Understanding Retention and College Student Bodies: Differences Between Drop-Outs, Stop-Outs, Opt-Outs, and Transfer-Outs

Hoyt, Jeff E.; Winn, Bradley A.

doi:10.2202/0027-6014.1351

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Literature comparing stopouts and stayouts find that stayouts are older, more likely to have children at home, and cite family responsibilities as a major deterrent to returning to school (Hoyt & Winn, 2004). Our results confirm these findings.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

“…After withdrawal from higher education, Horn (1998) reports that older stopouts are less likely to reenroll after leaving. Hoyt and Winn (2004), Desjardins, Ahlburg, and McCall (2006), and Grosset (1993) have found that stopouts are likely to be older than continuing students.…”

Section: Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…John, Cabrera, Nora, and Asker (2000) have established that concerns about costs have a negative influence on college persistence behaviors, including reenrollment. Likewise, students who have significant family responsibilities are more likely to permanently withdraw from college rather than temporarily stopout (Ahson et al, 1998;Horn, 1998;Hoyt & Winn, 2004;Stratton et al, 2008).…”

Section: Barriers To Enrollmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reaching the non-traditional stopout population: a segmentation approach

Schatzel

Callahan

Scott

et al. 2011

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An estimated 21% of 25-34-year-olds in the United States, about eight million individuals, have attended college and quit before completing a degree. These non-traditional students may or may not return to college. Those who return to college are referred to as stopouts, whereas those who do not return are referred to as stayouts. In the face of declining pools of traditional students, colleges and universities have attempted to induce these students to return to higher education. Regrettably, little is known about the intentions and attitudes of these young adults after they have left higher education. This paper uses segmentation and targeting to identify those students who intend to return to college and those who do not. Using demographic and psychographic variables, five unique segments are identified. The study recommends strategies for reaching those segments which are most likely to return to higher education. IntroductionAs two-year and four-year institutions of higher learning face shrinking numbers of their largest pool of potential students, demographic projections indicate that the number of high school graduates will not equal its 2008 peak until after 2018 (College Board, 2008). At the same time, in the United States, about eight million individuals between the ages of 25 and 34 have attended college but left before completing degree requirements (US Census Bureau, 2007). Some of these students will never return to college, whereas others will reenroll. Those who withdraw for a semester or more and then reenroll in college are referred to as stopouts (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973). O'Toole, Stratton, and Wetzel (2003), estimate that during the first year of college, stopouts represent about 40% of all students who withdraw. Overall, Stratton, O'Toole, and Wetzel (2008) report that more than 30% of all college students stopout from college for at least a semester. For institutions of higher learning, stopouts represent a large and unique pool of potential students:

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Demographicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Barriers To Enrollmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reaching the non-traditional stopout population: a segmentation approach

Schatzel

Callahan

Scott

et al. 2011

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is accepted that individuals making multiple entries into tertiary education is a common phenomenon but, surprisingly, only a small proportion of the literature is dedicated to exploring the returning pathways of former tertiary students (Davies & Williams, 2001;Hoyt & Winn, 2004). To some extent, the limited literature on the determinants of return to tertiary education can be explained by the limited availability of longitudinal data for such research.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of student loan schemes on students returning to study

Tumen¹,

Shulruf²

2008

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper populations of students returning to tertiary study in the period [1997][1998][1999][2000][2001][2002][2003][2004][2005] have been compared with the population of non-returning students who had the same opportunity to return. Such comparisons were conducted for students who returned after a break of 1-7 years (seven comparison groups). Students with the highest likelihood of returning were found to be: (i) students who had an outstanding student loan prior to their return that had been borrowed for previous tertiary studies; (ii) students who did not complete the qualification studied previously; (iii) degree-level university students; and (iv) students who had studied towards qualifications in health, education, society and culture rather than in management and commerce fields. The major finding reported in this paper is that a student loan debt does not discourage students from future study. The findings also suggest that policy decisions were likely to trigger short-term increases in returning behaviour and that the populations most affected were likely to be those who left tertiary education in the year in which the policy decisions were announced.

show abstract

“…Individual variables such as gender (Leppel, 2002;Peltier, Laden, & Matranga, 1999;Woodard, Love, & Komives, 2000), race/ethnicity (Allen, 1999;Astin, 1975;Keller, 2001;Murtaugh, Burns, & Schuster, 1999;Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998;Woodard et al, 2000), socioeconomic status (Allen, 1999;Attewell, Heil, & Reisel, 2011;Bowen & Bok, 1998;Cabrera, Nora, Castaneda, 1992;Howard, 2001;Hoyt & Winn, 2004;Robbins, Lauver, Le, Davis, & Langley, 2004), academic preparation (Adelman, 1999(Adelman, , 2006Allen, 1999;Allen et al, 2008;Astin, 1997;Attewell et al, 2011;Mattern & Patterson, 2009;Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991;Tinto, 1993;Tross, Harper, Osher, & Kneidinger, 2000), age (Keller, 2001;Murdock & Nazrul Hoque, 1999;Tinto, 1993), and motivation (Allen, 1999;Allen et al, 2008), among others, have been considered to influence retention in college. Institutional variables such as the size and selectivity of an institution, public versus private control of an institution, or a 2-year versus 4-year focus (Astin, Tsui, & Avalos, 1996;Attewell et al, 2011;Mattern & Patterson, 2009;Tinto, 1993) have also been found to be related to student retention.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%