencyprograms (particularly federal programs) aimed at minoritystudents, such as National Science Foundation sponsoredprograms; and programs sponsored by professional associa-tions or academic departments, such as minority engineering,business, and science programs.

These special programs provide services and academicsupport that further individualize and personalize education.The programs play an active role in shaping students’academic programs. Typically, they provide students withguidance on course-taking and, in some institutions, specialprogram staff serve as the participant’s advisor of record. In atleast two of the institutions, enrolling in a special program ismandatory for conditionally or specially admitted students. Afew of the programs offer assistance even before the firstsemester of freshman year, through summer bridge programsthat provide instruction and tutoring — in math especially— as well as advising, social programs, etc. During the schoolyear, the programs also provide tutoring, peer mentoring, andother academic support. They may also help students formstudy groups for common classes. Some offer summer jobs orinternships, especially programs for minority science, math,and engineering students. In the programs that focus on aparticular field or career (sciences, math, business, etc.),students are guided by faculty and other professionals in thosefields.

Some have argued that special programs may offerexcellent services but that students are stigmatized by

▲

We found thatfaculty in the 10institutions are

either exclusivelyfocused onteaching orindicate that

teachingundergraduates

is theirmain business.

▼

38

participating. We saw little at these 10 colleges to suggestthat participating in these types of special programs hadnegative consequences for students. In fact, students involvedin these programs were generally enthusiastic about theservices. There is some evidence from the national evaluationof Student Support Services that participation enhances thelikelihood of staying in college and graduating. It is impos-sible to generalize to all programs, but in the views of facultyand staff at the HGR institutions, these programs play amajor role in structuring students’ education and encouragingthem to pursue careers.

A unique place. One of the HGR institutions has anintensive approach that is unique among the institutions wevisited. The only open admissions institution in the group of10, this small, religiously-oriented HBCU offers a highlystructured educational experience. New students first arrivein July with their families for a two-and-a-half day orienta-tion. Students take assessment tests, which are sophomoreproficiency exams that provide the basis for assignment toclasses. Students who lack sufficient skills are enrolled inintensive five-credit courses in math, science, and English.All students also enroll in a two-credit freshman experiencecourse. Faculty take attendance at all classes and contactparents if students are absent more than a few times. Studentsmust attend chapel once a week.16 There is even a dress code.More than 20 percent of the students are also enrolled inStudent Support Services. Some students find the prescrip-tive approach difficult, even describing it as a “boot camp,”but most decide that its advantages (a strong likelihood ofcompleting a four-year degree despite poor academic skills atentrance) outweigh its disadvantages. Everyone agreed thatthe “hands on” quality of schooling at this institution meansthat no one can remain invisible.

A Commitment to Undergraduate EducationA second commonality among the HGR institutions is

the emphasis placed on undergraduate teaching. We havealready seen that these institutions offer classes that are

relatively small, even at the introductory level. In addition,we found that faculty in the 10 institutions are either exclu-sively focused on teaching or indicate that teaching under-graduates is their main business. A few of the institutionshave graduate schools of some size but, nonetheless, empha-size their undergraduate programs. In all of these institutions,students indicate that faculty are accessible and supportive.Beyond teaching, we found that freshman course offerings arefairly standard, although some of the institutions are begin-ning to adopt curricular innovations. Classroom instruction isoften accompanied by supplemental academic assistance,however. Availability of developmental education varieswidely, as state rules determine the availability of develop-mental education in public institutions.

A dedicated faculty. In all but one or two of the HGRinstitutions, students and staff report that the faculty arecaring, helpful, and focused primarily on undergraduateinstruction. As already noted, most of the HGR institutionshave largely full-time faculty, and the proportions of full-timefaculty are higher than the national average. Those numberstell just part of the story, however. Site visitors were im-pressed with the attitudes of faculty, noting that the facultymembers they spoke with see themselves as responsible forthe success of their students. As one college administrator putit, “We take average students and make them exceptionalstudents.” Some of the institutions encourage faculty toconduct research, but even in those institutions, faculty andstaff reiterate that quality of teaching is a major factor indecisions on hiring and tenure.

At most of the institutions students described theirteachers as excellent, inspiring them to persevere andachieve. We had no “hard” evidence to reinforce this anec-dotal information from students we met, but the message inthe student group interviews was consistent. One large stateuniversity campus had surveyed students on features of theinstitution they liked best. The high quality of teaching,including opportunities for classroom interaction, was thenumber one factor cited by students across the institution.

▲

The otheracademic

“innovation” ...at most of theinstitutions is

academic supportlinked to the

courses studentstake in their

freshman year.▼

39

Stories of supportive faculty were widespread. At thesehigh-performing institutions, faculty often interact withstudents outside of class — sponsoring clubs, staffing specialprofessional programs, offering students opportunities to assistin research, inviting students to their homes. Faculty attendsummer orientations, often meet with parents, teach fresh-man experience courses and the like. At some of the institu-tions faculty are on campus all day, every day, not just duringclasses and office hours. We heard stories of faculty whoassisted students who needed financial help. We also heardabout faculty who intervened when minority students werepoorly treated by businesses near campus. At almost all of theinstitutions we were told that faculty have high performanceexpectations for students that encourage high achievement.

Educational innovation then and now. In visiting theseinstitutions, we were interested in finding out what kind ofeducational experience undergraduates in general, andfreshmen in particular, were likely to encounter. We wantedto see whether these institutions had adopted particularlyinteresting, innovative, or unique approaches to educationthat might help to explain their success. We asked what kindsof classes or programs students might experience in theirfreshmen year. We found that, in the years from which ourstudent performance data were drawn, these institutionsoffered fairly conventional freshman courses aimed atbuilding basic skills, fulfilling general education requirements,or exploring possible fields in which to major. While severalof the institutions are currently exploring or have begun toadopt curricular innovations, such as learning communities orother more integrated approaches to freshman year studies,students who recently completed their education (and are,thus, included in the data we used to select these institutions)were not affected by those reforms in most of the institutions.

One curricular innovation that appears to have beenadopted widely (and to which the students in our data wereexposed), is a freshman course aimed at helping studentsacclimate to campus, learn to study, and plan for the future.At least eight of the 10 institutions offer some form of this

course. This course has a variety of names: freshman seminar,freshman orientation, freshman 101, or a similar title. Thesecourses are offered for credit and are sometimes required of allentering students. They offer information on study skills, testtaking, and time management. They also inform studentsabout the academic support services available at the campusand how to use them. They provide career information andsometimes include career inventories or other tests of studentcareer suitability. In some cases, the courses include addi-tional individual advising. In general, the courses are taughtby regular, full-time faculty whose disciplines range widely,giving students another opportunity to get to know facultyearly on.

The other academic “innovation” we noted at most ofthe institutions is academic support linked to the coursesstudents take in their freshman year. These freshman coursesinclude the general education classes and the “gatekeeper”courses for majors, as well as developmental education inthose institutions that offer it. All of the institutions offeropportunities for peer tutoring linked to freshman coursesand most offer supplemental instruction (SI) or masteryclasses — an additional hour or two of instruction a week tiedto the lecture or class content — led by knowledgeablestudents or faculty. In many of the institutions the amount ofSI/mastery is limited; it is usually available for math classes,and sometimes for other classes that students find particularlydifficult. Most of the institutions also have some form ofwriting lab where students may bring class assignments.Other common academic support services include peertutoring, technology and computer centers, learning centers,study groups, etc. Most tutoring is free to students, althoughthere may be limits on how much is available. Depending onthe institution and its size, services may be centralized orprovided by individual colleges or departments.

One institution appears exceptional with respect to theamount and intensity of academic support. This is the onlyinstitution that has provided team teaching for freshmancourses for several years. It offers a great deal of faculty andstudent tutoring to accompany almost every freshman course

▲

What is clearis that many

students enterwithout solid basic

skills and thatmost of these

institutions makea concerted effort

to improvestudents’ basic

skills ...▼

40

as well as supplemental instruction and laboratories attachedto general education and freshman classes, all led by regularfull-time faculty. The institution also offers free tutoring tostudents in those classes. This institution is now exploringmore formal learning communities, having already linked thefreshman courses in some fields.

Improving basic skills. The institutions differ with respect toopportunities for gaining the basic skills needed to performwell in college. At least four of the institutions offer summerbridge programs prior to freshman year, but most programs arelimited to math and/or the sciences, and not all studentsattend. One offers a summer math program of 4-6 weekduration for 25 potential math or science majors. Two offersummer bridge programs only for students in economicopportunity or other special admission programs. Oneinstitution offers a bridge program between freshman andsophomore years as well.

In years past, most of the HGR institutions had develop-mental or remedial offerings, but at the present time less thanhalf the institutions have official developmental programs. Itis quite possible (depending on when they were phased out)that the students upon whose performance we based theselection of these institutions had considerably more opportu-nity for developmental education than do current students atthe 10 HGR schools. Those opportunities might help toexplain the graduation rates we observed. At present, sixinstitutions offer no official developmental education. Two ofthe six had developmental classes until recently forbidden bystate law. In these states, students who need remedial ordevelopmental education can no longer attend four-yearcolleges until they have completed developmental instruc-tion. The one open-enrollment HGR institution abandoneddevelopmental education on its own a year ago, changing tofive-credit intensive freshman classes in math, science andEnglish. At this private HBCU, officials said that studentsfelt stigmatized in the old program. One institution withoutany official developmental classes nonetheless offers a half-

year math tutorial that is taken by many students and carriesno credit. In this institution (and possibly in others) studentsperforming below certain acceptable levels cannot enroll in“restricted” majors. Some of the institutions that eliminateddevelopmental offerings now allow students to repeat courseswithout penalty, substituting the second grade for the first.

The remaining four institutions offer some developmen-tal classes, but the extent of offerings and the percentages offreshmen participating differ considerably. At two institu-tions, developmental education is limited to the students inspecial programs — one of these is a conditional admitprogram, the other is a Student Support Services program. Atthe other two institutions, sizable shares of freshmen takedevelopmental education — one institution estimates that 35percent are enrolled in intensive four-day-a-week math,reading, writing and speech classes. In the other institutionwe were told that “large” numbers of freshmen take remedialEnglish and math. Because of institutional and state policies,it is hard to know whether the institutions without officialdevelopmental classes do, nonetheless, offer comparableinstruction either in credit classes or through “tutoring” orlearning centers. What is clear is that many students enterwithout solid basic skills and that most of these institutionsmake a concerted effort to improve students’ basic skillsthrough tutoring, additional class hours (SI, mastery classes,etc.), study groups, laboratories or other methods. In short,there is a sizable developmental effort taking place in theseinstitutions.

A Community ApartOnly two of the 10 HGR institutions are located in large

cities. Many of the HGR institutions are located in smalltowns in rural areas, far from the population centers in theirrespective states. In visiting these institutions, we were struckby the degree to which the campus is a true focus for thestudents (and the faculty and staff as well); the center of theirsocial as well as their academic lives. Further, several of theinstitutions have adopted policies that ensure that studentslive on campus, and residence halls offer a wide assortment of

▲

By design, orbecause of

isolation, theseinstitutions’

officials (and thesite visitors)

describe thesecolleges as

communities,villages, etc.

▼

41

social and academic activities that foster attachment to otherstudents and the institution. In some instances, socialintegration is also fostered by shared values and beliefs. Ofcourse, these institutions also attract students who want acampus-based educational experience, so it is difficult, if notimpossible, to know exactly what role the campus plays ininstitutional success. Nonetheless, these institutions sharegeographic and social characteristics that are worth noting.

The advantages of isolation. Most of the HGR institutionsare in small towns or small cities surrounded by rural areasand far from major population centers. Although distributedacross the country, most are in rural settings with limitedopportunities outside the institution for social interaction. Bydesign, or because of isolation, these institutions’ officials(and the site visitors) describe these colleges as communities,villages, etc. Only three of the institutions are commuterschools, with students driving from surrounding areas, butmost are largely residential. Freshmen in particular are likelyto live on campus, while students who do not live on campusgenerally live nearby.

Because there are few other institutions or culturalattractions nearby, the institutions make special efforts toprovide a wide range of social and cultural opportunities.These institutions offer clubs, affinity groups, and socialactivities that are seemingly disproportionate to their size.For example, one institution with 2,000 students boasts over100 clubs, an active student government, racial/ethnicaffinity groups, and many cultural events. As officials noted,the school is an “enclave” where students can feel safe to trynew things. Another institution has an active studentgovernment and organizes low-cost trips (skiing, hiking, cityvisits) to build cohesion and keep students from feelingisolated. Most of the institutions have extensive eventschedules, with everything from homecoming to concerts toathletic events. At these institutions, faculty and staff playcentral roles as sponsors of clubs, groups and activities,providing students many opportunities to interact with themoutside the classroom. As one staff member said about her

campus, “We’re a small campus but there’s a ‘hook’ foreveryone here.” At most of the schools, students and facultysaid that most students participate in some club or program.The faculty and staff see these programs as important, notonly to build social cohesion, but as opportunities for stu-dents to develop self-confidence and leadership abilities. Notall students take part, but in most of the schools the majorityof students participate in some activity.

Geographical isolation also means that students whowork are likely to work on campus. The institutions needpart-time help and the students are the main source ofavailable labor. Because these institutions draw relativelylarge percentages of students who are low-income, theinstitutions also take advantage of the Federal Work-Studyprogram at relatively high rates. At one school, more than aquarter of the undergraduates are employed on campus. On-campus work links students with faculty and staff, increasinginstitutional attachment, even when the work is not profes-sional in nature. Several of the institutions also offer school-year and/or summer employment or internships throughfederal, professional, or other programs aimed at drawingminority students into business, engineering, the sciences, orother fields. Some of that employment is also at the institu-tions, although it is also in businesses or elsewhere.

The residential component. A few of the institutions arecommuter schools, with students driving in from surroundingareas, but most are primarily residential. Freshmen, especially,are likely to live on campus, while students who do not liveon campus generally live nearby. Five of these institutionsrequire freshmen (or freshmen under 20 or freshmen andsophomores) to live on campus. One institution has a speciallounge for those students who do commute. A few of theinstitutions have active Greek programs that include hous-ing, but at most of the institutions the students live inresidence halls. The halls are a focal point for student activi-ties, although in most of these institutions the activities aresocial rather than academic. Dorm-based residence advisorscounsel students, plan activities, and provide support. Most

▲

Faculty and staffwho come from

the samebackgrounds as

the students havehigh expectations

for studentperformance andwant to see theirstudents succeed.

▼

42

schedule activities at least weekly. There are also constraintson students’ behaviors at a few institutions, including single-sex dorms without visitation rights by the opposite sex, drycampuses, etc. Given that these are institutions drawingsizable shares of low-income students, the extent to whichthese HGR institutions are residential is notable.

Shared values. Many of the students at these institutionscome from low-income families, but they share other charac-teristics as well. These shared characteristics may help tobuild group cohesion and may also, independently, influencestudents’ college retention and graduation. We have alreadynoted that five of the 10 schools are HBCUs, and there issome evidence to suggest that African-American studentswho attend HBCUs have somewhat higher graduation ratesthan comparable students who select other schools. Three ofthe five HBCUs are also religiously-affiliated, and campus lifeincludes religious services and activities. Faculty and staff atseveral institutions indicate that, because of their rurallocation, the schools draw students disproportionately fromrural areas and small towns nearby, and attract students whoare reluctant to go to college in large cities. Sometimes eventhe small-town campus looks large compared to the highschools the students attended. Faculty and staff say thesesmall-town and rural students have been raised to value hardwork and are highly motivated to complete college. They areoften the first in their families to attend college.

At several institutions, faculty and staff pointed out thatthey share the students’ backgrounds. They come from smalltowns and rural areas, attended similar colleges (even thesame institution in some cases), were in the first-generationin their families, and were similarly motivated. Some of theminority-serving institutions also have large minority facul-ties and staffs. At one larger institution with a sizable His-panic student population, officials speculated that studentsmay be motivated to continue and complete their educationbecause they see Hispanics role models among the manyHispanic faculty and staff. Conversely, faculty and staff whocome from the same backgrounds as the students have high

expectations for student performance and want to see theirstudents succeed.

Everyone we spoke with noted that the college life theseinstitutions offer is not for everyone. We met students whosaid they felt hemmed in by small-town campus life andplanned to transfer to larger institutions or institutions inurban areas. We also talked with students who were quitepositive about their school but noted that friends had chosenother colleges because they didn’t want to be physicallyisolated. It is possible that students who select these institu-tions are more likely to be quite serious about education andwilling to persevere to graduation than comparable studentswho select more urban institutions with outside distractions.

A Hospitable Policy EnvironmentSo what do the institutions do explicitly to attract, retain

and graduate their students, including their low-incomestudents? Is it all a matter of attitude, campus climate, andculture, or have these institutions adopted policies that mayhelp to explain their performance? We wanted to look beyondinstructional “practice” to see if there were other institutionalfactors or policies that might help us understand why theseinstitutions are successful in retaining and graduating students.

Recruitment and admissions. The 10 HGR institutions didnot intentionally set out to serve low-income students.Recruiting low-income students is not an institutional goal inany of these schools but is largely a by-product of otherrecruitment goals and realities. As we have noted, five of theinstitutions are HBCUs, designed to serve African-Americanstudents primarily. On average, African-American studentshave lower family incomes than other college students.

Most of the other five institutions (as well as some of theHBCUs) are located in states, or regions within states, thatare relatively poor by national standards. They draw theirstudents largely from those states and within-state regions.The one institution among the 10 that is located in arelatively wealthy area draws most of its students from racialand ethnic groups that have recently immigrated to that

▲

HGR institutionalpolicies for theawarding of

need-based aidare fairlystandard,

although some ofthe public

institutions makea concerted effortto keep students

out of loanprograms,

especially duringfreshman year.

▼

43

region from outside the U.S. Therefore, in actively recruitingAfrican-American students in their states, students who livenear the institution, recent immigrants, etc., they are alsorecruiting low-income students. As an official in one privateinstitution put it: “Our students come primarily from theworking-class region where we’re located so we’re a poorman’s college, but we’d sure like to get an occasional ‘fullfreight’ student to help balance the books.”

These institutions do seek students who have a highlikelihood of graduating from college. With one exception,the 10 HGR institutions do not have open admissions. Mostof the institutions describe themselves in college guides as“moderately” selective. At a minimum, they seek studentswho had at least a C or C+ average in high school, took anacademic preparation curriculum, and perform at slightlybelow the national average on the SAT or ACT. They may,in fact, attract some students with considerably betterperformance. Some of these schools admit students condi-tionally who lack a C average in high school, but theirpreference is for students with at least average academicrecords. The performance of conditional admits is reexaminedat the end of the first year and those who do not performsatisfactorily do not continue. In the previous section weshowed that most of the students in these institutions hadperformance levels in the top half of their high school classes(based on institutional reports in college guides). And as wealso noted previously, they enroll most students right out ofhigh school.

Through their mix of offerings, these institutions alsoattract and recruit students with greater potential to succeed.Several of the institutions offer honors programs or collegeswith even smaller classes and more faculty attention than areavailable to the student body as a whole. About half theinstitutions have engineering departments or schools,programs likely to attract students with an interest in mathand science and relatively good academic skills. Some whoenroll in an honors or an engineering program may find thatthey do not have sufficient background to complete theprograms, but by switching to a different major they are

successful. The switch in majors will affect their careers butnot their college completion.

Financial aid. We have already seen that the HGR institu-tions award need-based financial aid — federal and state —at similar rates as the LGR institutions. From the site visitreports it appears that HGR institutional policies for theawarding of need-based aid are fairly standard, although someof the public institutions make a concerted effort to keepstudents out of loan programs, especially during freshmanyear. Nonetheless, most federal grant aid is awarded on a first-come, first-serve basis so students who apply early have abetter chance of receiving more generous financial aid. Theearliest awards are more heavily weighted to grant aid thanare later awards and, in most cases, students who apply lateare obliged to use the loan programs more heavily. Severalinstitutions use Federal Work-Study and other campusemployment to help students avoid loans. At least twoinstitutions report that a quarter or more of the students workon campus, many through work-study.

Beyond federal and state grant programs explicitlyreserved for low-income students, most grant (or “gift”) aid ismerit-based. We showed previously that institutional grantsoffset the costs of education at the HGR institutions athigher rates and for more students than do such grants inLGR institutions. From the site visits we learned that, inthree of the institutions, there are merit-based programs thatinclude consideration of financial need. These institutionsmake special efforts to recruit high-achieving, low-incomestudents. For these students, the institutions are often able toput together a package composed entirely of grant aid. Thegrants are a way to make the institution more attractive tohigh-achieving students who, officials believe, would other-wise go elsewhere.

In at least four other institutions, however, the merit-based aid programs do not consider family income. Institu-tions located in at least two states take advantage of stategrant programs for students who perform at a set level —usually a B average. Low-income students participate in these

▲

Senior officialsfocus on retention

in discussionswithin the college

community.▼

44

programs, but the aid is intended primarily to provideincentives for high performance in college. There are alsocolleges that award institutional funds to students whodemonstrate high achievement in high school or in their firstsemester or year of college. In the state programs, and someinstitutional programs, students whose achievement fallsbelow the required level lose the grants permanently, whichcan be a major blow to low-income students who receivedthese grants. In at least one private HBCU, officials notedthat there is little need-based institutional support and whatlittle exists is fading fast.

The active use of institutional aid (and state, merit-basedprograms in a few cases) to recruit and retain high performingstudents provides a common link among the colleges thatmay help to explain their relatively high graduation rates. Atleast seven of the 10 institutions operate merit-based pro-grams. Beyond these programs, it might also be the case that,by trying to minimize loan aid and support student work oncampus, the institutions maintain their financial attractive-ness to students over time. Most officials, however, indicatethat loan aid increases after freshman year.

Attention to retention. The HGR institutions give consider-able attention to student retention and completion ofcollege. Not only do they seek high-performing students andoffer attractive academic programs, many of the institutionsalso have explicit retention and graduation goals. Severalconduct institutional research to measure their progress inmeeting those goals. Beyond the goals, senior officials focuson retention in discussions within the college community.This explicit focus on retention may also help to explaintheir success. Officials in several of the institutions we visitedtold us that they were not satisfied with their current levels offreshman-to-sophomore retention or their graduation rates.They were surprised that we were visiting their institutions tofind out what they were doing right. They were looking atretention and graduation in absolute terms, not relative toother schools with large percentages of low-income students,and they were not happy with their results.

Campus leaders have taken various actions to createawareness on campus and improve retention and graduation.One public HBCU established a retention task force thatdeveloped a strategic plan based on analysis by outsideconsultants. The institution sought a 6 percentage point risein freshman-to-sophomore retention and an overall increasein the graduation rate of 7 percentage points by 2003.Another institution has adopted goals for increased fresh-man-to-sophomore retention and is exploring variousacademic reforms and alternatives to developmental educa-tion in a bid to increase graduation rates. At a third institu-tion, all faculty meet monthly with student retention as afocus of the meetings. At another institution as a retentionstaff resides in the president’s office. It provides direct servicesto improve academic performance to all students and condi-tional admits are required to participate.

The institutions have also adopted “academic standing”policies that promote retention for students in academicdifficulty. As one administrator put it, “There are lots ofsecond chances.” The institutions have policies that empha-size keeping students enrolled rather than suspendingstudents or encouraging them to attend a community collegeand then return. Several of the institutions have end-of-semester or end-of-year reviews of every student performingbelow 2.0, with students asked to provide plans for improve-ment before any decisions are made on suspension. Thestudents are usually allowed to stay and, if suspended,opportunities for reinstatement are plentiful. As a facultymember at one school put it, “If students make some effort itis our responsibility to see that they succeed. We only severties with students who make no effort.” At least threeinstitutions allow students to repeat classes (includingdevelopmental classes) and to retain financial aid credit forfull-time enrollment.

SummaryIn this section we have identified common elements

among the HGR institutions that may help to explain theirperformance. As noted at the outset, not every institution

▲

Officials ... were

not satisfied with

their current

levels of

freshman-to-

sophomore

retention or their

graduation rates.

▼

45

demonstrated each element, nor is there evidence that theseelements are directly responsible for the graduation rates weobserved. Without a controlled experiment, it is not possibleto say that these elements explain the higher graduation rateswe observed. Further, the evidence we have is preliminaryand limited, based on brief site visits to the 10 colleges.Nevertheless, commonalities among the institutions include:

■ Intentional academic planning: through intrusiveadvising, freshman orientation courses, and academicreviews for students in trouble, the institutions makesure that students pursue a well-structured academicprogram;

■ Small classes: most classes, even those for freshmen,are small, giving students opportunity for recognitionand class discussion;

■ Special programs: many students, especiallythose at academic risk, participate in programs thatprovide advising and academic support, and givethem a greater sense of belonging on campus;

■ A dedicated faculty: stories abound about thecaring, warm environment faculty create. Mostfaculty members teach full-time and are easilyaccessible to students;

■ Educational innovation: these institutions havecourses to ease freshman entrance and help studentsadjust to college life. They also offer a wealth ofacademic support through tutoring, group study,supplemental instruction, mastery classes and thelike;

■ Developmental education: although formal develop-mental offerings are fading, they were active at mostof these institutions at the time they were selected;

■ Geographic isolation: Most of the institutions are inrural areas or small cities, making campus life andwork on campus the center of the students’ lives;

■ Residential life: half the institutions require fresh-men to live on campus. There are only a few com-muter schools among the colleges;

■ Shared values: at many of the colleges, studentsshare rural and small-town backgrounds, some sharea religious orientation, and in some schools thefaculty reflects similar backgrounds;

■ Modest selectivity: institutions do not intentionallyattract students from low-income families but theydo seek students likely to graduate, setting modestbut important admissions requirements — at least aC average in high school and decent SAT/ACTscores. (Only one institution could be considered“open enrollment.”) The HGRs offer pre-profes-sional programs likely to attract better preparedstudents and they actively recruit high performinghigh school students;

■ Financial aid for high achievers: the institutions usestate and institutional merit-based aid to attracthigh-performing students; only a minority of theinstitutions consider family income in awardingmerit-based aid; and

■ Retention policy: the colleges are explicitly con-cerned with retention and graduation rates, andseveral have set ambitious retention and graduationgoals well beyond current performance.

▲

The elimination of

developmental

education may

have negative

effects on low-

income students.

▼

47

A mong the institutions serving large shares oflow-income students there are widelydiffering graduation rates. These differencesoccur despite the finding in many studiesthat low-income students are retained at

lower rates than other students. We have seen, however, thatamong those institutions, much of the difference in studentoutcomes may be due to factors so basic that they are hardlyamenable to “tweaking” institutional policies or practices.They may require, at least in public institutions, systematicconsideration at the state level. These factors include priorstudent performance, available institutional resources, anditems that are directly affected by resources such as levels offull-time faculty. In this study, we also see that the LGRinstitutions serve a population that is, on average, older andmore likely to be enrolled in college part time, factors thatare independently associated with lower rates of graduationin other studies. Often, the institutions facing the greatestchallenges — lower prior student performance, older andpart-time students, etc. — also have the least resources toaddress those challenges.

We noted at the end of the comparative section that,given their limited resources and at-risk student bodies, at

CONCLUSION

least some of the LGR institutions may perform well relativeto others with greater advantages. However, our design didnot allow for this type of analysis. We should also note that,while we have not focused on their difficulties, some of theLGR colleges in the study face (or have recently faced)extraordinary challenges, including major financial problems,issues in accreditation, or student bodies with needs extend-ing well beyond obtaining a college degree. In the end,comparing in detail their policies and practices with those ofother colleges may add little to our understanding of “whatworks.”

We did have an opportunity, however, to look across 10institutions with large shares of low-income students buthigher than average graduation rates, not only in relation tothe institutions with high percentages of low-income stu-dents, but in relation to all institutions. We have identifiedcommon policies and practices among some or most of theseinstitutions. We do not know that these factors explain theseinstitutions’ performance (any more than we know whataccounts for differences between the LGR and HGR institu-tions), but we know that these are factors that are held incommon. Furthermore, some of these factors are associatedwith higher student performance in other studies, including

▲

This finding

suggests that

these [HGR]

institutions may

have a

comparative

advantage in

building the kinds

of group cohesion

and social

attachment to the

institution that

many have

argued are critical

to student

persistence.

▼

48

freshman orientations and special programs for at-riskstudents.

Other findings are more surprising and intriguing. Wefound, for example, that many of the HGR institutions haveor had developmental or remedial programs that enrolledlarge shares of freshmen. Although some of the institutionshave abandoned these programs recently, the cohorts uponwhose performance we based this study were enrolled whendevelopmental education was available. While increasingnumbers of states are eliminating developmental educationfrom four-year institutions, it remains to be seen how thiswill affect enrollments and graduation rates of low-incomestudents. Even where state policy is not a factor, institutionshave eliminated these programs in the belief that they areineffective or that they stigmatize enrollees. If the findingsof this study hold for more institutions, the elimination ofdevelopmental education may have negative effects on low-income students.

Another intriguing finding is that many of the HGRinstitutions are located in small towns or rural areas (orsmall towns in the middle of rural areas) and that theirstudent bodies are relatively homogeneous from a culturalstandpoint. This finding suggests that they may have acomparative advantage in building the kinds of groupcohesion and social attachment to the institution that manyhave argued are critical to student persistence. Of course, itshould also be noted that selecting institutions with largepercentages of low-income students may, itself, have biasedthe selection in favor of these kinds of small-town colleges.

Because we made only brief visits to each of theinstitutions, there were fairly severe constraints on what wewere able to see and record. There may be other importantcommonalities — or combinations of factors — that weresimply overlooked or go well beyond what we could observein a short period of time. For example, we have reported on

discrete factors that we observed, but success may be due to acombination of those factors or conditions. It may be that itis not enough to have a caring faculty if an institution doesnot also have leadership, faculty, and staff that share a visionof the institution’s purposes or goals. It may not be enough tohave sufficient resources if an institution does not have anactive advising system that directs new students to coursesthat sufficiently structure their initial educational experience.

There may also be other institutions that do as well, ifnot better, than the institutions we have studied. Because weused graduation rate to select the institutions, our studyfavored institutions with low transfer rates. Colleges with ahigh rate of transfer are not among the institutions westudied. Yet there are institutions that offer a curriculumgeared to general education and a limited number of majorswith the expectation that a sizeable share of students willtransfer. These include branch campuses of larger statecollege or university systems as well as colleges that grewfrom two-year to four-year institutions but retained somefunctions of a community college. These colleges mayperform relatively well but show lower graduation rates (atleast two of the LGR institutions are in this category).

Nonetheless, there do appear to be important findingsfrom this preliminary research. Institutions with relativelyhigh graduation rates intervene actively in students’ courseand program planning, provide small classes, have full-timefaculties that are dedicated to teaching undergraduates andknow the students personally, offer (or offered) developmen-tal education, are largely residential for new students, and areexplicitly concerned with increasing retention and gradua-tion. They also select students who show some promise ofcompleting; they may exercise only minimal selectivity butthey do show some. They also use merit-based institutionalaid to attract and retain high achieving students, but only alimited number consider family income in awarding that aid.

49

Ackermann, S.P. (1990). The Benefits of Summer BridgePrograms for Underrepresented and Low-Income Students. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educa-tional Research Association, Boston, MA.

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in a Toolbox: Academic Inten-sity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement.

Astin, A.W. (1992/1997). What Matters in College: FourCritical Years Revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A., Korn, W. & Green, K. (1987). Retaining andSatisfying Students. Educational Record, 68,(1) 36-42.

Baker, S. & Pomerantz, N. (2000). Impact of LearningCommunities on Retention at a Metropolitan University.Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &Practice. 22, 115-126.

Barton, P.E. (2002). The Closing of the Education Frontier?Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

REFERENCES

Beil, C., Reisen, C.A., Zea, M.C., & Caplan, R.C. (1999). ALongitudinal Study of the Effects of Academic and SocialIntegration and Commitment on Retention. NASPA Journal,37(1), 376-85.

Berger, J.B., & Braxton, J.M. (1998). Revising Tinto’sInteractionalist Theory of Student Departure ThroughTheory Elaboration: Examining the Role of OrganizationalAttributes in the Persistence Process. Research in HigherEducation, 36(5), 595-612.

Berkner, L., He, S., & Cataldi, E. (2002). Descriptive Sum-mary of 1995–96 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Six YearsLater. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,Institute of Education Sciences, NCES 2003 –151.

Blanchfield, W.C. (1971). College Dropout Identification: ACase Study. Journal of Experimental Education, 40, 1-4.

Blanchfield, W.C. (1972). College Dropout Identification: AnEconomic Analysis. Journal of Human Resources, 7, 540-544.

50

Boudreau, C.A. & Kromrey, J.D. (1994). A LongitudinalStudy of the Retention and Academic Performance ofParticipants in Freshmen Orientation Course. Journal ofCollege Student Development, 35(6), 444-449.

Braunstein, A., McGrath, M., & Pescatrice, D. (2000).Measuring the Impact of Financial Factors on CollegePersistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,Theory & Practice, 2(3), 191-204.

Braxton, J.M., Vesper, N., & Hossler, D. (1995). Expectationsfor College and Student Persistence. Research in HigherEducation, 36(5), 595-612.

Braxton, J. M. (ed.) (2000). Reworking the Student DeparturePuzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Braxton, J.M., Milem, J.F., & Sullivan, A.S. (2000). TheInfluence of Active Learning on the College Student Depar-ture Process:Toward a Revision of Tinto’s Theory. Journal ofHigher Education, 71, 569-90.

Buck, C.B. (1985). Summer Bridge: A Residential LearningExperience for High Risk Freshmen at the University of Califor-nia, San Diego. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theNational Conference on the Freshmen Year Experience,Columbia, SC.

Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1992). TheRole of Finances in the Persistence Process: A StructuralModel. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 571-591.

Campbell, T.A. & Campbell, D.C. (1996). Evaluation of aFaculty/Student Mentor Program: Effects on Academic Perfor-mance and Retention. Paper presented at American Educa-tional Research Association, New York, NY.

Carroll, J. (1988). Freshman Retention and Attrition Factorsat a Predominantly Black Urban Community College. Journalof College Student Development, 29, 52-59.

Chaney, B., Muraskin, L., Cahalan, M., & Rak, R. (1997).National Study of Student Support Services. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education.

Chapman, L.C. & Reed, P.J. (1987). Evaluating the Effec-tiveness of a Freshman Orientation Course. Journal of CollegeStudent Personnel, 28(2), 178-179.

Choy, S. (2002). Access and Persistence: Findings from TenYears of Longitudinal Research on Students. Washington, DC:American Council on Education.

Christie, N.G. & Dinham, S.M. (1991). Institutional andExternal Influences on Social Integration in the FreshmanYear. Journal of Higher Education, 62(4), 412-433.

Cofer, J. & Somers, P. (2000). Within-year Persistence ofStudents at Two-Year Colleges. Community College Journal ofResearch and Practice, 24, 785-807.

Colton, G.M., Connor, U.J., Shultz, E.L., & Easter, L.M.(1999). Fighting Attrition: One Freshman Year Program thatTargets Academic Progress and Retention for At-RiskStudents. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,Theory & Practice, 1(2), 147-162.

Crissman, J.L. (2001-2002). The Impact of Clustering FirstYear Seminars with English Composition Courses on NewStudents’ Retention Rates. Journal of College Student Reten-tion: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(2), 137-152.

Dale, P.M. & Zych, T. (1996). A Successful College Reten-tion Program. College Student Journal, 30(3), 354-360.

51

DesJardins, S.L., Ahlburg, D.A., & McCall, B.P. (1999). AnEvent History Model of Student Departure. Economics ofEducation Review, 18(3), 375-390.

DuBrock, C.P. & Fenske, R.H. (2000). Financial Aid andCollege Persistence: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study of 1993 and1994 Beginning Freshmen Students. Paper presented at Asso-ciation for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH.

Fidler, P.P. & Moore, P.S. (1996). A Comparison of Effects ofCampus Residence and Freshman Seminar Attendance onFreshman Dropout Rates. Journal of the Freshman YearExperience & Students in Transition, 8(2), 7-16.

Gallicki, S.J. & McEwen, M.K. (1989). The Relationship ofResidence to Retention of Black and White UniversityStudents. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 389-394.

Garcia, P. (1991). Summer Bridge: Improving RetentionRates for Underprepared Students. Journal of the FreshmanYear Experience & Students in Transition, 3(2), 91-105.

Garcia, V. M. (2000). An Exploration of the Influence ThatPerceptions of Remediation Have on the Persistence of Students inHigher Education. Paper presented at American EducationalResearch Association, New Orleans, LA.

Gardner, J. & Van der Veer, G. (1997). The Senior YearExperience: Facility Integration, Retention, Closure and Transi-tion. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gloria, A.M. (1997). Chicana academic persistency: Creat-ing a University-Based Community. Education and UrbanSociety, 30(1), 107-121.

Gold, M. (1992). The Bridge: A Summer EnrichmentProgram to Retain African-American Collegians. Journal ofthe Freshmen Year Experience & Students in Transition, 4(2),101-17.

Goodsell, A. & Tinto, V. (1993). A Longitudinal Study ofFreshman Interest Groups at the University of Washington.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Grimes, S.K. & Antworth, T. (1996). Community CollegeWithdrawal Decisions: Student Characteristics and Subse-quent Reenrollment Patterns. Community College Journal ofResearch and Practice, 20, 345-361.

Hagedorn, L.S., Maxwell, W., & Hampton, P. (2001-2002).Correlates of Retention for African-American Males inCommunity Colleges. Journal of College Student Retention:Research, Theory & Practice, 3(3), 243-264.

Harrington, C. & Schibik, T. (2001, June). Caveat Emptor: IsThere a Relationship Between Part-Time Faculty Utilization andStudent Learning Outcomes and Retention? Paper presented atAssociation for Institutional Research, Long Beach, CA.

Haycock, K. (2000). Achievement in America 2000. Slidesfrom presentation at FYE WEST 2000. (http://www. sc. edu/fye/resources/fyr/Haycock/index. htm)

Heverly, M.A. (1999). Predicting retention from student’sexperiences with college processes. Journal of College StudentRetention: Research, Theory & Practice, 1(1), 3-12.

Hippensteel, D.G., St. John, E.P., & Starkey, J.B. (1996).Influence of Tuition and Student Aid on Within-YearPersistence by Adults in 2-Year Colleges. Community CollegeJournal of Research and Practice, 20, 233-242.

Hoyt, J. E. (1999). Remedial Education and Student Attri-tion. Community College Review, 27, 51-72.

Hu, S. & St. John, E. P. (2001). Student Persistence in aPublic Higher Education System: Understanding Racial andEthnic Differences. Journal of Higher Education, 72, 265-286.

52

Hyde, M.S. & Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Adjusting Educa-tional Practice to Increase Female Persistence in the Sci-ences. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &Practice, 1(4), 335-55.

Ishitani, T.T. & DesJardins, S.L. (2002-2003). A Longitudi-nal Investigation of Dropout From College in the UnitedStates. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory& Practice, 4(2), 173-201.

Johnson, J.L. (1997). Commuter College Students: WhatFactors Determine Who Will Persist or Who Will Drop Out?College Student Journal, 31(3), 323-333.

Johnson, J.L. (2000). Learning Communities and SpecialEfforts in the Retention of University Students: What Works,What Doesn’t, and is the Return Worth the Investment?Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &Practice, 2(3), 219-238.

Kanoy, K. & Bruhn, J.W. (1996). Effects of a First-Year Livingand Learning Residence Hall on Retention and AcademicPerformance. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience & Studentsin Transition, 8(1), 7-23.

Kim, H. (1996). Why Students Leave or Stay? A Land-GrantResearch I University Experience. Paper presented at Associa-tion for Institutional Research, Albuquerque, NM.

King, J. (2003). 2003 Status Reports on the Pell Grant Program.Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

King, M.C. (1993). Academic Advising: Organizing andDelivering Services for Student Success. New Directions forCommunity Colleges, No. 82. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Landrum, R.E. (2001-2002). The Responsibility for Reten-tion: Perceptions of Students and University Personnel.

Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &Practice, 3(2), 195-212.

Lee, J. (1998). “The Impact of Pell Grants on StudentPersistence in College.” Memory, Reason, Imagination: AQuarter Century of Pell Grants. Gladieux, L., Astor, B., &Swail, W. (eds.). Washington, DC: College Board.

Leppel, K. (2001) The Impact of Major on College Persis-tence Among Freshmen. Higher Education, 41(3) 327-42.

Li, G. & Killian, T. (1999). Students Who Left College: AnExamination of Their Characteristics and Reasons for Leaving.Paper presented at Association for Institutional Research,Seattle, WA.

Lundquist, C., Spalding, R.J., & Landrum, R.E. (2002-2003).College Student’s Thoughts About Leaving the University:The Impact of Faculty Attitudes and Behaviors. Journal ofCollege Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, Vol4(2), 123-133.

Mallinckrodt, B. & Sedlacek, W.E. (1987). Student Reten-tion and the Use of Campus Facilities by Race. NASPAJournal, 24, 28-32.

Mangold, W.D., Bean, L.G., Adams, D.J., Schwab, W.A., &Lynch, S.M. (2002-2003). Who Goes, Who Stays: AnAssessment of the Effect of a Freshman Mentoring and UnitRegistration Program on College Persistence. Journal ofCollege Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(2),95-122.

Martin, O.L. & Hodum, R L. (1994). An Examination ofCollege Retention Rates with a University 101 Program. Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educa-tion Research Association, Nashville, TN.

53

McDaniel, C. & Graham, S.W. (2001). Student Retention inan Historically Black Institution. College Student Journal, 35,143-157.

McGrath, M. & Braunstein, A. (1997). The Prediction ofFreshmen Attrition: An Examination of the Importance ofCertain Demographic, Academic, Financial, and SocialFactors. College Student Journal, 31, 396-408.

Mohr, J.J., Eiche, K.D., & Sedlacek, W.E. (1998). So Close,Yet So Far: Predictors of Attrition in College Seniors. Paperpresented at American Educational Research Association,San Diego, CA.

Mortenson, T. (1997). Actual versus Predicted GraduationRates for 1,100 Four-Year Institutions. Postsecondary Opportu-nity, 58.

Mortenson, T. (2001). Family Income and Higher EducationOpportunity 1970-2001. Postsecondary Opportunity, 112.

Muraskin, L. (1997). “Best Practices” in Student SupportServices: A Study of Five Exemplary Sites. Follow-up Study ofStudent Support Services Programs. Washington, DC: Office ofPlanning, Budget and Evaluation, U.S. Department ofEducation.

Murtaugh, P.A., Burns, L.D., & Schuster, J. (1999). Predictingthe Retention of University Students. Research in HigherEducation, 40, 355-371.

National College Athletic Association (NCAA) (1999).1999 NCAA Division I, II, and III Graduation Reports. India-napolis, IN: NCAA.

Nagda, B.A., Gregerman, S.R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., &Lerner, J.S. (1998). Undergraduate student-faculty researchpartnerships affect student retention. The Review of HigherEducation, 22(1), 55-72.

Newton, E. & Wells-Glover, L. (1999). Mentors for Under-graduates in Technical Disciplines: A Collaborative Effort byFaculty, Student Development Professionals, and Alumni ToImprove Undergraduate Retention and Success in TechnicalMajors. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory& Practice, 1(4), 311-21.

Nora, A. (1990). Campus-Based Aid Programs as Determi-nants of Retention Among Hispanic Community CollegeStudents. Journal of Higher Education, 61(3), 312-331.

O’Phelan, M.H. & Fulkerson, J. (1998). Effect of Introduc-tory Counseling Course on Retention Rates. Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South EducationalResearch Association: New Orleans, LA.

Okun, M.A., Benin, M., & Brandt-Williams, A. (1996).Staying in College: Moderators of the Relation BetweenIntention and Institutional Departure. Journal of HigherEducation, 67, 577-596.

Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T., & Wolfle, L.M. (1986).Orientation to College and Freshman Year Persistence/With-drawal Decisions. Journal of Higher Education, 57(2), 155-173.

Pascarella, E T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How College AffectsStudents: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Peterson, S.L. & DelMas, R.C. (2001-2002). Effects of CareerDecision-Making Self-Efficacy and Degree Utility on StudentPersistence: A Path Analytic Study. Journal of College StudentRetention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(3), 285-300.

Peterson’s Guides. (2001). Peterson’s Guide to Four-YearColleges. Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s.

54

Phipps, R.A. (2002). Access to Postsecondary Education: Whatis the Role of Technology? Washington, DC: NationalPostsecondary Education Cooperative.

Robst, J., Keil, J., & Russo, D. (1998). The Effect of GenderComposition of Faculty on Student Retention. Economics ofEducation Review: 17, 429-43.

Ruddock, M.S., Hanson, G.R., & Moss, M. K. (1999). NewDirections in Student Retention Research: Looking BeyondInteractional Theories of Student Departure. Paper presented atAssociation for Institutional Research, Seattle, WA.

Schwitzer, A.M. & Thomas, C. (1998). Implementation,Utilization, and Outcomes of a Minority Freshman PeerMentor Program at a Predominantly White University.Journal of the Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transi-tion, 10(1), 31-50.

Seidman, A. (1991). The Evaluation of a Pre/Post Admis-sions/Counseling Process at a Suburban Community College:Impact on Student Satisfaction with the Faculty and theInstitution, Retention, and Academic Performance. Collegeand University, 66(4), 223-232.

Shields, N. (1994). Retention, Academic Success, andProgress Among Adult Returning Students: A Comparison ofthe Effects of Institutional and External Factors. NACADAJournal, 14(1), 13-24.

Sidle, M.W. & McReynolds, J. (1999). The Freshman YearExperience: Student Retention and Success. NASPA Journal,36(4), 288-300.

Simmons, G., Wallins, J., & George, A. (1995). The Effectsof a Freshman Seminar on At-Risk Under-, Over-, and Low-Achievers. NACADA Journal, 15(1), 8-14.

Skahill, M.P. (2002-2003). The Role of Social SupportNetwork in College Persistence Among Freshman Students.Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &Practice, 4(1), 39-52.

Soldner, L., Lee, Y., & Duby, P. (1999). Welcome to theBlock: Developing Freshman Learning Communities ThatWork. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory&Practice, 1(2), 115-130.

Somers, P. (1995a). A Comprehensive Model for Examiningthe Impact of Financial Aid on Enrollment and Persistence.Journal of Student Financial Aid, 25(1), 13-27.

Somers, P. (1995b). First-to-Second Semester Persistence: ACase Study. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience & Students inTransition, 7(2), 43-62.

Somers, P. (1996). The Influence of Price on Year-to-YearPersistence of College Students. NASPA Journal, 33(2), 94-103.

South Texas Community College (1998). Retention at SouthTexas Community College: A Delicate Balance. Special ReportNumber One. McAllen, TX: The Office of InstitutionalResearch and Effectiveness.

St. John, E.P., Musoba, G.D., & Simmons, A.B. (2001).Keeping the Promise: The Impact of Indiana’s 21st CenturyScholars Program. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education PolicyCenter.

Smart, J.C., Kuh, G.D., & Tierney, W.G. (1997). The Rolesof Institutional Cultures and Decision Approaches inPromoting Organizational Effectiveness in CommunityColleges. Journal of Higher Education, 68(3), 256-281.

55

Tierney, W.G. (1999). Models of Minority College-Goingand Retention: Cultural Integrity Versus Cultural Suicide.Journal of Negro Education: 68 (Winter), 80-91.

Tinto, V. (1993) Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes andCures of Student Attrition (2nd edition). Chicago, IL: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as Communities. Journal ofHigher Education. 68(6), 599-623.

Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as Communities: Taking Researchon Student Persistence Seriously. Review of Higher Education,21(2), 167-177.

Tokuno, K.A. & Campbell, F.L. (1992). The FreshmanInterest Group Program at the University of Washington:Effects on Scholarship and Retention. Journal of the FreshmanYear Experience & Students in Transition, 4, 7-22.

Tom, G. (1999). A Post-Mortem Study of Student Attritionat the College of Business Administration. Journal of CollegeStudent Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 1(3), 267-287.

Upcraft, M.L. & Gardner, J.N. & Associates (1989). TheFreshman Year Experience: Helping Students Survive and Succeedin Collge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Volp, P.M., Hill, T.L., & Frazier, C L. (1998). Using Tele-phone Calls as Examples of Care to Promote Student Successand Retention. Journal of the Freshmen Year Experience &Students in Transition, 10 (1), 73-88.

West, K.D. & Michael, W.B. (1998). Factors Associated withAttrition and Retention of Science and Engineering Undergradu-ates at a Highly Selective Research Institution. Paper presentedat American Educational Research Association, San Diego,CA.

White, W.F. & Mosely, D. (1995). Twelve-Year Pattern ofRetention and Attrition in a Commuter-Type University.Education, 33(2), 400-402.

Williford, A.M., Chapman, L.C. , & Kahrig, T. (2000-2001).The University Experience Course: A Longitudinal Study ofStudent Performance, Retention and Graduation. Journal ofCollege Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 2(4),327-340.

Wilson, S.B., Mason, T.W., & Ewing, M.J.M. (1997). Evalu-ating the Impact of Receiving University-Based CounselingServices on Student Retention. Journal of Counseling Psychol-ogy, 44, 316-320.

Windham, P. (1995). The Relative Importance of SelectedFactors to Attrition at a Public Community College. Journalof Applied Research in the Community College, 3(1), 65-78.

57

1 The participating institutions are not named to assureconfidentiality.

2 Students with disabilities were added to the program inrecent years.

3 Students attending less than half-time are not eligible fora Pell Grant, but the NCES data set does not allow us todifferentiate among students who attend less than full-time but more than half-time; they are all categorized aspart-time.

4 These data limitations suggest the preliminary characterof the results.

5 The listed “N” in Tables 1, 3, and 4 vary slightly due todifferent reporting sources and the possible inclusion ofbranch campuses in some reports.

6 The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education devel-oped a classification system for higher education in 1973.The system, which was later refined and update in 1976,1987, 1994, and 2000, divides colleges and universities

ENDNOTES

into groups based on the degrees that they grant —doctoral, master’s, baccalaureate, and associate’s. Inaddition, the system identifies specialized institutions,which includes theological institutions, and schools oflaw, medicine, and teacher education. For more informa-tion about the classification system, see the CarnegieFoundation website, http://www.carnegie foundation.org/classification.

7 Median is a different measure of central tendency thanthe mean, which was reported in Tables 3 and 4.

8 The final institution was selected, but we were unable toconduct a site visit due to scheduling conflicts.

9 Some were excluded as HBCUs or declined to participate.

10 As we shall describe later, several of the HGR institu-tions have adopted policies that strongly encourage orrequire freshmen students to live on campus — policiesthat would be unattractive to older, “returning” or part-time enrollees.

58

11 Large percentages in the “unknown” category for someinstitutions make typical rates of minority participationdifficult to identify.

12 Per-FTE expenditures are defined as education andgeneral expenditures, i.e., all current expenditures exceptfor auxiliary enterprises — dorms, dining halls, hospitals,separate research centers etc. Use of FTE undergraduateenrollment may overstate differences as HGR institu-tions have somewhat more graduate students.

13 The fourth institution increased its tuition by 50 percentin the year after our data were collected.

14 It is worth noting, however, institutional grants areincluded in per-student expenditures.

15 As noted in the study design, we decreased thepercentage of low-income students an institution neededto qualify for inclusion in the study so this would not bean examination of HBCUs exclusively.

16 Some HGR HBCUs were not included in the study andone other institution declined to participate.

17 Religion plays an important role in at least one otherprivate college, but chapel is not mandatory.

59

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE

President or other senior official(s) (Use judgement on depth of descriptive informa-tion sought from these individuals)

1. Review briefly the key data from institutional profile

2. What accounts for institution’s performance in view of respondent? Possiblereasons/explanations for institution’s performance outcomes:a) Unique elements: student body, special programs that attract particular kinds

of students, special policies on retention, or other factors;b) institutional policies,c) instructional approach or programs,d) services/campus climate,e) other factors?

At high retention/graduation institutions can ask: “What do you think accountsfor the success of this institution in retaining and graduating low-income (orunderrepresented) students?” “Are any efforts currently underway to improveperformance?” If yes, describe.

At the low retention/graduation institutions can ask: “How satisfied are you and/or institution with current performance?” Any efforts underway to improveperformance?” If yes, describe.

(Answers to these questions should help you focus attention on policies, instruc-tion, and programs that may account for institutional performance — but youshould still keep an open mind about other factors).

3. How would you characterize the freshman student body at this institution? Whatexperiences do they bring to education? What are they seeking in a collegeeducation? What are their greatest academic or other needs?

4. What are the institutional policies that are likely to affect low-income/underrepresented students and in what manner? Policy areas to ask respondent toconsider include: recruitment, admissions, financial aid, required coursetaking(including developmental education), academic performance/standing, selectionof colleges and majors, etc.

What evidence can respondent offer on the a) implementation and b) likelyeffects of policies cited on low-income students? Studies, evaluations, othersources of information?

5. What academic approaches does respondent consider likely to affect low-incomestudents. Some possible areas on which to focus: developmental education,organization of instruction, initial educational experience, prefreshman programs,advising, academic standing, academic support offerings, monitoring of studentenrollment and progress, etc.

What evidence can respondent offer on the implementation and likely effects onlow-income students of approaches cited? Ask about studies, evaluations, othersources of information.

6. What social support opportunities on campus are likely to affect low-incomestudents? Possible types of services: affinity groups that provide a means forstudents to develop group and/or institutional identity; study groups, means tolink students and faculty (e.g., mentoring programs), other systematic efforts todevelop relationships with other students, faculty, etc. (organizations, activities,clubs, sports, etc.)

Special programs (such as EOP, SSS, MESA, other departmental programs) thatprovide a “home base” for low-income or underrepresented students (or studentswith disabilities) and/or offer social and academic services or link students withservices on campus.

7. What accommodations does the institution make for students who are alsoparents? Working? Need a job on campus? Have a disability? Must adjust theirschedules around other responsibilities or needs? What services are available tohelp these students?

8. What additional approaches, activities, programs, on this campus play a role inthe retention and completion of college, especially for low-income students?

9. What does the respondent consider the responsibility of the institution withrespect to retention and graduation? The limits of institutional responsibility?What challenges/barriers does the institution face in ensuring high rates ofretention and completion?

Senior administrator(s) responsible for policies related to attracting/retaining/graduating low income and/or underrepresented students (use judgement on depth ofquestioning about individual policies or programs)

1. Review briefly the key data from institutional profile

2. What accounts for institution’s performance in view of respondent? Possiblereasons/explanations for institution’s performance outcomes:a) Unique elements: student body, special programs that attract particular kinds

of students, special policies on retention, or other factors;b) institutional policies,c) instructional approach or programs,d) services/campus climate,e) other factors?

At high retention/graduation institutions can ask: “What do you think accountsfor the success of this institution in retaining and graduating low-income (orunderrepresented) students?” Are any efforts currently underway to improveperformance?” If yes, describe.

At the low retention/graduation institutions can ask: “How satisfied are you and/or institution with current performance?” Are any efforts underway to improveperformance?” If yes, describe.

(Answers to these questions should help you focus attention on policies, instruc-tion, and programs that may account for institutional performance — but youshould still keep an open mind about other factors).

3. How would you characterize the freshman student body at this institution? Whatexperiences do they bring to education? What are they seeking in a collegeeducation? What are their greatest academic or other needs?

4. Ask respondent to describe institutional policies explicitly focused on, or likely toaffect, low-income/underrepresented students. Policies to examine include:recruitment, admissions, financial aid, required coursetaking (including develop-mental education), academic performance/standing, selection of colleges andmajors, etc. (Use judgement on depth of questioning on each set of policiesdepending on location/knowledge of respondent.)

Describe history of policy development, key elements of policy, how respondentsdescribe its implementation and likely effects on low-income students. Cite

evidence of policy implementation and effects from college studies, evaluations,other sources of information.

With respect to recruitment: what goals have been set by the institution (and bywhom)? Describe. What efforts have been made (this year, past year) to attractlow-income and/or underrepresented students — of traditional college age as wellas older students. Describe key features, who does it, how extensive, etc. Whatwas the outcome? How do these efforts fit within overall recruitment efforts (e.g.,share of budget, attention to these populations)? How successful do institutionalofficials see their efforts? What plans, if any, are there for changes in the policy orprocess?

With respect to admissions: What goals have been set by the institution? Describegoals and any changes/modification in goals over past few years. Note specificgoals with respect to low income or underrepresented students, returning students,other special groups. Who establishes goals? What are current “yield” levels?Describe outcomes of policies over time, views of respondents about adequacy of(satisfaction with) current goals. Describe any past or ongoing efforts to trackadmissions or other accountability mechanisms — who does it? any evidence ofeffects? What are policies/views on part time enrollment? Describe any specialadmissions policies — for whom?

With respect to financial aid: Describe policies for need-based aid (and other aid,if applicable). Who sets policies? What is the typical mix of grant/loan aid for alow income freshman student and how much of “need” is likely to be covered?What other sources of assistance may be available? What efforts have been madeto integrate financial aid policies with recruitment/admissions policies? Whatevidence is available on effects of aid policies? What are views of respondentswith respect to adequacy of aid, success of aid policies?

5. Examine academic approaches likely to affect low-income students. Somepossible policy areas in which to focus: developmental education, organization ofinstruction, initial (freshman) educational experience, advising, academicsupport services, etc.

Outcomes of advising: what does a typical freshman academic program look like?What courses are required or taken by large percentages of students? What is atypical course load? How likely are students to move to sophomore status at theend of the first year of full time enrollment? What special programs exist forfreshmen — such as honors programs or colleges, integrated courses — and howdo students participate in them?

60

61

6. Ask about range and types of social support opportunities on campus.

Possible types of services: affinity groups that provide a means for students todevelop group and institutional identity; study groups, means to link students andfaculty (e.g., mentoring programs), other systematic efforts to develop relation-ships with other students, faculty, etc. (organizations, activities, clubs, sports, etc.)

Programs (such as EOP, SSS, MESA, other departmental programs) that provide a“home base” for low income or underrepresented students (or students withdisabilities) and that offer social and academic services or link students withservices on campus.

7. What accommodations does the institution make for students who are alsoparents? Working? Need a job on campus? Have a disability? Must adjust theirschedules around other responsibilities or needs? What services are available tohelp these students?

8. What additional approaches, activities, programs, on this campus play a role inthe retention and completion of college, especially for low-income students?

9. Who is likely to be able to provide greater detail on each of the three broad areasof policy and practice we have discussed: institutional policies, academic ap-proaches, social and academic supports?

Director of Financial Aid

1. Confirm enrollment data from institutional profiles

2. What accounts for institution’s performance in view of respondent. Possiblereasons/explanations for institution’s performance outcomes:a) Unique elements: student body, special programs that attract particular kinds

of students, special policies on retention, or other factors;b) institutional policies,c) instructional approach or programs,d) services/campus climate.

At high retention/graduation institutions can ask: “What do you think accountsfor the success of this institution in retaining and graduating low-income (orunderrepresented) students?” “Any efforts currently underway to improveperformance?”

At the low retention/graduation institutions can ask: “How satisfied are you and/or institution with current performance?” Any efforts underway to improveperformance?”

3. How would you characterize the freshman student body at this institution? Whatexperiences do they bring to education? What are they seeking in a collegeeducation? What are their greatest needs?

4. Describe financial aid policies likely to affect low income/underrepresentedstudents.

Ask about key elements of policy, how respondents describe implementation ofthe policies and likely effects on low income students. Ask for evidence of policyimplementation and effects from college studies, evaluations, other sources ofinformation.

Focus on policies for need-based aid (and other aid, if applicable). Who setspolicies? What is the typical mix of grant/loan aid for a low-income freshmanstudent and how much of “need” is likely to be covered? What other sources ofassistance may be available? What efforts have been made to integrate financialaid policies with recruitment/admissions policies? What evidence is available oneffects of aid policies? What are views of respondents with respect to adequacy ofaid, success of aid policies?

When does the financial aid office enter the process of decision-making on newstudents? To what extent does the office participate in recruitment and admissionsdecisions? To what extent does the financial aid office seek the input of offices orprograms that serve low income or underrepresented students in either generaldecisionmaking on decisions on specific students?

What types of financial crises are likely to arise once students are enrolled? Whathappens when students have financial crises? (seek examples) What sources ofemergency aid are available? How are they allocated?

5. What additional approaches, activities, programs, on this campus play a role inthe retention and completion of college, especially for low-income students?

6. What does the respondent consider the responsibility of the institution withrespect to retention and graduation? The limits of institutional responsibility?What challenges does the institution face in ensuring high rates of retention andcompletion?

62

Senior Official for Student Affairs

1. Confirm data from institutional profile, then ask: What accounts for institution’sperformance in view of respondent. Possible reasons/explanations for institution’sperformance outcomes:a) Unique elements: student body, special programs that attract particular kinds

of students, special policies on retention, or other factors;b) institutional policies,c) instructional approach or programs,d) services/campus climate.

At high retention/graduation institutions can ask: “What do you think accountsfor the success of this institution in retaining and graduating low-income (orunderrepresented) students?” “Any efforts currently underway to improveperformance?”

At the low retention/graduation institutions can ask: “How satisfied are you and/or institution with current performance?” Any efforts underway to improveperformance?”

(Answers to these questions should help you focus attention on policies, instruc-tion, and programs that may account for institutional performance — but youshould still keep an open mind about other factors).

2. How would you characterize the freshman student body at this institution? Whatexperiences do they bring to education? What are they seeking in a collegeeducation? What are their greatest needs?

3. Describe institutional policies likely to affect low-income/underrepresentedstudents. Policies to examine include: recruitment, admissions, financial aid,required coursetaking (including developmental education), academic perfor-mance/standing, selection of colleges and majors, etc.

Ask respondent about importance of each type of policy and its likely effects onlow-income students. Ask for evidence of policy implementation and effects fromcollege studies, evaluations, other sources of information. Ask about role ofstudent affairs office in recruitment, admissions, financial aid decisionmaking (ifany).

4. Examine academic approaches likely to affect low-income students. Somepossible areas on which to focus include orientation programs, developmental

education, organization of instruction, freshman year experience (including bridgeprograms), the advising process, academic standing process, academic supportofferings.

5. Social support opportunities on campus. Ask respondent to outline range ofofferings under jurisdiction of student affairs, then other offices. Possible types ofservices: affinity groups that provide a means for students to develop group andinstitutional identity; study groups, means to link students and faculty (e.g.,mentoring programs), other systematic efforts to develop relationships with otherstudents, faculty, etc. (organizations, activities, clubs, sports, etc.)

Programs (such as EOP, SSS, MESA, other departmental programs) that provide a“home base” for low-income or underrepresented students (or students withdisabilities) and that offer social and academic services or link students withservices on campus.

6. What accommodations does the institution make for students who are alsoparents? Working? Need a job on campus? Have a disability? Must adjust theirschedules around other responsibilities or needs? What services are available tohelp these students?

7. What additional approaches, activities, programs, on this campus play a role inthe retention and completion of college, especially for low-income students?

8. What does the respondent consider the responsibility of the institution withrespect to retention and graduation? The limits of institutional responsibility?What challenges does the institution face in ensuring high rates of retention andcompletion?

Director of Office of (Freshman) Advising

1. Review briefly the key data from institutional profile

2. What accounts for institution’s performance in view of respondent? Possiblereasons/explanations for institution’s performance outcomes:a) Unique elements: student body, special programs that attract particular kinds

of students, special policies on retention, or other factors;b) institutional policies,c) instructional approach or programs,d) services/campus climate,e) other factors?

63

At high retention/graduation institutions can ask: “What do you think accountsfor the success of this institution in retaining and graduating low-income (orunderrepresented) students?” “Any efforts currently underway to improveperformance?”

At the low retention/graduation institutions can ask: “How satisfied are you and/or institution with current performance?” Any efforts underway to improveperformance?”

3. How would you characterize the freshman student body at this institution? Whatexperiences do they bring to education? What are they seeking in a collegeeducation? What are their greatest needs?

4. Ask respondent whether there are institutional policies explicitly focused on, orlikely to affect, low-income/underrepresented students. Policies to examineinclude: recruitment, admissions, financial aid, required coursetaking (includingdevelopmental education), academic performance/standing, selection of collegesand majors, etc.

Examine academic approaches likely to affect low-income students. Afterdiscussion of general areas (developmental education, organization of instruction,freshman year programs, etc. focus discussion on advising program.

The advising process: Who advises new and continuing (and lower and upperdivision) students about which courses to take? (Are there other offices thatprovide advising for particular groups of students?) When does advising take placeWhen do students declare majors? Is admission to some majors restricted, and ifso, how? Are there any special advising efforts for special admission students?Other students (e.g., underrepresented students)? With respect to academicstanding, what are the policies with respect to dropping courses? How commonlydo students drop courses? What is “good standing” at the end of freshman year?sophomore year? later? At what GPA level is any action taken — what actions aretaken? How common are such actions? What are policies with respect to suspen-sion, expulsion? How common are such actions? What opportunities exist forappeal? For reinstatement? Evidence of impact?

Academic support offerings: What is the range of academic support available atthe institution? Describe learning centers, writing centers, departmental tutoring,opportunities for research, etc. What happens when a student experiencesacademic difficulties to ensure that they are addressed successfully? What happenswhen a student skips classes? Who monitors class attendance?

Outcomes of advising: What does a typical freshman academic program looklike? What courses are required or taken by large percentages of students? What isa typical course load? How likely are students to move to sophomore status at theend of the first year of full time enrollment? What special programs exist forfreshmen — such as honors programs or colleges, integrated courses — and howdo students participate in them?

5. What additional approaches, activities, programs, on this campus play a role inthe retention and completion of college, especially for low-income students?

6. What does the respondent consider the responsibility of the institution withrespect to retention and graduation? The limits of institutional responsibility?What challenges does the insti-tution face in ensuring high rates of retention andcompletion?

Office of Institutional Research

1. Review and confirm the institutional data from institutional profile, seek updatedinformation if available. Seek any studies of recruitment, enrollment, retentionand graduation that may be available from the institution.

2. What accounts for institution’s performance in view of respondent? Possiblereasons/explanations for institution’s performance outcomes:a. Unique elements: student body, special programs that attract particular kinds

of students, special policies on retention, or other factors;b. institutional policies,c. instructional approach or programs,d. services/campus climate,e. other factors?

At high retention/graduation institutions can ask: “What do you think accountsfor the success of this institution in retaining and graduating low-income (orunderrepresented) students?” “Any efforts currently underway to improveperformance?”

At the low retention/graduation institutions can ask: “How satisfied are you and/or institution with current performance?” Any efforts underway to improveperformance?”

64

3. How would you characterize the freshman student body at this institution? Whatexperiences do they bring to education? What are they seeking in a collegeeducation? What are their greatest needs?

4. What policies, approaches to education, activities, or programs, on this campusplay a role in the retention and completion of college, especially for low-incomestudents?

5. What does the respondent consider the responsibility of the institution withrespect to retention and graduation? The limits of institutional responsibility?What challenges does the institution face in ensuring high rates of retention andcompletion?

Key Departmental or College Faculty (deans or other faculty in colleges or depart-ments that attract large numbers of students to freshman or other widely taken courses— especially faculty who teach large freshman courses, if possible)

1. Review briefly the key data from institutional profile

2. What accounts for institution’s performance in view of respondent? Possiblereasons/explanations for institution’s performance outcomes:a. Unique elements: student body, special programs that attract particular kinds

of students, special policies on retention, or other factors;b. institutional policies,c. instructional approach or programs,d. services/campus climate,e. other factors?

At high retention/graduation institutions can ask: “What do you think accountsfor the success of this institution in retaining and graduating low-income (orunderrepresented) students?” “Any efforts currently underway to improveperformance?”

At the low retention/graduation institutions can ask: “How satisfied are you and/or institution with current performance?” Any efforts underway to improveperformance?”

3. How would you characterize the freshman student body at this institution? Whatexperiences do they bring to education? What are they seeking in a collegeeducation? What are their greatest needs?

4. Ask respondent to describe institutional policies explicitly focused on, or likely toaffect, low-income/underrepresented students. Policies to examine include:recruitment, admissions, financial aid, required coursetaking (including develop-mental education), academic performance/standing, selection of colleges andmajors, etc.

5. Examine academic approaches likely to affect low-income students. Somepossible policy areas in which to focus: developmental education, organization ofinstruction, initial freshman coursetaking (and efforts to organize coursetakingthrough linked courses, other approaches), advising, academic support, specialprograms, etc.

After general discussion, focus more attention on ways in which instruction islinked across courses, efforts at team teaching, freshman seminars, means oflinking classroom instruction with academic reinforcement, group etc.

6. What efforts have faculty (in this department or college) undertaken to ensurethat students are successful in their initial courses, in the department? Whatchallenges do the faculty face in freshman instruction? Are there special programsfor low income or underrepresented students (or other groups) under the his/herjurisdiction? If yes, describe program, students, etc.

7. What policies, approaches to education, activities, or programs, on this campusplay a role in the retention and completion of college, especially for low-incomestudents?

8. What does the respondent consider the responsibility of the institution withrespect to retention and graduation? The limits of institutional responsibility?What challenges does the institution face in ensuring high rates of retention andcompletion?

Academic support service providers (learning center, writing center, tutoring center,supplemental instruction director, etc.)

1. Review briefly the key data from institutional profile

2. What accounts for institution’s performance in view of respondent? Possiblereasons/explanations for institution’s performance outcomes:a. Unique elements: student body, special programs that attract particular kinds

of students, special policies on retention, or other factors;b. institutional policies,

65

c. instructional approach or programs,d. services/campus climate,e. other factors?

At high retention/graduation institutions can ask: “What do you think accountsfor the success of this institution in retaining and graduating low-income (orunderrepresented) students?” “Any efforts currently underway to improveperformance?”

At the low retention/graduation institutions can ask: “How satisfied are you and/or institution with current performance?” Any efforts underway to improveperformance?”

3. How would you characterize the freshman student body at this institution? Whatexperiences do they bring to education? What are they seeking in a collegeeducation? What are their greatest needs?

4. Ask respondent to describe institutional policies explicitly focused on, or likely toaffect, low-income/underrepresented students. Policies to examine include:recruitment, admissions, financial aid, required coursetaking (including develop-mental education), academic performance/standing, selection of colleges andmajors, etc

5. Examine briefly the range of academic approaches respondent considers likely toaffect low-income students (developmental education, freshman year experience,organization of instuction, advising, etc.), then focus on the role of the service therespondent provides and describe more fully. What is offered, who is likely toparticipate, how are they recruited or otherwise attracted to the service, whendoes service start, what is the success of the program (evidence?) in helpingstudents achieve academic success? What is needed that is not currently offered(or what changes might be advisable)?

6. What additional approaches, activities, programs, on this campus play a role inthe retention and completion of college, especially for low-income students?

Director of Developmental Education (or comparable position)

1. Review briefly the key data from institutional profile

2. What accounts for institution’s performance in view of respondent? Possiblereasons/explanations for institution’s performance outcomes:

a. Unique elements: student body, special programs that attract particular kindsof students, special policies on retention, or other factors;

b. institutional policies,c. instructional approach or programs,d. services/campus climate,e. other factors?

At high retention/graduation institutions can ask: “What do you think accountsfor the success of this institution in retaining and graduating low-income (orunderrepresented) students?” “Any efforts currently underway to improveperformance?”

At the low retention/graduation institutions can ask: “How satisfied are you and/or institution with current performance?” Any efforts underway to improveperformance?”

3. How would you characterize the freshman student body at this institution? Whatexperiences do they bring to education? What are they seeking in a collegeeducation? What are their greatest needs?

4. Describe the extent of developmental education at the institution (for enteringfreshmen) and the sequence of developmental courses. How does the institutiondetermine who enrolls and for what period of time? What percentage of newstudents enroll in developmental classes and how have the numbers changed overthe past few years — and/or are likely to change in near future? What is the“progression” out of developmental education — i.e., how long do studentstypically take these classes and how flexible is movement out of developmentaleducation? What evidence is there about the impact of institution’s approach?What are respondents’ views of the adequacy of the current approach?

5. What are the links between developmental and non-developmental courses?Between developmental education and other academic support offerings?

6. What additional approaches, activities, programs, on this campus play a role inthe retention and completion of college, especially for low-income students?

Providers of Other Support Services (including SSS, EOP, other “home base”programs, etc.)

1. Review briefly the key data from institutional profile

66

2. What accounts for institution’s performance in view of respondent? Possiblereasons/explanations for institution’s performance outcomes:a. Unique elements: student body, special programs that attract particular kinds

of students, special policies on retention, or other factors;b. institutional policies,c. instructional approach or programs,d. services/campus climate,e. other factors?

At high retention/graduation institutions can ask: “What do you think accountsfor the success of this institution in retaining and graduating low-income (orunderrepresented) students?” “Any efforts currently underway to improveperformance?”

At the low retention/graduation institutions can ask: “How satisfied are you and/or institution with current performance?” Any efforts underway to improveperformance?”

3. How would you characterize the freshman student body at this institution? Whatexperiences do they bring to education? What are they seeking in a collegeeducation? What are their greatest needs?

4. Ask respondent to describe institutional policies explicitly focused on, or likelyto affect, low-income/underrepresented students. Policies to examine include:recruitment, admissions, financial aid, required coursetaking (including develop-mental education), academic performance/standing, selection of colleges andmajors, etc.

Ask about the specific role of the program in decision-making an/or carrying outthe policies in any of the areas discussed.

5. Examine academic approaches likely to affect low-income students. Somepossible policy areas in which to focus: developmental education, organization ofinstruction, freshman educational experience, advising, academic supportofferings (learning centers, writing centers, departmental tutoring, opportunitiesfor research, etc. Ask about links of provider (respondent) to those academicofferings discussed.

6. Describe the range and types of social support opportunities on campus.

Possible types of services: affinity groups that provide a means for students todevelop group and institutional identity; study groups, means to link students andfaculty (e.g., mentoring programs), other systematic efforts to develop relation-ships with other students, faculty, etc. (organizations, activities, clubs, sports, etc.)Programs (such as EOP, SSS, MESA, other departmental programs) that provide a“home base” for low income or underrepresented students (or students withdisabilities) and that offer social and academic services or link students withservices on campus.

Then, focus on describing the program for which the respondent is responsible.Obtain more detailed information on its recruitment, student characteristics,content, duration, evidence of effectiveness, etc. Ask about its relationship toother support services, both social and academic, as well as to policymaking thataffects low income students.

7. What accommodations does the institution make for students who are alsoparents? Working? Need a job on campus? Have a disability? Must adjust theirschedules around other responsibilities or needs? What services are available tohelp these students?

8. What additional approaches, activities, programs, on this campus play a role inthe retention and completion of college, especially for low-income students?

67

APPENDIX B: MATRIX

68

Small private liberalarts. Largest majors:business, social science.“Selective.” Ruralregion of large state.

Undergrad enrollmentis 31,361, 5% part-time, 53% female.Majority are inresidence, includingalmost all freshmen asthey must spend 4sem. in residence.Undergrads are largelytraditional agestudents. Collegedraws from publicschools, lower-middle/working classbackgrounds. Studentbody is not verydiverse, but motivated— they want toimprove economically.

3/4 have SATs over1000, 30% over1200. 81% fresh tosoph retention, 49%graduate in 4 yrs, 65%in 6 yrs. Facultymember: “We takeaverage students andturn them intooutstanding students.”

78% FT. Most havethe terminal degree fortheir field. Hiring andpromotion decisionstake teaching intoaccount. Official: “Wehire people who careabout students and wetry to keep them hereand caring aboutstudents.” Researchvalued, but teachingquality is mostimportant.

Institution seesconstituency as poor,traditional age, first-generation, talentedstudents (althoughsome full-pay studentsdesired). Seek out ofstate (say retention ishigher). Work w/CBOs, foundations toget urban, minoritystudents. Tout value for$ and generous aid.Large staff (14 inrecruit/admiss)throughout northeaststates. Attractingminorities “achallenge.” Campusvisits orchestrated to“sell” school, w/faculty and studentparticipation. Parentsmeet w/ financial aidstaff who show howfinancing is possible.Also sell school assupportive of studentsw/ non-physicaldisabilities. Continue torecruit AFTERacceptance letters goout — described as“pricing wars, studentby student.”

Attracts “non-privileged” fromsurrounding poor regionin state and large city.Generates 2,000applicants for 500 1styr slots (and gets 80transfers — not apriority). Attracts manyfrom larger region.1000 SAT floor, but75-82 special admitsper year, as well asEOP students. 76%acceptance rate w/ 34-35% yield rate.Admissions is needblind. Described as a“poor man’s college”although “evolving” tohigher income. “Weget our enrollment oneat a time.”

Generous aid program,95% get some aid.Initial aid decisions use6 point system (4 foracademics, 1 forspecial interest, 1minority), thengenerate packagebased on income, in/out state. Lots ofdiscounting. Avg.student has est. $17Kdebt at grad. Service-oriented financial aidoffice — works w/parents on financialplanning. Monitorsstudent academicperformance to ensurerepeat of D courses, noloss of aid.

1) Must spend 4semesters in residencehalls — lots ofactivities, earlyintervention warnings,plans for improvement,no segregation, nostudy groups. 2) Ineach college, scholasticstandards committeesreview grades andissues for all studentsbelow C everysemester. Makeindividualrecommendations.Usually give secondchance but mayrecommend probation,suspension for a sem.,etc. Students canappeal and provideplan for improvement,approx. half arereinstated.

No developmental ed,but College of Businessoffers 1/2 yr mathtutorial for no credit.1/3 of collegecurriculum closed toEOP students, primarilydue to lack of math.

Intensive advising:Fresh have orientationweek before first sem.w/ testing, advising.Proactive — meet w/faculty before eachsemester to schedulecourses, get e-mailsabout mid-term grades,letters to all who aresubpar, faculty meetw/ all in jeopardy, asdo deans, to ask aboutproblems. Must seeadvisor to drop/addcourse. Est. 3 mtgs persem, each 20-30 min.12 advisees per facultymember. Annual facultytraining for advisorsavailable. Also seeresidence halldiscussion — lots ofinterventions. Greeksystem also hascomparableinterventions.

INST

ITU

TIO

N A

Otherinstitutionalpolicies thataffect low-

incomeenrollment,

retention, andgraduation

Institution type Studentcharacteristics

Studentperformanceindicators

(entrance, retention,graduation,

avg. time to degree,other important info)

Faculty info(size, student/facratio, % tenured or

track, % race/ethnicity, otherimportant info)

Recruitment Admissions Financial aid Developmentaleducation

Advising

69

Curriculum reform not amajor priority untilrecently. Collegemoving heavily towardlearning communities— called FreshmanYear Experience, whichincludes 3 courses.

Freshman year inCollege of Bus: gen edand “tool” courses,math/statistics,writing. 1/2 sem non-credit tutorial for verylow math scores (ormight transfer to liberalarts w/ wider range of“math” courses).Small class sizes (35 isvery large in bus, 17 ismax in LAS — a fewintro lectures have 60but most are 30-35).For its size, school haswide range ofprograms (business,engineering, arts,humanities, socialsciences). Someprograms team taught,lots of tutoring, SI,labs, by faculty andtutors accompanyclasses. FreshmanYear Experience(learning community)new but growing — inLAS, bus, engineering.Many faculty takeattendance — almostno one gets lost.

Writing center forpapers, undergradsstaff it. Departmentaltutors. Learningdisability program hasnote takers. Facultydon’t assume studentshave basic skills —spend time on studyhabits, reading andwriting skills. Seediscussion of advising.

Over 100 clubs, lots of“hooks” on campus todraw students in: radio,theater, dance, music(participate and getrecognition), studentgovt., affinity groups,skill groups. Each hasfaculty advisor. Schoolis an “enclave” wherestudents canexperiment, be safe.Faculty and students“extraordinarily close.”Faculty advocated forminorities who feltdiscriminated against intown. “Midnightbreakfasts” duringexam weeks (facultymake meals). Freshand soph in residencehalls — they’re smallw/ 70-90 per hall.

Supportive program,registration priority forstudents with non-physical disabilities.Active, effectivecounseling center w/ 3profs, many referralsfrom faculty, supportgroups. Judicial systemoffers hearings, peerreview board. Fewemployment opptys oncampus.

Key items: 1)attracting highperforming andmotivated students; 2)full-time facultydedicated to undergradeducation; 3) smallclass size; 4) closestudent/facultyrelations; 5) scholasticsstandards committee;6) a niche foreveryone; and 7) solidsupport services.

Faculty andadministrators believethey are largelyresponsible for whetherstudents succeed orfail. They seethemselves as quitegood at buildingstudent knowledge,skills and self esteem,if students are willingto make an effort.Limits of assistance:students who make noeffort — it’s better tosever ties early thanwaste their time.Sometimes studentsare dropped for asemester but if they goto another college anddo ok they return. Est.half of appeals arereinstated if they showhow they will improve.One said “there arelots of second chancesbut we don’t setstudents up to fail.”(LAS drops 30-40 ayear out of 800-900).Most say studentsleave primarily becausethey can’t take physicalisolation, sentimentechoed by students aswell.

Concur with itemsidentified byrespondents aboutcollege effectiveness.

This is an extraordinarycollege. Thesupportiveness of thefaculty and theopportunities forstudent-facultyinteraction areexceptional. Studentsand faculty respecteach other. The schoolis really physicallyisolated but everyonetries to make up forthat with great warmthand lots of activities.

EOP: Program isstatewide and aimed atattracting and retainingminority students.College participates andworks hard to makeprogram a success.Students attend five-week bridge programto improve skills, getorientation/advising.Enter regular classes infall, get specialadvising. Appear tohave higher attritionrate but college tryingto change that.

Respondents’views on

institutionaleffectiveness’

Site visitors’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Shapingstudents’ initial

instructionalprogram

Typical freshmaneducation

Academicsupport system

Other socialsupports

Accommodatingstudents

Respondents’views on

institutionalresponsibility

Site visitors’views on

institution,faculty,

students, etc.

Other importantinformation

70

INST

ITU

TIO

N B

Otherinstitutionalpolicies thataffect low-

incomeenrollment,

retention, andgraduation

Institution type Studentcharacteristics

Studentperformanceindicators

(entrance, retention,graduation,

avg. time to degree,other important info)

Faculty info(size, student/facratio, % tenured or

track, % race/ethnicity, otherimportant info)

Recruitment Admissions Financial aid Developmentaleducation

Advising

Public four-year collegein rural area in west.Isolated campus, nocommercial area,mostly commuter.Students preparing forteaching. Most commonmajors: liberal studies,business.

5,400 students, 69%full-time, 66% female.Ethnicity: 3% Black,23% Hispanic, 8%Asian, 53% white(13% unknown).Most from rural region.

73% from top half of hsclass, 55% have over500 in verbal SAT, 57%over 500 in math SAT(few over 600 ineither). 82% fresh tosoph retention, increasefrom past. 10%graduate in 4 yrs, 23%in 5 yrs, 41% in 6 yrs.Most entrants aretraditional age students.Females, Hispanics morelikely to graduate,Blacks less likely tograduate.

70% tenured, 61% FT.15:1 ratio. Facultyaging; many startedwhen institution began.Few minorities.Classroom performancecounts towardpromotion, along w/research. Studentsparticipate inevaluation.

Institution participatesin some programs inpublic schools toencourage collegeattendance. Want toincrease enrollment,but this year exceededlimit set by state.Small summer bridge,EOP program, re-entryadult program.

In-state: C+ hs avg. and900 SAT (pointsystem). Seek top halfof hs class. Will needcollege prep curriculumin 03. Higherrequirements for“impacted” programs.enrollment increasing,seeks to expandsubstantially, from7,000 to 10,000 ormore over time. Somespecial admits (EOP,music, athletes, someadults). Transfers fromCCs.

Last yr: $23m in aid (ofwhich $8m was loans).61% get some aid. Theytake pride in keepingstudents out of loanprogram. Some talentscholarships (in arts,athletics). Asians,Hispanics resistant toloans. Loan forgivenessfor those who go intoteaching (large % ofgrads in ed).

Center for StudentSuccess sets explicitretention goals,monitored byinstitutional committee.Mandatory orientationafter placement tests.If needed,developmental coursesrequired and must passin 1 year. Few reallyleave — get multipletries.

Large number needdevelopmental classesbased on exam given to2/3 of entrants (withSAT below 530). Mustremain in them untilthey pass. Hard to dropremedial classes. Cantake other English,math. If don’t pass inyear, referred to CC.Interactive approachused — small classes,instructors as coaches.In past, hard to pass(remedial standardswere higher thangeneral math course),revising downward.50% don’t passremedial math but getmultiple tries.

Students findadvising inadequate,say little relationshipbetween studentsand advisors. Firstyear program (new)has advising andtesting office, classon college survival,orientation, multi-disciplinary classes.EOP, SSS AMP,Summer Bridge usepeer counselors andfaculty advisors toassist new students.

71

Respondents’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Site visitors’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Shapingstudents’ initial

instructionalprogram

Typical freshmaneducation

Academicsupport system

Other socialsupports

Accommodatingstudents

Respondents’views on

institutionalresponsibility

Site visitors’views on

institution,faculty,

students, etc.

Other importantinformation

Special programs providelots of direction. EOPparticipants see advisorsevery month, culturalcomponent; also SSSProgram; AMP program(NSF$). All worktogether. Workshops,career counseling,writing, study skills,resumes, study groups ifon probation. Alsoprograms for veterans,returning students.

Most intro coursestaught by FT faculty, noTAs. Science teachersteach labs section oftheir classes. Most introclasses are in liberalstudies. Classes small(biggest room oncampus holds 110).Est. 10% drop oversemester. Fresh yearexperience block rostersfor two classes (newprogram).

Tutoring: support formath, English, otherbasic skills, as well asmore advancedclasses. Math lab openevery day, tutorialsgrouped by class butmostly one-on-one. 95student tutors work 10hrs each per week.Student Success Centerestablished 2001:comprehensive firstyear program, summerreading program fornew students,orientation events(parts of program werealready in existence).

Student leadershipopportunities, activestudent govt. Collegeorganizes low-cost trips(skiing, hiking, cityvisits). Social serviceand academicorganizations forstudents, but not a lotof involvement. Lack ofsocial options an issuefor those who leavecollege. Plan to doublenumber of dorm roomsto help improve campuslife. Women’s athleticsgets more support thanmen’s (more womenon campus).

Hard for some to juggleschool and work.Parking an issue, alsoclassroom and facilityovercrowding. Newfacilities have led tobetter class schedules.

Students say othersleave because offinances, seek moreinteresting campus(institution doesn’ttrack students).Financial aid officedoesn’t think financesa major reason inleaving.

Students get multipletries to completedevelopmental courses.Few leave due toacademic failure, despitenominally rigorouspolicy. Emphasis onretaining students andimproving theirperformance.

Increasing interest instudying and improvingretention. School setsretention targets fordifferent groups ofstudents. Many specialprograms that supportstudents, help keepthem in school.Officials stress personalinvolvement, smallclasses, lots ofdirection. Remediationseen as key topersistence. Otherpositive factors cited:small classes, FTfaculty teachingfreshman classes,teaching a factor inpromotion, staffcommitment tostudents, ombudsman,faculty mentor programfor first-generationstudents (w/ facultytraining), communityadvisory board(reviews quality ofstudent life, e.g.),active studentgovernment.

For a small school withlimited campus lifethey do quite well.They stress the “smallschool” theme — aschool close to home.

Stable presidency withconsistent vision. Notmuch use ofinstitutional data indecision-making.School isolated, fewHispanic faculty, despitesizeable Hispanicenrollment.

72

INST

ITU

TIO

N C

Otherinstitutionalpolicies thataffect low-

incomeenrollment,

retention, andgraduation

Institution type Studentcharacteristics

Studentperformanceindicators

(entrance, retention,graduation,

avg. time to degree,other important info)

Faculty info(size, student/facratio, % tenured or

track, % race/ethnicity, otherimportant info)

Recruitment Admissions Financial aid Developmentaleducation

Advising

Public HBCU located insmall town. SocialScience, business,protective services arelargest programs. Oneof the highestgraduation rates forathletes among NCAADivision II schools.

Approx. 2,000students, most fulltime; 88% in-statestatus. 75% Blackand 23% white; 54%of students live oncampus. 70-80% aredrawn fromsurrounding counties,where many are low-income. Manyfemales, singleparents, first-generation collegestudents — first intheir neighborhood togo to college. Somecome from homeswithout phones, letalone computers.Housing staffed byadministrators, studentassistants and 24-hourstudent serviceprofessionals.

At entrance, many areunderprepared, as areapublic schools are poor.Many redirected tocommunity college toget 24 transfer creditsbefore they enter. 98%of seniors graduate,above averagegraduation rate forpublic institutions in thestate with comparableSES. High grad rateamong athletes.

Most are full time.Faculty concerned aboutstudent success,nurturing. Have caringattitude, “willing to gothe extra mile” to helpstudents. Many arecollege alumni. Collegerecently faced facultyshortage.

Use alumni in region torecruit students. Schoolsells its proximity tobeaches, that it’scomfortable,inexpensive (a “point ofpride”). Recentemphasis on expandingenrollment — usingTV, signs, spots, eventsto promote school.College offers excellentfinancial aid package tohigh performingstudents to competewith state university.

College is tightening itsadmissions standards,establishing a two-yearforeign languagerequirement (2004)and requiring four unitsof high schoolmathematics instead ofthree (2006). Wasopen enrollment before1989, when statepolicy changed. Seek700-800 SAT (or 17-18 ACT) and 2.0 GPA.Try to do quickturnaround onapplications.

Avg. aid: fed grants$2,963, state grants$2,428, institutionalgrant $2,740, loans$3,662. 85% ofundergrads receive aid.In 1987 established theIncentive ScholarshipProgram, need-based lastdollar program targetedto relatively well-prepared, in-statestudents who want toattend on a full-timebasis. Performancebased, but can bereinstated if lost. Cannotexceed $3,800; 75% ofIncentive Scholarshiprecipients also receivePell Grants.Valedictorians get fullscholarships. Automatedpackaging program isspeeding aid program.Small endowment,American Indianscholarships, teachereducation grants, targetmen, low-income.Estimate 80-85% getsome aid.

Chancellor establisheda retention task forcelinked to the school’senrollmentmanagement plan andchaired by theAssociate ViceChancellor; the taskforce developed astrategic plan basedon analysis conductedby Noel-Levitz.Specifically, theobjectives are toincrease full-timefreshmen retentionrates 6 percentagepoints, second yearstudents 7 percentagepoints, and third yearstudents 4 percentagepoints by 2003. Inaddition, the plan callsfor increasing thegraduation rate offirst-time degreeseekers from about38 to 45% by 2003.

Students must takedevelopmental coursesif they do not scoreabove 500 on SAT.35% of first-time, full-time freshmen place inthe developmentsemester program.Provides intenseremediation four daysa week in speech,reading, writing, and/or mathematics (2classes, 2 labs per dayin English, 3 classes, 2labs in math). Studentsare re-tested at the endof their first semester;about 80-85%subsequently test-out.Rather than repeatingelements of thedevelopmentalsemester, students whodo not test-out aremainstreamed butprovided specialtutoring services. Getcredit for GPA/financialaid but not graduation.

Very regimentedacademic advisement andcounseling system.System’s linchpin is astructured ”First YearExperience.” Program isvery much a “handholding, old-school”intrusive approach. Eachstudent is assigned anacademic advisor in theirfield of study; faculty andstaff assigned to Programadvise undeclaredstudents. Students areadvised to declare majorsasap, deadline ofbeginning of their thirdyear. First-year studentsrequired to meet withadvisor 3 times asemester. Checkpoints:the week followingposting of mid-termgrades, and prior to pre-registration for theupcoming semester.Interventions areprescribed as appropriate.Students develop classschedule in consult w/advisors, who have finalapproval. Add/dropsrequire adv. signature.Students positve on prog.,mid-term reviews.

73

Respondents’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Site visitors’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Shapingstudents’ initial

instructionalprogram

Typical freshmaneducation

Academicsupport system

Other socialsupports

Accommodatingstudents

Respondents’views on

institutionalresponsibility

Site visitors’views on

institution,faculty,

students, etc.

Other importantinformation

All students must takeplacement tests inEnglish andmathematics unless500 or more on therespective sections ofthe SAT. Studentsscoring belowplacement test cutoffpoints are required toenroll in developmentalcourses. Mandatoryorientation program fornew students. Summerbridge in math.Undeclared arerecruited bydepartments severaltimes a year.

All newly enrolledstudents must registerfor the FreshmanSeminar during theirfirst semester, a one-credit course designedto help students gainknowledge aboutuniversity policies,academic programs, andcollege survival skills.The structured first yearprogram also includes asummer readingassignment, provides abuddy system and peereducation activities, andsessions with careercounselors who giveguidance on how toobtain internshipopportunities in certaincareer fields. The typicalfreshman carriesbetween 15-16 credithours per semester witha hard cap of 18 hours.Freshman to sophomoresummer bridge withhands-on researchprojects. Avg. class size18 students.

Basic education andenrichment program:individual/group/onlinepeer tutorial services.Center for special needsstudents: academicsupport for disabilitieswith professional andpeer tutors. ROTCspecial programs:Ranger challenge,simultaneousmembership, specialchallenge. College hasseveral special programsaimed at improvingstudent retention andgraduation. Schoolsponsors a pre-collegefreshman summerbridge program for 25students who plan onmajoring inmathematics or one ofthe physical sciences. Aresidential summerbridge program lasts 4-6weeks providingparticipants weeklystipends. Peer tutors(33) teach learningstrategies, get mixedreviews from students.At-risk sophomoreprogram (below 2.0GPA), SSS program.

College inventorysurvey administered toincoming students toidentify those at risk offailure. Instrumentidentifies students withboth marginal andsevere needs bymeasuring theiracademic motivation(i.e., study habits),coping skills (i.e.,opinion tolerance), andreceptivity to guidance.At-risk students areprovided special one-on-one services, whichinclude both academicand personalcounseling. Peermentors regularly visitwith at-risk studentsand help monitor theiracademic progress.Events: homecoming,concerts, dormprograms, Greekprograms. Dry campus.Commuter lounge.Students need to takeinitiative to getinvolved. Activeresidence hallprograms. Themehousing (Greek, honors,ROTC, basketball, choir,etc.) Residence hallsactive 24 hours a day.Students take probationseriously. Must leavehalls if use drugs,alcohol. Judicial court.

Limited child care by edschool, office for studentadaptive needs(physical and learningdisabilities). Manystudents work.

Students whoparticipated indiscussion groupgenerally expressedappreciation for theparental nature ofadvisement services. Inparticular, studentsendorsed the mandatoryone-on-one sessionswith faculty advisorsimmediately followingthe mid-termassessments. Studentstalked about beinggrounded by the “realitycheck” of such aconsultation, valuingfaculty help in devisingcorrective actions.

In general, respondentssaid college has hands-on, friendlyatmosphere. Institutionwants to improveretention — goal is73% fresh to sophretention by 2003.

The greatest “leakage”occurs betweenfreshman andsophomore years.There are also many“stop outs” due to bothfinancial and academicproblems. School sendsletter warning ofpossible termination.They also do exitinterviews to find outwhy students leave.Say students who leaveare unclear about theirgoals or have personalproblems. Some goodstudents transfer tomore prestigious stateuniversity nearby.Some students arebored by life in smallcommunity, althoughothers like it. Olderstudents sometimesfind the campus toostrict. In general, thosewith goals and majorsare more likely to stay.

More than 50 buildings,“beautiful and moderncampus”; state-of-the-artlibrary with onlineservices, bowling alley,the first planetarium inthe area, aquarium,greenhouse, 24-trackrecording studio, and abrand new fine artscomplex and academiccomputing center.Large internshipprograms in businesseconomics andhumanities. Careercenter holds job fairstwice a year.

74

INST

ITU

TIO

N D

Otherinstitutionalpolicies thataffect low-

incomeenrollment,

retention, andgraduation

Institution type Studentcharacteristics

Studentperformanceindicators

(entrance, retention,graduation,

avg. time to degree,other important info)

Faculty info(size, student/facratio, % tenured or

track, % race/ethnicity, otherimportant info)

Recruitment Admissions Financial aid Developmentaleducation

Advising

Approximately 850students. Females outenroll males 2:1. 91%of freshmen live oncampus; 63% of allstudents live oncampus. 56%graduation rate.

Private HBCU located ina large city. Amoderately high-costinstitution at almost$19,500 per year(with R&B), modestlyselective admissionspolicy. Provides degreesin Arts, Science, andMusic, as well as aMaster’s in Arts.

Avg. entering freshmanhas composite SAT of879 or an ACT of 18.6.25% of undergraduatestudents make theDean’s List; 2.6% earna 4.0 GPA.

63 FT; 22 PT for FTE of70.83. 70% of FThave doctorate; 14.3%are professors; 59% offaculty are Black. 167FT employees.

Students are recruitednationally andinternationally. Moststudents come fromparticular states withinthe US: Texas,Michigan, Illinois, Ohio,and California, butstudent body includesstudents from 41 statesand 17 countries.

40% admit rate, 32%enroll. 247 studentsenrolled in 2000.Students with a 2.5 GPAand ACT score range of19-20 are admitted.Have a minimum gap of2.5 (on a 4.0 scale).Catalogue lists it as aselective institutionaccepting only studentsfrom the top 5% hsclass (but that does notappear to be the case).Policy is that a studentcannot exceed one year,or have more than 12semester hours, withless than a 2.0 GPA.Each student has anacademic review in theregistration office at theend of each semester.This is the first year thatstudents will be able toregister or access theirtranscripts online.

Avg. package$10,340. Avg. loan$4,280, avg. Fed.grant $3,217. Loanindebtedness rangesfrom $20,000 -$25,000 after fouryears. No institutionalwork program. Mostinstitutional financialaid is merit-based,which goes to higher-income (non-Pell)students at a rate of75-80%. According tothe financial aiddirector, 80% of thestudents that leave doso as a result offinancial difficulty.Financial aid ismentioned by theCareer Planning andPlacement Officer as amajor issue because“low-income studentsdon’t know where toget money.” Anongoing effort of theBoard of Trustees is tohold an annualfundraiser for financiallyneedy students.

Registration officialsnoted that students canrepeat a class as manytimes as they want andreceive the last gradeas part of theircumulative GPA. Eventhough the institutiondoes not have anattendance policy,professors can requireclass attendance.Institution now requiresthat students under 21live on campus.Learning Center staffwork with the financialaid office to ensurethat more students getthe financial supportneeded to live oncampus.

Developmentaleducation is intricatelylinked to TRIO programservices. There arecurrently 150 studentsbeing served in theSSS program. Thelearning center mergesall of the classesoffered to providetutorial support forstudents.

Advising process isconstant upon entry.Freshmen havefreshman exams, theyare assigned facultyadvisors within theirmajor, and students arerequired to declare amajor within theirsecond year to ensurefaculty support.

75

Respondents’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Site visitors’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Shapingstudents’ initial

instructionalprogram

Typical freshmaneducation

Academicsupport system

Other socialsupports

Accommodatingstudents

Respondents’views on

institutionalresponsibility

Site visitors’views on

institution,faculty,

students, etc.

Other importantinformation

Learning Centercoordinates freshmanorientation process, andhelps students identifyresources for questionsthey may have. Manyfreshmen go through afreshman orientationprocess as well as havea sophomore proficiencyexam. In the future, thesophomore proficiencyexam will be part of astandardized testingprocess and measure ofinstitution’seffectiveness.

47% of classes areunder 10 students;almost 80% under 25students. Bridgeprogram for incomingstudents in chemistry,biology, math, andscience. Students canparticipate in a “courseon learning strategiesdesigned to help themreason,” according to afaculty member.

Though the LearningCenter offers support tostudents, the centerlocation movedfrequently (on their thirdmove) and changinglocation affects student’sknowledge of where togo to get assistance.However, the CenterStaff are trying to makethe center’s programsmore appealing so as toattract more students aswell as help themidentify where the centeris located. The LearningCenter staff work withthe financial aid officeand student affairs officeto ensure greatercoordination of efforts tohelp needy students getawards and stay inschool. According tostaff in the Registrationoffice, the academiccounseling center is verynew and is expected tobe a part of the nextwave of collectivecoordination.

Additional socialsupport offered tostudents includesreligious services andstudent leadershipactivities. Provoststates, “freshmenorientation extends tothe whole person ... todining etiquette, genderissues, sex, budgeting,life skills, etc.”Additionally, “thePresident has a firesidechat once a month” tohelp increase studentretention. Provostbelieves in the notionthat “discipline is whatmakes it all successful”in aiding studenteducation completion.Professionals at schoolhave noted theinstitution’s limitedability to serve thestudents needing healthservices, technologysupport. 91% offreshmen live oncampus; 63% of allstudents live oncampus.

Faculty member in thescience departmentmentions the need toprovide assistantships tostudents. Additionally,one faculty membernotes “we need morementoring opportunitiesfor poorer sciencestudents.” Students,mentions one facultymember, are responsiblefor their counseling andtutoring. Counseling isnot viewed as a facultyrequirement.

According to theProvost, “practices arefairly dated.” Studentsupport center andcounseling servicesare located in onebuilding, studentaffairs in anotherbuilding. Consolidationof all student servicesis to be implementedwithin five to sixmonths. “

76

INST

ITU

TIO

N E

Otherinstitutionalpolicies thataffect low-

incomeenrollment,

retention, andgraduation

Institution type Studentcharacteristics

Studentperformanceindicators

(entrance, retention,graduation,

avg. time to degree,other important info)

Faculty info(size, student/facratio, % tenured or

track, % race/ethnicity, otherimportant info)

Recruitment Admissions Financial aid Developmentaleducation

Advising

Private four-year HBCUlocated in a mid-sizedtown 40 miles from thestate capital. A second-chance institution forstudents that didn’ttake their high schooleducation seriously.Although this is aprivate institution, itprovides a lower cost tostudents, oncepackaged with aid, thanmost public four-yearinstitutions.

Nearly 50/50 splitmale/female. Almostall full-time students.99% Black; 55% fromwithin the state; 64%reside on campus.Students areacademically lessprepared than studentsat most colleges. Manyare first-generationstudents, with pooracademic underpinningand poorly-rootedspiritual backgrounds.Students choose schoolfor a “second chance”opportunity, the lowcost, its size, hands-onmethods, its religiousconnection, andbecause it is an HBCU.They don’t get lost inthe crowd here.Students are led tounderstand that theymust learn to give backto the community, justas the community,particularly theinstitution, has given tothem. They learn torespect and beresponsible for others.

7% were in the top10% of their hs class,12% in the top 25%,and 63% in the tophalf. 89% fresh to sophretention, 56%graduate in 6 yrs. Thecampus literallyembodies “it takes avillage to raise a child”mantra. Students havea strong desire to bettertheir lives. Many ofthese students havebeen told that theywon’t succeed in life,let alone academics.This institution providesa good moral, social,interpersonalintervention forstudents. As the tag lineof the college states, itis about “The Power ofPotential.”

47 FT faculty. 16:1ratio. No adjuncts.Faculty encouraged toattend conferences tonetwork withcolleagues and learnhow to improve theirteaching and practicalknowledge. May be afaculty retentionproblem, as somefaculty leave after oneyear because they don’tfit in to the hands-onphilosophy. Also,salaries relatively low,with an avg. of$29,000, well belownational avg.

Recruitment exercisesinclude visits toCalifornia, Virginia, andDC — typically statesthat provide out-of-statefinancial support tostudents.

Open admissionsschool, low cost for aprivate institution —almost all studentsreceive financial aid.Attracts students whohave not necessarilyapplied themselvesduring high school.Each year the collegeincorporates a newpromotional program toattract students. Lastyear it was the OpenDiscount Program,allowing non-traditionalstudents to work andstudy. Students canearly admit during theirjunior year if their GPAis above 3.0 and signan intent to enroll;about half attend.Admissions worksclosely with TRIOprograms; about 3/4of Upward Boundstudents attendinstitution.

Tuition and room andboard $11,980 peryear. Over 95% receivefinancial aid (25students of 800+ donot). Approx. 85%receive Pell Grants. Aidoffice frontloads studentswith grants during thefirst two years to theextent that it can. Avg.student receives $4,000Pell, $3,100 state aid,$1,000 SEOG, andabout $1,700 FWS.That covers almost allCOA. Debt load is lowerthan most publiccolleges. About half ofstudents also work, andhalf of them have work-study. No emergencyaid, but students can usetheir Stafford eligibilityas necessary. Financialaid staff meet withgroups of studentsduring summerorientation, closelycounseled not to incurunnecessary debt. Thispast year, the collegepromoted a 30-dayscholarship program (inMarch), whichessentially reduced costof attendance to $500for eligible students;over 300 studentsapplied for thisscholarship.

College is a “BootCamp” for studentswho haven’t followedthe traditional academicpath to postsecondaryeducation. Approach isreligious, paternal, andstrict. Many studentsdon’t like it initially butcome to appreciate thecollege’s hands-onnature. Students feelthat they can talk toanyone on campusabout their academicand personal issues.Nurturing, safeenvironment.Mandatory “ChapelService” onWednesdays at 11amfor one hour, designedto “uplift” students.Guest speakers providemotivation to students.Chapel service is animportant strategy toencourage students towalk the line, improvethemselves, and persistto their goals. Facultymembers takeattendance at everyclass and provide thatinformation to thePresident. If studentsare overly absent (twotimes, in some cases),a letter or phone callgoes home to theirparents. Letter alsosent if dorm rooms notkept clean.

There are now noremedial/developmental courses.During the past twoyears, they haveremoved those coursesand created newcourses that provide abroader learningexperience in the basicrequisites, such asmathematics, science,and English (five creditcourses). As one facultymember remarked,students feltstigmatized by takingthe remedial courses.

Must have advisor signform in order forstudents to register forclasses. As well,students are required tomeet with their facultyadvisors three timeseach semester, butoften do not. This factwas supported by bothstudents and faculty.Each faculty memberadvises approximately15-20 students,formally and informally.

77

Respondents’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Site visitors’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Shapingstudents’ initial

instructionalprogram

Typical freshmaneducation

Academicsupport system

Other socialsupports

Accommodatingstudents

Respondents’views on

institutionalresponsibility

Site visitors’views on

institution,faculty,

students, etc.

Other importantinformation

Freshmen take theComprehensiveAssessment Program(CAP) test duringorientation. Test, whichis actually theSophomore ProficiencyExam, is used as adiagnostic instrument,and students are placedaccordingly for freshmenyear by score in reading,writing, andmathematics.Mathematics majorstake the McGraw Hillmathematics exam forplacement. CAP is alsoused as an aptitude testfor students’ majors.

Incoming students comeonto campus for a 2.5day orientation duringJuly with their family.Entire campus getsinvolved in thefreshman orientationcourse, which isattended by 299freshmen at twosessions each week, forcredit (2 credits).

Students are told thattheir goal is to graduatewith a degree.Retention is important.The college communityfosters the atmosphereto challenge students,academically andsocially. Facultymembers meet once amonth, and departmentchairs once a week.Retention is oftenbrought up, since it is afoundational piece ofthe entire collegephilosophy. Manystrategies on campus tohelp retain students:academic advising,support services, theWriting Center,Technology Center (inthe library), teachereducation curriculum,and math and sciencelabs. Faculty membersencourage students toattend the WritingCenter and to usetutors around thecampus.

70% of students (450)live in one of fourresidence halls (two formen, two for women).Halls are wellmaintained, wired forInternet and email(about 50% have theirown computers).Everyone has access.Student Services worksclosely with fraternitiesand sororities oncampus. It seems thatmost social activities forstudents arecoordinated by thesepan-Hellenic societies.VP for Student Affairsestimates that 60% areinvolved in one of theseorganizations. Studentrecreational center hasgames and TV forstudents, and eachresidence hall has acommon area forstudents.

Childcare through localchurch.

Respondents feltinstitution provided asupportive climate,faculty were committedto retention andstudents; otherwise,they wouldn’t be here.Heard the same fromstudents. The financialaid office does aremarkable job ofdistributing aid, makingthis a very affordablesmall school.

Retention is a priorityon campus, accordingto several facultymembers. Inanticipation of site visit,all faculty on meetinglist were distributed aretention mantra/guidefrom the President. Asone faculty memberstated, “Retention iseveryone’s business; itis implicit!” “Thisschool does a prettygood job given the typeof students they get.”The retention of facultyis perhaps a greaterproblem than theretention of students.

For a small college,this is a remarkableinstitution. It keeps theprice affordable,provides a supportiveenvironment, and iscommitted to studentsand persistence. It ispleasing to see aninstitution classify itselfas a “second-chance”institution. However,this place isn’t foreveryone. It isextraordinarily hands-on, almost to asmothering state. Butthat’s what makes itwork for manystudents.

The faculty arecommitted; given smallsalaries, they must be.They do lose faculty,probably because theinstitution is strict. Thepresident is a top-down, in controlperson, and somefaculty did not likethat. It is also areligious-basedinstitution. Studentsdon’t like the level ofhands-on control, butsimilarly, understand it.This place is helpingthem grow up.

78

INST

ITU

TIO

N F

Otherinstitutionalpolicies thataffect low-

incomeenrollment,

retention, andgraduation

Institution type Studentcharacteristics

Studentperformanceindicators

(entrance, retention,graduation,

avg. time to degree,other important info)

Faculty info(size, student/facratio, % tenured or

track, % race/ethnicity, otherimportant info)

Recruitment Admissions Financial aid Developmentaleducation

Advising

Public four-year, land-grant college. Schoollocated in growingurban area but far frommain population centersin state. Most commonmajors: business,education, engineering,social science.

12,500 at main andbranch campuses.53% female, 50% offreshmen in campushousing, 80% of allstudents live on ornear campus (moreresidential thancommuter institution).Avg. age forundergrad is 23.Many from very smalltowns, schools.Institution seen as BIGplace, attractive tostudents (based onstudent survey). LittleGreek life.

81% in top half of hsclass. 72% fresh tosoph retention, higherfor females. 10%graduate in 4 yrs,41% in 6 yrs, 7% stillenrolled after 6 yrs.Leaving in sophomoreand junior yearsbigger problem thanfreshman.

96% FT. 17:1 ratio.650 tenure-trackfaculty: 85% white,10% Hispanic (staff is44% Hispanic), 34%female. 82% haveterminal degree. Reg.load is 12 credits.Tenure-track teach 54%of hours (71% upperdiv).

No formal recruitmenttargets but would likesmall overall increaseand substantialincrease in NativeAmericans. 6 recruiters(but faculty, extensionofficials, staff, allhelp), multiple visits toall high schools instate, school events,etc. Compete w/other state schools onaid primarily (yield 48-49%). Considered“best buy” in nationalpublications but thereare cheaper in-statealternatives. Discussscholarships w/attractive candidates,offer attractivefinancial aid packageto low-income studentswith highperformance.

“Slightly selective” 2.5GPA and college prepcurriculum (2.0-2.4 okw/ 20 ACT or 21 ifbelow 2.0). Manyapplicants lack a mathcredit (can enroll incontiguous cc branchcampus to get it).Before 1987, institutionwas open admission.There are fewconditional admits.Goals: 1% increase inoverall enrollment eachyear. 800 rejected ayear — most lack 1credit. 600 (all levels)transfer per year fromCC and 4-yr colleges(mostly branches).

Avg. package: 47% giftaid, 49% loans, 4%work-study. Avg.award: $6,000 (cost:$12,000). 92% getsome aid. Typicalpackage: 23% gift,36% loan, 3% work-study 17% state/otherscholar, 22% other.Best freshmanpackage: 65% gift(others 60%), typicalfor on-campusfreshmen: 61% giftplus loan and work-study. Statescholarship: free tuitionw/ 2.5GPA after firstsemester. There is anall grant aid stateprogram for highlytalented low-incomestudents.

Major institutionalgoals: retention(concern w/sophomore to juniorretention especially);academic reform (e.g.,seeking alternatives todevelopmental ed,implementing learningcommunities); teachingquality (push toconsider teachingquality in hiring,tenure); more Hispanicfaculty.

No developmental ed.Unofficially: intro mathcourses provideremediation, there is lotsof free tutoring for otherclasses and SIaccompanies gatekeepercourses. Collegeencourages simultaneouscoursetaking at branchesthat offer the samecourse if students areexperiencing difficulty.Community college nextdoor good place fortaking math, othercourses.

Small group advising insummer for newfreshmen. After that,differs by college.Health, arts/science,education, and businessuse professionalcounselors.Engineering, agricultureuse faculty. Web-basedregistration allowsbypass of advising afterfreshman year (somecolleges rethinkingthis). Some facultydirective (e.g., tellstudent to avoid toughteachers, changecolleges, etc.), othersnot. Freshmanorientation course w/advising taken by somestudents in all colleges.Est. 20-30 advisees perfaculty. Also advisingprovided in ethnic/affinity programs, SSS,peer mentoringprograms.

79

Respondents’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Site visitors’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Shapingstudents’ initial

instructionalprogram

Typical freshmaneducation

Academicsupport system

Other socialsupports

Accommodatingstudents

Respondents’views on

institutionalresponsibility

Site visitors’views on

institution,faculty,

students, etc.

Other importantinformation

Limited efforts untilrecently. Main effortbeyond advising:freshman experiencecourse (FYE) w/advising, study skills,careers, etc. Noted byrespondents: small classsize a plus (forfreshmen: most have25 or less, a few 60-100 w/ assistants).Institution studied“barrier courses” andtry to advise againstenrolling right away;developing academicsupport for thoseclasses. Some collegesdo more, esp Ag,Engineering: intrusiveadvising, group study,tutoring, internships,etc. Introducing learningcommunity programs inseveral colleges.

Survey of studentsshowed that positiveclassroom instructionand interaction was thething they liked bestabout campus. Avg.class size: lower div 39,upper div 22. Typicalcourse load below 15units (many take 12).Many on academicprobation but mostimprove. Lots of gen edat first. Some advisorsurge repeating courseswhere D was earned(but this is changingbecause doing so wouldpreclude free tuitionstate scholarship).

Wide range of supportavailable, differs bycollege or dept. Lots offree tutoring, groupstudy options.Campus wide:learning, writingcenters. Affinity, homebase programs alsooffer academic supportthrough tutoring,internships etc. SomeSI or mastery classesin intro science courses(extra unit credit). Inpast, more SI anddevelopmental ed —now moved to branchcommunity college.SSS (350) hastutoring. Ag school has30 studentorganizations withpeer mentoring, jobexperience, etc.Engineering hasminority programs.

Over 300 studentorganizations. Moststudents join something.Also studentgovernment, housingactivities. Associatedstudents an importantforce (got a “fall break”instituted recently).Students positive aboutsocial life on campus.Strong sense ofcommunity, links w/faculty. Staff/facultyvolunteer at events,games. Open doorpolicy (students candrop in on faculty). Halfof freshmen in dorms— lots of socialactivities.

Large numbers ofstudents work oncampus, through work-study and other campusjobs. School estimates70-80% work oncampus or in nearbycommunities. Efforts toschedule courses toaccommodate workschedules, which are afinancial necessity.Some concern w/ timeto degree for thosetaking light loads, butcan’t do much. Childcare available — est.20% are single parents.

1) Focus on retention.2) Maintain smallcampus feel. 3) Campuslooks good (studentsurvey). 4) Range ofacademic support. 5)Faculty/staff interactionw/students. 6)Developmental help infreshman courses. 7)Group work built intoinstruction. 8) Facultyopen door. 9) Classroominteraction #1 in studentsurvey. 10) Admissionrequirements. 11) Halfof freshmen live oncampus. 12) Lots ofopportunities forsuspended to reinstate.13) Caring faculty,rewards for goodteaching. 14) Feeling ofcommunity. 15) Affinitygroups, manyorganizations. 16)Hispanics prominent, rolemodels. 17) Studenttime w/FT faculty higherthan elsewhere. 18)Dept. minority progs.19) Strong student workethic.

Frequent academicprobation, suspension,but clear routes toreinstatement. May bethat faculty advisors intough programs(engineering, sciences)encourage transfer toother colleges,programs, but clearlysome just don’t havebackgrounds forscience. Concern thatsome take too fewcredits (so they canwork), take too long tograduate. Respondentsalso say students leavefor financial reasons,work and schedulingproblems, lose freetuition (new program— new problem),families exert pressuresto work, help out(don’t understanddemands of college),very poor feel guiltyspending money forcollege. Some studentswant more prestigiousschool.

Largely concur withrespondents’ views.Additional importantfactors may be: 1) labs,group work in manycourses; 2) location farfrom state’s populationcenter means few“casual” students; 3)students get credits atleisurely pace; 4) fewspecial admits; 5)largely traditional ageundergrads; 6) fewinitially part-timestudents; 7) activerecruitment for low-income, talentedstudents (because ofstate scholarships); 8)experiential education inAg, engineering, otherfields; 9) low-incomearen’t isolated —perception is most arelow-income. No stigma.10) 3,000 (!) work oncampus.

Same positive views ofcampus expressed byfull range ofrespondents. Almost noone had discordantviews. New arrivalsamong staff particularlyimpressed with campusatmosphere.

80

INST

ITU

TIO

N G

Otherinstitutionalpolicies thataffect low-

incomeenrollment,

retention, andgraduation

Institution type Studentcharacteristics

Studentperformanceindicators

(entrance, retention,graduation,

avg. time to degree,other important info)

Faculty info(size, student/facratio, % tenured or

track, % race/ethnicity, otherimportant info)

Recruitment Admissions Financial aid Developmentaleducation

Advising

Four-year privateuniversity in urbancenter. Two maincampuses total13,500 students,9,000 of whom areundergrads, 5,800,main campus. Profilecalls it “moderatelydifficult” on selectivity.Common majors:business/marketing,computer/info science,health. Littleinteraction amongstaffs across thecampuses.

13% Black, 11%Hispanic, 14% Asian,34% white, 11%international, 17%unknown. Majority arefirst-generation collegestudents from theurban area whereschool is located. 58%male, 23% residential,average age: 26(including gradstudents). Many arefrom immigrantfamilies. Many work,some at 2-3 jobs; theydon’t ask parents forhelp. May attend herefor convenience,relatively low tuition.

Entering SATs: 47% over500; 60% verbal, 73%math, over 500. Est.70% fresh to sophretention; of those whostay, 90% will finish thethird year. 28%graduate in 4 yrs, 52%in 6 yrs. 6 yr rate forPell recipients same asall students. 6 yr ratefor special admits is32%.

38% FT. 23:1 ratio. IRdirector says facultyemphasis on teachingover research. Facultyprovides personalattention, advising,nurture students. Manyare alumni. Studentssay too many PT andadjunct faculty.

No special efforts torecruit low-income orunderrep students(summer bridgeprogram discontinuedbecause of $). Runs aspecial fresh yr programfor low-income, minorityspecial admit students,however. Try to bewelcoming, diverse,family-oriented campus.

Modestly selective. 75% get an institutionalgrant (avg. $6,311) and67% get loan (avg.$3,670). Avg. Pell$2,749, 55% receive it.54% get state grants(avg. $3,346). Tuition is$17,030. No info on %of costs covered bytypical grants/loan pkg.Special admits payadditional $500 persemester and can’t getinstitutional aid. Smallendowment, institutionalgrants that consider meritand need (avg.$9,300). Students sayfinancial aid isbureaucracy butworkshops are run inmany languages.Officials think $ a factorin leaving beforegraduating.

President accessible tostudents through onlinechats.

No developmental ed formost students. Specialadmit program hasdevelopmentalcomponent with smallclasses, tutoring,

Professional advisingfirst semester. Allstudents assigned tofaculty advisorsthereafter for morestructured, guidedadvising with coursesequence for all fouryears laid out byfaculty. Faculty teach acourse for freshmencalled Univ 101, whichincludes study skills,academic planning,career planning, etc.and provide advising.Students not terriblypositive about advisingquality. Students withGPA below 2.0 aretargeted for intrusiveadvising withinindividual colleges.

81

Respondents’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Site visitors’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Shapingstudents’ initial

instructionalprogram

Typical freshmaneducation

Academicsupport system

Other socialsupports

Accommodatingstudents

Respondents’views on

institutionalresponsibility

Site visitors’views on

institution,faculty,

students, etc.

Other importantinformation

Students advised totake no more than 15units first semester.Most classes are small— avg. of 22students.

New first-year discoveryprogram with linkedcourses, team teaching.Students do a co-op intheir sophomore year.Summer programs insome colleges (e.g.,nursing, accounting).Special admit programfor low-income,minority students whoshow promise but donot meet regularentrance requirements.Those students have astructured freshmanyear experience withintensive work in theliberal arts corecurriculum, advising,academic supportservices, small classes,peer or faculty tutoring.

Weekend/eveningtutoring, learning center(use is high), first yeardiscovery program, co-operative education.

Many ethnic affinityprograms, academicclubs. These are oftenhard for workingstudents to attend.There are leadershipopportunities. Multi-cultural events are wellattended.

No day care due tobudget cuts. Healthawareness and wellnessprograms, counseling.It is often hard forworking students to getto classes.

Respondents attributesuccess to small classsizes (avg. class size of22) and dedicatedfaculty. Facultyemphasize teachingover research. Also laudhonors program, work-study, cooperativeeducation. Mentionimproved advising,residence halls.Officials not satisfiedwith current retention/graduation rates.Business studentsproud to be at college,say faculty are good,like new cornerstonecourse that incorporatesfieldwork.

Officials say 80% leavefor reasons other thanmoney — manytransfer to othercolleges (publics thatare cheaper), lackskills, have intensefamily demands, jobdemands, or have aculture conflict inattending college.

Institution didn’t knowits record w/ Pellrecipients until it didan analysis for sitevisit. Institution hasnot paid particularattention to this issueand officials weresurprised by findingsthat grad rate for Pellrecipients was thesame as for institutionas a whole.

82

INST

ITU

TIO

N H

Otherinstitutionalpolicies thataffect low-

incomeenrollment,

retention, andgraduation

Institution type Studentcharacteristics

Studentperformanceindicators

(entrance, retention,graduation,

avg. time to degree,other important info)

Faculty info(size, student/facratio, % tenured or

track, % race/ethnicity, otherimportant info)

Recruitment Admissions Financial aid Developmentaleducation

Advising

Public four-year, land-grant HBCU withapproximately 3,600students, mostattending full-time.Located in a small ruraltown. The universityoffers over 60baccalaureate programsin the areas of appliedprofessional sciences,engineering technology,sciences, arts,humanities, education,and business. Collegehas a small number ofmaster’s levelprograms. Largestenrollment inengineering technologyand sciences, followedby applied professionalsciences. Together,those two areasaccount for 43% oftotal enrollment.

58% female; 95%Black; 89% full time,66% in-state; in-statestudents come fromover 118 high schools.This is a second choiceinstitution for manystudents. 1,880students live inresidence halls (thereis a waiting list). Largepercentage of studentsengage in the Greeksystem. Intramuralsports are verypopular, and manystudents participate instep show, gospelchoir, YoungDemocrats, ASUB, andNAACP. College has astrong ROTC programand produces manyminority militaryofficers.

Avg. entering freshmanSAT is 867. Universityreceives 3,700applicants, of whom40% are admitted, and15% (569 students)enroll. No year-to-yearretention data. 45%graduate in 6 yrs.

96% FT. 16:1 ratio. Nolarge lecture classes.Students describedcertain faculty membersas individuals whohelped them in one-on-one situations whenthey were struggling.The faculty knewstudents by name inmost cases. This strongbond also acts as anearly warning systemfor students. Mainatmosphere is “in locoparentis”, intrusive insupport services thathelp students tosucceed.

Institution did not havea concept of enrollmentmanagement ormarketing, and until2000, was in a crisis,with freshmanenrollment in steadydecline. Brought upfrom 570 to 616 in’01 and 720 in ’02.Now they are trying tostabilize the studentpopulation. Institutionthat students choosemostly because theycan get in and becauseit is relatively low cost.

Avg. SAT for incomingstudents is 867. Forfirst-time enteringfreshmen, majoremphasis is placed onsuccessful completion ofall required collegepreparatory courses (asdetermined by thestate), GPA, and classrank. SAT I or ACT scoreis evaluated inconjunction with hsscholastic achievement.Provisional admissionstatus if SAT/ACT scoreis greater than 830/17but GPA is less than2.00, or if SAT/ACTscore is greater than750/15 and GPA isgreater than 2.00.Students can beadmitted with lowerscores if they participatein the Student SupportServices program.

Relatively affordable(in-state tuition around$4K). 82% receive Pellgrants; 40% receivemax Pell. Aid office triesto provide students withSEOG grant, and doestheir best to foregoloans during freshmanyear. All institutional aidis merit-based; thePresidential Scholarshiprequires SAT of 1200 orhigher; second level isHonors (valedictorians— high achievers).State need-basedprogram used to provideadditional support tohigh achieving Pellgrant students, requiresa B average, 70thpercentile or higher inhs, SAT greater than1100. Emergencymoney is available via adonor that gave $10kin revolving funds. Statedeficit is causing majorproblems for thefinancial aid office.Financial aiddepartment conducts adebt management classand now boasts a 4%default rate, down from19% in 1987.

University does notoffer anydevelopmental courses,as mandated by statelegislature, so studentsmust now take thesecourses at acommunity college.Students do not getdegree credits forcertain courses in maththat are offered, whichare developmental innature, but they docount for aid.

In order to register,students must see anadvisor, who will thengive the student a PINnumber to login foronline registration.Drop/adds also requirean advisor’s signature.Students must declarea major by the end ofthe freshman year orthey stay in theFreshman Program foradditional advising.However, one studenttold us that he neverdid find his advisor.Faculty are not requiredto turn in mid-termgrades. At-risk studentshave double advising:a faculty person and acounselor for FreshmanStudies.

83

Respondents’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Site visitors’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Shapingstudents’ initial

instructionalprogram

Typical freshmaneducation

Academicsupport system

Other socialsupports

Accommodatingstudents

Respondents’views on

institutionalresponsibility

Site visitors’views on

institution,faculty,

students, etc.

Other importantinformation

School runs asummer orientationfor freshmanstudents precedingfall semester.Orientation leadersare very visible andcontinue to providerole model andmentoring forstudents afterorientation week.Students takeplacement examsduring summerorientation.

All freshman arerequired to takeFreshman Seminar 101,which is taught in 29sections each semester.Students receive twocredits for the course.Instructor of thefreshman seminar alsoacts as student’s advisorfor that semester.According to students,Freshman 101 helpedwith time managementand the teachersinteracted with studentsoutside of class, kind oflike parents.

Student Success Centeroffers both group andindividual tutoring. Animportant part of thisprogram is an earlyalert system for facultyto contact the programabout students inneed. The“Psychometric”program providescounseling, tutoring,and psychiatricevaluation forstudents. Testing labsare available for theteacher educationprogram (PRAXIS).SOCKET program is amultiplatform deliveryof instruction that iscompetency based.Program is contentdriven (e.g.,elementarymathematics), and iscampus-wide across allschools/disciplines.Student-sponsoredorganizations alsoconduct tutorialassistance, and there isa writing lab (part ofwriting across thecurriculum) andcomputer labs (in justabout all academicbuildings and throughspecific subject matterareas) available forstudents.

Students whoseentrance placementexams are low getsupport throughFreshman studies fortutoring; themathematics dept.provides additionalmath tutoring. TheUniversity has a Speechmajor and a Speechclinic for diagnosingspeech problems.Writing and criticalthinking center areunder the freshmancenter. Speech isrequired of all students.All students take amath and Englishplacement exam.

Students havecomplained aboutsafety on campus.Student parking areasare in “not safe” areas,and students alsoexpressed safetyconcerns aroundhousing — lack ofgood security.

Enrollmentmanagement directorfelt there was a majorproblem with facultyattitude. Faculty andstaff at the universitywere not customer-service oriented. Also aproblem in perception— for instance, whenthe EM director cameon board, the presidentthought the college had83% graduation rate— twice what it reallywas. Now that theyhave data, they see itneeds work. However,this will take “Patienceto the 3rd Power,”according to thedirector.

1) Faculty membershave high expectationsfor students, but staffneed to be morecustomer-orientedtoward students. Mainatmosphere is “in locoparentis”, intrusive insupport services thathelp students tosucceed. (2) Friendly,supportive atmospherekept students at thisinstitution, andstudents who left didnot participate in thecampus activities. (3)University has gonethrough a leadershipproblem period, andthat has not beenhelpful. (3) Needs toexpand on the currentsupport services oncampus; what theycurrently provideseems to work, butthey need to do moreof it. (4) Residenthalls and activities forstudents are sub-par atbest. (5) Not a hugefinancial aid issue, butinstitution could usemore need-based aid.

Faculty and staffappeared to becommitted to theuniversity and retention.Students appreciatedthe campus. Being anHBCU helps to a certaindegree; everyone getsthe message andunderstands that theuniversity is their“village.”

Student life on campusis a major problem.According to the housingdirector, residence hallsare “very poor”, oldphysical structures,problems with water,storage space, andelectrical wiring. 1,880students live in thehalls, and there is awaiting list. According tostudents, several had tofind temporary housingin town because therewas no on-campusspace. Each hall hasmonitors, but not anorganized residence lifeprogram. Individualrooms are not wired fortechnology, so studentscannot access theiremail from their rooms.All students voicedconcerns about thefacilities, particularlyhousing; one studentwas embarrassed thatuniversity is in such poorcondition. The roomassignment process forhousing wasbureaucratic and late— several students losttheir room assignmentsbecause of financialneed for a $150deposit.

84

INST

ITU

TIO

N I

Otherinstitutionalpolicies thataffect low-

incomeenrollment,

retention, andgraduation

Institution type Studentcharacteristics

Studentperformanceindicators

(entrance, retention,graduation,

avg. time to degree,other important info)

Faculty info(size, student/facratio, % tenured or

track, % race/ethnicity, otherimportant info)

Recruitment Admissions Financial aid Developmentaleducation

Advising

Public four-yearuniversity. Severalbranch campuses, withtotal of 14,000undergrad and gradstudents; approx-imately 7,600 on maincampus. Largestnumber of degrees ineducation, criminaljustice, accounting, andnursing.

54% white, 27%Black, 2% Hispanic,14% unknown; 56%female. Many comefrom surroundingrural/small townareas, characterized asconservative, religious.37% are first-generation. 30% atmain campus inresidence hall oruniversity apt. Also 11sorority/frat houses— over half ofstudents plan on Greekliving — and mostothers live nearcampus.Administrators seeschool as residential,students w/strongwork ethic, motivatededucationally andeconomically.

Avg. entering ACT is20.9. 38% in topquartile of hs class, and72% in top half. 74%fresh to soph retention.43% graduate in 6 yrs.

28:1 ratio. Faculty sayteaching is primarymission of institution,consider 23:1 low ratiofacilitating teaching.Frosh classes taught byFT faculty.

Draw largely from 15county area, largelyrural and small towns.School is cheaper thansome others in area butabout the same as otherstate colleges. Nospecific low-incometargets in recruiting butarea from which theydraw is heavily low-income and first-generation. Want toincrease #s of distancelearners, transferstudents.

Admission criteria: 1)2.0 GPA, 18 ACT or870 SAT; 2) 15Carnegie units incl. 3 inEnglish. Havearticulation agreementsto facilitate transfersfrom many otherinstitutions.

Annual in-state tuitionand fees: $3,296. Fullcost of attendance:$8,100 for residents.74% get some aid. Avg.Pell $3,750, plus avg.$2,000 in loans. (est.avg. indebtedness atgraduation: $17,125.)Scholarship program ismerit-based (31 ACTand 3.7 GPA qualifies).Priority deadline forfinancial aid is relativelylate (May 1), good forlow-income students.Low default rate(4.2%).

Fresh under 19 mustlive in residence halls.Course repeats allowed,second grade holds.Conditional admitsmust attendcounseling/advisingand fresh orientationcourse. Undecidedmajors must takecareer class.

ACT/SAT scores orplacement exams usedto determine need fordevelopmental ed.30% need math and/or English. Completionof developmental ed isflexible. Lots of freetutoring available forstudents who havedifficulty in regularcourses.

Professional advisingfor undeclareds. Norequirement to seeadvisor for those w/majors even if onprobation. Liberalcourse drop policy.

85

Respondents’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Site visitors’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Shapingstudents’ initial

instructionalprogram

Typical freshmaneducation

Academicsupport system

Other socialsupports

Accommodatingstudents

Respondents’views on

institutionalresponsibility

Site visitors’views on

institution,faculty,

students, etc.

Other importantinformation

Summer orientation forfirst year students.Undergrad majors areprimarily in professionalfields that have highlyprescribed curricula bysophomore year.

30% takedevelopmental math orEnglish. All must takeone credit requiredfreshman orientationcourse. 12 units istypical load and not justin first year. Enteringstudents take a corecurric of 42 units w/exit testing beforecourses in majors. NoSI. Starting variousreforms — learningcommunities, structuredfirst year programs.

Learning center forwriting, naturalsciences, generalcomputer lab. Offerswriting acrosscurriculum, tutoring,developmental classes.Many colleges/deptsoffer free tutoring, haveprojects to work w/students on academicprobation, study skillsworkshops. Tutoring/academic supportprogram for athletes.

Strong student affairscomponent promotesresidence hallactivities, counseling,career, disabilitiescenters. Lots of clubs(over 100),organizations, Greek(including black);participation high. Usemany Noel-Levitzproducts, first yearmentoring program,200 studentsparticipate in residencelife living/learningcommunities (new).No SSS (had one inpast).

Limited child care,office for studentadaptive needs(physical and learningdisabilities). Manystudents work.

1) homogeneousstudent values: ruralwork ethic rural. 2)residential campus —requirement for freshresidence on campus.3) faculty share samebackgrounds asstudents, giveappropriate advice. 4)liberal course repeatpolicy, liberalprobation/suspensionpolicy. 5) advisingrequirements forconditional admits. 6)freshman orientationcourse.

Same items cited ininstitutionaleffectiveness.

1) Relatively high avg.entering ACT score(21) and hs rank(higher thaninstitutionalrequirements). 2)Residential campus. 3)Students share values,beliefs across raciallines, including strongwork ethic. 4) Manyfaculty/staff arealumni, respectstudents like selves,serve as role models,have personal stake instudent outcomes. 5)History of activeconcern w/retention,setting targets;important institutionalgoal to increaseretention — reiteratedby wide range ofrespondents.

Because many facultyand staff attendedinstitution and comefrom the area, theyhave a strong sensethat the students cansucceed. They takeresponsibility for studentoutcomes.

86

INST

ITU

TIO

N J

Otherinstitutionalpolicies thataffect low-

incomeenrollment,

retention, andgraduation

Institution type Studentcharacteristics

Studentperformanceindicators

(entrance, retention,graduation,

avg. time to degree,other important info)

Faculty info(size, student/facratio, % tenured or

track, % race/ethnicity, otherimportant info)

Recruitment Admissions Financial aid Developmentaleducation

Advising

Private four-year ruralHBCU. Enrollment ofover 2,400 and annualtuition and fee chargesof $10,500. 58% ofstudents receive Pell,and 43% of studentsgraduate within 6years. Engineering isthe largest program oncampus, followed byhealth, natural sciences,and business.

Over 95% Black, andnearly two thirds arefemale. 96% are fulltime. Students comefrom around the US,and half from withinthe state. Freshmen,sophomores, and allfirst-year transferstudents are requiredto live in the residencehalls. The school andstudent body have astrong religiousunderpinning, andreligion is a strongpresence on campus.Students are energeticand motivated to learn.Greek life is big at thisuniversity, as is choirsinging.

27% have a 500math or verbal SATscore. School describesadmissions asmoderately selective.71% fresh to sophretention in 2000-01,77% in 2001-02, 43%graduate in 6 yrs.

Faculty is 328, 90%FT. 10:1 ratio.Students say thatfaculty take your handand want to makeyou succeed, and cango talk to faculty atany time aboutacademic and non-academic issues.

Recruit nationally forstudents, but also havespecial targetingprograms within thehome state. Useinstitutional aid mostlyfor merit-based programsto recruit gifted students.Somewhat selectivecollege, looking foracademically giftedstudents. Alumni areheavily involved inrecruiting around thestate and around thecountry. The universityalso uses currentstudents to visit their oldhigh schools on semesterbreaks and hand outrecruitment information.

Rolling admissionspolicy allows for moreflexibility in packagingstudents. Minimum GPAis 2.0, avg. is 3.0.Students are“encouraged” inliterature to have anSAT above 1000 inorder to succeed.Conditional admittancepolicy for students whohave less than 2.5 GPA,720 SAT, or 15 ACT.

91% receive some typeof financial assistance,and 85% receive federalaid. The aid officeattempts to frontloadgrants as much aspossible. In addition tothe federal funds, theyalso work with banks,Sallie Mae, and Platofor alternative loanprograms. The stategrant program providesup to $2,500 per yearto eligible students.There is little need-basedinstitutional aid, andwhat exists is fadingfast. Institutional aid ismerit-based. Theuniversity is very strictabout institutional aidfunds, and whenstudents losescholarships, they neverget them back.

Retention is a focus;retention program staffare housed in the Officeof the President.Provide tutoring andother skill developmentactivities. Institutionallife is important, andhaving students live oncampus for first twoyears helps retention.Conditional admits musttake part in retentionprogramming. At theend of May, Provostsends out a list ofstudents with less thana 2.0 GPA. Retentionstaff reviews eachstudent. Conditionaladmits must earn a GPAabove 2.0 for the fullyear in order to registerfor sophomore year.Students who do earnless than a 2.0 GPAmust write an essaystating why thishappened.

It does not appear thatinstitution hasdevelopmentalprogramming.

Advising appears to bea new problem on thiscampus. Since theinstallation oftelephone and nowonline registrationsystem, students donot have to see theiradvisor. They arestrongly encouraged,but most students donot meet, and facultysee this as a problem.Students do say thatthey end up discussingacademic and courseissues with facultyinformally. Mid-termreports are sent toparents if student isfailing, and studentswho earn less than a2.0 GPA are put onprobation.

87

Respondents’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Site visitors’views on

institutionaleffectiveness

Shapingstudents’ initial

instructionalprogram

Typical freshmaneducation

Academicsupport system

Other socialsupports

Accommodatingstudents

Respondents’views on

institutionalresponsibility

Site visitors’views on

institution,faculty,

students, etc.

Other importantinformation

Summer orientationprovides an initialdialogue about courses.

Freshman take 18credits per semester.Freshman students,including transfers,must take a one-creditfreshman seminarcourse and pass thatcourse. It will bebroadened to a two-semester, two-credithour program. Studentsare supposed to enterwith their majordeclared, but one-thirdof the freshman class isundeclared.

Tutorial servicesprovided for studentsduring Sunday throughThursday evenings atvarious locations aroundcampus. Sundaysession runs all day andis busiest day ofoperation. Program iscentralized, coveringthe five colleges. 75%of freshman receivetutoring. Collegesprovide their ownprograms as well.Biology has a credit-bearing seminarprogram that they feelis very good comparedto the campus-wideversion. 375 studentsparticipate in thecollege’s StudentSupport Servicesprogram.

Institution has extensivework-study program;institution offers 48apartment units forgraduate students withfamilies, and specialunits for 500 upperclassmen.

Faculty believesinstitution does goodjob of retention, andisn’t sure how it can domuch better (eventhough they feel that itcould be better).Faculty-studentrelationships areimportant. Campus hasa familial environmentthat nurtures students.According to students,institution offers them asense of family, whereeveryone stickstogether. Building onthe personal touchissue, the campus is asafe, gated community.

Institution is effectivebecause they have aretention plan andwork hard toimplement it. Campusis a wonderfulenvironment, and theculture is friendly.Students are hard-working. The cost ofthe institution takesaway from retention,and the use ofinstitutional aid onmerit is a negative.

Students complained intypical fashion,especially aboutresidence halls andvisitation rules.However, they felt it isa good institution andthat faculty cares aboutthem.

Lumina Foundation for Education, an Indianapolis-based, private,independent foundation, strives to help people achieve theirpotential by expanding access and success in education beyondhigh school. Through grants for research, innovation, communica-tion and evaluation, as well as policy education and leadershipdevelopment, Lumina Foundation addresses issues that affectaccess and educational attainment among all students, particu-larly underserved student groups, including adult learners. TheFoundation bases its mission on the belief that postsecondary

education remains one of the most beneficial investments that individuals can make in themselvesand that society can make in its people. For more information, visit the Foundation's Web site,www.luminafoundation.org.

1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 1020Washington, DC 20005Phone: (202) 638-2887

Fax: (202) 638-3808www.pellinstitute.org

Sponsored by the Council for Opportunity in Education