By
Compared to the rates of its benchmark institutions, U of L’s graduation and retention rates are troublingly low. New buildings are being constructed and new programs inaugurated, and our sports teams continue to perform well on the national stage. However, this investment and the resulting accolades won’t matter much if the university fails at its most basic task: educating and granting degrees to students.
The administration is currently implementing new initiatives to address the causes of this problem. But what are they? Janet Spence, director of University Advising Practice at U of L, says, “Vincent Tinto explains that the factors in students dropping or stopping out include academic difficulty, adjustment problems, lack of clear academic and career goals, uncertainty, lack of commitment, poor integration with the college community, incongruence and isolation.”
Poor retention and graduation rates might be the nature of the beast as far as U of L is concerned. Commuter students function, by definition, in relative isolation and with a considerably lower degree of integration into the college community than do their resident counterparts. Of the tens of thousands of U of L students, only 2,200 currently live on campus. Excluding those who reside with their parents, the rest live in houses or apartments that, in addition to their remote location, must be paid for.
Moreover, while we don’t imagine any students will soon lobby for a tuition increase, the relatively low cost of in-state tuition provides little incentive to graduate in a hurry. Although low tuition should certainly be considered a good thing – affordable tuition means greater access to higher education, and that is the purpose of federally funded universities – the result might be a lower graduation rate.
And so, while many students can dodge the bullet on tuition through loans, scholarships and the generosity of their families, the university must still inspire urgency in its students to finish school in due time while financial and personal obligations seek to delay them. Working students tend to have drastically different priorities than non-working students.
The university’s proposed solutions demonstrate, at least, that the administration is aware of and concerned with the problem. While an argument might be made that many of the initiatives, like campus beautification, have more to do with enrollment than retention, they are certainly positive steps. Additionally, advising, tutoring and mentoring services, while important, place undue emphasis on academic duress as it relates to the dropout rate. Most students who leave U of L do so for personal reasons (financial trouble, illnesses, etc.) rather than academic reasons.
Unfortunately, there are no quick fixes for these hard-working students’ problems. Ideally, a greater number of scholarships geared toward low- and middle-income applicants that include generous housing and living stipends might help narrow students’ focus to the task at hand. In general, affordable and readily available on-campus housing options are another way to create a college community that is more devoted to the school itself.
Most importantly, we should offer working students encouragement to complete their schooling by recognizing the challenges of going to college and supporting oneself.
For the time being, a graduation rate that is low in comparison to other institutions might just be the price we pay for a diverse, inclusive university.
