Solving the Issue of Rising College Drop-Out Rates

Over the past few decades, research has suggested that there exists a gap in access to higher education for low-income populations in the United States. The attention this problem has received has pushed many colleges to develop new programs to improve access. Recent data does indeed show an improvement: college enrollment among low-income, minority, and first-generation students rose by a notable 34% between 1960 and 2005 (Oreopoulos 2019, 5). However, this focus on access fails to account for degree completion — in other words, whether entering college actually leads to getting a degree. Of the students that enroll in four-year higher education institutions, 40% fail to complete their degree in six years. Additionally, 66% of students pursuing a two-year associate degree through a community college fail to complete it within three years.

Authors Rachel Dawson, Melissa Kearney and James Sullivan of the National Bureau of Economic Research highlight the benefits of college graduation for students, as well as for society at large. The personal benefits of obtaining a degree — including significant wage increases and the ability to find and retain full-time work — have large economic and social returns to their communities. Notably, these include reductions in rates of income inequality and population mortality (Dawson, Kearney, and Sullivan 2020, 2). Given that such significant social benefits accrue from degree completion, two questions arise: What actions are being taken to reduce dropout rates, and are they successful? Dawson, Kearney, and Sullivan attempt to illuminate the main factors driving drop-out rates and the most effective program designs to get students to a diploma.

The authors classify four main barriers to college completion: under-preparation, high tuition costs, non-academic barriers, and institutional barriers. These factors were gleaned from data collected from two-year community college programs across the United States between 2006 and 2019. Importantly, most students involved in the study are Pell Grant eligible, meaning they are 200-250% below the poverty line.

The first factor discussed, under-preparation, applies to students who lack the academic skills necessary for success in college-level courses and are therefore required to take remedial classes. These classes can be discouraging and time consuming, particularly if they are non-credit bearing. Research suggests notably lower graduation rates among students required to take remedial courses. Approximately 60% of community college students take remedial courses in reading, writing, or math; this student population is 38% less likely to graduate (Bailey 2009; Attewell et al. 2006, 4).

Although money is a factor in college completion, the authors did not find strong evidence that high tuition costs play a statistically significant role in college non-completion. This is in large part because the students in this study are Pell Grant recipients and, as such, do not have high out-of-pocket education costs. However, it is noted that “[l]ow-income families live on the brink of crisis,” and are more likely to leave school because opportunity costs present non-academic barriers (Barr and Blank 2009). When an unforeseen expense arises, students may need to return to the workforce in order to pay for it. This narrow margin for financial need can also extend beyond money to health and time management issues.

Finally, there are institutional barriers that stem from the size and homogeneity of higher education institutions. The Community College Research Center found that minority, low-income students have a significantly higher rate of non-completion, particularly in large institutions (Bailey et al. 2005, 7). The issues that minority students face with under-preparation, tuition costs, and non-academic barriers are amplified in large university settings, where there is less guidance. Large institutions with fewer minority students tend to have less robust support systems because there is less need and thus no financial priority (Bailey et al. 2005, 7). This conclusion, the authors comment, is consistent with the notion that the larger an institution, the more difficult it is for minority students to maneuver (Dawson, Kearney, and Sullivan 2020, 5).

In light of the degree completion crisis, new emphasis has been placed on finding programmatic solutions that supply personalized structure and guidance. Dawson, Kearney, and Sullivan analyze the efficacy of eight nonprofits committed to providing these services. These organizations, located in both urban and rural communities, were selected specifically because they meet the following criteria: They “explicitly aim to increase college completion rates; offer a comprehensive set of services in the form of multi-year, individualized support that is designed to address multiple barriers to success; have been implemented in the past decade; and have been evaluated through a randomized controlled trial” (Dawson, Kearney, and Sullivan 2020, 9). Although these organizations all provide mentorship, both the method of application and degree of support vary notably.

After analysis of the programs’ outcomes, the researchers conclude that there is evidence of a positive relationship between completion rates and the intensity of the support programs provided (Dawson, Kearney, and Sullivan 2020, 14). Organizations that support students in academics, careers, and financial need for longer than one year have a higher rate of persistence (i.e., continuation of degree) and higher graduation rates. One Million Degrees, which offers comprehensive academic, professional, and financial support to low-income students, saw a 21% increase in participant persistence after one year. ASAP, which has a similar model, recorded an 83% increase in degree completion.

Though encouraging, the identification of successful intervention models is just one step towards solving the degree completion crisis. The next step requires these interventions to be scaled up. Unfortunately, organizations face several obstacles on this front. One of the most prominent is a lack of adequate funding and capital. Dawson, Kearney, and Sullivan note that the college completion niche has an unclear funding path. These programs rely primarily on private philanthropy sources but struggle to maintain consistent donations for scaling needs. The authors also refer to an obstacle they call “fragmented ecosystems.” Combating the completion crisis requires the involvement and collaboration of both colleges and non-profits. However, because of the complexity of and variations in college systems, it is difficult for non-profits to efficiently work with them on scaling.

Dawson, Kearney, and Sullivan conclude their research with an admission: there is much about this degree completion crisis that remains unknown. There are also many new, potentially valuable programs that were not part of this study. But it is clear that a fundamental need for student support exists in this area, particularly since it could potentially be a meaningful way to mitigate larger societal issues, such as income inequality. If support programs were federally funded and uniform within each institution, organizations could avoid issues with scaling, replication, and general efficacy. It is important to remember that the students discussed in this article belong to a population that will in all likelihood be further embedded in the trenches of poverty following the COVID-19 crisis. As we exit this pandemic and face a deep and expanding education gap, it will be imperative for policy makers not just to improve access to education, but also to identify and scale the programs that give students the help they need to succeed.

---

Attewell, Paul, David Lavin, Thurston Domina, and Tania Levey. 2006. “New evidence on college remediation.” The Journal of Higher Education 77(5), 886-924. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2006.11778948.

Bailey, Thomas, Juan Carlos Calcagno, Davis Jenkins, Greg Kienzl, Timothy Leinbach, and Teachers College, Columbia Univ. 2005. “The Effects of Institutional Factors on the Success of Community College Students.” Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED484345.pdf.

Bailey, Thomas. 2009. “Challenge and Opportunity: Rethinking the Role and Function of Developmental Education in Community College.” New Directions for Community Colleges 2009 (145): 11-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.352.

Barr, Michael S., and Rebecca M. Blank. 2009. “Insufficient Funds: Savings, Assets, Credit, and Banking Among Low-income Households.” New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Dawson, Rachel Fulcher, Melissa S. Kearney, and James X. Sullivan. 2020. “Comprehensive Approaches to Increasing Student Completion in Higher Education: A Survey of the Landscape.” NBER Working Paper 28046. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28046.

Oreopoulos, Philip. 2019. “What limits college success? A review and further analysis of Holzer and Baum’s ‘Making College Work’.” IZA Policy Paper No. 150. http://ftp.iza.org/pp150.pdf.