These days, higher education folks talk a lot about student success: everyone should have it, not everyone has it right now, and we should be improving and measuring it. Sounds good, right? But, what does student success actually mean? I want to look at it from a couple of perspectives.
Colleges and universities, as well as higher education associations, have championed student success in recent years. There are committees, positions, offices, etc. with student success in the name. There are books and articles, podcasts and webinars, and white papers and conferences to look at the issue. I am going to oversimplify (apologies to those who are deep in this work) what I see from this perspective. From the macro view, it can be boiled down to new undergraduate students (probably first year) returning for their second year and then graduating in four years. None of that is a bad thing, in theory, at the macro level. Institutions want to retain students and get them to the graduation stage because not only is it (usually) the right thing to do, it also makes sense for economic and accountability reasons. For example, the Texas A&M 2020-2025 Strategic Plan has a goal to increase first-year retention to 95% with a stretch goal of 97%, and increase the four-year graduation rate to 65% with a stretch goal of 70%.
One of my philosophical questions is: “Do we adequately and frequently explain to new students what our student success expectations are?” How do we tell students that the university wants to help them be retained and graduate on time? How do faculty and staff members reiterate and support that message throughout the student’s time? Do students see/believe that they could/should be part of the 95% (and 65%)? How are we supporting that goal through systems, structures, and support that make it possible for more students?
My second musing about this is “What are barriers in place that decrease the chances that a student will be retained or graduate on time?” I do think more institutions are looking at the structural issues that could be (somewhat) easily be addressed. Texas A&M and others are looking at everything from classes that have a high failure rate to students who are blocked from registration because they have not paid a fine or fee (e.g., parking ticket, late library book return). Institutions have invested resources in support programs, although not all students take advantage of them (or know about them). Some of these issues take some digging into the data and asking hard questions. For some students who change their major, have a co-op experience, have a major medical issue, etc., they may fall behind from the four-year graduation track. Some of those things are out of the university’s control, while others are not.
Now, let’s look at the issue from the student’s perspective, which is going to be more at the micro level. If you asked 10 students what their definition of student success is, you might get 14 different answers. A couple of years ago, there was a campus survey that asked new students what they wanted to accomplish in their first year to consider it a success. Many students focused on their grades (making a certain GPA, passing, being on the Dean’s List) and getting into a specific major. Many also talked about non-academic experiences: making friends, getting involved, being happy and healthy, managing time, learning, adjusting to college, finding a purpose in life, and not going into debt. Some students recognized their success for just making it into Texas A&M. Because those areas of success are hard to quantify and are very individualistic, it’s hard for an institution like Texas A&M to say they are going to measure first-year student success by students finding their place in the institution with while making good grades. We also know that some students need to take time off to work, bring their grades back up at another institution, address mental or physical health concerns, or attend to family issues. That’s okay, and we can welcome students back when the time is right.
A while back, we surveyed students who graduated in four and a half years what prevented them from graduating in the expected four years. Students indicated a variety of reasons including changing majors/adding a minor, choosing a lighter course load, retaking failed classes, interning/co-oping/student teaching, working and being involved, and more. So, while they did not meet the university’s threshold of graduating in four years, I would still call them successful for making reasonable decisions about their own academic and co-curricular experiences.
So, my current reflection is this: institutions should make every effort to improve upon the metrics surrounding retention and graduation rates. Those are important to the institution and its stakeholders. But, there is room to understand an individual’s definition of success that should not be undervalued because it cannot be easily quantified. We need to acknowledge students’ definition of success and help them achieve those goals even if they do not fall into our institution’s measure of success. Isn’t that part of our mission as educators and student development professionals?