Comparisons among Continuing, Withdrawing, and Non-Returning Students. Academic Leave and Withdrawal Office Research Report. Student Affairs Research Report #7.

Autor/inn/en	Daubman, Kimberly; Johnson, Deborah Hazel
Institution	Maryland Univ., Catonsville, Baltimore County. Office of Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.
Titel	Comparisons among Continuing, Withdrawing, and Non-Returning Students. Academic Leave and Withdrawal Office Research Report. Student Affairs Research Report #7.
Quelle	(1982), (36 Seiten)Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Academic Aspiration; Academic Persistence; College Choice; Comparative Analysis; Dropouts; Higher Education; Institutional Research; State Universities; Student Attitudes; Student Attrition; Student College Relationship; Student Problems; Undergraduate Students; Withdrawal (Education) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Studienortwahl; Drop-out; Drop-outs; Dropout; Early leavers; Schulversagen; Hochschulbildung; Hochschulsystem; Hochschulwesen; Institutionelle Forschung; Staatliche Universität; Schülerverhalten; Schülerbeurlaubung; Studienproblem; Kursabbruch
Abstract	Withdrawing, continuing, and nonreturning undergraduates at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) were compared. Nonreturning students were nongraduating students who completed course requirements but did not return the following semester (25 spring nonreturning students and 47 fall nonreturning students). Data were also collected from all 277 undergraduates who voluntarily withdrew during the fall 1981 semester and from 47 continuing students. Findings include the following: more students withdrawing in midsemester were undecided regarding their majors than was the case for the continuers or nonreturning students; more withdrawing students tended to live off campus independently than did continuers or nonreturners; withdrawing students usually left school due to academic difficulties, school/work conflicts, or personal problems, while nonreturners tended to leave because of dissatisfaction with UMBC in particular; and continuers reported talking to a large number of UMBC people outside of class, while withdrawing students talked to student services staff but had little outside-class interaction with faculty and students. Information concerning nine possible reasons students attended UMBC is also presented, and the findings are discussed in terms of both student commitment to goals and to UMBC. (SW)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC