AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

H. SANFORD GUM, JR. for the DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

(Name) (Degree)

in Education presented on / ih( P-2_73

(Major) a

Title: A STUDY OF DROPOUT PROPENSITY OF SELECTED COMMUNITY

COLLEGE STUDENTS -

Abstract approved: Redacted for Privacy

L., N..,
R17 Kehneke

The purpose of this study was to determine if there were common

factors influencing student decisions to terminate course work at the

College of San Mateo, San Mateo, California.

The following six null hypotheses were tested:

1. There will be no significant difference in responses

among those enrolled in transfer programs and those

enrolled in career (occupational-oriented) programs.

2. There will be no significant difference in responses

among those enrolled in transfer programs and those

who are undecided as to major.

3. There will be no significant difference in responses

among those enrolled in transfer programs and the

composite group.

4. There will be no significant difference in responses

among those enrolled in career programs and those who

 are undecided as to major.

5. There will be no significant difference in responses among

those enrolled in career programs and the composite group.

6. There will be no significant difference in responses among

those who are undecided as to major and the composite group.

Further questions considered included:

1. What assistance should the college provide to help students

make a more realistic career choice?

2. How should the college better meet student occupational

and social needs?

3. What is the student's opinion of his or her program of

study?

4. What is the student's opinion of selected characteristics of

the college: curricula, instruction, and student personnel

services, including counseling?

This was not subjected to statistical treatment because of limited

parameters of this study, including time, facilities, personnel, and

economic resources. While these data are subjective, they represent

a wealth of information needed by community college decision makers.

Procedures

The data for this study were obtained through the use of an exit

and a follow-up interview. One hundred and eight students were given

an exit interview by the investigator; 54 of them were given a follow-

up interview. The data were statistically analyzed using the CHI-

square test.
 Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest the following conclusions:

1. Major reasons for leaving were: full-time employment,

health, finances, and personal problems.

2. There were no significant differences in responses:

a. Among those enrolled in transfer programs and those

enrolled in career (occupational-oriented) programs.

b. Among those enrolled in transfer programs and those

who are undecided as to major.

c. Among those enrolled in transfer programs and the

composite group.

d. Among those enrolled in career programs and those who

are undecided as to major.

e. Among those enrolled in career programs and the

composite group.

f. Among those who are undecided as to major and

the composite group.

3. Lack of "identity" and failure to seek help in making decis-

ions are underlying causes of student attrition.

4. Lack of personal attention by the staff is a contributing

factor to student attrition.

5. Insufficient information regarding various program options

was an underlying reason for student attrition.

6. Stated reasons for leaving the community college are not

necessarily the true or "real" reasons.

 © 1973

HARVEY SANFORD GUM, JR.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

A Study of Dropout Propensity of Selected
Community College Students

by

H. Sanford Gum, Jr.

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of

Doctor of Education

June 1973
APPROVED:

Redacted for Privacy

ProTegor of Educ tion
7 charge of major

Redacted for Privacy

Dean of School of/Eglucation
( /

Redacted for Privacy

Dean of Graduate School

Date thesis is presented

'

Typed by Harriett Saign for H. Sanford Gum, Jr.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his appreciation to many persons

whose contributions have made this study possible, among them:

Dr. Larry Kenneke, Major Professor, special appreciation for

his interest and desire to assist the candidate. Also, to members

of the doctoral committee, Dr. Dwight Baird, Dr. Les Dunnington,

Dr. Robert Lawrence, and Professor John Rock;

Dr. Lester Beals and Dr. Henry TenPas for their initial and

continual support;

The students for their material contribution in supplying data

for this study;

The staff of the College of San Mateo, particularly Dr. Allan

Brown, Philip Morse, Herbert Warne, Edith Hopkins, and Jean Page;

The Oregon State University Statistics Department, especially

Yadolah Dodge and Jo An Barnes;

Harriett Saign for her patient typing and retyping of the manu-

script and Virginia Hearn for her skill in editing;

My wife, Kathryn, my mother, and my mother-in-law as well as

other members of my family and friends;

Especially the One who made all of this possible.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

INTRODUCTION 1

Prefatory Remarks 1

Statement of the Problem 3

Purpose of the Study 5
Basic Assumptions 6
Definition of Terms 7
Limitations of the Study 9
Methodology and Procedure 9
Summary 11

II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 12

The Dropout Phenomenon: Introduction 12
The Need for Dropout and Follow-Up Studies 12
The Dropout Problem in Higher Education 17
The Dropout Problem in Community Colleges 30
National Studies 38
Regional Studies 43
California State Studies 50
San Mateo Community College District Studies 61

III DESIGN OF THE STUDY 68

Introduction 68
Procedures 68
Participants in the Study 70
Construction of the Exit Interview 72
Construction of the Follow-Up Interview 73
Collection of Empirical Data 73
Analysis of Data 74

IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 75

Introduction 75
General Characteristics 75
Presentation of Findings 79
Findings Related to the First Hypothesis 79
Findings Related to the Second Hypothesis 79
Findings Related to the Third Hypothesis 81
Findings Related to the Fourth Hypothesis 81
Findings Related to the Fifth Hypothesis 85
Findings Related to the Sixth Hypothesis 85
Additional Findings 87
Summary 92
Chapter Page

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 93

Importance of the Study 93
Procedures 93
Summary of Findings 94
Conclusions 96
Recommendations 97

BIBLIOGRAPHY 99

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Exit Interview Questions 111
Appendix B. Interview Schedule 113
Appendix C. Sample of Announcement 114
Appendix D. Withdrawal Procedure and Form 115
Appendix E. Memorandum from Allan Brown 117
Appendix F. Memorandum from Sandy Gum 118
Appendix G. Memorandum to Counselors 119
Appendix H. Counselor's Log 120
Appendix I. Student Data Sheet 121
Appendix J. Follow-Up Interview Questions 123
Appendix K. Students' Comments and Suggestions 125
Appendix L. Characteristics of Sampling 130
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Reasons for Leaving College for 1,162 Persons

Sixteen to Twenty-Four Years of Age Who
Attended but Did Not Graduate from College:
United States, October, 1959 20

2 Reasons Stated for Withdrawing from Junior

College Reported by Approximately Ten Thousand
Students Enrolled in Twenty Two-Year Colleges
Between 1949 and 1957 21

3 Reasons for Withdrawal (Given by Student and

by Counselor) 23

4 Relationship Between High School Grades

and Dropping Out of College 28

5 Later Success of College Dropouts. Immediate

and Long-Term Effects of Withdrawal (in percent) 29

6 Later Success of College Dropouts. Comparison

of Later Academic Performance of Princeton and
Illinois Dropouts 41

7 Counselors' Reasons Compared with Students'

Reasons for Withdrawal 44

8 Exit Interviews During Specific Weeks 69

9 Distribution of Sampling by Major

(Includes 13 also classified as undecided) 76

10 Distribution of Sampling by Major

(Excludes 13 also classified as undecided) 76

11 Rank Order of Stated Reasons for Taking Leave

of Absence (As Reported by Students) 77

12 A Breakdown by Category of Students (Transfer,

Career, or Undecided) of Reasons for Leaving
at Exit Interview (Includes 13 also classified
as undecided) 78
Table Page

13 A Breakdown by Category of Students (Transfer,

Career, or Undecided) of Reasons for Leaving
at Exit Interview (Excludes 13 also classified
as undecided) 78

14 Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Career Students

(Includes 13 also classified as undecided) 80

15 Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Career Students

(Excludes 13 also classified as undecided) 80

16 Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Undecided Students

(Includes 13 also classified as undecided) 82

17 Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Undecided Students

(Excludes 13 also classified as undecided) 82

18 Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Composite Students

(Includes 13 also classified as undecided) 83

19 Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Composite Students

(Excludes 13 also classified as undecided) 83

20 Contingency Data of Career vs. Undecided Students

(Excludes 13 also classified as transfer) 84

21 Contingency Data of Career vs. Undecided Students

(Includes 13 also classified as transfer) 84

22 Contingency Data of Career vs. Composite Students 86

23 Contingency Data of Undecided vs. Composite Students

(Excludes 13 also classified as transfer) 86

24 Contingency Data of Undecided vs. Composite Students

(Includes 13 also classified as transfer) 86

25 Day Student Census, Fall Semester, 1972 88

26 Unit Distribution of Sampling 88

 A STUDY OF DROPOUT PROPENSITY OF
SELECTED COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

Prefatory Remarks

One of the most dramatic developments in higher education has

been the phenomenal growth of the two-year, public community college.

Following its modest beginning in 1902 at Joliet, Illinois, (Eels,

1931), the community college movement has emerged as an important

contributor to the educational process. Through its broad offerings

and open door policy the community college represents an alternative

to the traditional model of American higher education. (Cross, 1968)

Within the past decade the number of community colleges has doubled,

with a present enrollment of 2,000,000 full- and part-time students.

The community college is a uniquely American phenomenon, with the

potential for fulfilling a wide range of functions in our society.

Blocker (1965) maintained that these two-year colleges may be the most

significant development in American education in the past half century.

In most states, the public community colleges are required by law to

admit all high school graduates and interested adults. The California

community colleges have historically admitted almost anyone who applied,

an "open door" policy (Clark, 1960) that obviously calls for diversity

of educational offerings.

With no real restrictions on admission, the community colleges

 2

have observed a high percentage of student drop out, which might warrant

a change of metaphor from "open door" to revolving door!" Trent and

Medsker (1968) noted that 49 percent of entering students left college

before their second year: 17 percent withdrew during the first year,

and an additional 32 percent failed to return after that first year.

In an exhaustive review of the literature, Summerskill (1962) summar-

ized that reported dropout rates ranged from 12 to 82 percent. Earlier,

Iffert (1957) pointed out that research on college dropouts had a

history of at least forty years, and that the attrition rate had not

changed appreciably during that period.

In a report published by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Educa-

tion, the role of the community college was discussed. This report

(1971) gave generalized data based upon statistics and available attri-

tion studies, and commented:

Six out of every ten students enrolling this fall will

fail to get the ultimate degree to which they aspire, an
overall dropout rate from higher education of about 60
percent. Most of the dropouts leave without formal recog-
nition for their efforts, and many must have a sense of
disappointment and even resentment. (p. 9)

Knoell (1966) suggests that many who enter intending to transfer

do not do so. Only about one-third of those entering public community

colleges complete the two-year program (Medsker, 1960), and in techni-

cal education, dropout rates as high as 40 to 50 percent are reported.

(Seitz, 1968) There appears to be no significant difference in the

dropout rate of transfer majors and those undecided (Clinkscales,

1971), and both are exceedingly high.

In an extensive review of 61 different studies relating to the

 3

college dropout problem, Marsh (1966) attempted to establish or ident-

ify reasons for dropping out:

One can no longer afford to dismiss the dropout as

merely lacking in intelligence, but must recognize his
problem as one of great complexity. It should be recog-
nized that adequate solutions will come only as a result
of tedious and long-term research as well as with the
development of new and more efficient research techniques.
(p. 476)

Statement of the Problem

The College of San Mateo, from which the sampling of the present

study was made, is celebrating its fiftieth year, having been estab-

lished in 1922 as one of the early California community colleges.

Many programs and traditions have been developed over these years and,

as would be expected, some of these programs have met the needs of

some members of the community. However, the college has also exper-

ienced many problems, one of the most serious of which is the dropout

student. This phenomenon at the College of San Mateo is the basis of

this study.

Cross (1968) has written:

While studies of some subgroups may be conducted by

national, regional, or state research centers, much
greater emphasis needs to be placed on research at the
local level. Careful attention to what is already known
about junior college students will result in improved
programs to meet their needs. (p. 52)

The findings of Demos' study (1968) suggested that counselors and

administrators should be careful in assigning reasons for college drop-

outs. Demos also recommended that college and university personnel be

encouraged to conduct research relative to their own students' reasons

for withdrawal, and, more important, "to help determine what steps the
 4

college itself can take to ameliorate the potential losses in human

resources that accrue from many of these withdrawals" (p. 684).

In order to deal more realistically with this problem of attrition

in community colleges, it is important to identify the real reasons why

students withdraw. (Demos, 1968)

The present study attempts to do just that. It suggests that

possible preventive action could be inaugurated by the school as a

result of the findings of exit interviews with a sampling of students

as part of the official withdrawal procedure.

Until recently, no formal study of dropout students had been con-

ducted by the San Mateo Community College District. In 1968, the

College of San Mateo was one of 22 community colleges in Northern

California (The NORCAL Group) involved in a study to identify and

describe characteristics associated with attrition of first-time, full-

time community college students. As a result of this study, an action

research design involving an individualized instructional program was

undertaken by the college as part of the third phase of the NORCAL con-

tinuing research. (Wenrich, 1969)

Since that time, a study was conducted at Canada College, a

sister institution in the San Mateo District, of all former students.

(McKeown, 1972) Some questions posed were:

1. Is it characteristic of the community colleges to

lose a high percentage of students?

2. What happens to these students?

3. Are these students dissatisfied with the occupational

curricular offerings?
 5

4. Have they been given adequate counseling and guidance

services?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine if there were common

factors influencing student decisions to terminate course work at the

College of San Mateo.

Information was compiled by personal interviews and questionnaires

from a sampling of students in order to determine the major reasons for

leaving.

The following six null hypotheses were tested:

1. There will be no significant difference in responses

among those enrolled in transfer programs and those

enrolled in career (occupational-oriented) programs.

2. There will be no significant difference in responses

among those enrolled in transfer programs and those

who are undecided as to major.

3. There will be no significant difference in responses

among those enrolled in transfer programs and the

composite group.

4. There will be no significant difference in responses

among those enrolled in career programs and those who

are undecided as to major.

5. There will be no significant difference in responses

among those enrolled in career programs and the com-

posite group.
 6

6. There will be no significant difference in responses

among those who are undecided as to major and the

composite group.

As a result of the personal interviews, additional information

was collected, including:

1. What assistance the college could provide to help

students make a more realistic career choice.

2. How the college could better meet their occupational

and social needs.

3. Student's evaluation of preparation for work or

further study.

4. Student's evaluation of selected characteristics of the

college: curricula, instruction, and student personnel

services, including counseling.

This was not subjected to statistical treatment because of

limited parameters of this study, including time, facilities, per-

sonnel, and economic resources. While these data are subjective,

they represent a wealth of information needed by community college

decision makers.

Basic Assumptions

1. Community colleges offer educational opportunities for students

with a wide range of interests, abilities, and past achievements and

enable them to move toward goals which they might not reach without

post-high school education.

2. California (the leading state in number of public community

 7

colleges as well as in number of students enrolled) is dedicated to the

proposition that all high school graduates or students over 18 years old

should be provided the opportunity of higher education. While this

assumption is attested to by many, there is confusion about the role of

the community college. Cohen and Quimby (1970) write:

The two year college is variously viewed as a

stepping stone to higher education, a technical train-
ing institution, a community service agency, a "com-
prehensive" institution, and a sorting agency for a
community's youth. The absence of comprehensive con-
ceptions of the institutional and educational function-
ing of two-year colleges makes for inadequate and
indistinct analyses of their roles and practices, and
consequently frustrates efforts to develop a "common
language" for researchers and practitioner to deal
with their educational problems. (p. 1)

3. The problem of dropouts should receive high priority in research.

4. The author of this study believes that the reasons reported by

the students withdrawing are, in many cases, not necessarily the true

or "real" reasons for their leaving the institution. Beyond the

surface (reported) problem is an underlying or root cause.

5. In order for the College of San Mateo to provide curricula well

suited to its students, the college must collect, analyze, and use

information about its dropouts.

6. What happens to students while in college, and even after attri-

tion, graduation, and/or transfer, must be of concern to those

involved in the educational process.

7. The success of the institution can best be measured by the success

of its students.

Definition of Terms

Dropout: Student who decides not to complete a course of study,

 8

stops attending classes, and does not complete the formal leave of

absence (checkout) procedures.

Follow-Up: Contact made with a student after the exit interview.

Withdrawal: See Leave (of Absence).

Leave (of Absence): Any student who leaves college at any time during

a semester, having completed the formal withdrawal (checkout) proced-

ures.

Regular Student: Student completing the enrollment procedures out-

lined on the application for admission, enrolling in nine or more units,

and assigned to a counselor.

Special Student: Student taking one or two classes, totaling no more

than eight units, following special enrollment procedures, and not

assigned a regular counselor.

Transfer Major: Student who intends to transfer to a four-year insti-

tution. The program for this student consists of the lower division

requirements for that major at that particular college or university.

Career Major: Student who specializes in a program in an occupational

field, planning to prepare for gainful employment.

Undecided Major: Student who has not declared a specific major, either

in transferring to a four-year institution or specializing in an occu-

pational field.

Composite Group: The total sampling, including transfer, career, and

undecided students.

Certificate Program: Program requiring two years or less to complete,

with concentration on those courses considered essential for employment

in career occupations.
Associate Degree: The Associate in Arts Degree is awarded upon satis-

factory completion of an organized program, usually two years of full-

time study in a career major.

Registered Only: Student who registered for the fall semester (1972)

but never attended classes.

Limitations of the Study

The sampling for this study was taken during the fall semester,

1972, at selected periods after the fourth week and prior to the six-

teenth week. Students interviewed were day students only and those who

applied for a formal "Leave of Absence" according to established check-

out procedure. Most dropout studies are limited because the results

are based on written questionnaires (Wilson, 1971), and dropouts

usually respond poorly to follow-up studies. (McKeown, 1972) The

basis of the present study, therefore, was predicated upon the use of

the personal interview. The College of San Mateo has placed more

importance upon knowing what exists (descriptive), rather than upon the

differences between groups, although this was also studied. A copy of

the interview questions can be found in Appendix A. A total of 110

students were interviewed by one counselor, the author of this study.

Methodology and Procedure

This study attempted to keep in close contact with students who

had taken a leave. It had been recommended (McKeown, 1972, and Brown,

1972) that an exit or terminal interview be given in an attempt to

determine the reason(s) for leaving, and perhaps to assist in finding

 10

employment. Most schools do not have such a policy or, at best, little

information is derived from sporadic interviews and the minimal follow-

up.

Procedure:

1. A formal procedure was developed, including:

a. The format of the exit interview to be used by

the researcher.

b. Information about leave (withdrawal) procedure

was disseminated throughout the campus.

c. Students were made part of the "jury" in an

effort to construct the interviews in terms

understandable to the student population.

2. A sampling of students taking a leave of absence during

the fall semester, 1972, was routed to the investigator

for an exit interview.

3. Each student was given a 10-15 minute interview.

4. Follow-up interviews were given to as many of these

students as possible within three months of the

exit interview.

5. Assistance was given by members of the Statistics

Department at Oregon State University, as well as the

staff at the College of San Mateo.

6. Comparisons were made between the information collected

from the exit interview and that of the follow-up inter-

view.

7. Responses about the characteristics of the college as

 11

well as motivational factors and students' values

were compiled.

8. The data were analyzed, information recorded, conclusions

drawn, recommendations proposed, and implications formu-

lated for student personnel services.

Summary

The community college movement has been acknowledged as the most

significant development in American higher education in the past fifty

years. California, a leader in this movement, as well as most other

states, holds to the "open door" admission policy. The College of San

Mateo, from which the sampling of this study was made, has been estab-

lished since 1922. With all of its programs endeavoring to meet the

needs of the community, the college has experienced a perennial problem

plaguing most community colleges, the dropout student.

The purpose of this study was to determine factors having a tend-

ency to influence students' decisions leading to departure from the

College of San Mateo. A sampling of students taking a formal leave of

absence during the fall semester, 1972, was interviewed by the investi-

gator, the author of this study. This exit interview was followed up

within three months. Comparisons were made between students:

1. Enrolled in a transfer program,

2. Enrolled in a career (two-year) program, and
3. Who were undecided as to a major.

The school's primary concern was to find out at the exit interview or

soon thereafter what could be done to reverse the attrition trend.

This study was conducted under the sponsorship and assistance of the

College of San Mateo's Student Personnel Services.

 12

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The Dropout Phenomenon: Introduction

This review of literature is primarily concerned with factors

pertaining to the propensity of community college students to drop out,

withdraw, or take a leave of absence, i.e., to interrupt a course of

study. While none of the studies reviewed was identical to the one in

this thesis, many factors and procedures were similar. It is hoped

that this study, which represents many hours of diligent effort, will

be utilized and not merely presented as "inert ideas!" Alfred North

Whitehead, (1929, p. 2) ". . that is to say, ideas that are merely

received into the mind without being utilized, or tested, or thrown

into fresh combinations."

The Need for Dropout and Follow-Up Studies

The study of college attrition, its causes and ramifications,

cannot be conducted in isolation, but must be related to the entire

educational structure.

The word "dropout" has a great variety of meanings and connota-

tions. It is used synonymously with "non-persistor." Others describe

this phenomenon as: "stopout" (Kester, 1971b), "temporary withdrawal"

(Bossen, 1968), or "transient" (Heist, 1968).

Traditionally, the practice of dropping out has been frowned upon.

To the colleges, dropping out appears equivalent to

a kind of death, if only an intellectual one. Dropouts
 13

are referred to in academic circles as "casualties" or

"non-survivors." The dropout rate is called the "mortal-
ity" rate. Under these conditions it is natural for
college authorities to discourage dropping out, even
though the student may benefit by leaving school for a
time. (Reik, 1962, p. 442)

This negative attitude has caused undue pressure upon students as

well as determined readmission policies to colleges and universities.

(Pervin, Reik, and Dalrymple, 1966)

"Dropout," a word typically applied alike to students

who fail to complete a semester or who fail to register
for the next series of courses in a particular curriculum
is often coupled with the word "problem," to form a term
which suggests something that must be "solved." Depending
on one's view, a student who drops out has either failed
to "achieve his potential" (play the game according to the
rules) or has been let down by schools which have neglected
to provide an "experience appropriate to his needs." In
either case, the "problem" exists. (Cohen, 1969b, p. 130)

Although the term "college dropout" has become a bad word in the

popular press and the American home ". . the possibilities of both

loss and benefit should be considered" (Ford and Urban, 1966, p. 83).

Perhaps the term "dropout," used so extensively with a negative connota-

tion is not really detrimental at all. According to Cohen and Brawer

(1970), "The dropout may be exhibiting strengths not possessed by his

fellow students" (p. 20).

Knoell (1960) reported few follow-up studies on retention and

withdrawal by colleges engaged in institutional research. The same

fact is borne out in Summerskill's review (1962) of dropouts and in

Pervin's study (1966). In a more recent review by Knoell, the need

for more follow-up studies of dropouts was suggested:

. . in the junior colleges, where attrition is

.

exceedingly high after only one year and where a large

proportion of the students in transfer programs do not
 14

enter four-year institutions. One very important

aspect of such an evaluative approach is an assessment
of the long-term effects of failure among college
students. (1966, p. 70)

Limited data are available to illustrate the relationship of

student performance to non-scholastic variables, such as motivation,

values, and interests. In-depth investigations of these factors have

been conducted at several four-year institutions as reported by

Newman (1971), Carnegie (1971), Astin (1971), Demos (1968), Panos

(1968), and Pervin, Reik, and Dalrymple (1966). McClure's (1972)

investigation of prediction studies that include nonintellectual

factors supports this. Little, however, has been reported from com-

munity colleges.

Follow-up studies designed to identify causes for dropping out

can be used as a basis for developing special programs and other pre-

ventive procedures. Follow-up studies should be a continual process

and have a high priority of institutional research. (Blocker et al,

1965) O'Connor's review of follow-up studies in community colleges

(1965) pointed out that perhaps the reason for the lack of reduction

in the number of dropouts was the sporadic study of the phenomenon.

"A sustained analysis of the problem might well yield more effective

solutions. Follow-up studies must include an analysis of dropouts"

(p. 12).

While there is a rich source of literature dealing with the impact

of four-year colleges and universities on student population and alumni

(Feldman and Newcomb, 1969), there is only fragmentary information about

the effect of community college schooling on students. Cohen and

 15

Quimby (1970) revealed that:

There are no serious studies or measures of the

impact of junior college schooling on the many dropouts
or those who terminate their formal schooling after com-
pleting a two-year college program of study. Impact
studies, both flat-line and longitudinal, are needed to
reveal the strengths and weaknesses of junior college
schooling. (p. 1)

The authors recommended that studies be undertaken to appraise the

characteristics of community college students recruited to occupation-

centered (career) curricula. "The field is simply ignorant about the

characteristics of students recruited to occupation-oriented programs

that could give meaning to both the students and the program" (p. 1).

Results of investigations in the early 1960's suggest that there

needs to be a reassessment of the nature of the dropout "problem."

Medsker and Tillery's profile of two-year colleges (1971) suggests

that the colleges themselves are failing to offer programs and services

of a nature and in a manner that holds students. "This problem should

be one of the greatest priorities for research and deliberation on the

part of those individuals in state agencies responsible for the planning

of community colleges" (p. 49).

There appears, however, to be wide diversity of opinion on what

type of investigation would be helpful. Knoell (1966) began by calling

for the need for longitudinal studies. Cohen and Brawer (1970) in

their study of student characteristics expressed the need for basic

research that seeks to isolate personality dimensions in order to

identify the potential college dropout.

Well-planned follow-up studies should be an integral part of the

institutional research program of every college. Roueche and Boggs

 16

(1968) suggested that community colleges typically do not conduct

indigenous studies. "While research, whether basic or applied, is

becoming more prevalent, it is still not a hallmark of the institution"

(p. 47). Thornton (1966) suggested that community colleges typically

have been more concerned with former students who have been "successful"

than those who have dropped out. A complete follow-up program is essen-

tial of all types of former students and what happens to them. Feed-

back is necessary from transfer students to evaluate admission proced-

ures and academic preparation. Information, though difficult to

obtain, is needed of employed students in order to promote improvements

in training programs. Thornton revealed that "Few studies are reported

of the success of vocationally trained graduates in finding employment

in the area of their training and of their comparative success after

placement" (p. 266).

This support for local research is off-set by the admonition of

Cohen and Brawer (1970) and others. "Most dropout studies tend to be

parochial" (p. 15). Some investigations, such as Trent and Medsker's

broad-based study (1968), have studied populations from several kinds

of schools throughout the nation. Astin (1972) lends support to this

approach, suggesting that the research should be multi-institutional,

longitudinal, and ". studies of the comparative effects of differ-

ent types of colleges" (p. 2).

Thus, the need for dropout and follow-up studies is evident,

along with the diversity of opinion as to direction, content, and

design of such investigations.

 17

The Dropout Problem in Higher Education

The dropout problem faces educators throughout the nation. In an

extensive review of dropouts from college, Summerskill (1962) reported:

"There has been a loss and continues to be a loss of about half of the

undergraduate students despite changes in student characteristics,

programs offered, standards enforced, and services rendered" (p. 630).

Other investigations (Trent and Medsker, 1968), (Medsker, 1960), (Marsh,

1966), and (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1971) revealed

similar dropout rates. In their publication, Less Time, More Options,

the Carnegie Commission disclosed that "six out of every ten students

enrolling this fall will fail to get the ultimate degree to which they

aspire, an overall dropout rate from higher education of about 60

percent" (1971, p. 9). Pervin (1966) agrees with this trend. "The

rising wave of college applicants during the past decade has inevitably

brought with it mounting nation-wide interest in the 50 percent of the

college students who drop out, especially those students with seemingly

excellent potential" (p. 237). In another place, Pervin put it

another way: "Only about 40 percent of the nation's students graduate

at the date scheduled for the class of their matriculation" (p. 7).

In spite of such statistics, remarkably little is known about the

effects of withdrawal upon the student or about his later performance

in academic, vocational, and personal realms. Pervin continues:

"While the phenomenon of the dropout per se has received a fair amount

of research investigation, there have been extremely few follow-up

studies" (p. 37). This fact is hardly mentioned in reviews by Knoell

 18

(1966) and Summerskill (1962).

Attrition in other than leading private institutions in the

country is acknowledged as being exceedingly high. The Newman report

(1971) stated that only 15 to 25 percent of the students graduate from

state colleges in four years and 35 to 45 percent from large state uni-

versities. The report continues by bemoaning the fact that colleges

and universities tend to prepare students to "fit in" comfortably with

a "homogenizing society" rather than offering alternative careers and

roles, including ones that challenge and change society. "Contemporary

activism on campuses has won some changes by their demands in the past

decade, which has contributed to many of the innovations in higher edu-

cation" (p. 3). Newman concludes this introduction by warning that

undue optimism is not warranted. "Resistance to change is prevalent in

all facets of higher education, because it is an integral part of the

larger social system" (p. 4).

Perhaps this report, coupled with the student unrest and demands

for relevance in education during the past decade, discloses at least

a partial reason for high student attrition. In his succinct treatise

on pluralism and diversity in American higher education (1972),

Schwebel relates that:

In their need to understand their own inequities, to

appreciate the origins of their own alienation, to compre-
hend their lives in the system, students require the kind
of openness and exposure of its ideology that systems are
not prepared to give, and especially in the traditional
institutions that cater to new entrants. (p. 90)

In order to effect change in their institutions and deal realis-

tically with the problem of the dropout, colleges and universities of

 19

higher education must collect meaningful data and must be committed to

utilize that information in specific programs. In their chapter in the

College Dropout and the Utilization of Talent, Ford and Urban (1966)

presented this challenge:

One of the first things a university must do is to

acquire some base rates of information about its own
individual situation. It must arrange for a steady flow
of data and research concerning the admission, academic
performance, and related characteristics of its students.
Careful study of both graduates and dropouts is essential.
It is only by such feedback that a university can evalu-
ate its efforts and discover those aspects of its opera-
tion which need to be improved. (p. 84)

This is clearly an admonition to all facets of higher education,

including community colleges.

In his analysis of the ontogeny of the dropout problem, Kubie

(1966) insisted that in order to differentiate the student with high

dropout potential and the student with high persistence potential,

intensive comparative studies must be undertaken of dropouts and non-

dropouts alike. Cohen and Brawer (1970) also make the admonition,

"There is a definite lack of experimentation with action programs

designed specifically to reduce attrition" (p. 19).

A wide difference of opinion exists among investigators about

reasons for student withdrawal. Cowhig (1963) reported dropout cate-

gories of why students leave college in a study comparing a relatively

large group of both male and female students (Table 1). Medsker

(1960) had similar findings in his review of 20 studies involving

nearly 10,000 community college students (Table 2). In the Princeton

Study, Pervin (1966) revealed the usual reasons. Almost no one claimed

a lack of ability. The problems of poor motivation and immaturity were

 20

Table 1. Reasons for Leaving College for 1,162 Persons

Sixteen to Twenty-Four Years of Age Who Attended
but Did Not Graduate from College: United States,
October, 1959.

Reasons Not Now in College Total Male Female

Number (in thousands) 1,162 507 655

Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0

Lost interest 15.0 15.4 14.6

Poor grades 2.7 5.5 0.5

Lacked money 18.3 27.6 11.1

Took job 20.9 21.5 20.5

Military service 4.1 8.9 0.3

Marriage 22.8 6.9 35.1

Other 15.9 13.8 17.6

Not reported 0.3 0.4 0.3

 21

Table 2. Reasons Stated for Withdrawing from Junior College

Reported by Approximately Ten Thousand Students
Enrolled in Twenty Two-Year Colleges between
1949 and 1957.

Reasons Stated for Withdrawal No. of Students Percent

Full -time employment 2,734 28

Personal and health 1,554 16

Moved or transferred 1,084 11

Nonattendance 1,013 10

Academic or faculty action 860 9

To enter Armed Forces 832 8

Not interested in school

or dissatisfied 763 8

Financial 549 6

Marriage 264 3

Educational goals completed 55 1

Total 9,898 100

 22

noted as consistently contributing to withdrawal. Apparently academic

ability alone does not play a significant part in determining who drops

out of Princeton. It cannot be used effectively in attempts at predic-

tion and this has become increasingly true with recent classes.

Astin (1964) confirmed the findings concerning lack of goals and

uncertainty as to major and career choice. "Uncertainty about what to

study is the most frequent reason talented students give for dropping

out of college" (p. 40). Earlier, Thistlewaite (1960) found that many

students who drop out of a field did so because their career expecta-

tions proved incompatible with reality.

Many authorities believe that reasons listed by students for attri-

tion are really secondary, and are results rather than causes. (Wilson,

1971) Even if some reasons given by students are legitimate, they

could probably be overcome if the student really wanted to continue.

For example, Dalrymple (1967), who worked with students at Princeton

and the University of Illinois, disclosed that students usually do not

have one specific reason for dropping out of college. An analysis of

college dropouts by Demos (1968) at California State University at

Long Beach, California, revealed the importance of identifying the

"real" reasons why students withdraw from colleges and universities.

"One very important aspect of these studies indicates that the reasons

given by the withdrawing students are not, many times, the true reasons

as seen by trained counselors" (p. 681). In his study, trained coun-

selors investigated several hundred dropouts and compared the results

of the students' responses to the reason for withdrawing with that of

the counselors' (Table 3). Bossen (1968) is supportive of this assay

Table 3. Reasons for Withdrawal (Given by Student and by Counselor).

Male Female

Stated Counselor's Stated Counselor's

Reason Interpretation Reason Interpretation

N % N % N % N

1. a. Doctor's orders 6 4 3 1 18 17 17 15
b. Personal decision
(illness) 12 7 12 6 8 8 8 7

2. a. Need job
(financial problems) 39 24 28 14 22 21 15 13
b. Additional job 4 2 1 .5 2 2 1 .5
c. Work conflict 9 6 7 4 2 2 1 .5
d. Temporary job 6 4 5 3 1 1 1 1

e. New permanent job 8 5 5 3 6 6 3 3

3. a. Military service 15 9 8 4 0 0 0 0

4. a. Illness in family 11 7 12 6 7 7 7 6
b. Death in family 1 1 1 .5 0 0 0 0

5. a. Getting married 0 0 1 .5 7 7 6 5
b. Additions to family 3 2 3 1 0 0 3 3
c. Marital conflicts 5 3 7 4 1 .5 4 4
d. Parental conflicts 2 1 3 1 2 2 4 4
Table 3. Continued.

Male Female

Stated Counselor's Stated Counselor's

Reason Interpretation Reason Interpretation

N 70 N 70

6. a. Family moving 5 3 5 3 6 6 6 5
b. Job transfer 1 1 1 .5 0 0 1 1

c. Leaving area 4 2 2 1 0 0 0 0
d. Transfer to another
college 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 3
e. Transportation problem 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0

7. a. Work too difficult 7 4 21 11 1 .5 2 2

b. Lack of motivation 8 5 24 12 2 2 9 8
c. Uncertainty as to major 4 2 19 10 3 3 5 4
d. Poor grades 2 1 4 2 3 3 4 4

8. a. Personal, emotional,
or psychological
problems 8 5 21 11 8 8 12 11

Total 153 100 196 100 103 100 112 100

 25

in a follow-up study conducted of community college withdrawal students.

The findings indicated that, with several exceptions, more than one

reason was involved in the decision by the student to leave college,

For a majority of the withdrawals, personal, social, and academic cate-

gories were all represented in their reasons for leaving.

The large majority of the studies reviewed by Wilson (1971)

revealed that employment is the most important reason given by students

for dropping out of college. According to Cowhig (1963), "took a job"

or "full-time employment" appears to be difficult to interpret. Eco-

nomic reasons are really secondary. Montgomery and Hills (1966) state:

"Studies are inconclusive as to whether financial need causes many stu-

dents to leave college" (p. 248). Probably of greater significance is

lack of motivation or preference for some other activity. In an early

study, Matson (unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1955) saw no signifi-

cant difference between freshmen who withdrew and those who continued.

She concluded that the major reasons for withdrawing are the dropout's

lack of identification and feeling of not belonging.

A major limitation in most attrition studies is the tendency to

lump together into the dropout category all students who leave college

before obtaining a baccalaureate degree. This procedure, as observed

by Knoell (1966), can cancel out factors that would otherwise differ-

entiate the student who becomes a dropout because of academic failure

from the one who decides to forego his education temporarily or to

transfer to another institution.

Another limitation of these studies was the fact that results

can be misleading depending on many factors that would include the

 26

type of survey and the response. (Wilson, 1971, and McKeown, 1972)

O'Connor (1965) commented that dropouts do not respond well to follow-

up studies, and this tends to limit the value of these studies. Cohen

and Quimby (1970) reported that replies from community college dropouts

seldom reach 30 percent. McKeown (1972) in his "Follow Through Study"

warned:

From the point of view of interpreting the results

of the survey, this response rate . (29.3 percent)
.

is certainly low enough for us to be very hesitant

.

to draw any inferences about the sample as a whole,

especially without knowing if there are any systematic
differences between those former students who returned
the questionnaire and those who did not. (p. 3)

Two additional dimensions in the attrition "problem" must be con-

sidered.

First is the need to compare relative attrition rates of males

and females. Summerskill (1962) found that the dropout rate for males

and females was approximately equal, despite the fact that fewer women

enter college. However, Demos (1968) indicated in his study that

significantly more males than females left school even though a ratio

of seven males to five females existed at the college when the study

was undertaken. On the other hand, in Astin's extremely comprehensive

investigation of predicting academic performance with selective data

for 2,300 American colleges (1971), it was stated:

One finding that should be underscored is that the

dropout rate was higher among women than men at every
level of freshman G.P.A. Women were more likely to drop
out of college than men, even though they tended to get
higher grades during the freshman year. Thus, the "talent
loss" resulting from this interrupted or terminated educa-
tion is consistently greater among the women. (p. 16)

Second is the prediction of success, or the need to develop ways

 27

to identify potential dropouts. In an unpublished doctoral disserta-

tion (1972), McClure conducted an extensive review of literature on

prediction of success in community colleges. Results of various tests,

biographic and nonintellective data, and other types of evaluations

were presented. His results were as follows:

1. High school grade point average and high school

rank correlated significantly with improved pre-
diction of junior college success.

2. Nonintellective factors showed mixed findings.

3. General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) proved to

be stronger than American College Test (ACT) and
School and College Ability Test (SCAT) in predic-
tive ability. GATB has had a long history of
development and research involving the validation
of its use for vocational counseling. (p. 58)

Astin (1971) supports the predictive value of grade point average

(GPA). He states that it is clear that college GPA is related to

dropping out, and that the same characteristics that predict college

GPA should also predict dropping out. This study based on data from

the Cooperative Institutional Research Program of the American Council

on Education, a continuing research program, revealed that the percent-

age of dropouts consistently increased as the average grade in high

school decreased, ". . . though this increase was not nearly so pro-

nounced as it was in the case of college GPA" (p. 17). This relation-

ship between dropping out and high school grades--the best predictor of

freshman GPA--is shown in Table 4. Astin continues: "Clearly, the

relationship between high school grades and dropping out cannot be

accounted for solely by the relationship between high school grades and

college grades" (p. 17). In his summary (p. 20), Astin says: "High

school grades carry considerably more weight in predicting college

 28

grades than aptitude test scores do."

Table 4. Relationship between High School Grades

and Dropping Out of College.

% of Students Not
Number of Returning for the
Students Sophomore Year
Average Grade
in
High School Men Women Men Women

A or A+ 1,262 1,686 7 12

A- 2,035 2,732 8 14

B+ 3,324 3,893 11 18

B 4,247 4,174 17 20

B- 3,121 1,982 20 25

C+ 3,094 1,644 26 28

C 2,312 927 33 36

D 129 19 47 47

Another facet in the phenomenon of the dropout was brought to

light by Pervin (1966). The data from the Princeton Study suggest

that there may have been a change in the nature of dropouts. "At

Princeton there has been a decrease in students dropping out for aca-

demic reasons and an increase in students dropping out for general

reasons" (p. 59). From the data of this study, it was impossible to

determine which of a number of possible factors was most influential

in this change.

Pervin, Reik, and Dalrymple (1966) pointed out that pioneering

 29

follow-up studies of the "fate" of dropouts have led to the discovery

that for many it is not permanent, and that leaving college for a

period of time may be useful to the individual and society (Table 5).

Table 5. Later Success of College Dropouts.

Immediate and Long-Term Effects of Withdrawal.
(in percent)

Immediate Long-Term

Positive Negative Mixed None Positive Negative Mixed None

1940 .15 .30 .07 .48 010 .20 .04 .66

1951 .32 .44 .07 .17 .36 .25 .11 .27

1960 .35 .37 .15 .13 .60 .17 .08 .15

The authors of this report also quote R. Sargent Shriver, former

Director of the Peace Corps:

If the college sophomore wants to drop out of

school, let him. Let the bored or confused or the
burned-out undergraduate have a short, meaningful
interlude--a sojourn in reality--for a year or two,
so that he can come back revitalized, committed, con-
cerned enough to finish both college and graduate
work. (p. 18)

This review indicated that the attrition in higher education

nationally was about 50 percent. While there has been research of

dropouts per se, little has been done in follow-up studies. Careful

study of graduates and dropouts is needed for evaluation of individ-

ual institutions in order to effect necessary improvements. Compara-

tive studies and action programs are needed to reduce attrition.

Studies showed that reasons for withdrawing are not always the true

reasons and with few exceptions, more than one reason was involved in
 30

the decision to leave. The most common reasons given were employment,

finances, and lack of motivations, with marriage ranking hing in four-

year institutions. Other factors included male vs. female, GPA, and

type of survey. Several studies pointed out a trend in fewer students

leaving for academic reasons and an increase for personal reasons. It

was suggested that possibly for many dropping out was temporary and

that this "stopping out" period was not necessarily bad.

The Dropout Problem in Community Colleges

The foregoing review of the dropout problem in higher education

revealed total agreement on the need for research and follow-up studies.

While the major emphasis was on four-year institutions, some emphasis

was given to the community college. This section presents salient

features of this phenomenon in the community college.

Research on the community college is a relatively new phenomenon

as reported in the current literature. (Cross, 1968; Cohen and Brawer,

1970) Pace (1962) pointed out that published research on the community

college lags considerably behind the four-year institutions. One of

the most serious limitations of the relatively few studies that include

community college populations is that these students are grouped with

students at different levels of education and/or in different types of

schools. (Cohen and Brawer, 1970) Among these are the longitudinal

scope study as reported by Tillery (1964), Project Talent (Cross, 1968),

and the impressive and comprehensive study of 10,000 high school gradu-

ates by Trent and Medsker (1968).

A summary of some of the "knowns and unknowns" of community

 31

college students as reported by Cohen and (1970) are as follows:

1. Community college students in national, regional, or

statewide samples achieve lower mean scores on academic

ability tests than comparably selected students at four-

year institutions.

2. Little is actually known about patterns of special

abilities among community college students.

3. More information is needed about community college

students' home environments, parental encouragement,

financial standing, and related matters.

4. Little is known about the vocationally oriented

students, the dropouts, or older students who do not

transfer to four-year schools.

5. Community college students have more practical orien-

tations to life and to college than their four-year

college or university peers.

6. Community college students are less intellectually

disposed, score lower on measures of autonomy and non-

authoritarianism, appear more cautious and controlled,

are less likely to be adventurous and flexible, and are

less sure of themselves.

Research on personality characteristics of community college

students is meager and more information is needed regarding their

values, feelings about themselves, and interpersonal relations.

The community college is today in the forefront of the thrust

toward higher education. The philosophy is that each individual,

 32

regardless of economic or social status, should be provided the oppor-

tunity to develop to his and society's ultimate benefit. With the

increasing necessity for post-secondary schooling for an ever-growing

portion of the population, the community college bears much of the

added responsibility. (Cohen, 1969) The extent to which the commun-

ity colleges have absorbed the increasingly large segment of students

enrolled in higher education was reported by Tickton (1968):

In 1920 1.4% of all college students

1940 10.0% of all college students
1965 15.2% of all college students
est. 1975 16.9% of all college students
est. 1980 22.0% of all college students (p. 18)

The National Science Foundation (1967) revealed that, considering

lower division enrollments only, the community colleges already have

more than 30 percent of these students.

With the community college growing at an unprecedented rate in

numbers of schools and numbers of students enrolled, it is still seek-

ing independence, recognition, and awareness of its role in higher

education. Cohen and Brawer (1970) believe its very identity is ques-

tioned. Confusion about its role has been pointed out by Cohen and

Quimby (1970). There appears to be a marked lack of unanimity among

professionals in community colleges, who do not hold consistent or

comprehensive concepts about its function. It is seen by some as the

gateway to universal high education. (McGrath, 1966) It is seen by

others as a stumbling block. (Cohen and Quimby, 1970)

Despite the "uniqueness" of the two-year colleges, Medsker (1969)

believes it lacks identity and presents a pressing need to deal with

its "identity crisis." In his address to the 1970 annual convention

 33

of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, Execu-

tive Director Edmund J. Gleazer, Jr., reflected this uncertainty about

institutional identity of the two-year colleges. He suggested the pos-

sibility of dropping the word "college" and re-identifying these insti-

tutions as "community centers for educational development." (Gleazer,

1970) This "identity crisis" in the community college is reflected in

the attitude of the students in attendance. (Cohen, 1969; Cross, 1968;

Combs, 1971) According to O'Connell (1968), the community colleges

have such a high dropout rate they become, more often than not, one-

year colleges. In her review of studies of dropouts, Knoell (1966)

relates that "One of the most serious gaps in our knowledge of dropouts

as a potential loss of talent is in the area of the junior college"

(p. 79).

Cross's description of the community college student (1968) indi-

cates a consistency of findings in spite of sampling biases. As to

goals and aspirations, Cross reports scanty research in personality

characteristics of community college students. More information about

students' values, their feelings about themselves, and their relation-

ship with others is needed.

Given the overall research picture, one can hypo-

thesize that the junior college student may frequently
be one who has stopped trying in the academic situation;
motivation and interest may be depressed because of the
relative lack of successful school experiences in the
past. We need to know more about the areas in which the
junior college student feels himself especially compe-
tent. (Cross, 1968, p. 51-52)

Related research on attrition of community college students has

revealed more than relationships of individual characteristics and

academic environments. Cohen and Brawer (1970) suggested that

 34

conceptually distinct college patterns were found to increase the pro-

pensity to withdraw. They reported high attrition rates were associated

with:

1. Schools that encouraged high levels of student

competition, limited opportunity for involvement
with faculty, and offered few extracurricular
activities to bring students together and

2. Colleges having relatively severe grading prac-

tices, faculties who were not concerned with
individual students, and considerable freedom
for students to select their courses. (p. 17)

The nature of student complaints about student-faculty relationships

needs to be explored. Few programs aimed at combating the isolation

of faculty and students exist. (Montgomery and Hills, 1969)

A review of the literature on the characteristics of community

college students revealed no "common language" researchers have to

deal with student problems. Thus, the absence of comprehensive con-

ception of the educational functions of two-year colleges often

frustrates researchers' efforts. (Cohen and Quimby, 1970)

Community college programs traditionally have been designed on

the basis of the four-year institutions' desire to have students

"screened" before transferring. Cohen (1969) points out that the

community college should exist to serve its students and community and

not as a sorting mechanism for the benefit of other colleges and uni-

versities. He believes that all distinctions between "transfer" and

"terminal" programs should be broken down. "Tracking (placing students

into transfer or non-transfer courses) is passe" (p. 7).

Most students come to community colleges seeking directions and

relevance in education. They no longer view their college experience

 35

as an abstraction outside the reality of their lives. (Cohen, 1969)

In their comprehensive profile of the two-year colleges, Medsker and

Tillery (1971) attribute high attrition to irrelevant instruction as

well as to financial pressure and inadequate advisement. Earlier,

Medsker (1960) explained that entering students in community colleges

have definite short-term personal or vocational goals which are often

satisfied in less than the usual two-year period.

Concomitant with the "open door" policy associated with community

colleges is the possibility of negative effects. The penalties for

students' dropping out are often severe. In many colleges, a dropout

must submit justification for having broken the straight-line pattern

of attendance. The difficulty of gaining re-admittance to college is

well known.

Guardians, in the persons of admissions officers

with responsibility for keeping out the unfit, man the
gates at many two-year. .schools. And woe to the
.

prospective student who applies with marks on his trans-

cript that indicate he withdrew before completing a
course at some point in his school career. (Cohen,
1969, p. 131)

Although the nonselective admissions policy is a democratic ideal,

there are personal losses as well as society's "loss of talent." The

disappointment and emotional effects upon students with early departures

from school have consequences of which we are only dimly aware.

The idea of a "second chance" is generally accepted by the commun-

ity college. (Cohen, 1969; Blocker, 1965; Medsker, 1960) As a matter

of fact, the two-year institutions pride themselves in enrolling stu-

dents who have been rejected by four-year schools. Cohen (1969) dis-

closed that, "No junior colleges, however, have developed an organization

 36

so flexible that a student can enter, leave, and return at times of

his own choosing without penalty" (p. 131).

Community college institutional research needs considerable up-

grading if it is to effect change. Cohen (1969) believes that method-

ology is an over-riding problem in community college research. Studies

of community college students fall almost exclusively into the category

of data-collection from existing records.

The investigator typically tabulates data obtained

from college files or from questionnaires sent to un-
differentiated numbers of students and presents his
findings . Typically, population sampling is not
. .

undertaken, hypotheses are poorly drawn (if stated at

all) and simple research designs are lacking. (Cohen,
1969, p. 104)

In spite of many efforts to collect information, reports on

research are often not published. Much material that has been gathered

about community college students has been reviewed and synthesized by

ERIC Clearinghouse and the American Association of Community and Junior

Colleges. However, it is estimated that many times that amount of

research lies buried in local school administrative files (Cohen and

Brawer, 1970). The need is great to find, summarize, and publish

existing studies, and to report new findings.

The usual method of assessing the success of community colleges is

in the transfer function and comparing grade point averages achieved

before and after transfer. (Knoell, 1966) There is reason to believe

that many who enter with the intention to transfer do not do so. Also,

some students transfer to senior colleges before completing the two-

year period. A sizable number of students complete two years in com-

munity college but do not choose to satisfy the graduation requirements.

 37

(Medsker, 1960) "Neither our statistics nor our insights into the

phenomenon of the junior college dropout is now adequate to the task of

assessing this loss of talent" (Knoell, 1966, p. 70). Obviously, func-

tion of both placement and of follow-up are too important in their

relation to all aspects of the overall program of the community college

to be left to chance or to haphazard development. (Mohs, 1962)

An important function of the community college is in student per-

sonnel services, particularly in counseling and guidance. Counseling

programs are useful in getting information to the student at the right

time. Special programs need to be devised in assisting students prior

to dropping out. (alai, 1972) Students should be reached and coun-

seled before they withdraw, but in many instances students do not with-

draw formally. They simply become another statistic at the close of

the college term. (Demos, 1968) This implies a need for developing

ways to identify potential dropouts before they drop out, an idea sup-

ported by Wilson (1971), Kester (1971), and McKeown (1972).

In short, not enough is known about community college students at

this time, particularly the dropouts. Who are they? Why do they leave?

How many do so?

In reviewing the dropout problem in community colleges, little

research was reported and it has been a relatively new activity. Some

of the "knowns and unknowns" of community college students were revealed.

It was noted that the community college has been absorbing increasing

numbers enrolled in higher education. Despite its "uniqueness" the two-

year colleges have had an "identity crisis," which has been reflected in

student attendance. Little research has been done in personality

 38

characteristics of these students. High attrition rates have been

reported with regard to competition, grading practices, and poor

student-faculty relationships. Negative effects have been associated

with the "open door" policy. While community colleges pride themselves

on being a "second chance" institution, greater flexibility should be

made. Institutional research in community colleges needs considerable

up-grading. It needs to be more than data-gathering, and merely lost

in administrative files. Greater emphasis needs to be placed upon

counseling and guidance. This should include getting information to

students at the right time.

National Studies

This section includes related and supporting follow-up studies

on a national basis having implications on this study.

Reporting on a study of nationwide scope conducted by the

National Merit Scholarship Corporation, Panos and Astin (1968) found

that students not completing college at the prescribed time:

1. Had relatively low grades in high school.

2. Did not plan to go on to graduate or professional work.

3. Came from relatively low socio-economic backgrounds.

4. Designated either American Indian or "other" backgrounds.

5. Were likely to have declared business, engineering, or

secretarial work as their probable career.

6. Were likely to have been married when starting college.

7. Had automobiles and used them frequently.

They found less likelihood that students would withdraw from

 39

school if:

1. Their relationship to peers was characterized by

friendliness, cooperativeness, and independence.

2. They frequently participated in college activities.

3. The institution showed a high level of personal involve-

ment with and concern for the individual student.

4. The school's administrative policies concerning student

agression were relatively permissive.

The above findings of Panos and Astin corroborated many of the

reasons for attrition found by Matson (1955), Iffert (1964), Cowhig

(1963), Marsh (1966), Pervin (1966), and Summerskill (1962).

Academic factors, e.g., high school preparation and performance

in college, motivation, and finances, emerge most clearly from the

literature as important determiners of attrition. Illness and injury

account for a small portion. Evidence concerning social factors, such

as socio-economic variables and personal-social adjustments, is still

inconclusive. (Summerskill, 1962, and Astin, 1972)

The dropout issue is usually tied to the larger question of gen-

eral student characteristics. It is a rather common practice to

describe community colleges as extremely heterogeneous. Typically,

students are characterized as heterogeneous on the basis of academic

ability, aspiration, and socio-economic status. Cohen and Brawer

(1970) have pointed out that in spite of apparent heterogeneity on

demographic dimensions, little is known about relative heterogeneity

on other measures. Some studies suggested homogeneity rather than

heterogeneity. Tillery (1964) found that community college students,

 40

in contrast with four-year students, were more interested in applied

learning. Both heterogeneous and homogeneous tendencies were found

among community college students according to Medsker and Trent (1965).

"Perhaps the most general statement that can be made regarding the

results of this investigation is that the kinds of data obtained do

not suggest the quality of heterogeneity usually ascribed to junior

colleges" (Cohen and Brawer, 1970, p. 50)0

A comprehensive dropout study by Pervin, Reik, and Dalrymple

(1966) commented on the fact that many students experienced relief

upon dropping out and later found it to have been a valuable experience.

He also found that many others recovered from the initial shock to find

more rewarding kinds of experiences. Some of these results are shown

in Table 6, which shows a comparison of Princeton and Illinois Universi-

ties.

In this same study, Knoell (1966) reported on the community

college dropout.

From these and other studies of student character-

istics relating to college choice, one gains the impres-
sion that the factors determining who goes to which
college and for how long (before dropout or transfer)
are still very heavily weighed by the economics of the
situation. (p. 80)

Similar characteristics in the dropout student in community col-

leges were found by Cohen and Brawer (1970). These students carry

fewer units and it suggested that they are less committed to full-time

schooling. It would appear that dropouts are therefore more inclined

to leave school when conditions are unpleasant or interfere with other

activities, such as a job. Cohen and Brawer also implied, as does

 41

Table 6. Later Success of College Dropouts.

Comparison of Later Academic Performance of
Princeton and Illinois Dropouts.

Princeton 1951 Illinois 1956

Percent of entering class

graduating in four years
from same institution .82 .29

Percent of dropouts to
return to college .82 .70

Percent of returnees to
obtain B.A. degree .74 .55

Percent of total class to

obtain B.A. degree .94 .70

Percent of non-dropouts to
go on for advanced degree .76 .55

Percent of dropouts to go
on for advanced degree .43 .37

Percent of non-dropouts to
go on for further educa-
tion who obtain advanced
degree .77 .76

Percent of B.A. dropouts to

go on for further education
who obtain advanced degree .78 .66
 42

much of the literature, that dropout propensity is related to finan-

cial pressures. Dropouts report more time spent at outside employment

than persisters. How much influence employment is, as a reflection of

financial needs, is uncertain at this time.

Bogue (1950) in an early review of the community college commented

that it is critical for the faculty to help identify potential dropouts,

but warned that professionals should do the counseling. Blocker (1965)

concurred but stated that, "The concept that every faculty member should

be a counselor or even an academic advisor is sheer nonsense" (p. 243).

Many students who are potential dropouts show early warning signs.

Behavior such as difficulty concentrating, boredom, irregular eating

and sleeping, and negative attitudes warn of coming events. (Montgom-

ery and Hills, 1966)

The goals and aspirations of vocation (career) oriented students

in community colleges are not really known. According to Cross (1968)

in her research description of community college students, little is

known about how career-oriented students feel about their college

experiences. It was also pointed out that not much is, known about the

satisfactions and dissatisfactions of those who drop out. "We know

almost nothing about those students with obviously unrealistic aspira-

tions" (Cross, p. 50).

Reviews of nationwide studies reported characteristics of stu-

dents not completing college as well as those who are likely to finish.

Reasons for attrition were presented from several studies. The question

of homogeneity/heterogeneity was discussed. Reviews also concluded that

dropout propensity has been related to financial pressures and unpleasant

 43

conditions at the time of leaving. Great involvement of faculty in

identifying potential dropouts is needed as well as more information

about career-oriented students.

Regional Studies

Community colleges on the West Coast have provided much informa-

tion about attrition and dropout propensity of students. (The various

studies from California are discussed in the next section of this

review,) One such study was conducted by Wilson (1971) of dropout stu-

dents at Treasure Valley Community College located in Ontario, Oregon.

The purpose of this study was to determine why more than 40 percent of

the full-time freshmen at that college did not return to complete their

degrees. The author of that study found that it was characteristic of

two-year colleges to have a high attrition rate and that dropouts from

this college listed reasons consistent with others across the country.

Other major contributors to the attrition problem were full-time employ-

ment and financial problems. See Table 7.

Two investigations of the "successful" and "dropout" student at

Yakima Valley College in the state of Washington were reported by Rice

(1969) in a project sponsored by the Washington Board for Community

College Education. The most outstanding findings of the first study

were the percentages of the "success" criteria: 9.2 percent trans-

ferred, 23.4 percent completed 85 quarter hours, and 1.3 percent com-

pleted 60 vocational hours. This left 66 percent full-time students

classified as dropouts. In addition, sex, high GPA, declared major,

proximity to the college, and father's occupation were found to differ

 44

Table 7. Counselors' Reasons Compared with Students'

Reasons for Withdrawal.

Reasons Counselors Gave Most Reasons Students Themselves

Often for Student Withdrawal Gave Most Often

1. Financial problems 1. Financial problems

2. Lack of motivation 2. Work needs

3. College work too difficult 3. Military Service (men)

4. Personal and emotional 4. Illness (women)

problems
5. Family problems
(illness in the family)

at the .05 level between the two groups. In a follow-up study by Rice

and Scofield (1969), a significant difference ( P .01) was found to

exist between successful students and dropouts in every school depart-

ment except practical nursing and German.

Vancouver City College (British Columbia) conducted two signifi-

cant studies on attrition of their students. First, Dennison and Jones

(1970) conducted a three-year study of two groups who transferred from

City College to the University of British Columbia. One group trans-

ferred after completing only one year of college and the other group

after completing two years, It was found that attrition rates of these

two groups, as well as graduation, varied according to the university

program they entered. In general, students who had completed two years

at Vancouver City College, especially those who were 25 years or older,

were more likely to graduate on schedule than those who had completed
 45

only one year before transferring. However, it was found that the one-

year transfers performed better academically than the two-year students.

There was no significant difference whether the students were full-time

or part-time as far as completion of their university program was con-

cerned.

The second study conducted at Vancouver City College by Jones and

Dennison (1972) was a comparative study of persisters and non-persisters.

The results revealed that all types of students, including those of

serious intellectual interests and high academic ability, withdrew from

the comprehensive community college. The authors made a number of per-

tinent recommendations. Among them were: (1) community college instruc-

tors should be better trained in order to decrease student dissatisfac-

tion, (2) an emergency fund should be established, since "financial

problems" were the largest factor in attrition, (3) the "open door"

policy should be continued, and (4) informal "drop-in" centers should

be started where students could receive academic help.

A similar study of note was conducted of persisting and non-

persisting students at Anoka-Ramsey State Junior College in Minnesota.

(Weigel, 1969) This report submitted similar findings to that of Van-

couver City College, except that the two reasons most often given for

leaving college were: (1) another school would offer more that the

students were interested in, and (2) a general feeling that the stu-

dents were "not getting anywhere."

A series of meaningful studies has come from Florida. Three of

these are described because of their relevance to this study. Turner

(1971) reported limited research in the area of student attrition in

 46

community colleges. He did point out, however, that the findings of

studies conducted at four-year colleges, where there has been extensive

research, often have relevance for two-year colleges. This survey

revealed several student-related and college-related areas that appear

to influence discontinuance at community colleges. The author indi-

cated that recent findings of investigations on student attrition have

called "academic aptitude" into question as a predictor of persistehce

in college. In light of this, other factors were sought to explain who

drops and why. Turner recommended a closer link between community

colleges and secondary schools as an initial step in decreasing college

dropouts. Also, student personnel programs and instructional prepara-

tion need improvement.

The Florida community colleges. have made several attempts to deal

with dropouts by designing special remedial programs, particularly with

the culturally disadvantaged. At the Miami-Dade Junior College (1969),

a pilot program known as the Career College was set up. Objectives

included identifying 60 young male school dropouts and enrolling them

in a program of full-time study alternating with full-time work. In

addition, counseling and related learning experiences were provided to

encourage ghetto youths who had left school early to pursue their

interests and improve their academic and vocational skills. The report

of the Career College's first year of operation describes problems

encountered in setting up the program, and no further reports have been

made. It is possible that this project, like so many federally sup-

ported projects, aborted before meaningful data could be collected.

A more recent attempt at the same school described in a paper by

 47

Losak (1971) tried to answer the question, "Do remedial programs

really work?" Continuation in college was one of the dependent vari-

ables in a remedial reading-writing program that was evaluated. Stu-

dents who were classified as academically underprepared for college-

level work were required to enroll in the remedial program. Results

indicated that the program did not produce any meaningful differences

in student withdrawal from college and was not effective in raising

grade point average during the second semester of college enrollment

to a "C" level. Also, there was no evidence that these students

received significantly higher scores on reading or writing tests when

compared with the control group. The remedial program produced no

differential effects by race or sex.

Other contributions concerning community college dropouts have

come from the state of Pennsylvania. The State Department of Educa-

tion (1971) with the sponsorship of the Department of Health, Educa-

tion, and Welfare and the Division of Vocational and Technical

Education conducted a study of the academically disadvantaged minority

group students in Pennsylvania public two-year colleges. The discus-

sion concluded that these students usually come from minority groups,

were underrepresented in institutions of higher education, had little

economic support, and were characterized by marginal academic qualifi-

cations. There were implications that administrators of two-year col-

leges needed to be more sensitive in identifying and selecting students

who might have some chance of academic success. Blai (1972) reported

research done at Harcum Junior College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, near

Philadelphia. He presented a study on the two-year dropout from that

 48

college in comparison with two- and four-year institutions, both public

and private, large and small, and coed vs. single sex colleges. Blai's

conclusion was that small enrollment schools (250-750), whether two- or

four-year, enjoyed higher retention rates. The value of special pro-

grams for potential dropouts and types of college environments that

seemed to foster higher dropout rates were also discussed.

In an earlier paper, Blai (1969) described characteristics of

Harcum Junior College students on the basis of four studies conducted

during the fall term. The first was a survey to determine students'

reasons for attending that school: a substantial number viewed their

college education as a means of acquiring future direct, material

rewards. In another study on student attrition, a variety and complex-

ity of factors, both situational and personal, were associated with

withdrawal from college. Blai then compared Harcum students with five

selected women's colleges on retention and withdrawal patterns and

reported that the most frequently stated reason given by Harcum students

was to transfer to a four-year college. In a study surveying 100 com-

munity colleges, results showed that 70 percent of eligible first-year

students did not return. There was, however, no consistent retention

rate among institutions, either in terms of enrollment size, types of

student body, or types of institutional control. Blai also reported

the results of an instrument measuring study habits given in the fresh-

man battery of guidance tests and inventories. In comparison with a

normative group of 3,054 freshmen from nine colleges, Harcum students

fell at approximately the 50th percentile on each measure. As a result,

students scoring at, or below, the 25th percentile were given

 49

information for developing better study habits.

A profile of non-persisting students was presented in a research

report by former students of the Harrisburg Area Community College

(Snyder and Blocker, 1970), This was the third in a series of studies

conducted to provide information about the characteristics, achieve-

ments, perceptions, and activities of its current and former students.

Out of thirteen possible reasons for withdrawing from the college,

the four most frequently specified were: (1) to attend another

college, (2) to enter the armed services, (3) employment, and

(4) their objectives were completed.

Similar studies have been presented in the Midwest by Stocking

(1969), Purser (1970), and Greive (1970). In Greive's study of student

attrition, one significant finding was that only 5 percent of the stu-

dents reported that college was not for them.

One other report is worthy of review, The Macomb County Community

College (1968) presented an extensive report on a project to improve

persistence in school by potential dropouts. The evaluation indicated

that students in this program did significantly better than a compari-

son group of regular liberal arts students. Also, those who persisted

into their second year continued to achieve ahead of the liberal arts

group. This study supports others mentioned in this review about the

effectiveness of action-type programs to reduce student attrition at

community colleges.

This section reviewed supportive studies from various sections

throughout the country and Canada, including the West Coast, Midwest,

and the East. Meaningful research was reported from Pennsylvania and

Florida in particular.
 50

California State Studies

Concern with the phenomenon of dropouts has nationwide implica-

tions. However, Cohen and Brawer (1970) reported that the highest

differential between entrants and graduates is in the California public

institutions. This is not surprising, with the growth of public commun-

ity colleges in that state. California was the first state to enact

legislation to permit high schools to offer post-high school instruc-

tion (1907) and it has been a forerunner in this segment of higher edu-

cation ever since. In the decade from 1960-1970, the California popu-

lation grew to number one in the nation with nearly 20 million people.

The enrollment in community colleges during that period went from

293,000 to 717 000, an increase of 250 percent. The number of commun-

ity colleges grew from 73 to 92. Since 1947, the number of community

colleges in California has almost doubled. (American Association of

Junior Colleges, 1971, and Gum, 1971) This extraordinary development.

coupled with the "open door" policy and "free" education, has caused

the dropout problem to become a major concern among educators as well

as in the community which is financing this gigantic enterprise.

As a result of a summer research institute sponsored by the

California Junior College Association in 1966, 28 California community

colleges formed a group called the Northern California Research and

Development. Group (NORCAL). (MacMillan, 1970) Twenty-two of these

schools expressed willingness to cooperate on a proposed major project

on student attrition. The purpose of the project was to develop a pre-

dictive instrument to identify potential dropouts. Three phases were

agreed upon:
 51

1. Description - The identification of characteristics

associated with attrition during the initial period
of enrollment.

2. Prediction - The development and validation of a

predictive model of attrition, based on the findings
of Phase I.

3. Experimentation - The development and testing of

experimental programs to have an impact on attrition.
(MacMillan, p. 28)

Each phase of the project was for one year, and each of the cooperating

colleges agreed to share part of the cost.

A series of reports by MacMillan (1969a, 1969b, 1970a, and 1970b)

and Kester (1970, 1971a, 1971b, and 1972) presented the extensiveness

of this project.

A questionnaire was developed and administered to all entering

freshmen students at registration. At the end of the term, withdrawals

were identified and compared with responses of a randomly selected

sample of persisters. Noncognitive factors associated with the deci-

sion to withdraw from college were identified by a cooperative search

of the current literature.

Responses of more than 28,000 entering freshmen students were

analyzed. Findings generally supported the review of Summerskill

(1962). A rich source of information about longitudinal studies using

extensive biographical questionnaires was the contribution of Trent

and Medsker (1964). What became clear was that ability and motivation

remain the central elements in the prediction of attrition. Also, this

study, as well as another by Kester (1970), revealed that the low-

ability, black male who has low educational goals, little parental

encouragement, and a low sense of the importance of college is the one

most likely to drop out.

 52

Attrition rates were compared for all the 22 cooperating colleges.

The range was between 3.9 percent and 21.24 percent, with a mean of

7.47 percent. The measured ability of withdrawing students was compared

with randomly selected persisters. The persisters' mean fell at approx-

imately the 41st percentile, according to ACT research reports, while

the withdrawing students' mean fell at approximately the 50th percentile.

The most striking of the findings was that institutions having the

highest attrition also have the following characteristics:

1. Greatest racial mix.

2. Smallest proportion of students declaring a "transfer"

goal.

3. Lowest mean scores for "parental encouragement" and

"importance of college to me."

4. Lowest proportion of sophomores enrolled.

"That the community college environment provides its own pattern

of support or rejection for the potential dropout is the undeniable

evidence of the NORCAL study" (MacMillan, 1970, p. 30).

In a further evaluation of the NORCAL questionnaire, Kester (1972)

reported that another research question dealing with the predictive

validity of the instrument emerged as to significant differences between

the subsequent performance levels of these groups. This secondary vali-

dation compared attrition rates, units completed, and grade point aver-

ages between the groups for which scores were known. The results of

validation study indicated that students identified as potential drop-

outs by the NORCAL questionnaire were compared with other students. It

was clear that potential dropouts:

 53

1. Have a significantly higher dropout rate.

2. Complete fewer units.

3. Have lower grades.

The results of a major research effort by NORCAL and the Coordin-

ating Council for Higher Education in California in studying community

college attrition were reported by Kester (1971). This study differs

from the original NORCAL attrition study. That study was designed to

follow up those students who completed one or more terms before with-

drawing ("stopouts") as opposed to those withdrawing during their

first term ("dropouts"). A questionnaire was sent out to stopouts com-

pleting only one, two, or three terms. The differences in character-

istics of the three groups of stopouts were compared and their similar-

ities were discussed. The stopouts gave two areas as needing

improvement: (1) increased financial aid to a larger proportion of

students who need it, and (2) development of a more realistic view of

responsibility in career education. This tends to support earlier

findings of Hakanson (1967), Cross (1970), and Cohen and Brawer (1970).

One lesson learned from the three-year NORCAL attrition study was

that many potential dropouts can be helped. (Kester, 1971b) In the

third, or experimental, phase plans were developed for research projects

for some of the participating colleges. A number of approaches that

gave evidence of value were tried and reported. While many of the

participating schools were hampered by limited sources and lead time,

12 colleges conducted true experiments with defineable treatment vari-

ables. Other schools conducted quasi-experimental studies or did

further validation of the NORCAL instrument. Special programs in Los

 54

Angeles City College, Merritt College (Oakland), Delta College

(Stockton), College of San Mateo, and Shasta College were reported.

These studies provide no panacea, though valuable lessons have

been learned. The NORCAL attrition study showed that community college

potential dropouts could be diagnostically identified before dropping

out. Also, community colleges could reach those so identified and help

them toward better performance.

A compilation of selected research on students in higher educa-

tion was presented in a review of student characteristics by Cohen and

Brawer (1970). Two of the studies they reviewed were from a suburban

Southern California community college, Pierce College, and both used

the same populations, the same instruments, and in most cases, the

same data analysis. However, one study dealt with the heterogeneity/

homogeneity dimension, while the other approached the attrition prob-

lem. Both looked at particular characteristics to establish baseline

data. They found that the community college population was more homo-

geneous than either reference group, UCLA freshmen and a normative

group. Significant relationships were found between high complexity

scores on the Omnibus Personality Inventory and dropout. Other signif-

icant findings were that dropouts:

1. Were enrolled for fewer than twelve units.

2. Tended to be employed more time outside school.

3. Had attended more schools prior to tenth grade.

4. Had mothers with less education.

Dropouts had lower mean scores on the Adaptive-Flexibility Inventory,

but the differences were not significant. (Cohen, 1969)

 55

The purposes of the study of student attrition were to provide

data for:

1. Enhancing the accuracy of predictions of student

attrition.

2. Adjusting counseling procedures.

3. Encouraging community college instructors to

define their objectives more precisely for students.

4. Developing hypotheses for identifying potential

dropouts. (Cohen and Brawer, p. 29)

These two studies emphasized that (1) family environment was

important in determining student persistence, and (2) length of

exposure to higher education was conducive to positive personality

change. No significant differences were found between dropouts and

persisters on several selected measures.

Ten other studies from community colleges at various locations in

the state were reviewed and the highlights of these are presented.

1. In a follow-up study of the community college withdrawal

student at Foothill College, Bossen (1968) found that more than one

reason was involved in the student's decision to leave college. For

a majority, reasons included personal, social, and academic categories.

This study emphasized the need for exit interviews as part of with-

drawal procedure. Analysis of the data revealed that almost half the

withdrawal group returned to college at a later time.

2. Los Angeles City College conducted a program for socio-

economically disadvantaged students. (Ware and Gold, 1970) One of the

objectives was to determine if peer advisors could influence the aca-

demic success and motivation of these students. There was also a com-

parison group of similar students who did not have peer advising and
 56

a comparison group of regular entrants. Results after the first semes-

ter showed that the experimental group persisted at a statistically

significant higher rate than the other two groups. These students also

performed at a higher academic level than the second group, and almost

identical with the third group, who had demonstrated a higher aptitude

for college work on the entrance examination.

3. Evaluation of a general studies program for the potentially

low academic achiever was done by Heinkel (1970) at San Diego City

College. A sample of first-time enrollees who scored 10 or less on the

ACT English test were enrolled in an experimental program. Completion

of the program encouraged males and minority students to re-enroll for

a second semester. Minority students who enrolled dropped fewer units

the first semester than minority students who were not enrolled in the

program. No other statistically significant differences could be

attributed to the program.

4. A research study was conducted by Moorpark College on the

development of prediction of student "dropout" rate and "change to

other" major rate. It was suggested that prediction might be possible

by simply asking students about themselves with an instrument similar

to the one used in this study. (Jay, 1962) Evidence presented showed

that late registrants are more drop-prone than other students.

5. A comparative study of students with re-occurring dropout

patterns for 1970-1971 and 1971-1972 was conducted at Chabot College.

(Mertes, 1972) This study identified students who had accumulated

two or more withdrawal (W) grades or two or more no-grades, or a

combination of at least one "W" and one "NG" for two or more
 57

quarters. The students had the option of requesting a "W" through the

eighth week in the 1970-1971 year, while they had this option only

through the fifth week during the 1971-1972 school year. The faculty

and staff were interested in investigating what effects the shortening

of the "W" period would have on students' persistence. It was hoped

that the shortened period would have positive effects on student

responsibility, and on the faculty's assigning fewer "W"'s and more

academic grades. The data gave no conclusive evidence on the effec-

tiveness of shortening the "W" period. Over 85 percent of the students

from both populations failed to complete less than 70 percent of the

units for which they initially enrolled. The results of this study

indicated little correlation between the length of the "W" period

option and reduction in the percentage of students who have re-occurring

dropout patterns. Mertes recommended in-service workshops to encourage

improvement in teaching. It was also recommended that special counsel-

ing be instituted specifically designed to aid students who have re-

occurring dropout patterns. One recommendation of this study was to

defer placing on probation those students with re-occurring dropout

patterns who completed less than 70 percent of the units in which they

initially enrolled. "We simply can't afford to defer that number of

students from attending college unless we have more specific ideas about

what is causing these students to drop" (p. 9). It was pointed out that

this study did not measure the attitudes of the dropout student toward

accepting responsibility for his own learning, nor did it measure the

qualities of a good learning environment. Continual institutional

study on the dropout student was recommended.

 58

6. Some variations in probabilities of success, failure and

dropout were studied at El Camino College. (Maier, 1971) The study

focused on the problem of students dropping mathematics courses and

the development of a method to minimize the number who dropped and max-

imize the number who succeeded. Results indicated that there were

fewer dropouts and increasing success as students progressed through

mathematics courses. It also indicated that the dropout problem was

one for the student, counselor, and instructor. The author recommended

that this problem could be attacked through the use of self-instruc-

tional material. He also admonished all community college instructors

to examine the success, failure, and dropout rates in their classes and

make an effort to increase successes and decrease dropouts.

7. An investigation of why students failed to return or continue

their education was reported by Orange Coast College (1969). This was

a joint study sponsored by the district and the California State

Department of Education. The investigators found that a large percent-

age of students who did not return could not be reached by mail and

were contacted by telephone. They found that nearly one-half of the

students expected to return the following semester while one-third

actually did. In addition, about one-third went to college to avoid

the draft, 68 percent of those working while attending worked full

time after leaving; and 74 percent reported they did not receive any

job placement help.

8. Cabrillo College (Mozee, 1964) conducted a survey of 700 stu-

dents who withdrew. Findings showed that 64 percent had intended to

transfer to a four-year institution at the time of enrollment, 32

 59

percent declared a "terminal" or career major, and only 4 percent

were unknown. Of the students, 45 percent completed the regular

withdrawal forms. Reasons stated were:

Transfer to other colleges 25

Work 20
Financial 11
Lack of interest 9
Moving out of district 9
Armed Forces 7
Marriage 7
Health 4
Transportation -1
Disciplinary -1
Other reasons stated 7 (p. 3)

Of the 700 students involved in this study, 275 (39 percent) com-

pleted at least four semesters of college work. It was suggested that

many of the students who withdrew prior to the completion of two years

had undoubtedly satisfied immediate educational needs. A follow-up

study was recommended of a sampling of the withdrawal group to deter-

mine their satisfaction with their college experience and their employ-

ment or activity record following withdrawal from Cabrillo. Further,

this should be done on an individual interview basis.

9. In a summary of a research study following a group studied

earlier at Los Angeles City College, Gold (1971) made this startling

observation:

The image of a student starting directly from high

school, carrying a full load for four semesters, and
then obtaining an A.A. degree is a highly inaccurate
one. Only about one entering student in a hundred fits
this pattern. (p. 1)

He also stated that about one entrant in five persists to the Associate

Degree. However, the number completing the degree by the end of the
 60

eighth semester was about three times those completing it in four semes-

ters. Gold revealed that female students persisted at a slightly higher

rate than males, their grade point averages were consistently above that

of males, and they persisted to the A.A. Degree at a significantly

higher rate than males. He also found that orientals persisted at a

much higher rate than other minorities. Blacks had difficulty the

first two semesters, then made sharp improvements later. The "average"

student at LACC stayed three semesters and completed 30 units. The

range of length enrollment was less than one semester to more than

eight, carrying from zero to over a hundred units.

10. A study of 1,000 students who entered six public community

colleges, designed to identify certain characteristics of students in

occupational programs, was reported by Hakanson (1967). The author

observed that most enrollments and completions were from the middle

socio-economic level. He concluded that low and middle socio-economic

groups are more likely to complete occupational programs than those of

higher status. He also showed that these colleges were failing to help

academic program dropouts re-assess their goals rather than withdraw.

This review on the state level indicated a wide variety of research

studies relating to attrition in the California community colleges. The

rapid growth in schools and students, its "open door" policy, and "free"

education was not without its difficulties. It was reported that Cali-

fornia has led the nation in dropouts. Research was reported on the

various attempts to identify potential dropouts and how to deal with

them. The three-phase NORCAL study presented a major effort in this

direction. Valuable lessons were learned, particularly in the action

 61

research at local institutions during phase three. Highlights of

studies from California community colleges throughout the state were

presented.

San Mateo Community College District Studies

The College of San Mateo, one of three schools in the district,

cooperated in the three-year NORCAL study reported earlier in this

study. The third phase of this project was to develop and evaluate

programs designed to reduce attrition. Wenrich (1971) reported on an

experimental study to determine whether involvement in an individual-

ized instructional program, The Learning Center, would reduce attri-

tion of first -time freshmen who were identified as high probability

dropouts. Forty-nine potential dropout students who were actively

involved in the Learning Center were compared with 49 potential drop-

outs who received no special treatment. These 98 students were iden-

tified by using the list of discriminant scores developed during the

validation of the NORCAL questionnaire. Active association with the

Learning Center was the dependent variable. Measurable results indi-

cated that the experimental group as opposed to the control group had:

1. Fewer withdrawals during the semester.

2. More students who completed a full course load.

3. Fewer students who failed to register for the

second semester.

4. More students who achieved a 2.0 grade point average.

5. More students who did as well or better in college

as they did in high school.

 62

The experimental program was proven effective by both measurable

and subjective evaluation. Tutoring by other students was considered

the heart of the program, with flexibility the key experimental

feature. It was felt that the most important aspect of the Learning

Center approach was the integration or individualized academic services

with supportive psychological atmosphere and personal counseling.

It can be asserted that the success of the Learning

Center should be described in terms of a Hawthorne
effect: that any special treatment and interest shown
in these students will have a positive effect . A
.

self-fulfilling prophecy is created; students who are

expected to succeed generally do so. (Wenrich, p. 28)

In an earlier study, Wenrich (1969) reported what he considered

exceptional rather than typical results on the School and College

Ability Tests (SCAT). Ability scores were reported for the College

of San Mateo as a part of the NORCAL study. A comparison was made be-

tween a random sample of persisters and a matched sample of 81 drop-

outs from the NORCAL study. Wenrich suggested that students who

withdrew from the College of San Mateo in the fall of 1968 were gener-

ally of higher ability than those persisting during the same period.

During the second year of the NORCAL study, Kelley (1970)

attempted to obtain further information about the dropout problem. A

follow-up study was conducted using a sample of students who left

school before the end of the first semester. A questionnaire was sent

to those who were first-time freshmen; 31.5 percent returned the follow-

up questionnaire. Of significance was that among the group of dropouts,

most had decided on a major and this choice had not changed. Fifty-two

percent were employed while they were enrolled; 23 percent indicated

they needed further financial aid; however, only 16 percent had applied
 63

and 11 percent had received aid. "No single obstacle stands out as

primary reason why he may drop out of college" (Kelley, p. 10).

A description of the first two and one-half year history of the

College Readiness Program (CRP) at the College of San Mateo was reported

by Lopate (1969). This was a study of one collegiate compensatory pro-

gram for minority youth. This program attempted to increase the number

of Third World students in the college and to insure that, once admitted,

these students would be given the necessary financial, emotional, and

academic backing to succeed within the college. After a relatively suc-

cessful beginning, a crisis arose as a result of a financial curtail-

ment and the administration's refusal to students' demands. A series of

violent incidents followed, resulting in the closing of the campus a

week early before Christmas vacation. Efforts were made to help stu-

dents remaining in the program to catch up. Although grading was

liberalized, attrition rose to 55 percent by the end of the spring

semester, 1969. It was pointed out the necessity for closer personal

relationships between staff and minority students in order to hold

them in school. In his "heretical concept of the community college"

(1969), Cohen remarked:

Simultaneously pleading and protesting, they say,

in effect, "We want to know why we are here, and you
do not seem to be qualified to tell us." (p. 166)

Pearce (1968) attempted to determine the effectiveness of identi-

fying low ability students and assisting them in performing satisfac-

torily in college work. A total of 254 students were identified and

randomly divided into two groups. One group received special counsel-

ing and guidance and the other received counseling available to all
 64

students. This report revealed that students given the special coun-

seling persisted longer at the college. At the end of the first year,

however, there appeared to be no significant difference in the reten-

tion rate among the two groups.

In a two-year study at the College of San Mateo of freshmen with

"undecided major," Clinkscales (1971) sent a questionnaire to 52 of the

largest community/junior colleges in California. Fifty percent re-

sponded to the inquiry about studies concerning the undecided student,

but regretted the absence in their schools of such a study. The author

selected a sample of students and followed them for two years for total

units completed, grade point average, continuation in school, and any

changes in major. A comparison was made between students declaring a

transfer major and those undecided. The undecided majors were divided

into two groups: those completing the vocational guidance course and

those who did not. Findings included were that there was no signifi-

cant difference in the dropout rate in a comparison of the undecided

and transfer majors. Also, there was no significant difference in the

dropout rate of the undecided majors with or without Guidance 10, the

vocational guidance course. This study revealed that the freshman of

undecided major was a persistent student. He will stay in school

longer, complete fewer units, and have a lower grade point average than

his transfer counterpart. Clinkscales made this observation, "It would

appear that the present counseling program at CSM is not adequately

constituted to handle the problem of vocational counseling" (p. 38). He

believes that additional information might have been added to this study

with the use of data processing to include:

 65

1. Correlation of entrance aptitude scores and CSM

grade point averages.

2. Correlation of high school grade point average

and CSM grade point average.

3. CSM dropout rate and CSM grade point average.

4. Patterns of changing major to individual majors,

not just groups of majors.

5. Socio-economic scale and major declaration.

6. Number of units completed for each transfer major

at time of transfer.

7. Length of stay at CSM by major. (p. 39)

The author of this study concluded by remarking that without some

kind of feedback, the counseling program will never be completely effec-

tive, or it will not even be known how effective it really is.

Experiencing a 72 percent dropout rate of students enrolled in the

Drafting Technology Department at the College of San Mateo, McClure

(1972) conducted a study dealing with this problem. He attempted to

determine what aptitudes and abilities students must have to complete

the program successfully. The sample was divided into six groups

according to the student's educational and occupational accomplishments

after entering the program and totaled 200 observations. A total of 27

prediction factors were examined for each student. The researcher

found five aptitude factors on the General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB)

that proved valid for predicting student success at the .01 confidence

level. They were: intelligence, numerical, spatial, form perception,

and manual dexterity. In developing a counselor's guide, McClure added

to the five: finger dexterity, GATB, score on the School and College

Ability Test, Form T, and high school science level of achievement. It

 66

was concluded that: "Success in the Drafting Technology Program at

the College of San Mateo required greater abilities as measured by the

GATB scores than employment success as indicated by national norms"

(p. ix).

As was pointed out earlier, no recent formal study of attrition

had been conducted by this district. Aninitial attempt was made by

McKeown (1972) at Canada College, one of the schools in the San Mateo

Community College District. This study was based upon a sampling of

792 former students dating back to the beginning of the school in the

fall of 1968. Information was compiled on students not currently

enrolled from their permanent records and from responses to a mailed

questionnaire. The return rate was 29.3 percent, as would be expected

of the majority of community college surveys. (Wilson, 1971) While it

is dangerous to draw any conclusion on such a low return rate, the

author was able to display the differences between those who returned

the questionnaire and those who did not. The three areas of difference

that emerged were: attendance, educational background, and academic

achievement while attending Canada. Results indicated that these stu-

dents were not statistically unusual in their characteristics or

college evaluations when compared with other community college follow-

through studies. While most community college students work to finance

their education, the combination of working and attending college was

not related to dropping out, grade point average, or anything else.

Students tended to rate the instructors high and their counselors low.

They did not spend much leisure time on campus were not active in

extracurricular activities, and usually studied at home. They rated:

 67

Preparation for further education highest

Quality of teaching second

Preparation for employment third

Quality of social life lowest (p, 42)

These ratings were similar to Baird, Richards, and Shevel's description

(1969).

McKeown related that:

Specific instruments and experiences since leaving

college and additional techniques will be required to
make our research more effective. We need an interview/
questionnaire especially for dropouts, and we need to
ask them the right questions as soon as possible after
they leave. (p. 43)

A review of local district studies which were limited primarily to

disadvantaged students revealed several attempts to lower attrition.

Samplings in these studies were those included in the NORCAL study. At

the College of San Mateo, one study included those students who were

undecided as to major. Another study reported on a career-oriented

program, namely Drafting Technology. An initial attempt at studying

attrition was reported at Canada College. The need for careful analysis

of high student attrition was pointed out, and all segments of the

college community should be involved.

 68

CHAPTER III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Introduction

The procedure involved determining the common factors influencing

student decisions to terminate course work at the College of San Mateo.

Data were gathered through a personal exit and follow-up interview. The

interviews facilitated gathering data concerning the primary reasons for

attrition. The data were analyzed with the aid of the Oregon State

University and the College of San Mateo computers.

Procedures

The primary source of data for this study was obtained through

personal interviews. To supplement the interview, additional informa-

tion was gathered from the permanent records of students in the study.

A procedure for gathering data was developed with the aid of the

Dean of Students, the Director of Counseling and Guidance, and the

Registrar. At the outset, the decision was made to restrict this

study to day students only, enrolled in the fall semester, 1972.

The procedure was as follows:

1. An in-service session was conducted with all counselors

prior to the fall registration.

2. A follow-up meeting with the counselors' task force

reviewed student personnel problems including dropouts.

3. Some of these counselors, the three deans, and three

students were invited to be a jury to review questions on

 69

the exit and follow-up interviews. (See Appendix A)

4. Special effort was made to encourage students to apply

for a leave rather than just drop out without notice.

Use of various media on campus was used. (See Appendix C)

5. Several conferences with the President, Dr. David Mertes,

who demonstrated keen interest in this study, were made.

6. The exit interviewing began at the beginning of the fifth

week. The rationale was: This was the week following

the deadline for adding any new classes, and this was the

beginning of the period when most students took a leave

of absence based upon records of previous years. Table 8

displays the interviews through the sixteenth week.

Table 8. Exit Interviews During Specific Weeks.

Week M T W Th F Total

5th 8 7 5 5 7 32

6th 3 7 3 1 9 23

7th Holiday 10 6 8 4 28

8th 4 6 1 - 11

10th - 2 1 1 3 7

12th 3 - 3

15th - 1 2 1 1 5

16th 1 - 1

110
 70

7. Students began the checkout procedure with their counselor

or at the Student Personnel Office. The investigator inter-

viewed the students after reporting to the Student Personnel

Office or Dean of Women's Office. (See Appendix D)

8. Counselors were asked to log the names of their counselees

and record any pertinent remarks. This served as a cross-

check. The memoranda and form are shown in Appendices G

and H.

9. The follow-up interviews were conducted during February

and part of March. Most of these were accomplished by

telephone. Some of the students who had returned during

the spring semester were interviewed in person.

10. A data processing run was made at the College of San Mateo

to collect additional data of the students participating

in this study. A facsimile of the student data sheet is

shown in Appendix I.

11. The data gathered were analyzed by the Statistics Depart-

ment at Oregon State University.

Participants in the Study

The College of San Mateo enrolled approximately 7,600 full-time

equivalent day students during the fall semester, 1972. Past records

indicated that nearly 10 percent of the student population applied for

a leave of absence. It was determined that a 10 percent random sample

of the students who applied for a leave from the fifth week of the

semester through the sixteenth would be taken. It was limited to day

 71

students only. This random sample of the approximately 760 students

was drawn by accepting students to interview as they were routed from

the Student Personnel Office after Item 7 or Item 10, the Dean of

Women's Office, on the checkout procedure. (See Appendix D) Students

were assigned to one of three groups:

Group I: Those students who intended to transfer to a four-year

institution. This consisted of satisfying the lower division require-

ments for that major at a particular college or university.

Group II: Those students who specialized in a program in an occu-

pational field planning to prepare for gainful employment.

Group III: Those students who did not declare a specific major,

either in transferring to a four-year institution or specializing in

an occupational field.

Grouping occurred after exit interviews took place. This informa-

tion was obtained from records in the Registrar's Office, along with

the original date of registration for each individual student. Because

this data was not on the computer data file, it was extracted by hand.

A total of 110 individual students were interviewed during the pre-

determined period. One student did not wish to be recorded and that

request was honored. In addition, it was discovered that one was an

evening student and was deleted from the study. Therefore, for statis-

tical purposes, 108 students were included in the sample.

Information obtained from the Student Personnel Office indicated

that 845 day students applied for the leave of absence, 252 of which

registered only (R/0) and never attended classes. Thus, approximately

18 percent of the students taking a leave of absence during the fall

 72

semester, 1972, were the sample used in this study. This exceeded the

10 percent predetermined amount for the sample.

Construction of the Exit Interview

A review of the literature revealed few studies incorporating both

the individual and personal interview. Numerous questionnaires were

reviewed in an attempt to obtain items suitable for this study. The

vast majority of these questionnaires were more appropriate for the

more traditional mail survey. Assistance was afforded by a group of

high school and community college counselors enrolled in a guidance

class at Oregon State University during the summer of 1972. A cursory

review of the initial draft was given by several members of the staff

at Oregon State.

In addition to a counselors' in-service workshop at the College

of San Mateo, several students, former dropouts, were asked to submit

questions they believed to be appropriate. The Dean of Students and

the Director of Counseling and Guidance from the College of San Mateo

critiqued the initial draft.

The final draft was submitted to a jury of faculty, counselors,

and students from the college for review. After one week of inter-

views, an informal discussion with members of the jury revealed the

necessity for minor changes. It was believed that these minor changes,

predominantly in wording, would have no effect on the validity of the

study. A sample of the exit interview questionnaire is shown in

Appendix A.
 73

Construction of Follow-Up Interview

Follow-up interviews were conducted for the purpose of comparing

responses with the exit interview and to determine any changes in

students' initial responses.

Items for the follow-up interviews were developed and reviewed by

some of the original jury. Several students who had withdrawn the

previous semester were also invited to respond. Additional items were

included by the investigator on the basis of experience gained through

initial interviews. In order to quantify data on student values, three

items were included in which the students rated themselves on a one to

nine scale. Items were constructed to determine: (1) to what extent

the students had realistic goals, (2) motivational factors in attending

college, and (3) their own value judgment of their decision in taking

a leave. A copy of the questions asked is shown in Appendix J.

Collection of Empirical Data

Both exit and follow-up interviews afforded students an opportun-

ity to voice reasons for leaving school. Interviews sought to iden-

tify underlying causes not ordinarily reported on written questionnaires.

Observations were made during the interview for non-verbal as well as

verbal responses to questions. Inasmuch as most of the exit interviews

were recorded on cassette tapes, additional time was spent reviewing

them for additional information not readily available from a written

questionnaire. Abridged comments and responses are recorded in

Appendix K.
 74

Analysis of Data

Once the data for use in this study had been collected and cate-

gorized, the following steps were undertaken for analysis of the

results:

1. Upon the completion of the exit interviews, the data

were analyzed using the CDC 3300 Computer at the

Oregon State University Computer Center.

2. The data were analyzed using a CHI-square test program

by the Department of Statistics. Each hypothesis was

tested using the appropriate category.

3. Each category was statistically compared by the use of

the CHI-square statistic. The critical level of signif-

icance was set at the .05 level.

 75

CHAPTER IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction

This chapter presents the findings and a discussion of the results

of data for each of the six hypotheses cited in Chapter I. Chapter III

contained the procedure used to conduct this study. In order to test

statistically the null hypotheses, the CHI-square test was used. The

chapter is arranged according to the order of the hypotheses and the

responses to reasons for leaving by each group. At the conclusion of

this chapter, other data will be presented.

General Characteristics

Distribution of the sampling by major is illustrated in Tables 9

and 10. Students were classified: (1) transfer, (2) career, and

(3) undecided as determined by their major code at registration for the

fall semester, 1972. Thirteen students were classified as both trans-

fer and undecided. Table 9 shows this group as transfer majors while

Table 10 shows them as undecided. The rank order of reasons for taking

a leave is shown in Table 11. The primary reasons given for termina-

tion were:

Full-time employment
Health
Finances
Personal problems

Lessor reasons for attrition included:

Poor grades or aptitude

Marriage
Change in major
Not satisfied with classes
 76

Table 9. Distribution of Sampling by Major.

Transfer 69 * 64

Career 31 28.5

Undecided 8 7.5

Total 108 100

* Includes 13 also classified as undecided.

Table 10. Distribution of Sampling by Major.

Transfer 56 * 52

Career 31 29

Undecided 21 19

Total 108 100

* Excludes 13 also classified as undecided.

 77

Table 11. Rank Order of Stated Reasons for Taking

Leave of Absence (As Stated by Students).

N Approximate %

1. Full-time employment 30 28

2. Health (Personal 12)

(Family 3) 15 14

3. Finances 11 11

4. Personal problems 11 10

5. Conflict of work
schedule 7 6.5

6. Lack of interest
(motivation) 7 6.5

7. Military 7 6.5

8. Moved or
transferred 6 5.5

9. Attend other school 5 4

10. Poor grade/aptitude 3 3 (less than)

11. Marriage 2 2 (less than)

12. Change in major 2 2 (less than)

13. Not satisfied

with classes 2 2 (less than)

108 100%
 78

A breakdown by category of students and reasons for leaving is

shown in Tables 12 and 13.

Table 12. A Breakdown by Category of Students (Transfer, Career,

or Undecided) of Reasons for Leaving at Exit Interview.

Reason **
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Transfer 21* 7 9* 4* 5 5* 6* 5 3 1 1 1 1 69

Career 8 6 1 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 31

Undecided 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 8

Total 30 15 11 11 7 7 7 6 5 3 2 2 2 108

* Includes 13 also classified as undecided.

** Codes as shown in Table 11.

Table 13. A Breakdown by Category of Students (Transfer, Career,

or Undecided) of Reasons for Leaving at Exit Interview.

Reason
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Transfer 15* 7 7* 3 5 2* 5* 5 3 1 1 1 1 56

Career 8 6 1 6 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 31

Undecided 7 2 3 2 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 21

Total 30 15 11 11 7 7 7 6 5 3 2 2 2 108

* Excludes 13 also classified as undecided.

 79

Other characteristics, such as semester units carried at various

times, are shown in Appendix L.

Presentation of Findings

The CHI-square test statistic, with alpha = .05 as the level of

significance, was employed in testing all six null hypotheses.

Findings Related to the First. Hypothesis

The null hypothesis that there would be no significant difference

in responses among those enrolled in transfer and career programs was

tested. Response items of these groups are shown in Table 14, includ-

ing 13 students classified as transfer rather than undecided. Table 15

compares these two groups with the 13 students being assigned as unde-

cided, thereby eliminating them from this count. In testing this hypo-

thesis, Items 1 through 9 were used, and Items 10, 11, 12, and 13

pooled for statistical purposes and assigned the category "other." It

is noted that in both cases the calculated value for CHI-square was

less than the tabular value (Steel and Torrie, 1960) which was found to

be 16.9. Null hypothesis was not rejected, indicating that there was

no significant difference in reasons for leaving between transfer and

career majors.

Findings Related to the Second Hypothesis

The second null hypothesis tested the significance of responses

among those enrolled in transfer programs and those undecided as to

major. As was described in the first hypothesis, 13 students were

 80

Table 14. Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Career Students.

Reason

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 **

Transfer 21* 7 9* 4* 5 5* 6* 5 3 4

Career 8 6 1 6 2 1 1 1 2 3

Degrees of Freedom = 9

CHI-square = 10.2827

** Pooled

* Includes 13 also classified as undecided.

Table 15. Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Career Students.

Reason

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 **

Transfer 15* 7 7* 3* 5 2* 5* 5 3 4

Career 8 6 1 6 2 1 1 1 2 3

Degrees of Freedom = 9

CHI-square = 8.5224

** Pooled

* Excludes 13 also classified as undecided.

 81

classified as both transfer and undecided. Table 16 shows these stu-

dents as transfer. Table 17 shows these students as undecided. Because

of the small number of responses in the undecided group, it was deter-

mined to pool Items 5 through 13 and assign them the category "other."

Again, in both cases, the calculated value for CHI-square was less than

the tabular value, which was found to be 9.49. Therefore, the null

hypothesis was not rejected, indicating that there was no significant

difference in reasons for leaving between transfer and undecided majors.

Findings Related to the Third Hypothesis

The third null hypothesis tested the significance of responses

among those enrolled in transfer programs and the composite (total)

group. Table 18 includes the 13 students classified as both transfer

and undecided, while Table 19 excludes them. As in the first hypo-

thesis, Items 10 through 13 were pooled. Again, it is noted that in

both cases the calculated value for CHI-square was less than the

tabular value, which was 16.9. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not

rejected. This indicated that there was no significant difference in

reasons for leaving between transfer majors and the composite group.

Findings Related to the Fourth Hypothesis

The fourth null hypothesis was tested to determine the signifi-

cance in responses among those enrolled in career programs and those

who were undecided as to major. Table 20 shows this comparison exclud-

ing the 13 students classified as both transfer and undecided. Table

21 shows the comparison between these two groups including the 13. For
 82

Table 16. Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Undecided Students.

Reason

1 2 3 4 5 **

Transfer 21* 7 9* 4* 28*

Undecided 1 2 1 1 3

Degrees of Freedom = 4

CHI-square = 2.6751

** Pooled

* Includes 13 also classified as undecided.

Table 17. Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Undecided Students.

Reason

1 2 3 4 5 **

Transfer 15* 7 7* 3* 24*

Undecided 7 2 3 2 7

Degrees of Freedom = 4

CHI-square = 1.1348

** Pooled

* Excludes 13 also classified as undecided.

 83

Table 18. Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Composite Students.

Reason

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 **

Transfer 21* 7 9* 4* 5 5* 6* 5 3 4

Composite 30 15 11 11 7 7 7 6 5 9

Degrees of Freedom = 9

CHI-square = 2.7625

** Pooled

* Includes 13 also classified as undecided

Table 19. Contingency Data of Transfer vs. Composite Students.

Reason
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 **

Transfer 15* 7 7* 3* 5 2* 5* 5 3 4

Composite 30 15 11 11 7 7 7 6 5 9

Degrees of Freedom = 9

CHI-square = 3.1575

** Pooled

* Excludes 13 also classified as undecided.

 84

Table 20. Contingency Data of Career vs. Undecided Students.

Reason

1 2 3 4 5 **

Career 8 6 1 6 10

Undecided 1* 2 1* 1* 3*

Degrees of Freedom = 4

CHI-square = 1.8721

** Pooled

* Excludes 13 also classified as transfer.

Table 21. Contingency Data of Career vs. Undecided Students.

Reason

1 2 3 4 5 **

Career 8 6 1 6 10

Undecided 7* 2 3* 2* 7*

Degrees of Freedom = 4

CHI-square = 3.8141

** Pooled

* Includes 13 also classified as transfer.

 85

statistical purposes, Items 5 through 13 were pooled. When the CHI-

square test was made on this hypothesis, it was noted that in both

cases the calculated value was less than the tabular value of 9.49.

Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. This inferred that

there was no significant difference in responses among those enrolled

in career programs and those who were undecided as to major.

Findings Related to the Fifth Hypothesis

The fifth null hypothesis tested the significance in responses

among those enrolled in career programs and the composite group was

tested next. Table 22 displays this comparison. Again, Items 5

through 13 were pooled. The results indicated that when the calcu-

lated CHI-square was compared with the tabular value of 9.49, the null

hypothesis was not rejected. This indicated that there was no signifi-

cant difference in responses among those enrolled in career programs

and the composite (total) group.

Findings Related to the Sixth Hypothesis

The final null hypothesis tested the significance in responses

among those who were undecided as to major and the composite (total)

group. Table 23 shows the comparison of these two groups excluding

the 13 students classified as both transfer and undecided. In Table

24 these students were included. Items 5 through 13 were pooled as

in some of the other tests. It was noted that when the CHI-square

test was applied, in both cases the calculated value did not exceed

the tabular value of 9.49. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not
 86

Table 22. Contingency Data of Career vs. Composite Students.

Reason
1 2 3 4 5 **

Career 8 6 1 6 10

Composite 30 15 11 11 41

Degrees of Freedom = 4
CHI-square = 3.7314
** Pooled

Table 23. Contingency Data of Undecided vs. Composite Students.

Reason
1 2 3 4 5 **

Undecided 1* 2 1* 1* 3*

Composite 30 15 11 11 41

Degrees of Freedom = 4
CHI-square = 1.3556
** Pooled
* Excludes 13 also classified as transfer.

Table 24. Contingency Data of Undecided vs. Composite Students.

Reason
1 2 3 4 5 **

Undecided 7* 2 3* 2* 7*

Composite 30 15 11 11 41

Degrees of Freedom = 4
CHI-square = .8247
** Pooled
* Includes 13 also classified as transfer
 87

rejected, indicating no significant difference in responses among

those who were undecided as to major and the composite (total) group.

Thus, it can be seen that in applying the CHI-square test sta-

tistic, none of the six null hypotheses was rejected.

Additional Findings

Student data sheets and information collected from the Regis-

trar's Office and Student Personnel Services were reviewed. Table 25

presents characteristics of the students during the fall semester, 1972.

Table 26 shows the distribution of the total sample by accumulated

semester units prior to registration. Discounting the extreme figures

and using a range of 3 through 58.5 units, the mean was 23.8 and the

mid-range was 31.75. Nearly one-half of those interviewed at time of

leaving were first-semester students. None of the total sampling was

on academic probation at time of leaving.

As was pointed out in Chapter I, the investigator believed that

the reasons reported by the students leaving were, in many cases, not

necessarily the true or "real" reasons. It was suggested that beyond

the surface (reported) problem there could be underlying or root

causes. On the basis of the personal interviews, the following

generalizations were made:

 88

Table 25. Day Student Census, Fall Semester, 1972.

Registered, Fall 1972 8,080

Registered only * 580

Applied for a leave 845

Dropped 926

In sample 108

* Never attended any classes

Table 26. Unit Distribution of Sampling.

More
than
0 1 - 15 16 - 30 31 - 45 46 - 60 60

51 19 15 7 5 11

Range: 0.0 - 149

Mid-range: 74.5
 89

Levels of Students' Problems (Concern)

1. Surface problems

Not enough time

Not enough money

School boring

Not what desired

No interest

No goal

Poor instruction

Personal

Family and/or friends

2. Surface (underlying) causes

Feelings of inferiority

Insecurity

Worry

Frustration

Pride

Distrust

Rebellion.

Lack of social acceptance

3. Root problems

Basic personality conflicts

Lack of/or poor self-image

Value system

Morality
 90

As one of the secondary directions of this study, the investi-

gator attempted to get below the superficial level of reason for taking

a leave (withdrawal) through personal interview. At this level as

reported on the form (see Appendix D), the standard reasons were given,

i.e., work, finances, marriage, illness, moving, armed services, lack

of interest, and others. The brief but important exit interview

revealed information that delved below the surface to the underlying

cause, but rarely went beyond it. The tapes of the exit interviews

were reviewed several times. Abridged comments are found in Appendix

K. Comments and suggestions given by students in the follow-up inter-

views are likewise shown in Appendix K. It was not the intent of the

investigator to counsel students but rather to gather data.

As a result of these personal interviews, the following pertinent

items are reported:

1. Most part-time or "special" students did not have a

regular counselor and did not know to whom to go for

help.

2. Nearly half of the students said they expected to

return. This was similar to Orange Coast College

(1960). Actually, only 28 percent registered for

the spring semester, 1973. During the course of

the follow-up interviews, a few indicated they

hoped to re-enroll in the fall. Some had applied

to four-year schools.

3. In the follow-up interviews, most students reported

that their own reasons for leaving were similar to

 91

those of others. (See Appendix J, Item 7)

4. Most students rated themselves high in the value of

a college education.

5. When asked to rate themselves on maturity, most

said they were slightly above average.

6. When asked to rate themselves on the quality of the

decision they made in taking a leave, most students

claimed that it was a relatively rational decision.

7. There was not enough personal attention. Students

came from high school where they were "programmed"

and freedom of choice was difficult for them when

coming to college. The assumption that they knew

where they were going was apparently fallacious.

Some said they needed someone "who cares" to explain

the various options to them.

8. Many students reported that some of the college staff

gave the impression that students should be able to

function on their own initiative without any help,

i.e., students should be more responsible; they had

been led around too long--it was time for them to

be responsible for their own actions. However, stu-

dents reported that they had been "conditioned" in

high school to rely upon others. They believed

there needs to be a transition period. It was too

much to expect them to become immediately "self-

reliant" or "adult."
 92

It was the subjective judgment of the investigator, through com-

paring the exit and follow-up interviews, that 65 percent of the

sample did in fact confirm their original reason for leaving.

Summary

This chapter reviewed the findings of the six null hypotheses.

The CHI-square test statistic with alpha = .05 level of confidence

was used. In comparing groups, it was found that there was no sig-

nificant difference in reasons for leaving. The major reasons

included: full-time employment, health, finances, and personal

problems. Lessor reasons included: poor grades or attitude, marriage,

change in major, and not satisfied with classes.

Review of additional student data revealed: (1) none of the

total sample was on academic probation and (2) nearly half were

first-semester freshmen.

Finally, analyses of follow-up interview data suggest that the

reasons for leaving were not necessarily the true or "real" reasons.
 93

CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Importance of the Study

The problem of student attrition has faced educators throughout

the nation for many years. Major research on attrition has been at

four-year institutions. Research at the community college level has

been minimal.

The "open door" policy of the community college has brought about

high dropout rates.

The College of San Mateo, from which the sampling was made, has

experienced a high dropout rate. In order to deal realistically with

the attrition problem, this study sought to identify the "real"

reasons why students withdraw. It endeavored to determine if there

were common factors that influenced students' decisions to terminate

school. Special effort was made to search below the surface (reported)

problem to find underlying causes.

Procedures

The sampling of this study was taken during the fall semester,

1972. Day students only were interviewed as they applied for a leave

of absence. This exit interview was given to determine reasons for

leaving as well as to gather other data about these students. This was

an initial attempt to keep in close contact with students who had taken

a leave. One hundred and eight individual students were interviewed by

the investigator. A follow-up contact was made with 54 of the original

 94

group to offer assistance and inquire about their plans. This attemp-

ted to confirm their initial reason for leaving. Statistical compari-

sons were made between the three groups of students, namely: transfer,

career, and undecided majors. The CHI-square statistic was employed at

the alpha = .05 level of significance to test six null hypotheses. Ad-

ditional information about the characteristics of the college as well

as motivational factors and students' values were compiled.

Summary of Findings

The purpose of this study was to determine if there were common

factors influencing student decisions to terminate course work at the

College of San Mateo. The findings revealed no significant differences

in reasons for leaving given by the three groups: transfer, career,

and undecided. Major reasons were:

1. Full-time employment

2. Health

3. Finances

4. Personal problems

The findings can be summarized in relation to several recent and

relevant studies of Medsker (1960), Cowhig (1963), Demos (1968), Bossen

(1968), and Wilson (1971). This study concurs with Medsker and Demos

that full-time employment or getting a job was the primary reason.

While Cowhig reported marriage first, getting a job was a close second.

Wilson reported financial problems as the primary reason in comparison

with this study which ranked it third, Several authors pointed out

that it was often difficult to distinguish between full-time employment

 95

and financial problems. Bossen and the investigator of this study

pointed out a definite relationship existed between these two reasons.

The present study found that personal and family illness ranked second.

Medsker and Demos had similar findings. The military appeared to rank

higher in four-year institutions than at community colleges. However,

there appeared to be a reverse trend in the marriage category particu-

larly females. Lack of interest or motivation and the work being too

difficult appeared significant in most studies. The most difficult

category to interpret was that of personal problems. Bossen reported

findings similar to those of this study, i.e.: that it was apparent

that more than a single reason existed for leaving, including personal,

social, and academic factors. Only one student in this study stated

that he "was just not college material." A significant number of stu-

dents in this study as well as in that of Medsker and Demos revealed a

work schedule conflict or moving. Wilson reported a comparison of

counselors' and students' reasons for withdrawal. The current study

suggests underlying causes as well as surface or reported reasons.

Sixty-five percent of the sampling reinforced their original response.

The data suggest that there is a decided lack of identity as

reported by many of the sampling. This lack of a sense of belonging

or identification was pointed out very early by Matson (1955). This

appeared counter to what Cohen (1969b) said, "The conscious search for

meaning is evidently rare among the junior college student" (p. 71).

Newman (1971) indicated that this breakdown could be due to the deper-

sonalization in this technological society. One student in this study

revealed concern over being ". powerless--loss of control of my own

 96

destiny." Several students classified themselves as being "loners."

Others revealed that they were dissatisfied with their social relation-

ships. Still others said that they were poorly treated and that

". . . most people are not interested in my problem." None of the

total sampling was on academic probation, and nearly half of them

were first-semester freshmen.

Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that:

1. The major reasons for leaving community college were:

a. Full-time employment

b. Health

c. Finances

d. Personal problems

2. There was no significant difference in reasons given for

leaving the community college by students from different

programs.

3. Many selected community college students sense a lack of

"identity" and fail to seek help in making decisions.

4. Lack of personal attention by the staff is a contributing

factor to student attrition.

5. Insufficient information regarding various program options

was an underlying reason for student attrition.

6. Stated reasons for leaving the community college are not

necessarily the true or "real" reasons.

 97

Recommendations

The preliminary review of literature, the findings of this study,

and the investigator's subsequent conclusions suggest the following

for further investigation:

1. Additional research to ascertain a common terminology

in "dropout" studies.

2. A replication of this study with a larger sampling,

including all three colleges in the San Mateo Community

College District, to be done with evening as well as

day students.

3. Conduct an additional follow-up study of the students

involved in this study at the end of the current

(spring, 1973) semester and again one year later,

(spring, 1974):

a. To determine if they returned to college, and

for how long; and

b. To check validity of responses at the exit

interview.

4. Cooperative research on attrition with the community

college districts in the San Francisco Bay Area, e.g.,

consortiums to pool information and data and to plan

approaches to this perennial problem.

5. The need for research to develop an adequate instrument

for dealing with the subjective evaluation of personal

interviews.
 98

In addition, the following recommendations apply directly to the

College of San Mateo:

1. Immediate planning to inaugurate in-service training

for counselors conducting exit interviews.

2. All students, whether part- or full-time, to have

access to a qualified counselor.

3. Development of programs for greater student/staff

contact in order to lead to a greater sense of

"belonging." (Extensive use of group and orienta-

tion activities should be employed, including peer

advising. It is suggested that this be implemented

one or two weeks prior to fall registration.)

 99

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Advisory Council on Vocational Education. 1968. Vocational education:

The bridge between man and his work. Notes and working papers
concerning the administration of programs. Washington, D. C.,
U. S. Government Printing Office. p. 1-55.

American Association of Junior Colleges. 1971. Directory.

Washington, D. C., The Association.

American College Testing Program, Inc. 1969. The two-year college and
its student. Monograph Two. Iowa City. 157 p.

American Council on Education. 1971. The American freshman: National

norms for fall 1971. Washington, D. C., Staff of the Office of
Research.

Astin, Alexander W. 1972. The measured effects of higher education.

The Annals 404:1-20. November, 1972.

Astin, Alexander W. 1971. Predicting academic performance in college.

New York, The Free Press. 299 p.

Astin, Alexander W. 1965. Who goes where to college? Chicago,

Science Research Associates. 125 p.

Astin, Alexander W. 1964. Personal and environmental factors associ-

ated with college dropouts among high aptitude students. Journal
of Educational Psychology 55:219-227.

Baird, Leonard L., James M. Richards, Jr., and Linda R. Shevel. 1969.
A description of graduates of two-year colleges. Iowa City, The
American College Testing Program. 25 p.

Berger, A. 1963. The unexpected findings: A study of the expecta-

tions of college students. Unpublished manuscript. Chicago,
National Opinion Research Center. n.p.

Blai, Boris, Jr. 1972. Two-year college dropouts--Why do they leave?

Who are they? How many? Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, Harcum Junior
College. 21 p. (Educational Resources Information Center no.
ED 058879) (Microfiche)

Blai, Boris, Jr. 1969. Characteristics of Harcum Junior College

students. Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania, Harcum Junior College. 13 p.
(Educational Resources Information Center no. ED 034521)
(Microfiche)
 100

Blocker, Clyde E., Robert H. Plummer, and Richard C. Richardson, Jr.

Englewood Cliffs,
1965. The two-year college: A social synthesis.
Prentice-Hall. 298 p.

1950. The community college. New York, McGraw-Hill.

Bogue, Jesse.
390 p.

Bossen, Doris S. 1968. A follow-up study of the junior college

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio
withdrawal student.
Dissertation Abstracts, 29, No. 5, 1418 p.
State University.

1970. What happens to the

Bossen, Doris S. and Collins W. Burnett.
withdrawal student. Junior College Journal 40:9, 30-32, 34, 36.
June-July, 1970.
1969.
California State Coordinating Council for Higher Education.
Policies of
The undergraduate student and his higher education:
Cali-
California colleges and universities in the next decade.
fornia, California Coordinating Council for Higher Education.
121 p. (Educational Resources Information Center no. ED 032836)
(Microfiche)

Carneige Commission on Higher Education. 1971. Less time, more

Education beyond the high school. A special report.
options:
New York, McGraw-Hill. January, 1971. 45 p.

1960. The open door college. New York, McGraw-Hilh

Clark, Burton.
207 p.

Clinkscales, Kyle. 1971. Freshmen of undecided major: A two-year

study at the College of San Mateo. San Mateo, California. 46 p.

Cohen, Arthur M. 1969a. The relationships among student characteris-

tics, changed instructional practices and student attrition in
junior college. Final report. Washington, D. C., Office of Edu-
cation, Bureau of Research. 93 p. (Educational Resources Infor-
mation Center no. ED 032074) (Microfiche)

1969 b. Dateline '79. Beverly Hills, Glencoe. 234 p.

Cohen, Arthur M.

Cohen, Arthur M. and Florence B. Brawer. 1970. Student characteris-

tics: Personality and dropout propensity. Washington, D. C.,
American Association of Junior Colleges. 66 p.

Cohen, Arthur M. and Edgar A. Quimby. 1970. Trends in the study of

junior colleges: 1970. Washington, D. C., American Association
of Junior Colleges. 16 p. (Educational Resources Information
Center no. ED 040711) (Microfiche)

Combs, Arthur W., Donald L. Avila, and William W. Purkey. 1971.

 101

Helping relationships: Basic concepts for the helping profes-

sions. Boston, Allyn & Bacon. 360 p.

Cooper, W. J. 1928. The junior college movement in California.

School Review 36:409-22. June, 1928.

Cowhig, J. D. 1963. Why do they leave college? School Review

71:330-336. Autumn, 1963.

Cross, K. Patricia. 1970. Occupationally oriented students. Wash-

ington, D. C., American Association of Junior Colleges. 4 p.

Cross, K. Patricia. 1968. The junior college student: A research

description. Princeton, Educational Testing Service. 56 p.

Dalrymple, W. 1967. College dropout phenomenon: Fact, theories,

and programs. National Education Association Journal 56:11-13.
April, 1967.

Davis, Billy Hampton. 1970. The community junior college experience

as perceived by students who have withdrawn. Dissertation
Abstracts, 31, No. 11, p. 5659A.

Demos, G. D. 1968. Analysis of college dropouts: Some manifest and

covert reasons. American Personnel and Guidance Association
46:681-684. March, 1968.

Dennison, John D. and Gordon Jones. 1970. A long range study of the
subsequent performance and degree attainment of students who
transferred from Vancouver City College to the University of
British Columbia from 1966-1969. British Columbia, Vancouver
City College. 49 p. (Educational Resources Information Center
no. ED 037217) (Microfiche)

Deukmejian, George. 1968. The role of industrial education in

solving today's crises in American society. The Sam L. Fick
lecture on industrial education, March 8, 1968. 11 p.

Dewey, John. 1938. Experience and education. New York, MacMillan.

116 p.

Eels, Walter C. 1931. The junior college. Cambridge, The Riverside

Press. 833 p.

Feldman, Kenneth A. and Theodore M. Newcomb. 1969. The impact of

college on students. 2 vols. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. 453 p.

Fields, Ralph. 1962. The community college movement. New York,

McGraw-Hill. 359 p.
 102

Flanagan et al. 1964. The American high school student final report.
13 chapters. University of Pittsburgh.

Ford, David H. and H. G. Urban. 1966. College dropouts: Successes

or failures? In: The college dropout and the utilization of
talent. Pervin, Reik, and Dalrymple (eds.). Princeton Univer-
sity Press. p. 83-110.

Garner, W. C. 1970. Crisis intervention techniques with potential

college dropouts. American Personnel and Guidance Association
48:552-560. March, 1970.

Garrison, Roger H. 1967. Junior college faculty: Issues and problems.

Washington, D. C., American Association of Junior Colleges. 90 p.

Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. 1970. American Association of Junior Colleges

approach. Junior College Journal 40:7, 3-5. April, 1970.

Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. 1968. This is the community college. Boston,
Houghton Mifflin. 151 p.

Gold, Ben K. 1971. Los Angeles City College fall 1967 entrants--four
years later. Mimeo research study #71-11 (summary). Los Angeles,
California, Office of Research, Los Angeles City College.
October, 1971. 1 p.

Goldman, Leo. 1969. Privilege or privacy. American Personnel and

Guidance Association Journal 48:88. October, 1969,

Gothard, William. 1960. Basic youth conflicts. Illinois, Institute

in Basic Youth Conflicts. Unpublished syllabus. Unnumbered.

Greive, Donald D. 1970. A study of student attrition: Part I.

Cleveland, Cuyahoga Community College. 34 p. (Educational
Resources Information Center no. ED 038976) (Microfiche)

Gum, H. Sanford, Jr. 1971. History and development of the community/

junior college movement in California: Insight to the future.
Oregon State University. July, 1971. 16 numb. leaves.

Hakanson, J. W. 1967. Selected characteristics, socioeconomic status,

and levels of attainment of students in public junior college
occupational-centered education. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion. Berkeley, University of California, 47 p. (Educational
Resources Information Center no. ED 013644) (Microfiche)

Harlacher, Ervin L. 1969. The community dimension of the community

college. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice -Half 140 p.

Heinkel, Otto A. 1970. Evaluation of a general studies program for

the potentially low academic achiever in California junior
 103

colleges. Final report. Washington, D. C., Office of Education,

Bureau of Research. 75 p. (Educational Resources Information
Center no. ED 039881) (Microfiche)

Heist, Paul. 1968. Creative students: College transients. In:

The creative college student: An unmet challenge, Heist (ed.)
San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. 253 p.

Hurlburt, Allan S. 1969. State master plans for community colleges.

Washington, D. C., American Association for Junior Colleges. 46 p.
(Educational Resources Information Center no. ED 032887)
(Microfiche)

Huther, John W. 1971. The open door: How open is it? Junior College
Journal 41:8, 24-27. April, 1971.

Iffert, Robert E. 1964. Institutional implications--facilities,

faculties, students. Paper presented at the Princeton University
conference, October, 1964.

Iffert, Robert E. 1957. Retention and withdrawal of college students.

Washington, D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office. (U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bulletin, 1958,
No. 1) n.p.

Jabay, Earl. 1967. Search for identity. Michigan, Zondernan. 150 p.

Jay, Bill. 1962. Development of a multiple regression equation to

predict student drop rate and change to other major rate - the
difficulties and the possibilities: Research study. Moorpark,
California, Moorpark College. 25 p.

Johnson, Lamar. 1969. Islands of innovation expanding: Changes in

the community colleges. Beverly Hills, Glencoe. 352 p.

Johnson, Lamar. 1965. State junior colleges. How can they function
effectively? Southern Regional Education Board. 32 p.

Jones, Gordon and John D. Dennison. 1972. A comparative study of

persister and non-persister college students. British Columbia,
Vancouver City College. 100 p. (Educational Resources Informa-
tion Center no. 062975) (Microfiche)

Kelley, Jacquelyn. 1970. College of San Mateo dropout follow-up

study. Unpublished mimeographed research report #6. San Mateo,
California, College of San Mateo, Office of Research. p. 7-10.

Kester, Donald L. 1972. Further validation of the NORCAL question-

naire: Secondary validation. January, 1972. 21 p. (Educa-
tional Resources Information Center no. ED 062965) (Microfiche)
 104

Kester, Donald L. 1971a. The lesson from the three-year NORCAL attri-
tion study. Many of the potential dropouts can be helped. Phase
III. Final report. 200 p. (Educational Resources Information
Center no. ED 057779) (Microfiche)

Kester, Donald L. 1971b. California community college stopouts: A

comparison for the three NORCAL-CCHE follow-up studies. Washing-
ton, D. C., Office of Education. 49 p. (Educational Resources
Information Center no. ED 057771) (Microfiche)

Kester, Donald L. 1970. NORCAL--an impressive achievement: A review.

San Diego, California Junior College Association. 11 p. (Educa-
tional Resources Information Center no. ED 044111) (Microfiche)

Knoell, Dorothy M. 1966. A critical review of research on the college

dropout. In: The college dropout and the utilization of talent.
L. A. Pervin, C. E. Reik, and W. Dalrymple (eds.). Princeton
University Press. 260 p.

Knoell, Dorothy M. 1960. Institutional research on retention and

withdrawal. In: Research on college students. Sprague (ed.)
Boulder, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
p. 41-65.

Knoell, Dorothy M. and Leland L. Medsker. 1964. Factors affecting

performance of transfer students from two-to-four year colleges:
With implications for coordination. Berkeley, University of
California, Center for Research and Development in Higher Educa-
tion. 193 p. (U. S. Office of Education Cooperative Research
Project No. 1133)

Koos, Leonard V. 1925. The junior college movement. Boston, Ginn.

436 p.

Kubie, L. S. 1966. The ontogeny of the dropout problem. In:

The college dropout and the utilization of talent. Pervin,
Reik, and Dalrymple (eds.) Princeton University Press. p. 23-35.

Lichter, Solomon O. et al. 1962. The drop-outs. New York, Glencoe.

302 p.

Lopate, Carol. 1969. The college readiness program: A program for

third world students at the College of San Mateo, California.
The study of collegiate compensatory programs for minority group
youth. New York, Columbia University. 36 p. (Educational
Resources Information Center no. ED 035686) (Microfiche)

Losak, John. 1971. Do remedial programs really work? New York,

American Educational Research Association. 14 p. (Educational
Resources Information Center no. ED 946975) (Microfiche)
 105

MacMillan, Thomas F. 1970a. NORCAL: The key is cooperation. Junior

College Journal 40:8, 28-31, May, 1970.

MacMillan, Thomas F. 1970b. NORCAL project: Phase II, final report.

51 p. (Educational Resources Information Center no. 039879)
(Microfiche)

MacMillan, Thomas F. 1969a. Establishing a predictive model for early

recognition of potential community college student attrition.
Dissertation Abstracts, 30, No. 10. p. 4226A.

MacMillan, Thomas F. 1969b. NORCAL project: Phase I, final report.

127 p. (Educational Resources Information Center no, ED 031240)
(Microfiche)

Macomb County Community College. 1968. Improvement of persistence

to remain in school by potential dropouts of community college
students through the evaluation of a general education program.
Final report. Warren, Michigan, Macomb County Community College.
327 p. (Educational Resources Information Center no. ED 031158)
(Microfiche)

Maier, Robert O. 1971. Some variations in probabilities of success,

failure, and dropout. El Camino, California, El Camino College.
26 p. (Educational Resources Information Center no. ED 050720)
(Microfiche)

Marsh, Lee M. 1966. College dropouts--a review. Personnel and

Guidance Journal 44:8. p. 475-481.

Mason, Ralph E. and Peter G. Haines. 1965. Cooperative occupational

education and work experience in the curriculum. Danville,
Illinois, The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. 525 p.

Matson, Jane E. 1955. Characteristics of students who withdraw from

a public junior college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Stanford, California, Stanford University. 102 numb. leaves.

McClure, Clois A. 1972. The development of a counselor's guide for

use in selecting placement of students in a drafting technology
program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Logan, Utah State
University. 145 numb. leaves.

McGrath, Earl J. (ed.) 1966. Needed changes in purposes and programs

of community colleges. In: Universal higher education. New
York, McGraw-Hill. 258 p.

McKeown, William H. 1972. A follow through study. Redwood City,

California, Canada College. 51 numb.-leaves.

Medsker, Leland L. and Dale Tillery. 1971. Breaking the access

 106

barriers. New York, McGraw-Hill. 183 p.

Medsker, Leland L. 1969. Community college education. In: Encyclo-

pedia of educational research, by Robert L. Ebel, 4th ed. New
York, MacMillan Co., p. 173-184.

Medsker, Leland L. and James W. Trent. 1965. The influence of diff-

erent types of public higher institutions on college attendance
from varying socioeconomic and ability levels. Berkeley, Uni-
versity of California, Center for the Study of Higher Education.
n.p

Medsker, Leland L. 1960. The junior college. Progress and prospect.

New York, McGraw-Hill. 367 p.

Mertes, Barbara. 1972. A comparative study of students with reoccur-

ring drop-out patterns for 1970-71 and 1971-72. Hayward, Cali-
fornia, Chabot College. 11 p.

Mertes, David H. 1972. President, College of San Mateo. Letter to

the faculty at CSM. San Mateo, California. August 15, 1972.

Meyer, John D. 1968. Junior college students: Status inconsistency.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford, California, Stanford
University. 105 numb, leaves.

Miami-Dade Junior College. 1969. Career college: A report of the

first year (August 1968-June 1969). Florida, Miami-Dade Junior
College. 122 p. (Educational Resources Information Center no.
ED 038119) (Microfiche)

Mohs, Milton C. 1962. Service through placement in the junior college.

Washington, D. C., American Association of Junior Colleges. 102 p.

Montgomery, James and John Hills. 1966. Programs and selected pub-
lications related to college dropouts. In: The college dropout
and the utilization of talent. L. A. Pervin, C. E. Reik, and
W. Dalrymple (eds.) Princeton University Press. 260 p.

Mozee, Elliott. 1964. Withdrawal survey: Freshman class of 1962.

Aptos, California, Cabrillo College. 3 p.

National Science Foundation. 1967. The junior college and education

in the sciences. A report to subcommittee on Science Research
and Development of the Committee on Astronautics. U. S. House of
Representatives, 90th Congress, Session I. Washington, D. C.,
U. S. Government Printing Office. n.p.

Newman, Frank et al. 1971. Report on higher education. Washington,

D. C., U. S. Government Printing Office. 130 p.
 107

O'Connell, Thomas E. 1968. Community colleges: A president's view.

Urbana, University of Illinois Press. 172 p.

O'Connor, T. J. 1965. Follow-up studies in junior colleges. Washing-

ton, D. C., American Association of Junior Colleges. 75 p.

Orange Coast College. 1969, They didn't come back. Costa Mesa,
California, Orange Coast College. 22 p. (Educational Resources
Information Center no. 038969) (Microfiche)

Pace, C. Robert. 1962. Implications of differences in campus atmos-

phere. In: Personality factors on the college campus. R. L.
Sutherland (ed.). Austin, The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health.
242 p.

Panos, Robert and Alexander W. Astin. 1968. Attrition among college

students. American Educational Research Journal 5:57-72.
January, 1968.

Pearce, Frank C. 1969. A profile of students in the college readiness

program at the College of San Mateo. San Mateo, California,
College of San Mateo. (Ditto) 1 p.

Pennsylvania State Department of Education. 1971. Academically dis-

advantaged minority group students in public two-year colleges.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, State Department of Education, Bureau
of Curriculum Development. 24 p. (Educational Resources Infor-
mation Center no. ED 957775) (Microfiche)

Personnel and Guidance Journal. 1971. 59:85. October, 1971.

Pervin, Lawrence A., Louis E. Reik, and Willard Dalrymple (eds.) 1966.
The college dropout and the utilization of talent. New Jersey,
Princeton University Press. 260 p.

Postman, Neil and Charles Weingartner. 1969. Teaching as a subversive

activity. New York, Delacorte Press. 219 p.

Public Junior College. 1956. In: National Society for the Study of
Education. Chicago, The Society.

Purser, Timothy D. 1970. A study on the abolishment of academic dis-

missal and failing grades. Cleveland, Cuyahoga Community College.
29 p. (Educational Resources Information Center no. ED 044109)

Reik, Louis E. 1962. The dropout problem. The Nation, May 19, 1962.
p. 442-446.

Reynolds, James W. 1966. Needed changes in purposes and programs of

community colleges. In: Universal higher education, ed. by
Earl J. McGrath. New York, McGraw-Hill. 258 p.
 108

Rhodes, Harvey B. 1968. Retraining the undereducated adult: The

development and implementation of a retraining program for under-
educated and unemployed adults by a community college. Disserta-
tion Abstracts, 30, No. 1, p. 542A,

Rice, Gary A. 1969. An examination of the earned grade distributions

between "successful" and "dropout" students at Yakima Valley
College. Yakima, Washington, Yakima Valley College. 86 p.
(Educational Resources Information Center no. ED 036293)
(Microfiche)

Rice, Gary A. and William Scofield. 1969. A contrast between the

"successful" and "dropout" student at Yakima Valley College.
Yakima, Washington, Yakima Valley College. 128 p. (Educational
Resources Information Center no. 030416) (Microfiche)

Richards, James M., Jr., and Larry A. Braskamp. 1967. Who goes where
to junior college? American College Testing Program, Report No.
20. Iowa City. 29 p.

Rosenthal, Robert and Lenore Jacobsen. 1968. Pygmalion in the

classroom. Holt. 240 p.

Roueche, John E. and John R. Boggs. 1968. Junior college institutional

research: State of the art. Washington, D. C., American Associa-
tion of Junior Colleges. 66 p.

Sanford, Nevitt. 1967. Where colleges fail. San Francisco, Jossey-

Bass. 229 p.

Schwebel, Milton. 1972. Pluralism and diversity in American higher

education. The Annals 404:88-100. November, 1972.

Seitz, James E. 1967-1968. Technical education in the small commun-

ity college. Technical Education Yearbook. Ann Arbor, Prakken
Publications. 210 p.

Smith, Leonard J. 1959. Career planning. New York, Harper. 263 p.

Snyder, Fred A. and Clyde E. Blocker. 1970. A profile of non-persist-

ing students. Research report no. 3. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
Harrisburg Area Community College. 67 p. (Educational Resources
Information Center no. ED 03748) (Microfiche)

Steel, Robert G. D. and James H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and pro-

cedures of statistics. New York, McGraw-Hill. 481 p.

Stocking, Joyce. 1969. Non-persisting and persisting transfer pro-

gram students. Columbia, Missouri, University of Missouri. 10 p.
(Educational Resources Information Center no. ED 044114)
(Microfiche)
 109

Summerskill, J. 1962. Dropouts from college. In: The American

college, by N. Sanford (ed.). New York, Wiley. p. 627-657.

Super, Donald E. 1957. The psychology of careers. New York, Harper.

362 p.

The Third Annual Survey of Counselors and Counselees in California.

1968. Fall semester, 1968. Coordinated by J. H. Girdner, Dean
of Student Personnel. Campbell, California, West Valley Joint
College District.

Thistlewaite, D. L. 1960. College press and change in study plans of

talented students. Journal of Educational Psychology 55:222-234.

Thornton, James W. 1966. The community junior college. New York,

Wiley. 300 p.

Tickton, Sidney G. 1968. The magnitude of American higher education

in 1980. In: Campus 1980, Alvin C. Eurich (ed.). New York,
Delacorte. 327 p.

Tillery, Dale. 1965. A consideration of issues affecting California

public junior colleges. Sacramento, California, Coordinating
Council for Higher Education. No. 1018, April, 1965. n.p.

Tillery, Dale. 1964. Differential characteristics of entering fresh-

men at the University of California and their peers at California
junior colleges. Dissertation Abstracts, 25, No. 7. p. 3921.

Total Report of School Leavers, School Years 1959-1960 and 1960-1961.

1962. Los Angeles, California, Office of Los Angeles County
Superintendent of Schools. n. p.

Trent, James W. and Leland L. Medsker. 1968. Beyond high school.

San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. 333 p.

Turner, Hugh J., Jr. 1970. The half that leaves: A limited survey
of attrition in community colleges. Gainesville, Florida,
Florida University. 18 p. (Educational Resources Information
Center no. ED 038127) (Microfiche)

Venn, Grant. 1964. Man, education, and work. Washington, D. C.,

American Council on Education. 184 p.

Ward, Darrell Lin. 1970. Vocational education competencies identi-

fied for local leaders of occupational education. Unpublished
doctoral thesis. Corvallis, Oregon State University. 105 numb.
leaves.

Ware, Claude and Ben K. Gold. 1970. Los Angeles City College, peer
counseling program. Los Angeles, California, Los Angeles City
 110

College. 77 p. (Educational Resources Information Center no.

ED 040713) (Microfiche)

Warren, J. R. 1966. Patterns of college experience. Claremont,

California, College Student Personnel Institute and Claremont
Graduate School and University Center. (U. S. Office of
Education Cooperative Research Project S-327.) n. p.

Weigel, Mark. 1969. A comparison of persisters and non-persisters

in a junior college. Columbia, Missouri, University of Missouri.
24 p. (Educational Resources Information Center no. ED 044115)
(Microfiche)

Wenrich, J. William. 1971. Keeping dropouts in. A report submitted

to Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. San Mateo,
California, College of San Mateo.

Wenrich, J. William. 1969. NORCAL individual campus report: College

of San Mateo. San Mateo, California, College of San Mateo, Office
of Research. 14 p.

Whitehead, Alfred North. 1929. The aims of education and other

essays. New York, MacMillan. 247 p.

Wilson, Melvin D. 1971. A study of community college dropouts.

Master's thesis. Corvallis, Oregon State University. 46 numb.
leaves.

Wollenberg, Charles. 1972. Community college curriculum. Community

College Perspective 3:1. September/October, 1972.
APPENDICES
 111

APPENDIX A

EXIT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

We are conducting a study at CSM that hopefully will result in better

services to you, the student. We invite you to be a part of this

study. You can help us by sharing some information and ideas, and with

your permission, recognize your participation by listing your name at

the end of the report. Be assured information you share will be kept

in strict confidence.

I would also appreciate your permission to record this interview to

assure accuracy in your remarks. Your name will not be used, only an

identification number.

Questions

1. Is this your first semester at CSM?

2. How many units have you been taking this semester?

12 or more , less than 12

3. If attended college previously, how many total units do you have?

4. Are you living at home? If not, how long have you

been gone? Whom do you live with now?

5. What influenced you to attend CSM initially?

6. You gave the reason for your leave on the form as

 112

APPENDIX A (continued)

What other information could you give me about that?

7. What events or factors would you say led you to make the decision

of taking leave from CSM?

*8. When did you first think about dropping out of college?

*9. Whom did you talk to about leaving?

Your counselor?

10. What are your plans (goals)?

11. How do you intend to achieve your plans?

12. How has CSM helped you?

13. How can CSM assist you now?

14. What else would you be willing to share about your experience

here at CSM?

15. How can we at CSM be of more assistance to students?

(End interview by telling student that,)

"We are anticipating a follow-up interview in January to express our

interest in you and your plans and offer our assistance. May we contact

you at this address or some other?

Telephone

Express appreciation for time and help.

* Added after first week of interviews

 113

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE RELATED DATES

1. October 9-13 & 16-20

(5th & 6th WEEKS OF SCHOOL)

October 23-27 - 7th WEEK October 30-November 3

8th Week (Midterm Week)
October 30-November 3 - 8th WEEK
November 2 - Coun.
Coor. Comm.

2. November 13-17
November 17 - Last day
(10th WEEK OF SCHOOL) to drop W/0 penalty

November 27-December 1

(12th WEEK OF SCHOOL)

3. January 2-5, 1973

(15th WEEK OF SCHOOL)

January 8-12

(16th WEEK OF SCHOOL) January 26 - End of

Fall Semester

4. February 4-March 1, 1973 February 5 - Beginning of

Spring Semester
(Follow-up interviews)

CHECKOUT PROCEDURE

Same as past year except I will interview students following the

initial contact with their counselor. Sent from Student Personnel

Office or Dean of Women (Ruth Weston).

 114

APPENDIX C

SAMPLE OF ANNOUNCEMENTS

(From CSM Student Bulletin)

Tuesday, October 10, 1972: IMPORTANT: LEAVE OF ABSENCE STUDY. You

can be an important part of this study. We are trying to do a better
job for you, the student. If you are considering dropping out of
school, check with your counselor and take out a formal "Leave of
Absence."

Monday, October 16, 1972: DON'T BE ANOTHER STATISTIC! WE CARE ABOUT

YOU! LET US HELP YOU--YOU CAN HELP US TOO. IF YOU HAVE TO LEAVE
SCHOOL (DROP OUT) FOR ANY REASON, CHECK WITH YOUR COUNSELOR FIRST.

Thursday, October 19, 1972: DON'T DO IT! DON'T JUST FADE AWAY. TAKE
A LEAVE OF ABSENCE IF YOU MUST LEAVE. DON'T BE A DROPOUT! SEE YOUR
COUNSELOR!

Tuesday, October 24, 1972: "TO STAY OR NOT TO STAY" (in school)--that
is the question. See your counselor before dropping out.

Tuesday, November 14, 1972: MID-TERM GRADES ARE NOT REALLY THAT BAD!
DON'T DROP OUT! SEE YOUR COUNSELOR!

(Sample Poster)

DON'T BE A DROPOUT!

... DON'T JUST FADE AWAY

... DO SEE YOUR COUNSELOR

or check at the Student Personnel Office

... TAKE OUT A LEAVE OF ABSENCE IF YOU HAVE

TO LEAVE (DROP) FOR ANY REASON

 115

APPENDIX D

WITHDRAWAL PROCEDURE AND FORM

Withdrawal Procedure

Please fill in all information on the "Application for Permanent

Leave of Absenc-e-r-form, then obtain the following signatures:

1. Counselor

2. Library - Circulation Desk

3. Lab instructor (if enrolled in laboratory

course in chemistry or physics)

4. Bookstore - Student Center

5. Student Finance Office - Admin. Bldg., Rm. 151

6. Physical Education instructor

* 7. Student Personnel - Admin. Bldg. 2nd floor

8. Veterans - Admin. Bldg. Registrar's Office

9. Financial Aid - Admin. Bldg., Rm. 221

* 10. Dean of Women (ALL students) - Admin. Bldg., Rm. 215

(Also, please be sure to turn in your Student I.D.
card at this point.)

Only upon completion of the above will your leave become official.

* Exit interview following either of these.

 Birth Date

COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO

Male Female
APPLICATION FOR PERMANENT LEAVE OF ABSENCE Date Last Attended

Social Security No. "Honorable Dismissal"

Date Leave Requested

Please Print
Home
Last Name First Name Address
Middle Name Number and Street City

request a Leave of Absence for the remainder of this semester for the following reasons:

CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE
Signature of student:
Department Signature

Library
Signature of
Counselor
Laboratory Science
Associated
Students Store
Date Leave Completed
Student Personnel Signature of
Physical Dean:
Education
Withdrawal I
Student will receive "W" in all classes.

Veterans Dean.
Withdrawal II-- Student will receive "W's" in classes in which
Financial Aids he is passing-and "F's" in classes in which he
Dan is failing.
Withdrawal Ill -- Student will receive "F's" in all classes.
 117

APPENDIX E

MEMORANDUM FROM ALLAN BROWN

COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO

MEMORANDUM

TO: Counselors Date.: October 3, 1972

FROM: Allan R. Brown

SUBJECT: Counselors Meeting

There will be a counselors meeting on Thursday,

October 19th at 3:15 P.M. in the Board Room.

Among the items to be discussed are:

1) Evaluation of summer counseling and

registration procedures

2) Discussion of "Student Self-Help Guide"

(Aline Fountain)

3) Drop Out Study (Sandy Gum)

A statement by Sandy Gum is attached. He will

discuss his project in depth at the meeting.

ARB/jvd

Attach.
 118

APPENDIX F

MEMORANDUM FROM SANDY GUM

COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO

MEMORANDUM

TO: All Counselors DATE: October 2, 1972

FROM: Sandy Gum

In an effort to better serve the students in our community,

I have proposed an analytical study endeavoring to deter-
mine factors which tend to influence students' decisions of
departure and termination of their course work at CSM. This
study in no way pre-empts the role of the counselor. The
suggested procedure is similar to the normal withdrawal
(checkout) procedure, except that, in an effort to gather
objective data, I will interview the students after they
have met with their assigned counselors. It is further
proposed that a folslow-up interview will take place within
30-45 days after the initial interview.

I anticipate that we will receive feedback from these stu-

dents that will be of predictive value: value in counseling
and advising, recommendations in reference to curricular
patterns, as well as suggested improvements in student
personnel services.

I believe the counselor is the key person in student per-

sonnel services. Your help will greatly affect the success
of this study by encouraging students to complete the formal
withdrawal (checkout) procedure.

This study will be conducted during the fifth and sixth weeks
of the fall semester, October 9-20, the ninth and tenth weeks,
November 6-17, and the fifteenth week, January 2-5, 1973. I

will be available for interviewing in the Administration

Building, Room 261, from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and evenings
by appointment, except for my regular teaching hours (Monday-
Wednesday-Friday, 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon). Follow-up
interviews are scheduled during the period of January 17
through February 1, 1973.

Suggestions are welcomed and encouraged. Please call Exten-

sion 6274. Thank you for your assistance.

SG:jvd
 119

APPENDIX G

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSELORS

MEMO

TO: Counselors

FROM: Sandy Gum

In order to cross-check on students obtaining a Leave of Absence Form,

would you please log each student's name on the enclosed sheet(s) for

the next two weeks, beginning Monday, October 9th.

Please put your counselor number only on the sheet(s) and any remarks

you deem appropriate and return to me at the end of the day on Friday,

October 20th.

Much thanks!

MEMO

TO: Counselors

FROM: Sandy Gum

In order to cross-check on students obtaining a Leave of Absence Form,

would you please log each student's name on the enclosed sheet(s),

beginning Monday, November 13th thru Monday, November 20th.

Please put your counselor number only on the sheet(s) and any remarks

you deem appropriate and return to me at the end of the day on Monday

November 20th. Much thanks!

 120

APPENDIX H

COUNSELOR'S LOG

"LEAVE OF ABSENCE" STUDY

FALL SEMESTER, 1972

COUNSELOR
NO.

NO. NAME OF STUDENT DATE OF LEAVE REMARKS

 121

APPENDIX I

STUDENT DATA SHEET

COLLEGE OF SAN MATEO

DATE 05-24-72
FIELD DATA MISSING CARD

SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER A03-11

DISTRICT CODE SOURCE TYP A35-41
CAMPUS CODE SEX A42-43
MARITAL STATUS A 44
COLLEGE DIVISION A 45
LOCAL ADDRESS B15-34
LOCAL ADDRESS B35-53
LOCAL TELEPHONE B59-65
MOVING B 66
SECURITY CODE B 67
LEGAL ADDRESS C15-34
LEGAL ADDRESS C35-58
BIRTH DATE D15-20
CITIZENSHIP CODE D 21
FOREIGN COUNTRY CODE RACE D22-25
FEDERAL HOUSING PL-874 D 26
CLASS STATUS D 27
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION DATE H S CODE D28-39
ADVISOR MAJOR D40-44
PROBATIONARY STATUS DATE E15-21
SOCIAL SECURITY CLAIM NUMBER E22-32
CUMULATIVE UNITS ATTEMPTED EARNED E45-54
GRADE-POINTS EARNED E55-59
GPA DEFICIENCY E60-67
VETERANS ATTEMPTED UNITS DEFICIENCY E68-71
HEALTH-FEE PAID E 72
OLD NAME F15-17
MATRICULATION DATE F18-23
HIGH SCHOOL GPA F24-26
COLLEGE READINESS F 27
HIGH ACHIEVEMENT ORANGE DOT F28-29
POSSIBLE GRADUATION F 30
LAST ATTENDED TERM YEAR F33-35
DRAFT GRADUATION DATE F36-41
DRAFT NOTIFICATION F 42
SELECTIVE SERVICE NUMBER F43-53
DRAFT CLASSIFICATION F54-56
VETERAN CLAIM NUMBER VETERAN F57-65
PRINT CODE MISSING INFORMATION F 66
 122

APPENDIX I (continued)

ATHLETIC CHECK F 67
ELIGIBILITY CARD F 68
NEW APPLICATION CODE F 69
REGISTRATION CODE F 70
LAST COLLEGE DIVISION F 71
RETURN STATUS ELIGIBILITY F 72
OUTSTANDING BILL F 73
SOCIAL SECURITY CLAIM CODE F 74
STUDENT FINANCIAL AID PROGRAM F 75
PRINT CODE PERM REC ADV REC F76-77
LAST SUMMER SEMESTER ATTENDED F78-79
PREVIOUS COLLEGE CODE G15-20
TRANSFER UNITS ATTEMPTED EARNED G21-30
GRADE POINTS EARNED G31-35
MICROFILM UNITS ATTEMPTED EARNED G36-45
GRADE POINTS EARNED G46-50
 123

APPENDIX J

FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

1. Introductory remarks

2. You will recall that during our initial interview last (date) ,

I indicated that I would be doing follow-up interviews. I am doing

this to express interest in you and your plans and offer assistance.

3. (Status) Are you: working? still looking for work? in better

health? etc.

4. What are your plans?

5. How can we assist you?

6. During our initial interview in (date) , you gave as your

reason for taking a leave as
Was that the "real" reason or was it in fact, some other?
If so, what was it?

7, What reason do you think most students give for leaving school?

8. Do you think students have more than one reason for leaving?
If so, what are they?

9. How do you value college education? On a scale of 1 (low) to

9 (high), how would you rate yourself?

10. What do you think about motivation for college? How does one
become motivated to go to college?

11. Now that you have been out of school for awhile, what do you
think about your decision in taking a leave of absence?

12. What is your attitude about college now? To what extent has
it changed since leaving?

13. What can you tell me about your "self-concept?" How do you
feel about yourself?

14. If you were to rate yourself as being mature or immature on a

scale of 1 to 9, 9 being high i.e. mature and 1 being low i.e.
immature, how would you rate yourself?
 124

APPENDIX J (continued)

15. If you were to rate yourself as to the quality of your decision

to take a leave, again, on a scale of 1 to 9 with 9 being
rational (high) and 1 being irrational (low), how would you
rate yourself.

16. When we talked last time, I asked for any suggestions for
any improvements or how we could do a better job in helping
students. What additional comments can you give me?

17. Concluding remarks: I want to thank you for participating in

this study. Again, I want to assure you that any information
as to your identity will be strictly confidential. Any refer-
ence or quotes will be identified only by a number. If I can
be of any further assistance, my office is in the aeronautics
building, number 25, in room 172, and the phone number is
574-6274. Please feel free to contact me for any reason.
 125

APPENDIX K

STUDENTS' COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Comments

"You're (C.S.M.) doing a good job, you know; the counselors are
always available. I don't think there is much more that you can
possibly do. If you need help, there is always someone like
Financial Aids, or even a psychiatrist. There's always someone
to talk to."

"You should have fulltime counselors that are available; I mean, my

counselor was okay, if you are in his field, but for other questions,
it would be good if they were available to talk to at any time. Our
counselors teach and are not always available; you know what I mean?"

"I've had no hassles in the two years I've attended here; too bad it's
not a four year school I'd like to stay here. I've really learned a
lot. Everyone is helpful."

"I don't like the way teachers are teaching, you know, what they want
us to do. Like I can't stand up in front of a class and start talkin'.
I can't do that. The only thing I like up here is the P. E. classes."

"I plan on going in the Air Force." (When do you plan to go in?)
"Well, I don't know yet; I'm just "gonta" take my tests on Monday
and physical Tuesday and see what happens then. My parents want me
to go to school, so if I go in the service, I can get the school I
want." (What is that?) "Auto Mechanics. This way I can satisfy
them, too."

"I came to C.S.M. until I became eighteen 'cuz I couldn't get a job.
After I got my courses, I was going to stay, but I just didn't like
it."

"If I was going fulltime, I would collect Social Security Benefits,

you know, but my typing class was over-crowded, and she had to get rid
of some people, so I was one of the people, and I couldn't get another
class. That made me mad because I dropped to 11 units. I couldn't
get in a night class because it was past the deadline."

"Students need more personal attention and contact with their instruc-
tors. We really don't have very much dialogue with adults. Some
teachers help a lot, even more than a counselor. My pre-med counselor
just handed me a program and that was it; didn't even ask me why I
wanted to be a doctor or anything."
 126

APPENDIX K (continued)

Comments

"Sometimes things are O.K. I'm always trying to find a better way so
I will make fewer mistakes."

"I really left C.S.M. on the spur of the moment thing; thought I
wanted to go to work one morning and did. Didn't even think of it
before."

"Teachers need to reorganize their courses, not really upgrading so

much as reorganizing their studies."

"I really had to leave or face having another nervous breakdown."

"Oh, I don't know; I just didn't like school I guess. It's kinda
hard for me. Know what I mean?"

"Many students are lost; need more personal attention, like me."

"I really didn't like CSM. Teachers in two classes didn't treat me
like an adult, especially in this art class. I felt like I was trying;
I needed help and asked for it--teacher couldn't be bothered! Said at
the beginning of the class was available--contradictory."

"Better arrangement of lecture and lab science courses. I work in

afternoon--couldn't get a course that wouldn't conflict, you know?
And I really need to work."

Father reported that his son who went in the military said his son
didn't have any goal and chose to go into the service for now. He
has finished boot training in the Navy and is doing very well.

"How can you help a 56-year old recent widow who is becoming an
alcoholic?"

"Need someone to sit down and discuss with me about making a decision
and ask me 'Is this a rational decision?' I need more alternatives
and someone to make suggestions."

"I'm very critical of myself and others."

"I didn't know enough about the job situation."

"I'm not really interested in answering your questions."

"Thanks a lot."
 127

APPENDIX K (continued)

Comments

"Thanks for your interest."

"I appreciate your interest--I guess someone at C.S.M. does care

after all."

"I just can't stand that instructor--he just reads from the text the
whole period! I only attended class because it was mandatory to
pass."

"I know the teacher knows the subject--he's famous, sort of, but he
doesn't really have time for us because we are not his 'stars,' you
know?"

"I just came here to socialize. I don't know why."

"I couldn't get a job when I came across the bay to attend CSM. I

was really disappointed--no job, falling behind. Am going back home

and try again."

"I really shouldn't have gone back in the first place. I don't think
I belong in school."

"Everyone wants to keep on learning. I found after I dropped and

worked for awhile I found what work was like--no challenge, not inter-
ested in the dumb things people talk about at work, nothing stimulat-
ing or intellectual. I know what I want now."

"After being in the service I didn't want to do menial work--want to

lead instead of being told what to do."

"I'm still trying to find myself."

"I'd like to get back into 'the swing of things.'" (Said that five
times in course of interview.)

"What about motivation? That's a really good question. Need to get

something going, I guess."

"I don't expect much of myself."

"I'm getting in shape for speed skating--hope to go to Nationals.

Then maybe some day I'll return to a university--if I can get serious.
If not, maybe I'll go to a community college at night."
 128

APPENDIX K (continued)

Comments

"I kinda like myself. If you don't like yourself you can't like
someone else."

"I like to choose whatever I want rather than take what's required."

"It was the only thing to do at the time."

"Whatever's right."

Suggestions

"Special courses, like strictly secretarial for one year; make it

condensed, shorter."

"Short range programs for short range goals, for immediate employment."

"I was upset when I couldn't get into the classes I wanted. A few
weeks later there was plenty of room in those classes. Have some way
of getting into classes when someone drops."

"An orientation period in later summer--get to know the instructors- -

maybe for three weeks."

"Exploration of careers course--have a great variety--include visita-

tion to places of business and industry."

"Catalog doesn't give enough detail on courses. Need a place to go

for information. Teachers and counselors time often conflicting with
students. Need information in a hurry, like a drop-in center."

"Peer counseling to supplement counselor; sometimes get better infor

mation from students who really know; not a substitute for counselor."

"Some standardized system--how to budget time; have more free time

now in college and don't know how to use it."

"Expand (have more sections) in popular courses."

"Students should have opportunity in high school or even junior high

school to visit businesses and industrial companies to find out what
it is all about. When they come to college they will have some idea
what they want to do."
 129

APPENDIX K (continued)

Suggestions

"Continue to have more short-term courses."

"More personal (one-to-one) contact with faculty and counselors."

"Break down the big structure--few classes--not mandatory--no grades- -

no credit."

"Exploratory classes."

"More individual help for students; someone who cares."

"Short-term program in medical secretary. Courses to get a job in six

months."

"During summer have a center to talk over problems or to get informa-

tion. Could have it a semester break too or maybe on weekends."

"More open lab courses."

"Group help."

"Better public transportation or car pool system."

"Day care center."

"Refresher type courses to brush up--not just at night, early in the

morning for shift work schedules."

"More counseling time with professional counselors not just pro-

grammers."

"More alternatives."

"More personal attention and contact."

 130

APPENDIX L

CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLING

Comparison of Units
Confirm/
Group Reason* denial of
(Transfer) for reason at Regis.
(Career) leaving follow-up fall 2nd Spring
Student (Undecided) (Exit) interview 1972 week Exit 1973

1 T/C 7 C 9 11 12
2 C 1 C 17 17 17
3 C 1 C 11 11 11
4 T 1 D 14 14 14
5 T 1 D 8 14 14
6 C 4 D 16 13 13 7
7 T 5 5 9 9
8 T 9 3 8 3
9 T 1 C 4 4 4
10 T 5 D 10 7 7 9
11 U 10 D 3 3 3
12 C 2 C 14 14 14 14
13 C 4 D 3 3 3
14 T 1 D 8 11 11 14
15 T 4 D 2 2 2
16 T 6 9 9 9
17 C 3 C 15 14 14
18 T 1 14 14 11 16
19 T 1 10 11 11
20 T 1 13 14 14 17.5
21 T 1 17 16 16
22 C 6 C 12 12 12
23 T 3 D 14.5 15.5 11.5
24 C 5 C 7 4 4
25 T 8 13 9 12
26 T 7 D 10 10 10
27 C 1 C 13 14 7
28 T 1 7 7 7
29 C 1 9 9 9
30 T 8 C 9 9 9
31 C 9 15 15 15
32 C 1 C 14 11 11 6
33 T 1 D 14 14 14

* See Table 11
 131

APPENDIX L (continued)

Comparison of Units
Confirm
Group Reason* denial of
(Transfer) for reason at Regis.
(Career) leaving follow-up fall 2nd Spring
Student (Undecided) (Exit) interview 1972 week Exit 1973

34 T 1 D 15 14 14
35 T/U 1 C 13 15 15
36 C 4 C 16 13 10
37 T 3 9 13 13
38 C 3 C 17 17 17
39 T 1 15 12 4
40 T 7 C 17.5 12.5 14
41 T 4 14 14 11
42 T 2 5 14 14
43 T/U 6 17 14 14
44 T 5 C 9 6 6 6
45 T 6 C 14 15 15
46 T 3 D 16.5 16.5 16.5
47 T/U 3 C 7 7 7
48 C 9 C 8 8 8
49 C 1 C 9 9 9
50 T 3 C 17 17 14
51 T 3 10 15 15.5
52 C 1 C 13 10 10
53 T/U 6 C 16 13 13 13
54 C 8 15.5 15.5 15.5
55 T 7 C 15 15 15
56 C 2 C 17 21 21
57 U 1 9 15 15
58 C 4 D 9 9 9 R/0
59 T 4 14 17 17
60 T/U 1 14 9 6
61 C 13 C 17 17 13 15
62 T 8 D 5 5 5
63 T 12 14 14 14
64 T 1 9 9 9
65 C 1 9 12 12 12
66 T/U 3 14 10 7
67 T/U 5 11 11 11
68 U 4 C 3 3 3
69 T 3 C 15 15 15 10
70 T 2 D 16 8 8 14
71 T 2 C 13 6 6
72 T/U 6 13 13 13
 132

APPENDIX L (continued)

Comparison of Units
Confirm/
Group Reason* denial of
(Transfer) for reason at Regis.
(Career) leaving follow-up fall 2nd Spring
Student (Undecided) (Exit) interview 1972 week Exit 1973

73 C 2 C 6 3 3
74 T/U 1 14 15 1 14
75 T 9 20 20 17 19
76 U 2 D 15 15 15 3
77 T 1 12.5 8.5 8.5
78 T/U 4 19 18 18 14
80 T 9 3 3 3
81 T 13 13 21 18 15
82 C 11 15 13 13
83 T 1 .9 13 13
84 T 2 10 11 7
85 C 4 12 12 12 3
86 T 8 13 13 10
87 C 4 C 6 6 6
88 T 5 C 10 10 10 5
89 C 2 D 15 3 16 13
90 U 12 3 10 10
91 T/U 1 16 16 17
92 T/U 1 13 10 10
93 U 2 15 15 15
94 T 7 C 5 13 13
95 U 3 12.5 19.5 7
96 T 3 C 17 17 14 16
97 C 10 4 4 4 2
98 T/U 1 12 7 7
99 T 10 6 6 6 12
100 T 2 11 11 11
101 C 7 17 19 15
102 C 5 D 7 13 13 20
103 T 7 C 13 4 4
104 T 1

105 T 11 12 15 9
106 T 2 15 15 15 3
107 T 8 13 16 16 R/0
108 C 2 10 10 10 R/0