Dropouts Ii'om

Higher Education:
An Interdisciplinary
Review and Synthesis 1
William G. Spady

The dropout process from higher education is examined

from a variety of operational definitions and ~ntellectual perspectives. A methodological analysis,
critique, and synthesis of the empirical literature
suggest that a more rigorous interdisciplinary approach
must be attempted. A model based on Durkheim's
theory of suicide provides a fruitful vehicle for summarizing a large proportion of current research, and
focusing future attention on the interaction between
student attributes (i.e., dispositions, interests, attitudes,
and skills) and the influences, expectations, and
demands imposed by various sources in the university
environment. Both the academic and social systems of
the university are regarded as important frameworks
from which the dropout process must be examined.
An empirical analysis operationalizing the variables in
the model will be presented in the sequel to this paper.
Le processus d'abandon au niveau des 6tudes
suprrieures est examin6 h la lumirre d'une varirt6 de
drfinitions oprrationnelles et de perspectives intellectuelles. Une analyse mrthodologique, une critique, et
une synth~se de la littrrature exprrimentale sur le sujet
suggrrent qu'une approche interdisciplinaire plus
rigoureuse devrait ~tre appliqure. Un modrle bass sur
la throrie du suicide de Durkheim est proposr, servant
avantageusement a rrsumer une grande partie des
recherches rrcentes et permettant, dans l'avenir,
d'attirer l'attention sur l'interaction entre les attributs
de l'rtudiant (i.e., dispositions, intrr~ts, attitudes, et
habiletrs) et les influences, les attentes, et les demandes
imposres par diverses sources dans le milieu universitaire. Les systrmes acadrmique et social de l'universit6
constituent d'importantes structures darts lesquelles le
processus d'abandon doit &re 6tudi6. Suit une analyse
empirique visant h rendre op6rationelles les variables
du modrle suggrrr.

Since at least six reviews of the literature on college

dropouts have been published within the past decade
(Knoell, 1960, 1966; Marsh, 1966; Sexton, 1965;
Summerskill, 1962; Waller, 1964), yet another treatment of this extensively researched topic would appear
to be superfluous. 2 However, beyond a few comfortable and familiar generalizations about the relationship between attrition and family background, ability,
or academic performance, this literature lacks both

theoretical and empirical coherence. Although each

of these reviewers laments the lack of conceptual
clarity, methodological rigor, complexity of design,
breadth, and analytic sophistication that characterizes
most existing work, their recommendations regarding
new and more thorough research approaches also lack
a definite theoretical basis. Specifically, however, we
feel it necessary to emphasize their belief that future
work must be more eclectic in its intellectual approach
and focus more explicitly on the relationship between
the attributes of students and those of the institutional
environment as they pertain to both its academic and
social subsystems?
The task before us, then, is to move beyond a
mere summary of available studies of "college success"
toward a more interdisciplinary-based, theoretical
synthesis of the most methodologically satisfactory findings and conceptually fruitful approaches to this problem. Although no one theoretical model can hope to
account for most (let alone all) of the variance in
dropout rates either within or across institutions, we
suggest how a variety of currently distinct approaches
may be combined within the framework of a single
design in order to treat several clusters of relevant
variables simultaneously. In the sequel to the present
paper, we shall aim for further empirical clarification
of these relationships by applying the conceptual approaches suggested here to an existing body of longitudinal data.
Before we attempt to deal explicitly with the vast
literature on college dropouts, however, it is necessary
to acknowledge its inseparable relationship with the
equally prodigious and troublesome body of empirical
work on academic performance. This acknowledgement does not imply, of course, that grade performance
is either a necessary or sufficient condition for college
a T h e compilation and synthesis of materials for this paper would
have been impossible without the able assistance of Mrs. Joan
Duchastel and Miss Patricia Erickson. Valuable suggestions were
also provided by Miss R o n d o W o o d and Miss M a r t h a Schmidt.
2 T h e reader should note that an extensive search for recent empirical studies on attrition from higher education in Canada failed to
yield any material. As a result, this discussion relates essentially to
four-year undergraduate colleges and universities in the United
States. Although data from junior college studies are mentioned
from time to time, the primary assumptions and focus of this
paper are based on institutions that offer the bachelor's degree.
a This point is also stressed in three reviews of the literature on
college admissions criteria and academic performance by Lavin
(1965), O'Shea (1969), and Stein (1963).

Dropouts from Higher Education:

An Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis

graduation. Rather, it merely helps to bring a wellknown fact into perspective: a large proportion of low
performers become dropouts as the result of institutional grading standards and policies. Hence, students
whose grade-point average falls below a specified level
may be either advised to leave or dismissed from college; but there is assurance neither that such marginal
performers will all withdraw, nor that high performers
will remain. 4 Even though this relationship is statistically imperfect, many of the factors that distinguish low
from high performers will also differentiate between
dropouts and those who remain. The question that most
researchers fail to ask, however, is whether the variables that account for large differences in performance
also influence attrition with performance levels held
constant. In other words, does a variable such as verbal
aptitude influence persistence in college only because
of its well-documented relationship with academic
achievement, or do dropouts have lower verbal aptitude
regardless of the grades they receive? Unfortunately
the majority of studies cited here do not provide sufficient data to document this crucial distinction. Instead
they tend merely to explore a number of zero-order
"correlates" (independent variables) without either
examining the relationships among them or testing for
spuriousness.
In her first review, Knoell (1960) separated this
type of research into four categories: census studies,
which attempt to document the magnitude of attrition,
transfer, and retention rates either within or across institutions; autopsy studies, which seek self-reported
reasons for students leaving school; case studies, which
generally involve long-term follow-ups of students initially regarded as potential risks at the time of admis4 In a national sample of students who attended college during the
early fifties, Iffert (1958) fround that 61% left their first school.
However, if only students who finished in the top fifth of their
high school class had been admitted to college in the first place,
the dropout rate would have decreased only to 44%. Albers (1965)
found, for example, that after two years, 43% of the 6400 students
at six Colorado state-supported colleges failed to return to their
original school. Of these nearly 3000 "dropouts," 44% had earned
at least a C average or better while in college. According to
Summerskill (1962), academic failure in the initial year is usually
disastrous, yet less than half of those who leave actually "flunk
out." Dressel (1943) showed, however, that not all poor performers
leave either. Of 181 Michigan State students advised by a special
committee to withdraw because of poor grades, 84% ignored the
advice. Over a period of time 144 of these students received a
total of 714 warnings or notices from the committee concerning
their performance. In addition, less than a third would accept a
reduced course load as recommended, and only 21 eventually
graduated.

65

sion; and prediction studies, which utilize a range of

admissions variables to generate prediction equations
for a variety of college "success" measures. Marsh
(1966) described the literature in different terms:
philosophical and theoretical studies, which usually
include recommendations for action on the assumption
that dropouts should be prevented; descriptive studies,
which describe the characteristics of dropouts, how
they live as students, and the reasons they give for leaving; and predictive studies (similar to the fourth type
described by Knoell).
The absence of a category that might be called
analytical-explanatory (with a focus on isolating underlying explanatory mechanisms) is, of course, unfortunate and glaring. But before we can turn our
attention to the development of such an approach, we
must deal with the important and interrelated issues of
definition and measurement of attrition and summarize
the major findings currently available.
Definition and Measurement o[ College Attrition:
Their Methodological Symptoms

Two operational definitions of the college dropout are

generally accepted, but the assumptions and research
approaches appropriate to each are definitely distinct:
Definition 1 includes anyone leaving a college at which
he is registered, and Definition 2 refers only to those
who never receive a degree from any college. The
former and most traditional of these two definitions is
appropriately geared primarily to the concerns and
policies of specific institutions, although scholars with
a system-wide orientation find it narrow and misleading. Essentially this definition regards any student who
leaves his institution of initial matriculation as a dropout. It is certainly an important criterion for admissions
officers, institutional planners, guidance and counseling personnel, social scientists, and others concerned
with student morale, institutional commitment, and
with the prediction, explanation, or prevention of student turnover. Because college registration information
is updated on a regular basis and usually available on
relatively short notice, Definition 1 is methodologically
much easier to handle and more reliable than Definition
2. It is also the operational definition that we emphasize
in developing our theoretical model later in the paper.
However, since research on social stratification, educational mobility, and human resources requires information on entire educational careers, this definition is
inadequate and inappropriate for those purposes.

66

For example, Iffert (1958) drew a national sample

of 12,667 students from 149 institutions in an attempt
to document the magnitude of attrition from higher
education in the United States and to specify the background, residential, and academic factors that differentiated dropouts from persisters. His criterion was
Definition 1 modified to include all students who failed
to receive a bachelor's degree within eight consecutive
semesters of first matriculation. Although only 40%
of his sample managed to graduate from their original
college within four years, he estimated that 60% do
eventually receive degrees somewhere.
Despite its several virtues, the limitations of this
modified operational definition are fairly obvious. First
of all, it fails to account for students who transfer to
other schools but complete a degree program "on
time"; and second, it overlooks students who may eventuaUy receive a degree from either a transfer college
or their home institution after an absence or delay of
one semester or more. Although KnoelI (1960, 1966)
and Ecldand (1964a) have been among the most outspoken critics of this purely institutional approach,
work by Albers (1965), Bayer (1968), Bemis (1962),
Du Bois (1965), Faunce (1966), Fox (1967), Panes
and Astin (1968), Pervin (1966), Sewell and Shah
(1967, 1968), and Trent and Medsker (1968) also
takes at least one of these two factors explicitly into
account. Essentially, then, there must be logical consistency between the use of a given operational definition and the inferences and conclusions that can be
drawn from its use. In addition, Bemis (1962), Extence (1965), Kamens (1968), Kubie (1966), Little
(1959), McCammon (1965), Pervin (1966), Robinson (1967), Rose (1965), Rose and Elton (1966), and
Vaughan (1968) all argue that distinctions must also
be made between students who are forcibly dismissed
from college for academic or disciplinary reasons
and those who voluntarily withdraw, s Hence, prediction equations for college grades can be applied directly
to retention only as long as the issue at hand is the
likelihood of failure and dismissal. Even though Bloom
5 When these distinctions are made, the utility of what KnoeU and
Marsh term prediction studies is, of course, immediately subject to
question. We have already noted, for example, that a sizable
proportion of students who leave their original college have both
high admi~iOll8 credentials and adequate college grades. Whether
they leave in order to upgrade their education at a better institution (DonneUy, 1966; Kamens, 1968) or to escape the artificiality
and constraints of college llfe for the freedom and responsibilities
of the "real world" (Kubie, 1966) is not altogether clear.

and Peters (1961) point out that the prediction of

grade performance can be exceptionally accurate when
the necessary data are available, the analysis of withdrawal rather than dismissal certainly requires a more
complex set of variables than those generally used for
strict prediction purposes.
Given the diversity and range of institutions of
higher education in the United States (see Jencks and
Riesman, 1968; Riesman, 1958), mobility between
institutions and availability of alternative colleges certainly play a role in the attrition process. Not only can
the failing student at most colleges do remedial work
or make up necessary credits at some less selective
school, but outstanding performers also may leave their
current schools for the presumably greener pastures
of more highly selective institutions. ~
This mobility, argues Eckland (1964a), plus leaves
of absence are major sources of error in dropout studies
that use Definition 1 to make inferences and draw
conclusions appropriate only to Definition 2. Using a
sample of University of Illinois freshmen that entered
in 1952, he shows that only 29% remained in school
and received a degree within four years. By Iffert's
criteria, the remaining 71% would be regarded as
dropouts. In reality, however, over a period of 10 years
24% of this sample had returned to Illinois and completed a degree, and an additional 5% were still registered and likely to graduate. Sixteen percent graduated
from some other institution, and 11% were registered
but not expected to finish. In short, Definition 1 yields
a dropout rate of 71%, which is over twice as large as
either estimate using Definition 2.
Knoell (1960) also cites evidence from several
long-term studies at other large state universities that
generally supports Eckland's findings: apparently no
more than 35% of the entering freshmen at large state
e These factors are the main thesis of Kamens' (1968) investigation
of the students at 99 colleges and universities: i.e., controlling for
college performance, the dropout rates at smaller and less selective
schools should be higher because such schools typically lack the
"resources" necessary to retain their student bodies. A goodly
proportion of these "dropouts" will apparently become transfers at
"better" institutions.
Although Nelson (1966) was unable to apply the controls
necessary for duplicating Kamens' study, he found that a whole
series of characteristics differentiated colleges with high freshman
attrition rates from those with fewer losses. On the whole, the
institutions who lose the most students are (in order of importance): public, inexpensive, low on estheticism and artistic orientations, less selective,
predominately female, nonselective,
noncompetitive, lacking in special areas of strength, and high on
student-faculty ratios.

Dropouts from Higher Education:

A n Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis

institutions manage to graduate within a four-year

period, although the eventual completion rate is much
higher. Findings by Trent and Medsker (1968) based
on a quasi-national sample of 10,000 high school students graduating in 19597 suggest that these rates
might have increased slightly in the intervening decade
since Knoell's first review. Although only 27% of the
students who entered four-year public colleges in the
fall of 1959 managed to graduate in four years,
the completion rate for entrants of public universities
was 36%, with an additional 30% still registered and
working on a degree. In addition, 47% of the students
at private liberal arts colleges finished "on time," compared with 55% of those who entered private universities, s
The Panos and Astin (1968) data suggest instead
that a considerable upswing in completion rates may
have taken place during the post-Sputnik years. They
show that within an American Council on Education
national sample of 127,212 freshmen at 248 four-year
colleges in 1961, 65% of the respondents to a followup questionnaire had already received at least four
years of schooling by 1965. Since their criterion does
not differentiate between graduates and others still in
attendance, it is impossible to estimate with much accuracy the actual proportion of degree holders in this
group. However, it may be over 50% since 56% remained in continual attendance at their original schools
for four straight years. Nonetheless, this rate is at least
13% higher than the Trent and Medsker completion
rates for students in four-year colleges during roughly
the same period. However, it is 10% less than figures
presented by Bayer (1968). This anomaly may be due
in part to the fact that Bayer's data were obtained five
rather than four years after initial college entrance.
Based on responses from a follow-up study of 100,000
high school graduates in 1960 who participated in Project Talent, he concluded that 60.5% of all college
entrants had received a degree, 17.9% had not finished
but were still enrolled, and 21.6% had withdrawn
without graduating.

"t Their sample is drawn from 16 communities of different kinds

across the country. The communities were not, however, selected
on the basis of strict probability sampling procedures.
8 Presumably the m o r e selective the institution, the greater the
chance its students have of completing a degree program within a
four-year period.

67

Sewell and Shah (1967), on the other hand, find

that only 48% of the college entrants in their one-third
sample of all 1957 Wisconsin high school graduates
had actually received a bachelor's degree within a
seven-year period. Yet Robinson (1967) found that
about 50% of the University of Illinois freshman class
of 1962 had received degrees after four consecutive
years.
Reconciling the differences in these studies is difficult, however, even when time span and chronology are
taken into account. For example, even if all of Trent
and Medsker's 24% still working on degrees after four
years finished during the fifth year after high school
graduation, their five-year graduation total would be
only 52%, i.e., over 8% less than Bayer's. In addition,
about half of their 48% dropouts would have had to
return to college and continue working on a degree
during that fifth year in order to resemble Bayer's parameters. When their parameters for students who
entered four-year colleges are compared with Panos
and Astin's figures, similar discrepancies result: only
37% of the Trent and Medsker entrants graduated
within four years, although another 25% were still
registered and working on a degree. A conservative
estimate of the Panos and Astin four-year graduation
rate is 50%.
One explanation for these discrepancies is that the
Trent and Medsker sample contains a less selective
cohort than either the Project Talent or American
Council on Education sample; therefore, because of
their poorer college qualifications the former are less
able to survive four years of college. Since population
parameters presented by Trent and Medsker indicate
that, if anything, their sample is biased toward the
high end of the SES and intelligence distributions, this
explanation does not seem adequate. However, the
other logical alternative--selective response rates--is
a definite possibility since data extrapolated from these
as well as other longitudinal studies all suggest that
either more successful, or higher status, or higher
ability respondents are more likely to cooperate in
follow-up inquiries than are individuals who in some
way might be regarded as educational or social failures
(see Kubie, 1966).9
Essentially both Bayer's and Panos and Astin's
parameters are estimated on the basis of returns received, even though their longitudinal respondents
comprise only a fraction of the original samples. The
latter's respondents are acknowledged to have had

68

either higher educational aspirations, better high school

grade averages, or better educated fathers than their
nonrespondents, while 55% of Bayer's returns came
from students who had been to college even though less
than 45 % of the nationwide cohort during that period
had attended (see Cooper, 1960). Even Trent and
Medsker found that not only were college students
overrepresented in their longitudinal sample, but the
proportion of respondents also increased consistently
with the amount of college that they had earned. Their
attendance figures are more likely to be accurate than
those just reported, however, because of an elaborate
series of follow-ups and checks against both high
school and college records. The results of these followups, rather than the estimates from questionnaire
returns, were used in establishing their attendance
parameters. Sewell and Shah's thorough follow-up procedures may also be associated with lower reported
completion rates for the same reason.
A final suggestion that selective response rates may
account for an inadvertent overestimation of success
rates comes from Pervin (1966). In a longitudinal
study of former Princeton students, he received followup responses from 77% of those who had graduated
but from only 57% of those who had dropped out.
Had he estimated his completion rates on the basis of
these returns, he would have underestimated the dropout rate by at least 10%.
The conclusion to be drawn from this exercise in
extrapolation and inference may not in the long run
seem worth the effort expended, but several important
points now seem clearer than before. Essentially, each
of the various definitions of dropping out has both its
benefits and costs. Definition 1 is methodologically convenient, but it fails to provide a broad enough perspective on the actual rates of retention and attrition
pertinent to the system of higher education as a whole.
Definition 2, however, requires the mobilization of
immense data gathering and follow-up resources, which
are further complicated by the elements of time, inter-

0 In a longitudinal study by this author (Spady, 1970), for example,

careful searches through school guidance records indicated that
none of the 15% nonrespondents to a follow-up questionnaire
(mailed to theft latest known address four years after high school
graduation) h a d ever requested that his high school transcript be
sent to a college. U n d e r normal procedures, admission is impossible
without a grade transcript. Hence, n o n e of these nourespondents
h a d ever gone to college, even though 61% of the entire sample
had.

institutional mobility, and the social stigma associated

with the failure to persevere academically,t0 Elaborate
safeguards must be taken before data obtained from
partial samples can be used to estimate population
parameters.It

Background Variables: Parents, Potential,

and Past Performance
Although the socioeconomic and academic background
of college students are known to influence their overall
chances of graduating, L~ the independent influences of
these factors on leaving a particular institution are less
well documented. Nor are the results of the apparent
democratization of American higher education really
clear; i.e., will the increased admission of more students
from non-middle-class backgrounds mitigate or rein-

10 This stigma is precisely one of the main factors that make what
Knoell calls "autopsy studies" methodologically suspect. Slocum
(1956) questions their validity because students are apt to explain
failure to remain in college by m e a n s of socially "acceptable"
reasons or mere rationalizations, rather than revealing their true
feelings. Knoell (1966) cites evidence from Lins and Pitt (1953)
to show that students downplay their true academic difficulties
and inflate their financial problems. She also questions the merits
of using these techniques with students whose basis for leaving
is simply academic failure. Panes and Astin (1968), Robinson
(1967), Trent and Medsker (1968), and Yoshino (1958) all
suggest that finances are at best a contributory rather than determining factor in attrition, and Fox (1967) reports that a large
proportion of dropouts from 21 liberal arts colleges cited lack of
finances as a major reason for leaving, yet a considerable proportion hoped to transfer to higher prestige (and presumably more
expensive) schools. In comparing reasons for dropping out derived
from self-administered questionnaire responses with those obtained
in lengthy interviews with counselors, Demos (1968) found that
both m e n and women exaggerated financially based reasons and
underplayed reasons dealing with the difficulty of academic work,
their lack of motivation, and their indecision about a major
field.
i t One reliable although imperfect device for measuring systemwide attrition is the use of official census reports. While having the
obvious disadvantage of large time lags between measurements, census reports do provide estimates of college attrition over several
decades. Data extrapolated from a report made in 1962 (Spady,
1967a) do corufirm an inference m a d e earlier, however; i.e.,
graduation rates for men at least are increasing slowly over time.
Men aged 55 to 64 in 1962 would typically have attended college
during the twenties. Fifty-nine percent of this age cohort who
reached college actually finished, compared with only 50% of the
m e n who attended during the thirties. The Depression years represented the apparent high point in attrition rates over the last
40 years. Roughly 56% of the m e n who entered college in the
forties managed to graduate, compared with nearly 59% for m e n
who attended during the fifties. Since some of these m e n were as
young as 25 when sampled, however, the final graduation rate for
this youngest age group m a y eventually exceed 60%.

Dropouts from Higher Education:

A n Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis

force the selection mechanisms that have operated in

the past? xa It is possible, for example, that the flow of
non-middle-class and lower aptitude students primarily
into junior colleges may actually strengthen existing
relationships because of the disproportionately low
graduation rates among junior college entrants.
Large-scale documentation for this trend is presented by this author in an earlier study (Spady,
1967a). These census figures show that family origins
(as meaured by father's education) have had an increasing influence on the completion rates of college
entrants over time, even though graduation rates are
generally improving for men from all social strata. The
greatest exceptions to this rule are the sons of men
who failed to complete grade school. Their chances of
finishing college have remained close to 47% over the
past 30 years. Those particularly likely to complete
their studies during the same period have been the sons
of college-educated men: 67 %.
However, on the basis of their data, Trent and
Medsker (1968) argue that family background probably has its greatest influence on the decision to go to
college rather than on the chance of finishing. According to their interpretation, intelligence rather than
socioeconomic status is the more important factor in
college completion. 14 Although we were unable to control for intelligence, our findings are not inconsistent
with their interpretation: during the past 30 years,
variations in father's education account for 45% differences in the likelihood of high school graduates
actually reaching college, but only 20% differences in
their chances of finishing.
Perhaps the most direct confirmation of this inter-

12 Skeptics who may not be convinced of this conclusion after

reading the evidence presented in the next few pages may wish to
consult other relatively recent work. In addition to the studies
cited in the text, the relationship between various measures of
family socioeconomic status and attrition has also been documented
by Astin (1964), Eckland (I964b), Lembesis (1965), McCammon
(1965), and Wolford (1964). The relationship between academic
factors and attrition is documented further by Bayer (1968),
Goble (1957), Iffert (1958), Kamens (1958), Lembesis (1965),
Lins (1954), Little (1959), Pants and Astin (1968), and Spady
(1967b). For a lengthy review of the literature on academic factors
and college performance, see Lavin (1965).
18 For an extended discussion of this and related questions, see
Jencks and Riesman (1968).
14 This fact remains true even though they (Iffert, 1958; Little,
1959; Sewell & Shah, 1967) all document the relatively high
attrition rates among high-ability students.

69

pretation can be found in the work of Sewell and Shah

(1967, 1968). In their earlier paper, they show that
family status has a major independent influence on
graduation rates controlling for student IQ (about
18 % ). The influence of IQ with status controlled, however, is over twice as large (about 40% ).1~ Men who
fall in the lowest quartile on both variables have only
a 4.4% chance of completing a degree program within
seven years, compared to a 70.6% chance for their
counterparts in the upper quartile of both variables.
Somewhat similar inferences can also be drawn
from the work of Gurin, Newcomb, and Cope (1968).
Using data from a sample of nearly 4400 from the
1962 and 1963 arts and sciences freshmen at the University of Michigan, they compared the characteristics
of dropouts and students still registered in the fall of
1965. A large number of significant zero-order differences for each sex separately were found among the
battery of demographic, attitude, aspiration, activity,
and self-concept measures. From these findings, two
indices were built: (1) Cosmopolitanism (containing
parents' religious affiliation 16 and level of education,
rural-urban background, and size of high school)17 and
(2) Academic Preparation (containing high school
class rank and Scholastic Aptitude Test scores). With
Cosmopolitanism alone controlled, almost all of the
relationships between the remaining independent variables and attrition became nonsignificant or disappeared. Virtually the same process occurred controlling for
Academic Preparation alone. When these two indices
were controlled simultaneously, however, Cosmopolitanism had a slightly greater independent influence on
attrition than did Academic Preparation, particularly
among the men.
The basic implication of their findings is somewhat
contrary to what some researchers might expect to
emerge from a set of variables such as this, for they
suggest that when socioeconomic and attitudinal factors

15These figures were derived using the standardized partialing

technique known as Weighted Net Percentage Differences, developed and first used by Davis (1964).
16 For an analysis of the relationship between religious background
and graduate school plans using national sample of college graduates, see Davis (1964).
17 For a more extensive discussion of the relationship between high
school size and college success, see Sexton (1965). Bayer's (1968)
national sample, however, showed only slight differences between
students from small and large high schools.

70

are considered simultaneously, the advantages thought

to accrue to individuals with particular kinds of attitudes do not exist independently of their family background. It is background experiences, then, that both
lead to and account for the attitudinal differences often
associated with attrition. These experiences are certainly influenced by some of the basic elements that
comprise what is called socioeconomic status, but work
by several authors suggests that other important elements may be involved as well. is
Residential differentiation appears to be such a
variable, since Gurin et al., and Iffert (1958) both show
that students with rural or small-town backgrounds are
less likely to remain at their first school. 19 Eckland
(1964b) also found that students from large central
cities were less likely than others to drop out at any
point during their college career; but if they did leave,
they were also less likely to return and complete a
degree.
A more important factor, however, appears to be
the quality of relationships and central values expressed
within the family. Congdon (1964), for example,
shows that students who were succeeding enjoyed more
casual, accepting, and open relationships with their
parents, while the parents of failing students were disproportionately more demanding and overprotective.
Findings by Jones (1955) and Weigand (1957) also
suggest that poor achievers come from households
characterized by greater tension, more disturbance, and
more stringent parental discipline. In addition, Hood
(1957) reports that dropouts were either less certain
of parents' attitudes about college or more ambivalent
regarding the wisdom of disagreeing openly with their
parents on controversial matters. Graduates, according
to Trent and Ruyle (1965), were more likely than
dropouts to turn to their parents for advice, receive
praise from them, and have parents with an interest in
their college success.

The pattern suggested by these findings, then,

complements the research pertaining to specific socioeconomic attributes of the family. Apparently better
educated, more urbane, and aflfluent parents enjoy more
open, democratic, supportive, and less conflicted relationships with their children. These same qualities,
of course, may also be associated with both high aptitude and outstanding high school performance since
most researchers agree that the latter characteristics
are more typical of students from higher status backgrounds as well.
Since we have already acknowledged the dramatic
impact of academic aptitude on college performance
and attrition while controlling for socioeconomic
status, there is little need to belabor the obvious. Two
less conspicuous sets of findings deserve attention, however. First, Hedley (1968) found that high school
grades and scholastic aptitude did not differentiate between dropouts and persisters at a small liberal arts
college. This finding may be an important example of
the distinction between students who are dismissed on
academic grounds (those with low college potential)
and those who withdraw voluntarily in order to enhance their opportunities at a better school (these more
likely to have high potential). The students who remain, then, would be characterized by moderate but
adequate potential, and the statistical relationship between potential and attrition would be close to zero. -~~
Second, the term "inadequate preparation" is relevant to this discussion because of its various implications. One of its two most common meanings refers to
the poor quality of instruction, facilities, curriculum,
and grading standards at the student's secondary
school; -~1 the other refers to his own lack of exposure
and mastery of the fundamental skills that most college
curricula assume rather than provide. Although the
two are no doubt related, Jellison (1965), McLaughlin
(1966), Summerskill (1962), and Wolford (1964)
all suggest that dropouts have a tendency to attribute

18 Eckland (1964b), Iffert (1958), and Trent and Medsker (1968)

all note, for example, that dropouts come from less affluent
families, but others such as D e m o s (1968), Panos and Astin
(1968), Slocum (1956), and Yoshino (1958), clearly suggest that
a clear lack of financial resources plays only a minor part in
most students' decisions to withdraw.

20 A related but actual reversal between background variables and

attrition is discussed by D u Bois (1965). In his study of education
majors at a relatively unselective state school, those whose fathers
had high occupational status were more likely to leave (including
transfer) than were students with blue collar fathers.

19 For a s u m m a r y of the literature on the relationship between

c o m m u n i t y of residence and college aspirations, see SeweU and
A r m e r (1966). The influence of hometown on the graduate school
aspirations of a national sample of college graduates is discussed
at some length by Davis (1964).

21 Paradoxically, Sexton (1965) notes that, all things being equal

(such as social class and ability), students from public secondary
schools usually outperform private school graduates in college,
even though private schools are generally regarded as offering
superior college preparation.

Dropouts from Higher Education:

An Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis

their academic deficiencies to the quality of preparation

provided by their secondary schools, rather than to
weaknesses in their own ability or motivation to learn.
This tendency for dropouts to find fault first with the
system and only secondarily with themselves is a recurring element in this discussion, z2
The Sex-linked Role of
Educational Goals and Interests

Before pursuing the issue of personal motivation to any

extent, however, we first consider the relationship that
educational aims and interests have with attrition. In
the process we take into account variables such as the
level and intensity of student aspirations and intellectual interests, their clarity and realism, how and
when they were formulated, their substantive differences, their relationship to programs of study, the variability in these patterns by sex, and their translation
into actual study behavior.
We begin by assuming that students who aspire to
finish college will be more likely to graduate than those
with more modest goals. Although this assumption is
documented by several authors, three studies stand out
in terms of their methodological adequacy and unambiguous results. Sewell and Shah (1967) show, for
example, that with family socioeconomic status and
student intelligence simultaneously controlled, educational plans measured during the senior year of high
school had by far the strongest independent influence
on college graduation. Using similar controls, Trent
and Medsker (1968) found that graduation rates were
strongly influenced by the importance that students
attached to being in college. In a study of National
Merit Scholars, Astin (1964) found that dropouts were
less likely than eventual graduates to have plans for
graduate or professional school. In addition, Leathers
(1966) shows that, as freshmen, high-ability students
are fairly accurate in predicting their own persistence
or attrition.
Several other writers have suggested, however, that
lofty goals facilitate graduation only when they are
clear and realistic. Pervin (1966) shows, for example,
that a large proportion of dropouts from Princeton in
the forties left school in order to pursue clear voca20 We have already noted, for example, that in giving reasons for
leaving college, dropouts tend to avoid the stigma of being a
failure. In the face of more objective criteria, however, many of
these explanations seem inadequate.

71

tional goals, but dropouts a generation later were more

likely to be uncertain or ambivalent about their plans.
Abel (1966), on the other hand, found that dropout
rates were highest among students with clear vocational
goals but poor academic records. Their lack of realism,
he argued, made them particularly susceptible to the
consequences of low performance. Knoell (1966) also
argues that in some cases unrealistic goals may have a
more negative influence on persistence than having no
specific goals at all, particularly for those without
strong intrinsic interests.
In addition, findings by Slater (1957) and Weigand
(1957) both suggest that dropouts are more likely to
allow others to make important educational or vocational decisions for them, rather than making their own
decisions based on personal interests and aptitudes.
However, survival for students in a Western teachers'
college, according to Whitmer (1963), was facilitated
rather than impeded by having others make decisions
about college for them. Gurin et al. (1968) also found
that dropouts were more certain of their major field
than others, but the relationship disappeared when
cosmopolitanism was controlled. Unfortunately, the
contradiction in these findings cannot be resolved on
the basis of the data at hand. If we allow, however, that
students who remain certain in their choice of field
while doing only marginal academic work may be less
flexible and open to change, then perhaps dropping out
is characteristic of either excessively docile and dependent (Slater; and Weigand) or unbending and inflexible (Abel; Gurin et al.; and Whitmer) students.
The substance of one's educational and curricular
interests and orientations is also related to attrition,
but the findings available are not consistent. Sarnoff
and Raphael (1955) found, for example, that failing
students typically failed to see their education as a
process involving intellectual growth and self-realization. Instead they were extremely utilitarian. Faunce
(1966) also showed that students with strong practical
and applied orientations were more likely to drop out,
even with ability controlled. Her findings complement
those of Gurin et al. (1968), who show that female
dropouts have lower intellectual and aesthetic interests,
lower introspective and theoretical orientations, and
weaker intellectual reasons for choosing their college.
Bayer (1968) too found that graduates had higher
scores of interest, creativity, and abstract reasoning
measures, but Iffert (1958) found that retention was
highest among students in occupationally oriented

72

fields, possibly because their own vocationalism was

reinforced and supported in these practical academic
contexts, za Summerskitl (1962) noted that having high
vocational goals usually facilitates persistence, but the
reverse may occur in a highly intellectual climate. In
support of the notion of congruity between personal
orientations and curricular emphases, Trent and Medsker (1968) found that persisters were more likely to
value education as a process of gaining knowledge
and appreciating ideas, to be more introspective in their
thinking, and to be in academic rather than applied
fields.24 Hood (1957) also found that persisters had a
stronger orientation toward improving their ability,
while dropouts were typically concerned with developing their personalities.
There is also a growing body of data that suggests
that the nature and strength of college goals and orientations are differentially linked to certain outcomes,
depending on the sex of the student. It is fairly clear,
for example, despite the recent upsurge of feminist
rhetoric, that men face the necessity of establishing a
position in the occupational structure on which their
future income and status will depend. For women, on
the other hand, the decision to pursue a career is less
often dictated by social or economic necessity. As a
result, women are both freer to deal with college as an
intrinsically rewarding experience and face less pressure to finish.
Out of pure "necessity," then, we might expect a
higher proportion of men to finish their degrees and a
higher proportion of women to drop out, even though
women may feel less constrained to attend college in the
first place. 25 The corollary to this hypothesis is that men
are less likely to be voluntary dropouts than are women. The evidence available suggests that these hypotheses are generally correct. The major anomaly is that
women who do graduate are more likely to finish "on
time." Data from Bayer's (1968) national example

23 For a more detailed and well-documented discussion of the

differences in educational and instructional goals across university
departments and their potential consequences for students, see
Gamson (1966, 1967) and Vreeland and Bidwell (1966).
24 Smith (1967) found, however, that congruence between student
interests and curricular choice was associated with satisfaction, but
not with either achievement or attrition.
25 Sewell and Shah (1968) show, for example, that as high school
seniors 37% of the men in their sample planned on college, compared to 30% of the women.

show that after five years 65% of the women have

graduated, 25% are no longer in school, and 10% are
still registered and working on a degree. The men have
somewhat fewer graduates and dropouts (58% and
19% respectively) but considerably more who are still
registered ( 2 3 % ) . The Trent and Medsker (1968)
data reflect similar patterns. After four years, 31% of
the men were still working toward a degree compared
to only 16% of the women (a difference significant at
the .001 level), but 51% of the women were classified
as dropouts compared to 46% of the men. After seven
years the Sewell and Shah (1967) graduation rates
were nearly identical; 50% of the men were finished
compared with 47% of the women. They also show,
however, that aspirations were more closely tied to
actual attainments for the women than for the men. -~6
Apparently women who want to finish are more likely
to do so than are men with similar aspirations.
The more frequent thwarting of male aspirations
is confirmed by several other studies as well. Lembesis
(1965) shows, for example, that among the second,
third, and fourth year dropouts at a Midwestern state
university, a greater proportion of women left voluntarily. Robinson (1967) shows that 68% of the male
dropouts from a large Midwestern university were dismissed compared with only 44% of the women. In
addition, Gurin et al. (1968) show that female dropouts have lower educational aspirations than their
counterparts who remain in school, while the aspiration
levels among the men are virtually the same.
The major inference to be drawn from this entire
set of findings would appear to be that survival in
college is dependent largely on a clear and realistic set
of goals and having interests that are compatible with
the influences and expectations of departmental faculty
and curricula. Men in particular, however, appear to
maintain high expectations despite the academic realities of college life. According to Jellison (1965) and
Sarnoff and Raphael (1955), in fact, dropouts are
typically unable to translate their goals into effective
patterns of study. Although Malloy (1954) finds that
female underachievers apply themselves only in curricular areas of particular interest, Trent and Medsker
(1968) show that time spent studying is more highly
associated with persistence for men than for women.

26 The beta weights in their path models are .55 and .67 for men
and women respectively.

Dropouts from Higher Education:

An Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis

Personality Dispositions: In Search of

the "Mature" Student
Since we have been able to isolate and integrate only a
few general trends in the recent empirical literature,
much of our discussion contains reaffirmations of
established findings and interpretations. If the relationship between grade performance and attrition comes as
no surprise, neither will the ubiquitous conclusion that
dropouts are less "mature" than persisters? r The difficulty, of course, is in isolating the various components
of maturity and examining the literature for more
specific confirmation of this general hypothesis.
From our reading of this immense body of literature, maturity is generally equated with the following
attributes: motivation, independence, flexibility, involvement, impulse control, self-confidence, responsibility, and rationality. For our present purposes, each
of these terms should be viewed in its broadest frame
of reference, allowing for overlap between categories.
In his review of the literature, Summerskill (1962)
isolated motivation as a critical variable in the dropout
process. The difficulty, he argued, was that it had rarely
been operationalized well or partialed out in most
analyses. Since then a number of other studies have reaffirmed his conclusions.-~s Heilbrun (1964), for example, showed that dropouts expressed a lower need
for achievement ( as measured by a revised form of the
Gough Adjective Check List). Daniel's (1963) Southern freshman dropouts had rated themselves as less
persevering and curious at the beginning of the year,
and Stone (1965) found that both persistence and need
for achievement were positively related to remaining in
a Northern state college beyond the first year. Pervin
(1966) also found that poor motivation was a contributing factor in attrition at Princeton, and Demos
(1968) used intensive interviews to find that poor
motivation in the face of difficult academic demands
27 It is important, however, that maturity not be confused with
ability or achievement, even though the latter are usually regarded
as important attributes of the mature individual. Even Astin
(1964) notes, for example, that dropouts in a national sample of
highly talented National Merit Scholars were more immature than
those who remained in college. Pervin (1966) too concludes that
immaturity contributes to the attrition process among highly selected Princeton students.
-~
her review of the literature, Sexton (1965) also regards
motivation as the crucial explanatory variable. Trent and Medsker
(1968) conclude that high interest and motivation are more
important conditions for success than are high ability and financial support.

73

was a major underlying factor behind male attrition,

despite the subjects' tendency to attribute the problem
to other causes.
Robinson (1967), however, combines poor study
habits with other factors in suggesting that dropouts
are more dependent and less able to manage things on
their own than are persisters. In a study done a decade
earlier, Grace (1957) drew the same conclusion. But
the work of Rose and Elton (1966) suggests that the
problem is not so simple. They differentiated a sample
of freshmen into four groups on the basis of two
criteria: how well the student performed academically
during the freshman year, and whether or not he returned for his second year. "Defaulters" are those who
left during the freshman year, and "dropouts" are
those in good academic standing who left after the
first year. Essentially students with low grade performance were lower on the Omnibus Personality Inventory Dependency Scale than those who performed well,
regardless of whether or not they dropped out. In other
words, those who "defaulted" by leaving early were
more independent than those who dropped out at the
end of the year, despite their better grade performance.
The successful persister, then, according to Rose and
Elton, would be characterized as more immature than
the defaulter by virtue of his greater conformity and
dependence. Brown (1960) too finds dropouts to be
less conforming than persisters. 29
Whether conformity, in turn, implies a less rigid
stance toward life is not altogether clear, but in her
earlier work Rose (1965) found that defaulters had
less tolerance for conformity than other students. To
the extent that this intolerance suggests a lack of
adaptability, these findings, in fact, support Summerskill's (1962) conclusion that dropouts are usually less
adaptable.
According to Jones (1955), inflexibility and an
incapacity for variety are typical of students on academic probation, and the work of Stern, Stein, and
Bloom (1956) at the University of Chicago further
bolsters the argument that "stereopaths" (students
with more rigid and inflexible orientations) are more
likely to become dropouts. More recent work by Gurin
et al. (1968) also shows that dropouts are more authoritarian, intolerant, and inflexible.
2a Although some of this apparent contradiction is resolved in
the next section of the text, Lavin (1965) d o e s n o t e that an
element of conformity to achievement demands is definitely a part
of the academic success process.

74

Another aspect of the "maturity-persistence syndrome" that appears in the literature involves the
individual's capacity for decisiveness and involvement.
This phenomenon is, of course, related to motivation,
but it also involves elements of ambivalence, detachment, passivity, and submissiveness. Slater (1957),
for example, argues that indifference toward aspects of
the curriculum is associated with attrition. Brown,
Abeles, and Iscoe (1954) also suggest that indecision
and procrastination are characteristic of dropouts. Using a more psychoanalytic approach, Blaine and MeArthur (1961) showed that dropouts reacted to
Rorschach pictures without feeling and emotional involvement, rather than with either anxiety or unusual
perception. Congdon's (1964) findings also support
their results. He found that failing students were typically reluctant to commit themselves to anything, and
dropouts had strong dispositions toward avoidance.
Patterns of overcompliance or overrebellion toward
parents, he argued, impair the normal functioning of
the student in task-related activities.
Since noninvolvement and impulse control have a
good deal in common, it is perhaps not surprising that
Summerskill (1962) found dropouts at the other extreme of these continua, i.e., more rebellious and nonconformist. Heilbrun (1964) suggests, in fact, that
passivity is not only part of the stereotypic female role,
but is also linked to lower frustration in the classroom
setting. On the whole, the dropouts in his study were
more assertive and had a higher need for change, controlling for both sex and ability. In addition, Astin's
(1964) finding that the dropouts among his National
Merit Scholars were more assertive is paralleled by
Faunce TM(1966) ; her high-ability dropouts also had
more problems with impulse control. Stone (1965) too
found self-control to be a significant factor in retention,
while Gurin et al. (1968) showed that dropouts were
definitely higher on impulse expression. Beyond this,
Hood (1957) and Rose and Elton (1966) both found
that dropouts clearly showed more hostility than persisters.
The necessary empirical synthesis of the findings
related to these two personality dispositions is presented by Vaughan (1968). In an attempt to differentiate between dismissals and voluntary withdrawals, he
found that the former both lacked deep emotional commitments and were more impulsive, overly active, and
restless. In terms of these two factors, then, maturity
implies moderation.

To the clinical psychologist, however, these extremes in behavior might appear to be the symptoms
of a more fundamental problem related to a lack of
self-esteem and self-confidence. Barker (1968), for
example, found that among the men in a sample of
West Virginia high school graduates, college dropouts
who had been academically successful had lower selfconcepts than persisters, particularly those with low
grades. Among the women, dropouts also had lower
self-concepts, irrespective of their grade performance.
Gurin et al. (1968) found that several self-concept
measures were associated with attrition among the men
but not among the women. Early in the freshman year,
subsequent dropouts showed more concern over their
academic and life success, presumed adequacy in marital, heterosexual, and parental roles, and were more
preoccupied with identity seeking. In other words, these
men had conspicuous doubts about their own capacities to perform adequately in the very roles that symbolize masculine maturity.
Alfert (1966) also uses the notion of self-concept
to explain her findings that commuters and students
living in boarding houses or private rooms are more
likely to drop out. Because they have fewer interpersonal ties within the university milieu, they feel like
outsiders and have difficulty clarifying their self-concepts. Since she does not control directly for friendship
ties in her analysis, her interpretation does not rest on
firm empirical support. 30
She argues further, however, that dropout rates in
cooperatives and fraternities are lower partly because
the constituents in these living units develop a sense of
mastery that they derive from exercising responsibility
in the management and maintenance of their houses.
Other research also suggests that persisters may be
more responsible and mature (Brown, 1960; Grace,
1957; and Summerskill, 1962), but the concept of
responsibility is as difficult to define operationally as
maturity is.
Perhaps the most problematic aspect of maturity,
however, is the broad constellation of disposition subsumed here under the term rationality. Chief among its
components, perhaps, are clarity of insight and critical
thinking. Findings by Daniel (1963), Faunce (1966),
and Rose and Elton (1966) all suggest that dropouts
either lack insight and capacities for self-analytic, critiao Her basic findings, however, do provide support for the theoretical model discussed later in this paper.

Dropouts from Higher Education:

An Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis

cal thinking, or reject these processes as important

parts of their personalities.
Another phenomenon that is closely related to
rationality is anxiety, the irrational preoccupation with
imagined fears and threats. According to Sexton
(1965), maturity is a critical aspect of the dropout
process because it represents the ability to control the
irrational anxieties that impede motivation and achievement. Grace (1957), for example, found that dropouts
were more anxious than persisters, while Brown
(1960) showed that among females, dropouts were
generally more depressed than those who continued.
Rose (1965) also finds that "defaulters" (early dropouts) were both more anxious and maladjusted than
persisters on probation, but persisters with high grades
also had higher scores on these two scales. Part of the
problem, suggests Summerskill (1962), is not only
that dropouts are more anxious than others, but failure
may be a way of irrationally acting out other kinds of
problems. This suggestion is extended by Anderson
(1954) who maintains that underachievers have unconsciously negative attitudes that predispose them to
failure? 1 Vaughan (1968) concludes, in fact, that
dropouts tend to deny (refuse to recognize) the possibility that they have any psychological or intellectual
limitations. Their defensiveness takes the form of compensation and projection, a tendency to paint a rosy
picture of themselves despite their shortcomings.
More often than not, then, empirical research depicts dropouts as individuals who lack at least some of
the attributes commonly associated with psychological
maturity. Although these findings suggest that failing
dropouts in particular are low on motivation, independence, flexibility, involvement, impulse control,
self-confidence, responsibility, and rationality, we
should note that falling at either extreme on these dimensions is probably inconsistent with a truly mature
(healthy) personality, a-~ Nonetheless, our results
closely parallel those of Lavin (1965) who, in a comprehensive review of the literature on academic performance, synthesized the findings on 26 different
attributes and behaviors into six underlying dimensions. He found that higher levels of performance were
generally associated with: (1) Social Maturity in the

~1 Pervin, Reik, & Dalrymple (1966), however,suggest a complementary theory: i.e., that some students use academic achievement
as a way of either compensating for a covering up more fundamental insecurities.

75

Student Role (greater social presence, responsibility,

and restraint in social behavior); (2) Emotional Stability (higher morale, stability, and freedom from neurotic orientations toward work) ; (3) Achievement
Motivation Syndrome (higher motivation, activity
level, and endurance); (4) Cognitive Style (greater
curiosity, flexibility, originality, and liking for thinking) ; (5) Achievement via Conformance (greater need
for order, femininity, and conformance); and (6)
Achievement via Independence (lower need for affiliation and peer conformity, greater independence, and
lack of constrictedness).
Later in his discussion, however, Lavin argues that
it is misleading to deal with these attributes in isolation
from the social environment in which the student finds
himself. Standards of competition, the content of
reference group value, and the student's need for
achievement and affiliation all interact to influence the
relationship between his personality dispositions and
his level of performance. We would argue that this set
of factors, plus academic performance must be considered in the same analysis before an adequate, interdisciplinary understanding of the dropout process is
possible. Since interpersonal relationships would play
an integral part in such an explanatory model, we
briefly examine the related literature for examples of
existing trends.

Interpersonal Relationships: Profmae and Pro|ouad

Although the literature on academic failures and the
work on dropouts also have certain parallels with respect to interpersonal contacts, a careful comparison of
the two suggests that they lead to opposite conclusions.
The association between interpersonal relationships
and college grade performance has recently been reviewed by O'Shea (1969). His findings are primarily
one-sided and apparently predicated on a simple fact:
because of the finite amount of study time available
during any one semester, students who wish to establish
a2 In addition, we need to emphasize that these findings represent
trends rather than categorical imperatives. Suczek and Alfert (1966)
show, for example, that withdrawals from Berkeley in good academic standing were generally more intellectually oriented, autonomous, complex, o p e n to ambiguity, and innovative in their thinking
than w e r e persisters. Failing withdrawals, however, were the least
autonomous and intellectually oriented. The former students, then,
are undoubtedly the ones Kubie (1966) had in mind when he
discussed the act of dropping out as representing for some a
refusal to sacrifice their creativity and spirit to the demands of the
system.

76

34 At least indirect evidence for this point is provided by Malloy

(1954). He found that friendship and performance patterns were
mutually reinforcing: underachievers had friends who were underachievers, and overachievers befriended other overachievers.
Whether performance influences choice of friends or friends influence one's performance is not firmly established, however.

ship support, and extracurricular involvement are generally associated with staying in college. There are
exceptions, of course, but in most cases they distinguish
what we have called the "profane" from the "profound." The profane refer primarily to what may be
regarded as patterns of excessive and largely superficial
socializing with casual acquaintances. Either this pattern or its attitudinal counterpart (a narcissistic or
hedonistic orientation toward self and social relationships) is associated with dropping out in studies by
Astin (1964), Trent and Medsker (1968), and Yourglich (1966). The dropouts in Hood's (1957) study
had closer ties with upperclassmen rather than their
own classmates, but the qualitative differences between
the two, if any, are unknown (Wallace, 1966, notwithstanding).
Otherwise, findings by Alfert (1966), Brown
(1960), Hood (1957), Iffert (1958), Newcomb and
Flacks (1964), Pervin (1966), and Spady (1967b)
all suggest that an absence of "profound" relationships
is definitely associated with attrition. By profound we
mean relationships that imply significant meaning or
closeness to the student. In three of these studies
(Brown; Newcomb and Flacks; and Spady) the negative impact on women of having no close friends is
particularly apparent. In three others (Gurin et al.,
1968; Rose, 1965; and Summerskill, 1962) dropouts
were characterized as having either less social adequacy
or lower social orientations. Since neither of these three
studies included an actual friendship measure, we can
only presume that their dropouts had fewer friendships
(by virtue of their lower social skills or interests).
The evidence relating to extracurricular participation is less equivocal, however. Studies by Bemis
(1962), Goble (1957), Koelsche (1956), Stone
(1965), and Wolford (1964) all show that dropouts
were less likely to participate in some form of campus
activity than were persisters. 36 Goble in particular interprets his findings to suggest that participation is a
major link to the social system of the college. Nonparticipants lack the social supports provided by purposeful contact with other students and the rewards
that accrue from group accomplishments.

35 Although upperclassmen had a dramatic impact on the orientations of the freshman in Wallace's sample, work by Dertzin (1966)
suggests that faculty occupy the top "campus-situational" reference
group position for both male and female undergraduates. Friends,
however, were regarded with nearly the same importance as faculty
within the campus frame of reference, and were also the most
significant others within their overall frame of reference.

86In addition, Reed (1965), Sexton (1965), and Spady (1970) all
note that both the amount and kind of involvement in high school
activities have a bearing on college success. On the whole,
persisters are more likely to have participated in "important" activities that demand a good deal of personal endeavor and responsibility.

extensive bonds within the social system of the college

must dip into this time reserve in order to do so. Simply
stated, time spent socializing is usually time lost to
studying, as The result, according to O'Shea's review, is:
14 studies reporting that good social relationships and
good grades are negatively related, 11 studies suggesting that they are essentially unrelated, and only 1 study
showing a positive association. By implication, it would
appear that under most circumstances extensive socializing and exceptional academic performance are seldom combined in the same individual. Instead, as
Lavin (1965), Phillips (1966), Sussmann (1960), and
Wallace (1966) point out, more often than not a strain
is created between the academic and social systems of
the college that leaves the serious student only a small
margin for compromise.
According to theoretical ideas proposed by Lavin
(1965), Nasatir (1969), and Sussmann (1960), however, some of this strain may be reduced if friendship
ties are established with people having strong academic orientations. In this way, academic and social
system influences may coalesce, providing opportunities for both social interaction and mutual assistance. ~4
The major drawback, according to Wallace (1966), is
that in viewing upperclassmen as significant role
models (as is often done), freshmen expose themselves
to the nonacademic group norms that are sometimes
prevalent among older students. The result is a lowering of their own short-run achievement goals, a5
The literature on dropouts, however, reveals that
various measures of interpersonal orientations, friend33 Findings by Andrew (1956) suggest, however, that the problem
may involve more than just time. He found that the number of
hours per week spent working at a job or in classes and laboratories was basically unrelated to grade performance. Students with
fewer hours available for study did just as well as those with more
time to spare. The critical factor, of course, may be how efficiently
those available hours are used.

Dropouts from Higher Education:

An Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis

In the main, then, the findings discussed here suggest that interpersonal relationships facilitate greater
integration of the student into the social system of the
college. To the extent that peer group norms either
emphasize or denigrate academic endeavor, they may
also influence achievement within the academic system,
but this influence is more often implied in theory than
verified empirically.37 It is toward a synthesis of the
variables relevant to both the academic and social systems of the college that we now turn, in the hope of
generating a more adequate theoretical and operational model of the dropout process than we have seen
in the literature to date.
Toward a Sociological Model of the Dropout Process

Since no one theoretical model or research design could

possibly systematize or operationalize the specific relationships among all of the variables mentioned so far
in this discussion, we do not attempt the absurd. We
recommend, however, that with the more advanced
multivariate statistical techniques and standardized
computer programs now available, further a-theoretical, bivariate research on the "correlates" oJ dropping
out should be abandoned. Now! :~s We also incorporate
into our model several variables shown earlier to be
unambiguously associated with dropping out, and a few
others that, in combination, may help to explain attrition as a conditional phenomenon.
Our basic starting point is the assumption that the
dropout process is best explained by an interdisciplinary approach involving an interaction between the
individual student and his particular college environment in which his attributes (i.e., dispositions, interests,
attitudes, and skills) are exposed to influences, expectations, and demands from a variety of sources
(including courses, faculty members, administrators,
and peers)Y 'q The interaction that results provides the
student with the opportunity of assimilating success-

a7 Perhaps, to date, Wallace (1966) has presented the best empirical data of this phenomenon on the undergraduate level.
as Researchers incapable of carrying out some form of multivariate
analysis on their data (in order to at least test for spuriousness
a m o n g their key variables) should contact their alma mater for a
refund of their tuition.
9~'J Brown (1967) describes this process of initial interaction as
resembling a virtual assault on the student's self-image and esteem.
The result can be a frantic search for meaningful sources of support.

77

fully into both the academic and social systems of the

college. 4~To the extent that the rewards available within either system appear insufficient, however, the student may decide to withdraw.41 This decision, we have
argued earlier (Spady, 1967b), may be influenced by
at least two factors relevant in each system.
Within the academic system, grades represent the
most conspicuous form of reward. They are basically
extrinsic and are used as tangible resources in the quasioccupational role-playing of the career-oriented student
in his negotiations for improved opportunities for
success. 42 Intellectual development, however, may be
more important to those oriented toward education as
an integral part of their personal development. Though
more subjective, it represents the intrinsic rewards of
the system. Within the social system, "success" is defined first by having attitudes, interests, and personality
dispositions that are basically compatible with the
attributes and influences of the environment. This condition we call normative congruence. The second important factor is the establishment of close relationships
with others in the system, a condition we call/riendship support. Together these two conditions resemble
the major social components of what Durkheim
(1951), in his treatise on the social nature of suicide,
called social integration.
According to Durkheim, breaking one's ties with
a social system stems from a lack of integration into
the common life of that society. The likelihood of
suicide increases when two kinds of integration are
40 The term "assimilating" is used here in defence to Olsen's (1965)
distinction between "integration" and "assimilation." He argues
that social integration is a property of groups, and social assimilation is a relational property pertaining to individuals within those
groups. Hence, according to his interpretation, a person is assimilated rather than integrated into a group's structure.
41 Munger (1954) points out that early success during the freshm a n year is very important in preventing attrition, particularly
among low-ability students. Williams (1967) argues that there are
four major dimensions of the college environment that influence
this interaction process: its degree of structure, its emphasis on
questioning and inquiry, its non-nurturance and complexity, and
the ability levels of others (competitive standards). W h e n student
behavior and orientations are not reinforced, dropping out results.
42 Evidence presented by Davis (1966) and Munger and Goeckerm a n (1955) suggests, however, that the meaning and perceived
utility of grades m a y vary considerably with the ability of the
student and the quality of the institution. High ability students are
less likely than others to view a passing grade with favor ( M u n g e r
and G o e c k e r m a n ) , whereas grading standards across institutions
force students in selective schools to w o r k harder for the same
marks than students with the same ability in less selective colleges.

78

absent: insufficient moral consciousness (viz. low

normative congruence) and insufficient collective affiliation (viz. low friendship support). Although dropping out is clearly a less drastic form of rejecting social
life than is suicide, we assume that the social conditions
that affect the former parallel those that produce the
latter: a lack of consistent, intimate interaction with
others, holding values and orientations that are dissimilar from those of the general social collectivity, and
lacking a sense of compatibility with the immediate
social system. However, since the student's academic
role has many parallels with his future occupational
role, it would not be inappropriate to extend this
analogy a step farther. Poor performance in one's
occupational role (viz. low grades) and inadequate
identification with the norms of the occupational
group (viz. low intellectual development) are also
plausible additions to this system, since Durkheim
views the occupational role as a critical component of
the integration process.
The elementary Durkheimian model that we propose, then, consists of five independent variables, four
of which influence the fifth, social integration, which in
turn interacts with the other four to influence attrition
(see Spady, 1967b). We would like to suggest further,
however, that the link between social integration and
dropping out is actually indirect. Intervening are at
least two critical variables that flow from the integration process: satisfaction with one's college experiences, and commitment to the social system (i.e.,
college). The addition of these two variables is based
on two assumptions: first, that one's satisfaction with
the college experience will depend on the available
social as well as academic rewards; and second, that
sustaining one's commitment to the college first requires both a sense of integration in the system and a
sufficient number of positive rewards. 43
What this model fails to account for, however, are
the two variables that Gurin et al. (1968) found to be
so important in their research: a comprehensive mea-

43 This discussion also raises an issue that has not yet emerged with
sufficient clarity: commitment to finishing a degree (viz. to the
system of higher education itself) is not synonymous with commitment to a particular institution. Panos and Astin (1968) show that
nearly half of the students in their national sample left their original
college for reasons associated with the quality of its environment.
Yet a considerable proportion of these students apparently found
the environment elsewhere satisfactory enough to remain and finish
a degree.

sure of family and cultural background variables and

a measure of academic potential. Since both potential
and the elements that comprise normative congruence
are influenced by family background, the latter provides the foundation on which the remainder of the
system rests (see Figure 1).
The model as represented both implies a definite
time sequence and depicts the assumed direct causal
connections between pairs of variables. 44 Its most
problematic aspects involve the meaning and operationalization of normative congruence, since so much
is implied in this one component. It represents not
only all of the student goals, orientations, interests, and
personality dispositions discussed earlier, but the consequences of the interaction between these attributes
and various subsystems of the college environment as
well. For example, a student may enter College A with
strong utilitarian achievement orientations, but the college itself may emphasize a humanistic, developmental
undergraduate program. In the most general sense,
then, this student could be considered normatively incongruent.4~ But he might, as Newcomb and Flacks
(1964) emphasize, establish close relationships with
other "deviants" who share his orientations, in which
case subgroup support might be sufficient to override
the more diffuse influences of the general system.46 Or,
as Gamson (1966) and Vreeland and Bidwell (1966)
suggest, he might major in a department whose faculty
members share and reinforce his own orientations. In
any event, we are suggesting that the broad range of
attributes subsumed in this component will have a
44 The solid arrows imply that either previous research or the
theoretical ideas generated from Durkheim's work suggest the
existence of a direct causal link between that pair of variables.
W h e n this model is tested empirically, other direct links m a y also
emerge from the data analysis, of course, but they are not assumed
at this time.
45 Although one might expect incongruent students or potential
dropouts to view the environment differently from other students,
work by Connor (1966) suggests that they do not. The scores of
dropouts and persisters on the College and University Environment
Scales (see Pace, 1964) did not differ appreciably in any systematic
direction.
46 Two things are implied in their results. First, friendships arc
more likely to emerge between students with similar rather than
complementary values and attitudes (balance theory); and second,
students whose values are in a distinct minority are less likely to
drop out if they have close friendships with students similar to
themselves (solidary "deviant" subgroups). For a more explicit
theoretical and empirical treatment of the balance theory model,
see Newcomb (1961).

DropoutsfromHigherEducation:
An InterdisciplinaryReviewand Synthesis

79

Figure1/An ExplanatorySociological Model of the DropoutProcess

ioccisiof

~Grade
[l'erformance~ _

r
Family

v[Dropout

Academic
Potential

4Intel ectual

Background

__ } "lDevel~

TT

~Normative
Congruence~
I

JSocial
"[Integration

~ Friendship
]Support

direct influence not only on the student's friendship

support and social integration, but on his grade performance and intellectual development as well. The
latter two variables will also be directly influenced by
his patterns of interpersonal relations (friendship support) and by his academic potential.
The role of grade performance is also complex and,
therefore, deserves a word of explanation. Unlike the
other connections in the model, the arrow moving
directly from grade performance to dropout decision
should be interpreted as implying an absolute condition
rather than a normal relationship between variables. It
is reserved for those students whose performance is
so low that institutional policy (dismissal) overrides
the theoretical pattern of the model. In other words, a
student doing failing work may be forced to leave despite his having a high degree of integration, satisfaction, or commitment to the institution.
The broken arrow leading from institutional commitment back to normative congruence is particularly

~Satisfaction

;lIo i,,,o.olI
l"mm"m~
I
I
I

I
I
I
important as well, since it implies that the model is
cyclical and flexible rather than immutable. We are
suggesting here that the result of this whole process
may lead to changes in attitude, interest, goals, or
motivation that will in turn have repercussions at
later stages of the college career. By definition, these
changes in personal attributes will alter the conditions
subsumed under normative congruence and will affect
the remainder of the process as a result.
Minimally, then, we hope that the ideas suggested
here will serve both as a reasonable synthesis of some
of the more consistent findings on college attrition currently available, and as a worthwhile conceptual framework for guiding further research. An analysis of the
relationships implied in this model based on longitudinal data from an entire entering class will be presented
in the sequel to this paper.

80

About the Author

BAYER, A.

William G. Spady is Associate Professor of Sociology at

The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. He received his PhD in the sociology of education from the
University of Chicago in 1967 and served as Assistant
Professor of Education and Social Relations at Harvard
University for two years. His research has focused on the
effects of family, institutional, and peer group influences
on educational aspirations and attainment. His work has
appeared in the American Journal o/ Sociology, Adult
Education, and Educational Testing Service Research
Memoranda.

The college drop-out: factors affecting senior college

completion.
Sociology o/ Education, 1968, 41, 305-316.
B E M I S , 3". F.

A study o/undergrad,tate students who voluntarily

withdrew from the University o/Washington during
1959-60.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Washitagton)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1962.
No. 62-6581.
BLAINE, G. B., J R . , & M C A R T H U R , C.

References

Problems connected with studying.

In G. B. Blaine, Jr. & C. McArthur (Eds.), Emotional
problems o/the student.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961. Pp.83-109.

ABEL, W . H.

B L O O M , B. S. & P E T E R S , F. R.

Attrition and the student who is certain.

Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44, 1042-1045.

The use o/ academic prediction scales/or counselling and

selecting college entrants.
New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.

ALBERS, T. E.

Student attrition in six Colorado State-supported institutions o/higher education.

( Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado)
Ann Arbor. Mich. : University Microfilms, 1965. No.
66-2757.
A L F E R T , E.

Housing and selection, need satisfaction, and dropout

from college.
Pxychological Reports, 1966, 19, 183-186.
ANDERSON, J . R.

Do college students lack motivation?

Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1954.33,209-210.
ANDREW, D. C.

Relationship between academic load and scholastic success

of deficient students.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1956, 34, 268-270.
AST1N, A. W .

Personal and environmental factors associated with college

dropouts among high aptitude students.
Journal o/Educational Psychology, 1964, 55. 219-227.
BARKER, L. W .

A n analysis o/achievement, motivational, and perceptual

variables between students classified on the basis o/success
and persistence in college.
(Doctoral dissertation. West Virginia University)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1968.
No. 68-13,718.

B R O W N , D. R.

Student stress and the institutional environment.

Journal o/Social Issues, 1967, 23, 92-107.
B R O W N , F. G.

Identifying college drop-outs with Minnesota Counselling

Inventory.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1960, 39, 280-282.
B R O W N , W. F . , ABELES, N., & ISCOE, I.

Motivational differences between high and low scholarship students.

Journal o/Educational Psychology, 1954, 45, 215-223.
CONGDON, W . L.

Personality factors and capacity to meet curriculum

demands.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1964, 42, 17-3 I.
C O N N E R , 3". D.

The relationship between college environmental press and

freshman attrition at Southern Methodist University.
(Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1966.
No. 66-10,949.
C O O P E R , S.

Employment of June 1959 high school graduates, October

1959.
Monthly Labor Review, 1960, 83, 501.

Dropouts from Higher Education:

An Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis

81

DANIEL, K. L. B.

ECKLAND, B. K.

A study of dropouts at the University of Alabama with

respect to certain academic and personality variables.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1963.
No. 64-9118.

College dropouts who came back.

Harvard Educational Review, 1964, 34, 402-420. (b)

DAVIS, 3". A.

Great aspirations.
Chicago: Aldine, 1964.

EXTENCE, D.

Non-intellective ]actors which may be related to voluntary

withdrawal of college freshmen.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California)
Ann Arbor, Mich. : University Microfilms, 1965.
No. 65-6904.

DAVIS, 3.. A.

FAUNCE, P. S.

The campus as a frog pond.

American Journal of Sociology, 1966, 72, 17-31.

Personality characteristics and vocational interests related

to the college persistence of academically gifted women.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1966.
No. 67-7722.

DEMOS, G. D.

Analysis of college dropouts--some manifest and covert

reasons.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1968, 46, 681-684.
DENZIN, N. K.

The significant others of a college population.

Sociological Quarterly, 1966, 7, 298-310.
DONNELLY, M. 3.. M.

A study of the factors which influence women college

students to withdraw before completing their degree
requirements.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1966.
No. 66-15,219.
DRESSEL, P. L.

Liberal arts students advised to withdraw.

Journal of Higher Education, 1943, 14, 43-45.
DU BOIS, L. V.

A study of ]actors related to persistence and withdrawal

among sophomore students in the college of education at
Oklahoma State University.
(Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University)
Ann Arbor, Mich. : University Microfilms, 1965.
No. 66-3999.

FOX, D. E.

Voluntary withdrawal in twenty-one liberal arts colleges

for the period of September 1963 to September 1964.
(Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1967.
No. 68-2420.
GAMSON, Z. F.

Utilitarian and normative orientations toward education.

Sociology of Education, 1966, 39, 46-73.
GAMSON, Z. F.

Performance and personalism in student-faculty relations.

Sociology o/Education, 1967, 40, 279-301.
GOBLE, R. I.

A study o / t h e student dropout problem at Miami

University.
(Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1957.
No. 57-103.
GRACE, H. A.

Personality factors and college attrition.

Peabody Journal of Education, 1957, 35, 36-40.

DURKHEI M, E.

GURIN, G., N E W C O M B , T. M., & COPE, R. G.

Suicide.
Translated by John A. Spaulding and George Simpson.
Glencoe: The Free Press, 1951.

Characteristics of entering freshmen related to attrition in

the literary college of a large state university.
Final Report, January 1968, University of Michigan,
Project No. 1938, U.S. Office of Education.

ECKLAND, B. K.

A source of error in college attrition studies.

Sociology o/Education, 1964, 38, 60-72. (a)

HALLADAY, D. W., & ANDREW, D. C.

Dropouts from Arkansas colleges.

Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1958, 37, 212-213.

82

HEDLEY, W. H.

KNOELL, D. M.

Freshman survival and attrition at a small, private liberalarts college: A discriminant analysis of intellectual and
non-intellectual variables.
(Doctoral dissertation, Washington State University)
Ann Arbor, Mich. : University Microfilms, 1968.
No. 68-10,959.

A critical review of research on the college dropout.

In L. A. Pervin, L. E. Reik, & W. Dalrymple (Eds.),
The college dropout and the utilization of talent.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. Pp.63-81.

HEILBRUN, A. B., JR.

Personality factors in college dropout.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 1964, 49, 1-7.
HOOD, A. B.

Certain non-intellectual factors related to student attrition

at Cornell University.
(Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1957.
No. 57-4657.
IFFERT, R. E.

Retention and withdrawal of college students.

U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, BuLletin,
1958, No. 1.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1958.
IOWA, STATE UNIVERSITY.

A study of student persistence at the State University of

Iowa.
Iowa City: Office of the Registrar, 1959.
JELLISON, B. D.

Certain differences in two groups of dropouts at Fort

Hays Kansas State College.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1965.
No. 66-3244.
JENCKS, C. S., & RIESMAN, D.

The academic revolution.

New York: Doubleday, 1968.
JONES, E. S.

The probation student: What he is like and what can be

done about it.
Journal of Educational Research, 1955, 49, 93-102.
KAMENS, D. H .

Institutional stratification and institutional commitment:

Contextual effects on college dropout.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University,
1968.
KNOELL, D. M.

Institutional research on retention and withdrawal.

In H. T. Sprauge (Ed.), Research on college students.
Boulder: Western Interstate Commission for Higher
Education, 1960. Pp.41-65.

KOELSCHE, C. L.

A study of the student dropout problem at Indiana

University.
Journal of Educational Research, 1956, 49, 357-364.
KUBIE, L. S.

The ontogeny of the dropout problem.

In L. A. Pervin, L. E. Reik, & W. Dalrymple (Eds.),
The college dropout and the utilization of talent.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. Pp.23-35.
LAVIN, D. E.

The prediction of academic performance.

New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965.
LEATHERS, J. L.

The role of expectancies and selected non-intellective

variables in the attrition of male associate degree students.
(Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1966.
No. 67-5935.
LEMBESIS, A. C.

A study of students who withdrew from college during

their second, third, or fourth years.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon)
Ann Arbor, Mich. : University Microfilms, 1965.
No. 65-12,226.
LINS, L. J .

Pre-university background and effect of various factors

upon university success.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1954, 33, 157-158.
LINS, L. J ., & PITT, H.

The "staying-power" and rate of progress of University of

Wisconsin freshmen.
College and University, 1953, 29, 86-99.
LITTLE, 5. K.

The Wisconsin study of high school graduates.

Educational Record, 1959, 40, 123-128.
MALLOY, 3.

An investigation of scholastic over-and-under-achievement among female college freshmen.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1954, 1,260-263.
MARSH, L. M.

College dropout: A review.

Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44, 475-481.

Dropouts from Higher Education:

An Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis

83

MCCAMMON, W. H., JR.

O'SHEA, A. J .

The use of non-intellectual variables in predicting attrition

of academically capable students at University of
Tennessee.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1965.
No. 66-5353.

Peer relationships and male academic achievement: A

review and suggested clarification.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1969, 47, 417-423.

MCLAUGHLIN, R. J .

The process of decision in college selection and its

relation to student achievement and withdrawal.
(Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University)
Ann Arbor, Mich. : University Microfilms, 1966.
No. 67-7084.
MCQUARY, J . P.

Some differences between under- and over-achievers in

college.
Educational Administration and Supervision, 1954, 40,
117-120.
MUNGER, P. F.

Factors related to persistence in college of students who

ranked in the lower third of their high school class.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1954, 1, 132-136.
MUNGER, P. F., & GOECHERMAN, R. W.

Collegiate persistence of upper- and lower-third high

school graduates.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1955, 2, 142-145.
NASATIR, D.

The interaction of antecedent and contextual factors in

the prediction of academic failure.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Sociological Association, San Francisco, September 1969.
NELSON, A. G.

College characteristics associated with freshmen attrition

rates.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44, 1046-1051.
NEWCOMB, T. M.

The acquaintance process.

New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1961.
NEWCOMB, T. M., & FLACKS, R.

Deviant subcultures on a college campus.

Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 1964.
OLSEN, M. E.

Durkheim's two concepts of anomie.

Sociological Quarterly, 1965, 6, 37-44.

PACE, C. R.

The influence of academic and student subcultures in

college and university environments.
Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles,
1964.
PANOS, R. J . , & ASTIN, A. W.

Attrition among college students. American Educational

Research Journal, 1968, 5, 57-72.
PERVIN, L. A.

The later academic, vocational, and personal success of

college dropouts.
In L. A. Pervin, L. E. Reik, &W. Dalrymple (Eds.),
The college dropout and the utilization of talent.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. Pp.37-62.
PERVIN, L. A., REIK, L. E., & DALRYMPLE, W.

Conclusions.
In L. A. Pervin, L. E. Reik, & W. Dalrymple (Eds.),
The college dropout and the utilization o[ talent.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. Pp.237-246.
PHILLIPS, D. L.

Deferred gratification in a college setting:

Some costs and gains.
Social Problems, 1966, 13, 333-343.
REED, S. R.

Factors in retention of University of Arkansas residence

hall freshmen.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas)
Ann Arbor, Mich. : University Microfilms, 1965.
No. 65-8472.
RIESMAN, D.

Constraint and variety in American education.

New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1958.
ROBINSON, L. F.

Relation of student persistence in college to satisfaction

with "environmental" factors.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1967.
No. 67-12,154.
ROSE, H. A.

Prediction and prevention of freshman attrition.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, 12, 399-403.
BIB LI OTI- I EEK
Paedago,qisch lnstituut
a/d Rijksuniversiteit
tO

I ~'I'D [g( aLJ'~

84

ROSE, H. A., & ELTON, C. E.

SPADY, W. G.

Another look at the college dropout.

Journal o/Counseling Psychology, 1966, 4, 242-245.

Social integration and rites of passage: The case of highly

selected college freshmen.
Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, February 1969.

SARNOFF, I., & RAPHAEL, T.

Five failing college students.

American Journal o/Orthopsychiatry, 1955, 25, 343-372.
SEWELL, W. H., & ARMER, J . M.

Neighborhood context and college plans.

Anzerican Sociological Review, 1966, 31, 159-168.

SPADY, W. G.

Lament for the letterman: The effects of peer status and

activities on goals and attainments.
American Journal o/Sociology, 1970, 75, 680-702.
STEIN, M. L

SEWELL, W. H., & SHAH, V. P.

Socioeconomic status, intelligence, and the attainment of

higher education.
Sociology o] Education, 1967, 40, 1-23.
SEWELL, W. H., & SHAH, V. P.

Parents' education and children's aspirations and

achievements.
American Sociological Review, 1968, 33, 191-209.
SEXTON, V. S.

Factors contributing to attrition in college populations:

Twenty-five years of research.
Journal of General Psychology, 1965, 72, 301-326.

Personality measures in admissions.

New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1963.
STERN, G. G., STEIN, M. I., & BLOOM, B. S.

Methods in personality assessment.

Glencoe: The Free Press, 1956.
STONE, D. B.

Predicting student retention and withdrawal in a selected

state university college o / N e w York.
(Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1965.
No. 66-51.
SUCZEK, R. E., & ALFERT, E.

SLATER, ,1. M.

Perception: A context for the consideration of persistence

and attrition among college men.
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1957, 35, 435-440.

Personality characteristics o/college dropouts.

Berkeley: University of California, Department of
Psychiatry, Student Health Service, 1966.
SUMMERSKILL, J .

SLOCUM, W. L.

Social factors involved in academic mortality.

College and University, 1956, 32(1), 53-64.

Dropouts from college.

In N. Sanford (Ed.), The American college.
New York: Wiley, 1962. Pp.627-657.

SMITH, d. A.

SUSSMANN, L.

The relationship o~ measured interest and student

orientation to achievement, satisfaction and persistence in
college.
(Doctoral dissertation, Temple University)
Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1967.
No. 67-11,438.

Freshman morale at MIT.

Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1960.
TRENT, J . W., & MEDSKER, L. L.

Beyond high school.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.

SPADY, W. G.

TRENT, J . W., & RUYLE, J'.

Educational mobility and access: Growth and paradoxes.

American Journal o/Sociology, 1967, 73, 273-286. (a)

Variations, flow, and patterns of college attendance.

College and University, 1965, 41( 1 ), 61-76.

SPADY, W. G.

VAUGHAN, R. P.

Peer integration and academic success: The dropout

process among Chicago freshmen.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago,
1967. (b)

College dropouts: Dismissed vs. withdrew.

Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1968, 46, 685-689.
VREELAND, R., & BIDWELL, C. E.

Classifying university departments: An approach to the

analysis of their effects upon undergraduates' values and
attitudes.
Sociology o/Education, 1966, 39, 237-254.

Dropouts from Higher Education:

An Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis

WALLACE, W. L.

Student culture: Social structure and continuity in a

liberal arts college.

Chicago: Aldine, 1966.

WALLER, C.

Research related to college persistence.

College and University, 1964, 39, 281-294.
WEIGAND, G.

Adaptiveness and the role of parents in academic success.

Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1957, 35, 518-522.
WHITMER, P.

Nonintellectual causes o/ dropping out in selected

Montana teacher education programs.

(Doctoral dissertation, University of Denver)

Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1963.
No. 64-4867.
WILLIAMS, V.

The college dropout: Qualities of his environment.

Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967, 45, 878-882.
WOLFORD, M. E.

A comparison of dropouts and persisters in a private

liberal arts college.

(Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon)

Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1964.
No. 65-2489.
YOSHINO, R. I.

College dropouts at the end of the freshman year.

Journal o/Educational Sociology, 1958, 32, 42-48.
YOURGLICH, A.

A four-phase study of value homophily, friendship,

social participation, and college dropouts.
Sociological Analysis, 1966, 27, 19-26.

85