The REAL Student Affairs

ETSU's graduation rate is below the ACT average and more importantly below the level acceptable for our becoming the University of Choice. We know that males, adults, and minorities do not graduate at the same rate as other students while athletes graduate at a higher rate. The ACT graduation rate at the end of five years for similar institutions is 40%. ETSU's rate is 23%. In six years that number rises to only 30.6%. If we are to improve as an institution, we must improve our graduation rate.

Being an adult, commuter, first-generation or part-time student is a barrier to success. Having low commitment to the goal of graduating or low educational aspirations can be a student's downfall. Having plans to transfer, having financial insecurity, having employment as too high a priority, and having changed majors multiple times can all be hurdles to graduation.

The importance of helping students focus on their academic work is referenced throughout the literature. Contemporary America has produced a student body that is less likely to have education as its primary focus (Levine & Cureton, 1998).

Each barrier a student encounters can be his/her Waterloo; however, most students drop out when several barriers come together.

Adult student barriers are often the same barriers as encountered by traditional-age students but are often compounded. A traditional-age student may be at risk for commuting, but an adult student might be commuting, have transferred, be employed full time, have significant family responsibilities, have low financial security and feel anxiety over having been out of the classroom for a long time.

Students 23 and older are retained and graduate at lower rates than traditional ETSU students.

The 23 and older students who were baccalaureate degree-seeking first-time freshmen entering in the fall of 1998 returned the following fall at a rate of 55%. This is dramatically less than a similar group of students 22 and younger who returned at a rate of 66%.

This age difference continues to graduation. For a similar group who entered in fall 1993, 15% of older students graduated versus 33% of the younger students in six years.

Most adult students have many hidden collaborators who act as both partners and saboteurs in their academic pursuits. Whether it be a spouse or a significant other, children or aging parents, co-workers or supervisors, community allies or friendship groups, adult students have many people influencing their day-to-day lives. They go to college within the context of a network of bounded commitments to work, family and community, as well as to a local geographic region. Although the adult student expects change and transition to be a part of college life, he/she must create security spaces and a safety net for change in the midst of these other roles, relationships, and time commitments. Adults must be skillful at negotiating these relationships and commitments. Adult success in college not only requires personal intelligence and persistence, it also requires motivation, long-term goals, and support commitments from family, work, and community life partners.

Carter reported that family responsibilities were among the five most prevalent for the attrition of older and part-time students. The number of children a student age 22 and older has is negatively associated with persistence (Carter, 1982).

Even for traditional- aged students, relationships can deter progress toward a degree because there is significant potential for distraction. Romantic relationships, engagement, marriage, divorce and children can all distract from school.

Eighty-one percent of all ETSU students commute. The national norm is 60%. (Stewart, Merrill, & Saluri, 1985)

Several studies have identified commuting students as being high attrition risks. (Chickering, 1974 and Astin, 1980) These students are at risk because they have made less of a commitment to attending college than residential students. For a residential student, not reenrolling means packing up, moving, getting out of a lease, leaving friends and changing lifestyles. For a commuting student, not re-enrolling is likely to be much less disruptive, and the choice not to reenroll may be made for relatively minor reasons. (Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985, p.162)

Living at home or commuting produces lower scores on the following student outcomes:

• -satisfaction with college
• -satisfaction with faculty
• -attainment of a bachelor's degree
• -enrollment in a graduate/professional school
• -leadership skills
• -interpersonal skills
• -emotional health

It produces higher scores on these two student outcomes:

• -feeling overwhelmed
• -feeling depressed

In summary, "being a commuter provides distractions from academics being one's primary focus, especially when compared to living in the residence hall. Living at home often produces an effect that is the same as attending college close to home. These results imply that the principal impact of the student's freshman place of residence occurs because the student is going away from home to attend college." (Astin, 1993)

Commuting often is tied to other barriers such as working off campus and family responsibilities.

Fifty-two percent of ETSU undergraduate students indicated on the 1998 College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) that they were first-generation i.e., neither of their parents graduated from college. This is identical to the national norm. Being first- generation poses a barrier for students because of the academic orientation that may have been absent in the home. Examples of things that occur more often in the home of college graduates include reading, participation in the arts, current affairs discussions, and other critical thinking activities. Additionally, parents who graduated from college have a better understanding of what their student is experiencing and how to support his/her educational effort.

Being a part-time student is a barrier to success for the same reasons as being a commuter. A part-time student is only partly focused on education. Other life demands are primary; they have not made a full commitment to college.

Nineteen percent of ETSU undergraduates in the fall semester 1998 were part-time students. Even full-time students at ETSU take light loads; the average undergraduate course load in fall of 1998 was 13.2 hours.

Students who do not interact with their faculty are less engaged in their learning, thereby creating a barrier to success.

"There is considerable evidence that the impact on students of faculty norms, values, and attitudes, as well as faculty members' impact as role models, is enhanced when student-faculty interactions extend beyond the formal classroom setting." (Pascarella, 1980) Students with initially high educational aspirations are most likely to interact socially with faculty and such interaction is likely to enhance even further initial aspirations. Students who have a high level of faculty/student interaction are more likely to be retained and to graduate.

Seventy-seven percent of ETSU students indicated they never had coffee, a Coke or a snack with a faculty member (norm: 75%). Seventy-one percent never discussed personal problems with a faculty member (norm: 65%). Thirty-two percent never discussed career plans/ambitions with a faculty member (norm: 28%). (CSEQ, 1998)

Low commitment to the goal of graduating affects student retention. Eleven percent of entering students at ETSU indicated they had no purpose in mind for enrolling. (ESS, 1996)

Only 73% of entering ETSU students indicated their chances were very good that they would obtain a bachelor's degree (CIRP, 1997). In other words, 27% of entering students had some level of doubt they would be successful in obtaining a bachelor's degree.

Not declaring a major may contribute to having a low commitment to graduating because it is difficult to visualize graduation without a specific degree program in mind. For entering students, 15% indicated they were undecided about their major. This is almost twice the norm of 8%. (CIRP, 1997) The Fall 1998 ETSU Fact Book lists 14% of undergraduate students as undeclared.

As with so many of the other barriers, this can be indicative of a problem with setting priorities. Students who are successful have a clearly identified goal and they keep it as a priority in their life.

Low Degree Aspirations

Related to the low commitment to the goal of graduation is the barrier of low degree aspiration.

The effect of high degree aspiration on graduation is straightforward: a student with the aspiration to earn a master's degree is more likely to receive a bachelor's degree. In keeping with this logic, a student wishing to earn a doctorate or other degree beyond a master's degree is even more likely to earn the bachelor's degree. Thirty-four percent of ETSU entering students indicated a bachelor's degree or less as the highest degree they plan to earn (CIRP, 1997). This is slightly higher than the 30% in the norm group.

The good news is that students increase their degree aspirations as they stay enrolled. Degree aspirations of enrolled students match the norm: 72% aspire to a master's or higher. (CSEQ, 1998)

Thirty-three percent of enrolled students indicated on the 1998 CSEQ that they were transfer students. This compares to a norm of 29%.

Transferring poses a barrier for students for two reasons. First, students often have difficulty with the transfer of credits and thereby get discouraged about their progress or disgruntled with the institution. ETSU has created a smooth transition with community colleges and this will certainly help many students in avoiding this particular barrier.

The second problem with transferring has to do with institutional fit; often students who transfer come from a comfortable environment and find the new environment less comfortable. This dissonance can contribute to attrition. Each time a student transfers it increases the likelihood of non-persistence.

Planning to transfer can also pose a barrier because the student never puts forth the effort to fit in. Planning to transfer contributes to students' dissatisfaction with where they are. Nine percent of entering students indicated there is a very good chance they will transfer to another college. (CIRP, 1997) (Norm is 11%.)

Money difficulties can be a distraction for students. Financial security is not simply determined by how much money a student has but also whether he/she perceives his/her finances to be adequate. Students who perceive their financial situation as inadequate or not stable can develop a barrier to academic success. They may take on extra hours of work or simply worry about the financial picture to the exclusion of their academic effort.

Sixty-two percent of traditional-age students entering in fall 1997 reported their financial situation as being a concern. This is lower than the norm group percentage of 72%. (CIRP, 1997)

Debts can build up quickly and how a student handles mounting debt can determine his/her sense of financial security.

It is important to note that the average financial aid debt for ETSU students graduating spring 1999 was $16,892.

Having employment as a priority in a student's life means that his/her education is not a priority. Successful students keep their highest priority as education. When the priority is the job, academics suffer. If there are financial concerns that cause the job to be primary, then the barrier to academic success is compounded further by financial worries.

Employment on campus of less than 20 hours per week correlates with academic success. It is generally believed that on-campus employment provides a connection to the campus for the student. Employment off campus of less than 20 hours is less strongly correlated with success. At ETSU there was a direct correlation with a drop in GPA in a 1989 study when students worked more than 35 hours a week.

Twenty-four percent of ETSU students report working about 30 or more hours per week during the school term. The norm is 17%. (CSEQ, 1998)

It is not surprising that students who put forth little academic effort are less likely to succeed. This is a significant barrier for many students at ETSU. ETSU students as a whole put forth little academic effort.

More than a third of full-time students indicated they were studying eight or fewer hours per week. Seventy-two percent of full-time students indicated they were spending 30 hours per week or less on activities related to schoolwork, including time spent in class and time spent studying. Students spend more hours per week on activities related to schoolwork as they progress toward graduation. (CSEQ, 1998)

Being actively engaged in learning i.e., attending class, participating in discussions, studying, etc. contributes to positive outcomes.

For an African-American, being on a predominately white campus presents slightly heightened institutional fit problems. Minority students have characterized it as living in a foreign culture. Students find themselves having to cope with the reality of being different. Being different may include learning how to react to discriminatory acts. At a minimum, it entails learning new coping skills. For an African-American student this process is in addition to the other developmental tasks that all students have. This additional task becomes a significant barrier for many.

African American students at ETSU are retained at a higher rate (fall to fall than the total first-time freshmen (77% versus 66%). However, the six-year graduation rate is slightly lower (31% versus 34%) (Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Planning, 1999).

Student dissatisfaction with the institution can actually begin before a student even enrolls. Students who attend an institution but plan to transfer or come because they were not admitted to their first choice often end up dissatisfied. A student can begin to be dissatisfied when he/she is treated rudely in an office on campus. Dissatisfaction is a personal decision by a student but it can spread by talk among peers or faculty/staff. If a number of students are dissatisfied with the institution, it can affect the dissatisfaction of many.

Measures of student/institution fit are determined before enrollment by asking if the institution was the student's first choice and after enrollment by asking if he/she would enroll again if he/she had it to do over again. Entering students indicate ETSU was their first-choice institution at a higher rate than the norm, (64% versus 58%.) (ESS, 1996) When asked whether they would select ETSU again, enrolled students during spring 1998 indicated yes and probably yes (74% while the norm was 78%) (CSEQ, 1998).

A student who is dissatisfied with his/her major has a barrier to success. In the 1993 Enrolled Student Survey, satisfaction with the institution was related to satisfaction with the major.

Again, dissatisfaction is a personal experience that is complex in nature. It can result from disinterest in the subject matter or displeasure with other students or faculty.

Another complex barrier is that of being dissatisfied with one's peers. A student who doesn't find positive peer relationships during his or her college experience can become dissatisfied with the institution.

At ETSU, students indicate they perceive other students as being "competitive, uninvolved, and having a sense of alienation" at a higher rate than the norm (14% versus 9%) (CSEQ, 1998).

Poor peer-group cohesion negatively affects the following student outcomes:

• -overall satisfaction with college
• -satisfaction with student life
• -emotional health
• -trust in the administration

It is positively related to the belief that the principal benefit of college is to increase one's earning power.

A similar barrier to dissatisfaction with peers is dissatisfaction with professors. Students who have a positive perception of their professors are more likely to succeed. A student who feels dissatisfied with his/her professor(s) has a barrier to success.

In summary, if students feel good about the institution they attend, i.e., their major, peers, professors, they are more likely to attain a degree.

In light of all of the barriers our students can experience, the first thing we can do is be sensitive to the roadblocks our students' may be experiencing. Secondly, we can educate students about making wise choices related to these potential barriers. Thirdly, when students are experiencing multiple barriers, we can help them formulate a more successful plan, e.g., work fewer hours, get tutoring, etc.

In the classroom, being aware of the power of our individual messages is key to assisting students in being successful. The impact of both negative and positive statements cannot be underestimated. When students hear faculty/staff make degrading comments about the institution, then the institution is minimized in the students' eyes. Fortunately, the opposite is also true. When a faculty/staff member reinforces the choice that the student made to come here by making positive statements about the institution, then the students' view of the institution is upheld or enhanced.

Often students arrive on campus without knowing or realizing these crucial barriers to their success. Therefore, it is necessary for us to promote and structure student experiences so successful strategies and commitments are developed.

• Educate students about the importance of having the goal of obtaining at least a bachelor's degree with higher degrees being preferable.
• Educate students about maintaining the goal of obtaining their degree as the priority in their life.
• Be aware of the distractions operating in students' lives, e.g., adult relationships with responsibilities (spouses, children, and parents), commuting, being part time, etc.
• Reinforce students for managing other aspects of their lives while maintaining their focus on education.
• Help first-generation students understand what deficiencies they may be having to overcome and provide strategies for doing so.
• Support students in establishing significant relationships with their peers, faculty and staff.

• Be proud to be a part of the ETSU community and pass that enthusiasm on to colleagues and students.
• Implement a freshman orientation course for all students entering ETSU. This is perhaps the most effective strategy of all because it targets freshmen and helps them understand how to combat barriers to their academic success early on in their college career.

Astin, A. (1973). The impact of dormitory living on students. Educational Record, 54, 204-210.

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carter, B. L. (1982). Exit interview summary, Fall, 1981. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University - Purdue, Office of Student Services.

Chickering, A. (1974). Commuting versus resident students: Overcoming educational inequities of living off campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levine A., & Cureton, J. (1998). Collegiate life: An obituary. Change, 30, (3), 12-17.

Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (1985). Increasing Student Retention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stewart, S., Merrill, M., & Saluri, D. (1985). Students who commute. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, D. Saluri, & Associates, Increasing student retention/effective programs and practices for reducing the dropout rate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

College Student Experiences Questionnaire 1998 (CSEQ)

Cooperative Institutional Research Program 1997 (CIRP)

As with all studies produced by the Division of Student Affairs, we invite questions and comments. We would be pleased to present specific data of interest in your area upon request. Contact Dr. Sally Lee for more detail.