Running Head: STATEMENT PAPER

Statement Paper
Seth L Wright
Northern Arizona University

STATEMENT PAPER

Introduction

Student attrition is the most significant challenge facing higher education today, and one
with tremendous financial consequences: colleges and universities lose nearly $16.5 billion in
annual revenue due to student attrition (Raisman, 2013). At four-year colleges in the United
States, two billion dollars annually in government grants and subsidies are spent on first-year
undergraduates who will not return for a second year (American Institutes for Research, n.d.).
Students who drop out are also more likely to default on their student loans, negatively affecting
the U. S. economy.

The economic effects of student attrition are compounded by one of the highest dropout
rates in the developed world (Weissmann, 2012). Only 60% of students at 4-year colleges
graduate within six years, and only 25% of students at 2-year colleges graduate within three
years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). Unfortunately, student attrition is a
tenacious problem; completion rates have stalled in the U.S. for decades, despite extensive
research on the causes of attrition (Bowler, 2009).

Causes of Attrition

A large body of work exists on the causes of attrition in higher education. While there
have been a limited number of theoretical frameworks proposed to explain attrition, many
individual factors have been identified. These causes can be grouped into three general
categories: individual, social, and institutional (Jensen, 2011; Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda,
1993).

STATEMENT PAPER

Individual causes of attrition refer to characteristics of the student or their environment

that are specific to the individual and exist prior to their enrollment in college. These include
both ascribed characteristics such as race and gender (Demetriou & Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011), as
well as achieved characteristics such as GPA and study skills (Campbell & Mislevy, 2012).
Individual causes also include the students outside obligations, such as work and family. In
addition to financial support, a transition to hybrid or online classes can help address attrition
caused by these external demands (Gould, 2003; Lloyd-Smith, 2010).

Social causes of attrition involve a lack of interaction and support between the student
and others. Referred to as social capital (Bourdieu, 1986), connections with family, friends,
fellow students, and university employees can provide the student with both material and nonmaterial benefits. Of these non-material benefits, a sense of belonging has been identified as a
key driver of student retention (OKeeffe, 2013). In addition to more direct interventions such as
mentor relationships between students and faculty, social media can also produce meaningful
and useful social connections that facilitate a sense of belonging (Gray, Vitak, Easton, & Ellison,
2013).

Finally, institutional factors describe characteristics of the college or university that

facilitate a students academic engagement (Jensen, 2011). These can be tangible characteristics
(e.g. class size), or more intangible characteristics of the institutional culture (McPherson, 2016).
Often, institutional factors interact with both individual and social factors to influence a students
intent to persist. For example, a university may cultivate a culture that emphasizes studentteacher interaction, positively affecting the students academic engagement as well as their social
capital.

STATEMENT PAPER

While individual, social, and institutional factors all affect student retention, the relative
importance of each of these factors depend on the specific characteristics of the institution and
student body (Tinto, 1987). Before implementing programs designed to address student attrition,
the institution should engage in internal research to determine the primary drivers of attrition at
their specific college or university (Mertes & Jankoviak, 2016). For institutions where social
factors are a significant cause of attrition, a proposal to facilitate social connections and support
is described below.

Proposal

Comprehensive mentoring can address many of the causes of attrition (Maher &
Macallister, 2013). However, with the ever-increasing cost of tuition, funds for intensive student
services are generally unavailable. I propose utilizing the students themselves: by
institutionalizing a peer mentor system, students can receive guidance that will mitigate the
causes of attrition while requiring only a small support staff.

Each semester, students enrolled at least half-time will be required to register for a 1credit mentorship course. Freshmen and juniors will be randomly paired; at the end of a
students freshman and junior years, a short preference survey will be administered to guide
pairing of sophomores and seniors the next semester. The preferences and declared (or probable)
major of the sophomore student will be more heavily weighted in the pairing process, to ensure
that mentees obtain the guidance needed. Every week, student pairs will meet to discuss a
predetermined topic (e.g. time management, course scheduling) and any other issues the
freshman or sophomore brings up. While student pairs will be encouraged to meet more
frequently, evidence of weekly meetings and peer evaluations will provide the basis for

STATEMENT PAPER

determining whether the student receives credit for the 1-credit course. In order to provide
mentors with the knowledge and skills they need to support their peer, mentoring workshops will
be available to juniors and seniors at the beginning of each semester. These will include
information provided by representatives of student affairs and advising, as well as training in
mentorship. If funds are available, special social events can also be arranged to encourage
interaction between mentors and mentees outside of their weekly meetings.

While peer mentor programs have been used to selectively target high-risk students
(Good, Halpin, & Halpin, 2000; Shotton, Oosahwe, & Cintrn, 2007), I propose elevating
mentorship to a primary value of the institution, and working to incorporate this value into the
entire campus culture. The main challenge of this proposal is convincing faculty and staff to
support the initiative. In addition to leading by example, staff and faculty are critical elements of
student support, and their buy-in is crucial for the success of any initiative. Previous research by
Sanchez, Bauer, and Parontos (2006) finds increased student satisfaction with peer-mentorship,
but fails to find significant effects on graduation behavior. However, in their experiment, the
authors randomly assigned mentor/mentee pairs. I believe that the more deliberate assignment
proposed for sophomore/senior pairs in my initiative can provide the specific guidance necessary
to help students create and implement a plan for degree completion.

References
American Institutes for Research. (n.d.). Performance scorecard. Retrieved from
http://collegemeasures.org/4-year_colleges/national/scorecard/strategic-measures/
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood
Publishing.

STATEMENT PAPER

Bowler, M. (2009). Dropouts loom large for schools: Community colleges are a bright spot in
this economy, yet they fight to keep students. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved
from http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2009/08/19/dropouts-loom-large-forschools
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations
modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. The Journal of Higher
Education, 64(2), 123-139.
Campbell, C. M. & Mislevy, J. L. (2012). Student perceptions matter: Early signs of
undergraduate student retention/attrition. Journal of College Student Retention, 14(4),
467-493.
Demetriou, C. & Schmitz-Sciborski, A. (2011). Integration, motivation, strengths and optimism:
Retention theories past, present and future. In R. Hayes (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th
National Symposium on Student Retention, 2011, Charleston. (pp. 300-312). Norman,
OK: The University of Oklahoma.
Good, J., Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. (2000). A promising prospect for minority retention: Students
becoming peer mentors. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 375-383.
Gould, T. (2003). Hybrid classes: Maximizing institutional resources and student learning.
Proceedings of the 2003 ASCUE Conference, USA, 54-59.
Gray, R., Vitak, J., Easton, E. W., & Ellison, N. B. (2013). Examining social adjustment to
college in the age of social media: Factors influencing successful transitions and
persistence. Computers & Education, 67(1), 193-207.
Jensen, U. (2011). Factors influencing student retention in higher education. Summary of
Influential factors in degree attainment and persistence to career or further education for
at-risk/high educational need students, by Pacific Policy Research Center. Honolulu, HI:
Kamehameha SchoolsResearch & Evaluation Division.
Lloyd-Smith, L. (2010). Exploring the advantages of blended instruction at community colleges
and technical schools. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 6(2).
Maher, M. & Macallister, H. (2013). Retention and attrition of students in higher education:
Challenges in modern times to what works. Higher Education Studies, 3(2), 62-73.
McPherson, G. R. (2016). Factors affecting student retention at a midsized private university
(Doctoral dissertation, Ashland University). Retrieved from
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ashland1465987353&disposition=attac
hment
Mertes, S. J. & Jankoviak, M. W. (2016). Creating a college-wide retention program: A mixedmethods approach. Community College Enterprise, 22(1), 9-27.

STATEMENT PAPER

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The condition of education. Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/
OKeeffe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student
Journal, 47(4), 605-613.
Raisman, N. A. (2013). The cost of college attrition at four-year colleges & universities: An
analysis of 1669 US institutions. The Educational Policy Institute Policy Perspectives,
February. Retrieved from
http://www.educationalpolicy.org/pdf/1302_PolicyPerspectives.pdf
Sanchez, R. J., Bauer, T. N., & Paronto, M. E. (2006). Peer-mentoring freshmen: Implications
for satisfaction, commitment, and retention to graduation. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 5(1), 25-37.
Shotton, H. J., Oosahwe, E. S. L. & Cintrn, R. (2007). Stories of success: Experiences of
American Indian students in a peer-mentoring retention program. The Review of Higher
Education 31(1), 81-107.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago,
Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Weissmann, J. (2012). Why do so many Americans drop out of college? How America's higher
education system became one big dropout factory. The Atlantic, March 29. Retrieved
from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/why-do-so-many-americansdrop-out-of-college/255226/