AC Phoenix, March, 1992, Page 19
Statistics Don’t Lie. But...
Place The Blame For College Dropouts Where It Belongs
An Analysis by Patricia
Smith-Deering
Phoenix Managing Editor
Results of a survey listing
"Reasons Why Students Do Not
Return To Universities and
Colleges" have recently come to
light and the list is making its way
through some administrative chan
nels and, at least, one area
historically-Black university.
The reasons are quite revealing
about institutions of higher learn
ing, students and their attitudes.
The danger with the survey data,
however, is how people manipulate
the results for problem-solving a
decision-making. There's an old
expression: "Figures don't like, but
liars know how to figure." The
same can be said about survey
results - statistical data that can be
used to say any number of things,,
particularly when top administrators:
are intent on clouding issues andi
their roles in them. First, let's look,
at the organization of this particular'
survey's results.
The reasons for students not
returning are divided into five
categories: academic, climate
(environmental), financial, per
sonal, and physical facilities. There
is a total of 91 reasons listed
numerically, giving an initial
appearance of a continuing, des
cending order of importance,
regardless of category (i.e.,
academic: #1-28, climate #29-46,
financial #47-60, personal: #61-86,
and physical facilities #87-91.)
Before any analysis can be done
and the usual finger-pointing and
fault-finding can take place, each
category must be renumbered
from one to whatever (rank-
ordered), analyzed separately first,
then compared in terms of relative
importance to and impact on all the
other categories.
With that done, some meaningful,
preliminary analysis is readily
possible. This can be done, despite
lack of specific knowledge of the
sex, ethnicity/race, and previous
academic background of those
surveyed or the ratio of those
surveyed and those responding
versus the total student populations
of the universities. Further analyses
would consider these aspects, as
well as data adjustments for
multiple reasons given by a single
respondent, if any.
• Academic: 31% (28) of the 91
reasons cite academic problems as
the causes for not returning to a
university or college. Topping the
list is "poor grades." The rest of the
top 10 are:
2. Did not have the right courses.
3. Courses were too difficult
4. Courses were too easy.
5. Instruction was poor.
6. Did not receive proper aca
demic advising.
this category are:
2. (62.) Decided to transfer to
another university.
3. (63.) Got married.
4. (64.) Became pregnant.
5. (65.) Want to be nearer home.
6. (66.) Had family respon
sibilities.
A SURVEY ANALYSIS
7. Did not study properly.
8. Was placed on academic pro
bation.
9. Did not have my academic ma
jor.
10. Too much cheating in class.
Reason #28, at the bottom of the
category, is: "Could not understand
the accent of many instructors."
• Climate (Environmental):
20% (18) of the 91 reasons cite the
campus environment as the eause
for not returning. University size
[too small #1 (#29 on the list), too
large #2 ( #30 on the list)] heads
this category. The eight remaining
reasons in the top ten are:
3. (31.) Treated like a child.
4. (32.) Office employees were
not too friendly.
5. (33.) Would prefer a college
with a different racial makeup.
6. (34.) Nothing to do when not
in class.
7. (35.) So many young students
felt out of place.
8. (36.) Lack of dating/social
opportunities.
9. (37.) Prefer a university with
different ratio of men to women (or
women to men).
10. (38.) The activities on-
campus conflict with my religious/-
personal beliefs.
Bringing up the rear as reason
#18 in this categwy (#46 on the list)
is a classic: "There's no place to
park and will not walk."
• Financial: 15% (14) of the 91
reasons cite a lack of or problems
with financial resources. "Topping
this category are: Applied for
financial aid but did not receive it.
#1 (#47 on the list), and "College
costs too much #2 (^8 on the list).
Loss of job (student's, mother's,
father’s) was at the bottom of this
category #14 (#60 on the list.).
• Personal: 29% (26) of the 91
reasons cite a variety of personal
reasons, ranging from #1 (#61 on
the list) in this category - "Was not
interested in college" - to #26 (#86
on the list): "Student is deceased."
The other reasons in the top 10 of
7. (67.) Felt racial/ethnic tension.
8. (68.) Was not ready for
college.
9. (69.) Did not feel comfortable
in an academic setting.
10. (70.) Had a personal illness.
• Physical Facilities: 5% (5)
of the 91 reasons cite problems with
housing, both on- and off- campus.
They are:
1. (87.) Could not locate housing.
2. (88.) Facilities on-campus
were totally inadequate.
3. (89.) Too many roaches in
residence hall.
4. (90.) Could not move on-
campus.
5. (91.) My roommate in off-
campus housing moved out. Could
not ^ford rental.
One of the problems with a
cursory analysis of data is the
conclusion-jumping that takes
place, particularly when top admini
stration wants to place blame, not
find the cause, for issues like low
student enrollment and/or retention.
After all, that affects alumni giving
and fundraising efforts. Take, as an
example, an administrative staff
meeting held by a department
administrator at an area university to
discuss the survey findings. Staff
members were accused of being a
significant cause of the students'
not returning to the campus because
"office employees were not too
friendly." On the survey list, this
reason is #32 out of 91 or #4 out of
18 reasons under the Climate
(Environment) category. If that
category is correctly rank-ordered
by its percentage (20%) among the
five used in the survey, climate
ranks #2, well behind Academic
(31%) and Personal (20%)
categCHies of reasons for students
not returning.
Why, then, would a good admini
strator consider it effective people
management to browbeat his other
employees, placing the cause for
low enrollment specifically at the
feet of those who minister to
students' needs? Who directly
decides which students are qualified
- aca-demically, financially, and
other-wise - to enter and remain at
an institution of higher learning?
Certainly not those in administrative
support positions.]
It is surely comforting for
students to meet a friendly face
when they encounter those who
must register them, help them
through the bureaucratic maze of
financial aid forms and procedures,
safeguard their passage across an
increasingly-violent campus, or
provide medical treatment laced
with a little TLC. But, when you
look at the primary reasons -
academic and personal - for
students not returning to
universities, the demeanor of the
administrative staff, while pro
fessionally important, is tangential
to the real problems reflected in the
survey.
These boil down to two: 1.)
instructors, student advisors, and/or
courses, selected by university
administrators, and 2.) students,
selected by university admini
strators, and student attitudes.
Placing the blame, dispropor
tionately, on those who are doing
the day-to-day work is the typical
"red herring" or "smoke screen." If,
in fact, there is a single employee or
employee group powerful or
obnoxious enough to cause an
exodus of students intent on serious
academic pursuits, the finger still
points to the administrators who are
responsible for hiring, firing, and
maintaining morale. But,
students encounter instructors, their
advisors, their jjeers, and their own
personal problems (or personal
best) much more fitxiuently.
University administration would
do well to investigate the real needs
to be addressed, if there are
problems like dwindling enroll
ment. The survey can be a useful
tool, but only if adequate analyses
and problem-solving, decision
making techniques are employed, as
opposed to inane data manipulation.
Editor's Note: During my 20-
year career at AT&T, I developed
and taught courses on date
collection and techniques of data
analysis to corporate executives,
managers, and employees through
out the corporation, as well as
designing and implementing a
variety of date collection metho
dology.