Christmas may be a time of good cheer, but for a significant number of first-year college students, it's make-up-your-mind time: to drop out or to stay on at third level and try to continue the studies? Over the coming weeks, some difficult decisions are going to be made by hard-pressed young people. Telling your folks that you're dropping out of college doesn't make for much of a happy Christmas. Recently published research undertaken on behalf of the Points Commission shows a non-completion rate of about 9 per cent in universities and about 33 per cent in the IT sector. It's clear, too, from a report of a study of first-year students in three ITs - Carlow, Dundalk and Tralee - that parents, schools, colleges and the Department of Education and Science all have roles to play in improving third-level retention rates.
Traditionally, third-level institutions have been reluctant to reveal pass and failure rates among their students - or even to mention drop-out rates. (The term drop-out is frowned upon in third-level circles. The more positive terms - retention or completion rates - are more politically correct.) It was only when word got out about the large numbers dropping out of college that the issue soared to the top of the third-level agenda - in some institutions at least. In the 1999 Budget, the Minister for Education and Science allocated £1.5 million to improve third-level completion rates. Last summer, the DIT and the ITs were singled out for special attention. The Minister stipulated that these institutions must spend some of the £18 per student increase in the non-tuition charges (from £260 to £278) on measures to deal with non-completion.
However, at a recent colloquium on improving the completion rates in higher education, organised by the National Centre for Guidance in Education, concerns were expressed about the differences in drop-out rates between the universities and ITs. "There's an impression that university drop-out rates are higher than indicated," comments John McCarthy, director of the National Centre for Guidance in Education. "It appears that the ways used to measure student non-completion vary. There's a need for more transparency and clarity."
Ed Riordan, CIT's assistant registrar, agrees. "We need a unified system of counting and agreed definitions." The big question exercising the minds of educators is: why do students drop out? No single factor explains the non-completion rates, says the study carried out in three ITs by Anne Carpenter, Dr Kathleen Lynch and Margaret Healy. This study finds a non-completion rate of 37 per cent across the three colleges.
"A range of academic, social, personal, financial and institution-specific variables seem to contribute to early leaving and/or failure. The principal social and personal factors associated with non-completion were low grades in the Leaving Certificate examination; unclear career aspirations; lack of information and guidance on course and career options; unsuitable course choices; difficulties with some or all of the subjects taken; and financial and work-related problems." Some of the problems are due to the institutions themselves: lack of sufficient facilities and support services to meet course requirements and poor communications between staff and students are cited as the main contributing factors to non-completion.
More than two-fifths of students who failed to complete first year say that their courses were the only ones open to them, given their points ratings. They were more likely than students who had passed their exams to have entered on low average Leaving Cert (100195) points, particularly in maths, and to have experienced difficulties with course demands in first year. "The overall standard of mathematics in the survey population was quite low," the report notes. "Only 8 per cent of first year students had taken higher-level Leaving Cert maths, compared with a national average of 20 per cent in 1996-97." Students who dropped out were also more likely to have encountered financial difficulties in college, to have worked part-time and not to be in receipt of maintenance grants.
Most students surveyed agreed that at school they were ill-prepared for college. Students who failed or dropped out, however, were especially critical of their preparation.
Some 18 per cent of students who left said the decision to attend college was not their own. Many stated that their families had the greatest influence on their career decisions. "Only 12 per cent named school staff as having a significant impact on their course choice."
Almost two-thirds of the students who failed or left had experienced difficulties with some or all of their courses, compared with just under half of those who passed. "This appeared to be related to the fact that a significant number of students were not aware in advance of the precise academic requirements of the course they were undertaking," the report said.
Ian Ross, USI's education officer, points to a 1997 Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs survey of Back to Education Allowance Scheme (BTEA) participants, which showed a non-completion rate of only 12 per cent.
Ross suggests that the lower drop-out rate may be explained by the fact that these students are in receipt of social welfare allowances plus secondary benefits, including rent allowance and third-level maintenance grant.
"A student under the BTEA scheme could therefore be in receipt of more £140 per week (£73.50 plus £21.90 rent allowance plus £47 grant) compared with a `standard' student who receives at most a grant of £47 per week. You can draw your own conclusions from these facts - in comparison with the non-completion rates detailed in the other two studies," he says.
Ross also highlights a study, undertaken among law students at the Southampton Institute, which shows that students studying under the traditional three-term cycle, perform better than students who are semesterised.
He asks: "Could semesterisation be contributing to non-completion?"
