Not Getting Ahead

High-risk groups in unviersity vs. comm. college

It would be interesting to see a study tracking high-risk groups during their first two years attending university versus their counterparts who attend community college. It would seem that the latter affords, to some extent, a closer connection with faculty and resources. The former, however, offers an upper-hand from beginning... Why? Motivational factors? Why is it easier to “fade out” of comm college when most public universities have a more anonymous environment? In order for community colleges to keep students engaged, they must emphasize interesting lectures and classroom dialogues — and this is intrinsically related to the personality of their faculty members. Another key: Academic counselors should advise students, especially those in high-risk groups, to sign up for at least one “indulge your mind/body” course per term. This might be an artistic class (such as photography, dance, creative writing) or a more text-based class in an area of interest (religion, psychology, foreign language). Many of these courses can be applied to their core curriculum (or serve as an elective), and they can even be vital in determing students’ course of study. Students are likely to excel more in classes that they select based on interest, and their success in such classes will be a positive motivator to keep them enrolled and eager to learn.

RED, at 10:23 am EST on November 14, 2005

Courses need to be designed to meet students’ needs. More and more students are demanding flexibility in where and when they learn. Web-based instruction is a very nice way to meet these needs. Technology can be used effectively to provide students with “lecture” material, personalized from the instructor, that can be viewed at the student’s convenience. Less class time is then required..and can be used for productive, collaborative and interesting learning tasks. Students respond much better than one might think to this new approach to teaching. Once they see that the responsibility for learning is on their shoulders, they typically perform much better.

AM, at 11:48 am EST on November 14, 2005

Actually, I don’t teach community college students or university students. I’m a journalist who falls into the “high-risk” category. I dropped out of high school at 15 and received a GED. Years later I went on to study at a community college and finally transferred to an urban university.

My comments are rooted in my personal experience: The public university I attended was not privileged, and the lifestyle of students there paralleled that of the comm college population. However, there was ostensibly more motivation in the university crowd at all grade levels. Perhaps because we were paying higher tuition. Perhaps because it was a more prominent playing field. Perhaps because we realized we had arrived at our final destination. (People often push harder toward the end of the race. It’s easier to quit at the beginning.)

Sheryl, you mention the trials of “adult students.” The reality is, most students today work and are a major provider of their own economic sustenance. Many have children and spouses; in my experience, those who are married tend to fare better. Teen students can often face a greater struggle to cope with challenges in college. While older students might appear to have more responsibilities, they also have many more years under their belt of learning how to deal with them.

The strategy that helped my classmates and I succeed in comm college was selecting courses based on content and on the caliber of professors. Some of my fondest “aha” moments ocurred as a result of enlightening lectures in comm college, which is why I insist that they continue to provide enthusiastic professors. It counts more in the comm college setting, and your in-class time might be the only time a student spends thinking about this course. (Unfortunately, much core curriculum in universities is taught by overworked and underpaid grad students, which can be a major turn-off to new students, too.)

If I haden’t taken a course of interest each semester to keep me motivated, I’m not sure I would have survived the first couple of years of school. These courses were certainly not extraneous; the hours/areas were necessary to obtain a degree. Students should avoid loading up only on non-optional courses that create the idea that college is boring and difficult. (Some might study hard and get straight C’s because they’re only taking required courses that don’t appeal to them to get them out of the way. This can be very discouraging.)

Another important factor, as evidenced by Sheryl’s comments, is that many students have closer relationships with their professors in comm college. The environment inspires this. The fact she cited various personal situations of her students indicates this... and that fact alone should make a great difference. It’s the people — not just texts and campus resources — who help motivate students to stay in school. Mentors are indispensable.

RED, at 2:01 pm EST on November 14, 2005

“But shouldn’t elementary and secondary schools be doing a good enough job so that certain groups of students aren’t starting college on uneven footing?”

Why is it that we act like all children should progress at the same rate? We know they don’t. Of course some come to college better prepared than others. As long as we have graded elementary and high schools, where the whole class moves together to the next level at a predetermined time, there will be those who are less well prepared, not because the schools are doing a poor job (which is not to say they aren’t — just that this does not prove it) but because children are learn in different ways and at different rates.

Tricia, at 10:05 pm EST on November 14, 2005

Wow!

I am quite pleased to see what has developed here. I teach community college courses, Sheryl, and I have much the same sense of this as you. However, I can also see a great deal in Red’s comments, albeit filtered through the student experience.

Sheryl’s point about a “simple solution” is, I think valid. The fact that Red and Dr. Gump, for instance, can bring such a variety of views and recommendations to this at least suggests that there is no “simple solution” out there.

Sadly, this places in the position of asking a rather difficult question: With no quick fix or one-size-fits-all answer, how do we prioritize? Where do we place our effort (bring in money, if you wish, but I expect that much could be accomplished by a redirection of time and effort before we need to boost budgets)? I know that I wish I had the answer.

Many students resist or don’t trust online education. Others embrace it. Clearly, at least for those courses that can translate online (fear the internet chem lab), we can serve part of the population more effectively, but at what cost?

Who are the students who take and succeed in online courses? Are they high-risk learners? full-time swing-shift workers? dual-income parents who work different shifts than their spouses in order to avoid paying the high costs of child care?

Similarly, how do we identify these students from the word Go? Sometimes they are here and gone before we have enough data. On one campus, we have programs that allow instructors to help identify high-risk students who might benefit by their participation in an intensive year-long course schedule that includes not only academics but regular counseling meetings. Will we miss some students? Sure. Will we catch more before it is too late? Probably.

The greatest problem I have seen with the majority of reform packages is scope. They are either too narrow ("If we just change this one thing, all will be well.") or too broad ("A simple ground-up reworking of the system will, while jarring, cure all of education’s ills."). We need to stop and look at two things: what students are saying and what’s working in various schools. Then, maybe, we will get a few good ideas we can afford.

Andrew Purvis, at 4:36 am EST on November 15, 2005