NBC News: Battling Low Enrollment Through Retention

[apl68]

Thread drift, anyone?

Does anybody have anything still to contribute regarding the original topic of colleges trying to find ways to retain students?

I'm with marshwiggle in wondering whether the moves to help students navigate through bureaucracy will help most students who are dropping out.  However, it is all too plausible to suppose that there are some potentially successful students, especially first-generation students, who are getting wrecked on the shoals of bureaucracy.  To the extent that that problem can be fixed, it would be worth fixing.

I have a concern with schools lowering thir standards regarding the students that they recruit and try to retain, in the manner of a fishing fleet that has wiped out stocks of desirable fish starting to fish farther down the food chain.  I remember before COVID all the concerns about people being enticed into going to college who had no real interest in, preparation for, or aptitude for higher ed.  So many of these students were either set up to fail to get through, or were pushed through by lowering standards.  We don't want to see more of that.

[mahagonny]

I have a concern with schools lowering thir standards regarding the students that they recruit and try to retain, in the manner of a fishing fleet that has wiped out stocks of desirable fish starting to fish farther down the food chain.  I remember before COVID all the concerns about people being enticed into going to college who had no real interest in, preparation for, or aptitude for higher ed.  So many of these students were either set up to fail to get through, or were pushed through by lowering standards.  We don't want to see more of that.

Sure we do. If that's the last option.

[dismalist]

I've long admired the right's ability to stand together and put aside differences in their goal of crushing the poor.

The right are clearly abject failures. The poor have never had it so good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o247x_ig7Bc

[spork]

"one of the things we found when we started to look at the data was that what we were providing access to was debt. They were just leaving higher education with debt and nothing to show for it."

The marketing works. People are convinced to pay something for nothing. Why fix what's not broken?

[Wahoo Redux]

"one of the things we found when we started to look at the data was that what we were providing access to was debt. They were just leaving higher education with debt and nothing to show for it."

The marketing works. People are convinced to pay something for nothing. Why fix what's not broken?

Well, part of being an adult is the ability to make bad decisions.

I agree that a 45% graduation rate nationally is a disgrace that colleges need to address----but it is also incumbent upon the students to finish.   

[dismalist]

I agree that a 45% graduation rate nationally is a disgrace that colleges need to address----but it is also incumbent upon the students to finish.

A better and cheaper way of addressing the problem is to not admit those who have little chance of graduating. But that is not in the interests of any particular institution, though a State system might choose that route.

[marshwiggle]

I agree that a 45% graduation rate nationally is a disgrace that colleges need to address----but it is also incumbent upon the students to finish.

A better and cheaper way of addressing the problem is to not admit those who have little chance of graduating. But that is not in the interests of any particular institution, though a State system might choose that route.

The really sad part of that is that there are mountains of data out there identifying which students are likely to fail, but it's considered "elitist" to admit that, so it's preferable to pretend that with the right "supports" there's no problem.

[Hibush]

my fellow lefties have instead been denouncing allies who are a tiny step less lefty.

Sacrilege! How dare you denounce the denouncers!  The Gulag awaits!!

BTW, are you sure you are on the right thread?

For the moment at least, I run my part of the Gulag. But the proletariat may yet overthrow us.

Subsequent events make it appear that the thread has drifted hard in this direction, but a little thought might make the topics converge. (Should the faculty denounce the administrators who want to retain students whom the school is not designed to teach?)

[dismalist]

Should the faculty denounce the administrators who want to retain students whom the school is not designed to teach?

The median faculty member will encourage administrators in retaining students s/he doesn't want to teach if not retaining them puts the institution at risk of its existence and s/he has no alternatives. Academics, being more risk averse than the general population, will encourage administrators on this issue.

[artalot]

We do admit and graduate students that, a generation ago, would never have been admitted and, if they had been, never would have graduated. That's not necessarily a bad thing. But it does mean that we need to explore other ways of teaching and structuring the educational system, especially at schools with a lot of bureaucracy. My uni is relatively small, but it is so hard for students to navigate when they have any kind of issue.
My uni makes all kinds of allowances for athletes, who also have private tutors and special academic counselors to advocate for them and cut through all of the red tape. What if we put those resources into serving and advocating for students who are facing anxiety, who are neuro atypical, first gen, people of color, etc.? I think we'd have different outcomes.

[Hibush]

Should the faculty denounce the administrators who want to retain students whom the school is not designed to teach?

The median faculty member will encourage administrators in retaining students s/he doesn't want to teach if not retaining them puts the institution at risk of its existence and s/he has no alternatives. Academics, being more risk averse than the general population, will encourage administrators on this issue.

Is this going to be most prevalent at a school with relatively low selectivity/yield/first-year retention?  That is, one where existence is something the faculty think about.

[dismalist]

Should the faculty denounce the administrators who want to retain students whom the school is not designed to teach?

The median faculty member will encourage administrators in retaining students s/he doesn't want to teach if not retaining them puts the institution at risk of its existence and s/he has no alternatives. Academics, being more risk averse than the general population, will encourage administrators on this issue.

Is this going to be most prevalent at a school with relatively low selectivity/yield/first-year retention?  That is, one where existence is something the faculty think about.

Absolutely.

[mahagonny]

Should the faculty denounce the administrators who want to retain students whom the school is not designed to teach?

The median faculty member will encourage administrators in retaining students s/he doesn't want to teach if not retaining them puts the institution at risk of its existence and s/he has no alternatives. Academics, being more risk averse than the general population, will encourage administrators on this issue.

Is this going to be most prevalent at a school with relatively low selectivity/yield/first-year retention?  That is, one where existence is something the faculty think about.

Absolutely.

From my casual observation, this conversation could have happened fifteen, twenty years ago and has already been proven true.

[mahagonny]

I too am interested in the psychological state of those who are finding that virtue requires self-loathing. Back in the olden days, we used to denounce the bad actors who most opposed our ideal. Recently, my fellow lefties have instead been denouncing allies who are a tiny step less lefty. But the new twist is to denounce your own group. The first transition leads to group disorganization and group disempowerment while retaining individual righteousness. The second one must have deeper effects at the individual level.

Here are some data. Young democrats are depressed. Back when I needed therapy, the man explained to me that you can assess someone's mental health and general affect (assuming they are not psychotic) by three measures: what they believe about themselves, their world, and the future.  If one buys into the current social activism narrative, the world is hopelessly bigoted, greedy, exploitative, mendacious about its history; each of us who is not a POC is complicit; there is a desperate plan to do something about the problem but it will require constant painstaking effort and no one knows when or if it will bear fruit. So that narrative scores a bullseye on a minimum of two of the three fronts and for the majority, all three.
And I still say, rightly or wrongly, the ubiquitous DEI staff, strutting around like peacocks, are making white men sad.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/patriotism-unity/the-existential-sadness-of-young-democrats

ETA:

I've long admired the right's ability to stand together and put aside differences in their goal of crushing the poor.

The right are clearly abject failures. The poor have never had it so good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o247x_ig7Bc

But someone else has more, and that's immoral!

[Wahoo Redux]

The Washington Examiner is hardly an objective resource, M.

Where are you on extending your own therapy?