How Final Is Leaving College While in Academic Jeopardy? Examining the Utility of Differentiating College Leavers by Academic Standing

Abstract

Retention research rarely differentiates between students dismissed from an institution for poor academic performance versus students leaving by choice. As a proxy for studying academic dismissal, this study investigated differences between students leaving college in academic jeopardy after the first year (<2.00 grade point average) and those leaving in good standing. These two types of academic leavers differed sharply in their 6-year completion outcomes, with students leaving in good standing most likely to receive a degree from another 4-year institution and students leaving in academic jeopardy most likely to not receive a postsecondary degree in 6 years. Further, these two groups differed on a number of student demographic and academic characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, first-generation college student, SAT scores) and institutional characteristics of first institution attended (e.g., freshman class size). Future research should consider differentiating between these two types of academic leavers when examining retention and designing-related interventions. Higher education researchers have conducted numerous rigorous studies on student persistence in college, examining the who, what, why, how, when, and where of students' leaving and returning to postsecondary institutions. The attention to this issue is well deserved, as students leave their first institution at relatively high rates, with only about 51% of students obtaining a bachelor's degree from their first 4-year institution in 6 years (Radford, Berkner, Wheeless, & Shepherd, 2010). Of those students not attaining a bachelor's degree from that first institution in 6 years, 25% enroll at another institution, 17% left college and never enrolled at another institution, and 5% were still enrolled at their first institution. Total estimates of 4-year degree completion tend to be around 63% of college entrants (Tinto, 2012). We are losing many students along the way-in particular in the first 2 years of college, with 67% of all students leaving their first 4-year institution in the first 2 years (Tinto, 2012), and research has clearly shown that discontinuous college enrollment and attending multiple institutions are associated with decreased degree completion rates (Goldrick-Rab, 2006). Student departure from an institution due to academic dismissal tends to account for less than 25% of departures (Tinto, 1993), and there is very little retention research comparing characteristics and outcomes of students who have been academically dismissed from college to those leaving an institution voluntarily (Brost & Payne, 2011;Cherry & Coleman, 2010;Cogan, 2011;Ott, 1988). In other words, in the plethora of studies examining student predictors of attrition in college, the outcome of attrition is rarely parsed by voluntary and involuntary leavers (Cherry & Coleman, 2010;Mattern, Marini, & Shaw, 2015). This may be an artifact of student data availability in databases of college outcomes. Noting that a student did not return to an institution is...

Comparing Academic Readiness Requirements for Different Postsecondary Pathways: What Admissions Tests Tell Us

“…Though first‐year grades are good predictors of completion at 2‐ and 4‐year institutions (Allen & Robbins, ; Kopp & Shaw, ), an expanded analysis might include longer‐term outcomes (if available) such as retention into the second year, cumulative GPA beyond the first year, and program completion. To validate the use of first‐year outcomes in this study, supplemental analyses used data from the National Student Clearinghouse to investigate 6‐year degree completion rates by major group and attainment of the ACT Composite score benchmark of 23 for predicting FYGPA (Table ).…”

“…With regard to outcomes, this study focused on first‐year grades because they are proximal to ACT scores, they are typically used to establish college readiness benchmarks, and first‐year outcomes are strongly related to likelihood of completing a degree at 2‐ and 4‐year institutions (Allen & Robbins, ; Kopp & Shaw, ). Actual job success may be an appropriate criterion for establishing career readiness standards, but course grades are readily available and reflect greater standardization than performance evaluations or other workplace outcomes.…”

Examining Retention and Transfer in Relation to Incoming Student Data for First-Generation and Continuing-Generation Students: What Differences Exist?

“…In these models, intercepts were allowed to vary randomly across institutions. Institution-level variables of admission selectivity and enrollment size were also included in the models, as retention rates have been shown to vary by these characteristics (Kopp & Shaw, 2016; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). Interaction terms with parental education were examined to answer the second question; they were included when statistically significant at the .01 level.…”

“…Given that research has consistently shown a strong positive relationship between students’ precollege academic readiness levels and their likelihood of persisting and completing a degree (Adelman, 2006; Kopp & Shaw, 2016; Schmitt et al., 2009), the gaps in college success rates by parental education are often partially attributed to FG students not entering the college environment as well prepared and equipped academically as their CG peers. For instance, proportionally fewer FG students take rigorous coursework in high school and earn Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate credits (Cataldi et al., 2018), while more FG students take remedial coursework in college (Chen, 2016).…”

“…Students can find themselves in academic jeopardy or encountering problems assimilating into the college environment during the first year, making it more likely that they do not return in their second year (Kopp & Shaw, 2016). Many institutions set up early alert or warning systems as a mechanism for identifying students most likely to struggle within the first year (e.g., Faulconer et al., 2014; Tampke, 2013).…”