Despite being criticized as unrepresentative and misleading, retention and graduation rates are an important part of college-search web sites and accountability systems, and they frequently have been used as indicators of institutional quality and effectiveness in educational research. Retention and graduation rates are often compared over time and across institutions. However, such comparisons can be confounded by differences in entering student cohorts and differences among the institutions being compared. This research examined the effects of institutional and cohort characteristics on one-year retention rates using random-effect and fixed-effect regression models for panel data. The use of a fixed-effect model allowed the researchers to account for omitted variables (unobserved heterogeneity) in the analyses. Results indicated that unobserved heterogeneity was a significant issue in the study, and that traditional regression methods may overstate the effects of institutional characteristics on retention rates. Results also indicated that the effects of institutional and cohort characteristics were essentially stable over time and across cohorts.

Opinions are mixed regarding whether uncertainty about an academic major is detrimental to students beginning their college careers. Early research on this topic painted a rather bleak picture. For instance, Abel (1966) found that students who were rated as having low academic or career certainty had a significantly higher rate of attrition than students who were rated as having a high degree of academic or vocational certainty. Titley and Titley (1980) reported that students who had low certainty regarding their major were significantly more likely to have withdrawn after 2 years than were students who possessed high certainty. Similarly, Foote (1980) found that students who did not change their major over their first 2 years of enrollment were more likely to maintain enrollment after 2 years, have a higher mean grade-point average (GPA), and complete more credit hours than students who had not declared a major.More recent research, however, has created a slightly different picture. For example, Anderson, Creamer, and Cross (1989) found that students who changed their major were more likely to persist at the institution and graduate than were students who remained in one major as well as students who had entered the institution undecided. In addition, Lewallen's (1995) findings suggest that students who were undecided regarding a career choice were more likely to persist in the institution and achieve higher grades than students who were decided.It may appear from the differences in the literature that undecided students have somehow changed over the years. However, a recently published 25-year longitudinal study of undecided entering freshmen revealed that advising issues and demographic variables have remained relatively consistent (Gordon & Steele, 2003). Gordon and Steele also found that the levels of uncertainty about an academic major had not significantly changed over 25 years. Therefore, the differing perspectives presented in the empirical literature may not reflect a change in the student population but instead suggest an area that needs further exploration.A number of authors have addressed, from a theoretical perspective, the issue of committing to a major or career. Chickering and Reisser (1993) discussed the importance of adopting career goals in college. In their model of college student development, "developing purpose" was the sixth of seven vectors. This vector, which encompasses vocational and lifestyle development, involves students' "growing ability to make conscious choices based on clear purpose, and their persistence toward goals, despite barriers" (Reisser, 1995, p. 510).Tinto's (1993) model of student attrition includes goal and institutional commitment as factors that may affect students' decisions to stay or leave an institution. Tinto wrote that "movements from varying degrees of certainty to uncertainty and back again may in fact be quite characteristic of the longitudinal process of goal clarification which occurs during the college years" (p. 41).

Although Q methodology has been especially well used by researchers in a variety of social and behavioral sciences, student affairs researchers have not been inclined to deploy this methodology. This article examines Q methodology and uses a case study to explore the potential for student affairs assessment and research. Overall, the authors conclude that Q methodology is a viable research tool for student affairs practitioners to optimize their responsiveness to a multitude of practical challenges faced in their daily work.

This paper details the results of a mixed-methods study of first-year and upper-division students' information literacy (IL) competencies. The study used a rubric and a survey, seeking to answer two research questions: 1) Is there a correlation between National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) IL survey responses and IL rubric scores? 2) Are there any indicators that correlate to improved IL performance in first-year students? Results demonstrated that first-year students reported greater engagement with IL and also indicated that instructors placed greater emphasis on IL competencies than students in upper-division courses. They also show a statistically significant impact on first-year students' rubric scores when a librarian is in the class. This finding held even when controlling for other variables. Results provide an evidence-based foundation to spur conversations with faculty and university administration on the value of IL and the role of librarians in undergraduate student success.