Limits of Theory and Practice in Student Attrition
The field of student attrition has grown tremendously over the past two decades. The demographic characteristics of the population have induced us to consider how our institutions can more effectively serve their students and hopefully retain more of them until degree completion. As a result, studies of dropout and policy-oriented workshops concerned with prevention of attrition have become commonplace. But as researchers and planners rush into the fray armed with increasingly more sophisticated tools for the study and treatment of student attrition, we should pause to consider the limits on our ability to understand and treat it. We should give thought to just how far and in what directions we should stretch our existing models of dropout. Despite recent progress, there remain a number of important areas of inquiry that have yet to be adequately explored in our attempts to understand the complex character of student disengagement. So too in the realm of action, it would be wise for us to examine the forces that constrain the development and implementation of policies designed to improve retention. We must ask how far we should go in seeking to reduce attrition. The question must be posed as to the types of policies that should be implemented to reduce dropout among given types of students in the general student population. There are a variety of dropout behaviors in higher education, not all of which equally merit our attention.