Retention statistics don’t tell full story

I read the recent article concerning student retention at the Kansas Board of Regents universities (Jan. 19 Eagle). It faithfully reported that after six years, Wichita State University graduated 43 percent of its students, one of the lower rates.

But I found the article to be disappointing and incomplete. The graduation rates reported in the article focus on a group of about 1,200 freshmen and ignored the remainder.

Many people at WSU are concerned about retention and graduation. Returning students generally indicate a high level of satisfaction in their work on the campus. The university is aware of the correlation between retention and lifetime income, so every semester of success helps students down the road.

Early interventions improve retention, permitting students to assess their progress. As retention issues have become better understood, tailored approaches are in evidence across the campus.

From my perspective, having been associated with the WSU in different capacities for more than 50 years, I can assert that it would be hard to find faculty and staff more committed to student success.

Reports on graduation rates that are the basis of the article no doubt are clear to those who have prepared them, but they may lead to inaccurate perceptions for larger audiences.

I point out, as an example, students who attend the university with the clear objective of spending one or two years on the campus and then move on to other institutions in and out of Kansas. These students may have done well, met their goals and left happy. But when they transferred, on the books they are retention casualties.

Here is another example of students not evaluated in the article: There is no retention report to reflect the success of more than 1,700 graduate students who graduated in 2016, though they were the recipients of considerable faculty time and energy. I believe the university would fare well in such a measurement.

There is one factor that reduces the universities retention statistics over the years. It may be a source of unease to some because it involves reaching out to educationally disadvantaged young people.

Many of these individuals have been first-generation students from low-income backgrounds. They could claim no reliable mentors, and few people to encourage them.

Though many of them came from safe and secure families, it was my experience that many more did not. Still, they came to the campus with the hope of a better life.

The university has made a mighty effort on behalf of these students. To me, this reflects a core institutional value – students’ worth is not determined by the odds against them. Even when these students could not overcome their poor preparation, faculty and other counselors helped them look at alternatives.

Retention and graduation statistics do not reveal the real stories of great joy, when success advances a student in the human community.

This story was originally published February 3, 2017 at 5:01 AM with the headline "Retention statistics don’t tell full story."