03/21/2011 Community Colleges Pave the way

MARCH 21, 2011 $3.75 www.HispanicOutlook.com VOLUME 21 NUMBER 12

TOP 50 Community Colleges Improving C.C. Grad Rates CUNYs New Community College

Coming in ourMay 2nd Issue

Colleges forHispanics

Dont M

issit!

Bein it! Ad Deadline

April 12th

Call us at1 (800)549-8280ext.

102 or 106

Publisher Jos Lpez-Isa

Vice President & Chief

Operating Officer Orlando Lpez-Isa

Editor Adalyn Hixson

Executive & Managing Editor

Suzanne Lpez-Isa

News Desk & Copy Editor Jason Paneque

Special Project Editor Mary Ann Cooper

Administrative Assistant & Subscription

Coordinator Barbara Churchill

DC Congressional Correspondent

Peggy Sands Orchowski

Contributing Editors

Carlos D. Conde

Michelle Adam

Online ContributingWriters

Gustavo A. Mellander

Art & Production Director

Avedis Derbalian

Graphic Designer Joanne Aluotto

Sr.Advertising Sales Associate

Angel M. Rodrguez

Advertising Sales Associate

Judah Moskowitz

Article ContributorsMelissa Campbell,Thomas G. Dolan,

Marilyn Gilroy, Ana Hernndez,Angela Provitera McGlynn, Miquela Rivera,

Roxanne Schroeder, Jeff Simmons

Editorial Office80 Route 4 East, Suite 203, Paramus, N.J. 07652

TEL (201) 587-8800 or (800) 549-8280FAX (201) 587-9105

The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education andHispanic Outlook are registered trademarks of

The Hispanic Outlook in Higher EducationPublishing Company, Inc.

Letters to the EditorThe Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education Magazine

80 Route 4 East, Suite 203, Paramus, N.J. 07652

email: [email protected]

Editorial Board

Ricardo Fernndez, President

Lehman College

Mildred Garca, President

California State University-Domnguez Hills

Jun Gonzlez,VP Student Affairs

University of Texas at Austin

Carlos Hernndez, President

New Jersey City University

Lydia Ledesma-Reese, Educ. Consultant

Ventura County Community College District

Gustavo A. Mellander, Dean Emeritus

George Mason University

Loui Olivas,AssistantVP Academic Affairs

Arizona State University

Eduardo Padrn, President

Miami Dade College

Antonio Prez, President

Borough of Manhattan Community College

Mara Vallejo, Provost

Palm Beach State College

Editorial PolicyThe Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education Magazine is a nationalmagazine published 25 times a year. Dedicated to exploring issuesrelated to Hispanics in higher education,The Hispanic Outlook in

Higher Education Magazine is published for the members of the highereducation community. Editorial decisions are based on the editors judg-ment of the quality of the writing, the timeliness of the article, and thepotential interest to the readers of The Hispanic Outlook Magazine.

From time to time,The Hispanic Outlook in Higher EducationMagazine will publish articles dealing with controversial issues.Theviews expressed herein are those of the authors and/or those inter-viewed and might not reflect the official policy of the magazine.TheHispanic Outlook in Higher Education Magazine neither agrees nordisagrees with those ideas expressed, and no endorsement of those

views should be inferred unless specifically identified as officiallyendorsed by The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education Magazine.

Advertising SalesTEL (201) 587-8800 ext. 102/106

FAX (201) 587-9105email: [email protected]

Want a Subscription?Visit: www.HispanicOutlook.com

or call toll free 1 (800) 549-8280 ext. 108

Article Reprints:Available throughThe Reprint Dept. Tel: 800-259-0470

Postmaster: Please send all changes of address to:The Hispanic Outlook,P.O.Box 68,Paramus,N.J. 07652

The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education Magazine is a member of

and a sponsor of

0 3 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1 H I S P A N I C O U T L O O K 3

4 H I S P A N I C O U T L O O K 0 3 / 2 1 / 2 0 1 1

Pass this on to a colleague... Take advantage of our 2011 rates

NAME TITLE/INSTITUTION

ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE

CREDIT CARD # SIGNATURE/EXP. DATE

BILLING ADDRESS CITY/STATE/ZIP CODE

SUBSCRIBE TO :

PLEASE ALLOW 2 TO 3 WEEKS FOR DELIVERY OF YOUR FIRST ISSUE AFTER PAYMENT IS RECEIVED

1 Year (25 issues) $29.95$19.95

Payment enclosedMake check payable to: The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education

$19.95( 2 5 i s s u e s )

P. O . B o x 6 8 , P a r a m u s , N J 0 7 6 5 2 - 0 0 6 8 Te l . # 1 . 8 0 0 . 5 4 9 . 8 2 8 0 e x t . 1 0 8 w w w . h i s p a n i c o u t l o o k . c o m

we go to press, Texas is expected to say yes to a bill allowing college faculty and students to carry gunson campus. Half of the Texas House members are co-sponsors. College administrators and faculty are opposed. Utahalready has such a law, and Colorado gives colleges the option to permit gun toting.

But as some factions are taking us back to the Wild West days, others have their heads and hands in the future, including ourcommunity colleges, renowned for their speed in adapting to new needs and opportunities.

Two examples are described in this issue a successful joint program at Texas Tech University and El Paso Community College thatis prepping Latinos for the architecture pipeline, and the Green Jobs Initiative, an AACC and ecoAmerica partnership that must be veryproud of the terrific program at Los Angeles Trade Technical College. Bravo!

New York Times columnist Charles Blows Feb. 19 column shows how 33 advance economy countries compare on ninemeasures. The U.S. was among the best in level of democracy, Gallup global well-being index, and student performance in science among the worst in its unemployment rate and among the worst of the worst in income inequality, food insecurity, life expectancy,prison population and student performance in math. Our prison population stands at 743 inmates per 100,000 citizens. Israel is secondat 325, and 26 of the 33 countries came in at under 200.

Lets hope we can dodge the bullets and stay out of jail as we work to shore up Americas academic glory with talented Latinos.

EsquinaEditorial

Adelante!Suzanne Lpez-IsaManaging Editor

As


Maybe Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington and conservative politicalactivist Patrick Buchanan were right several years ago when theypredicted that soon enough, the U.S. would be lousy with Latinos,

mostly Mexicans.Its already happening, but not to the extreme these two xenophobes

predicted in their best-selling books that warned that if the population andmigration trend continued which it has a wealth of Americans wouldsoon be speaking Spanish and eating tacos.

Huntington, who died in December 2008, was a political science profes-sor who wrote best-selling books on the worlds social makeup, including,in 1966, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,which portended that future international conflicts would occur less overideological disputes and more due to cultural differences.

You could say the Afghanistan and Iraq disputes, pit-ting the worlds Islamic factions against the worlds infi-dels, principally the U.S., gives some substance toHuntingtons pronouncements.

Then Huntington came out in 2004 with Who Are We?The Challenges to Americas National Identity, whichposits that, at the current rate of Latino immigration,overwhelmingly Mexican, the U.S. stood the threat ofbecoming a bifurcated nation by dividing the nation intotwo peoples, two cultures and two languages.

Huntington, by most accounts a brilliant academic,said in a separate essay that a clue to this was that in1998, Jose replaced Michael as the most popular namefor newborn boys both in California and Texas.

Then came Patrick Buchanan, the provocative politi-cal gunslinger, who failed miserably in his three races forpresident but was better at tweaking the national con-science with his alarmist discourses.

In his aptly titled State of Emergency: The Third WorldInvasion and Conquest of America, Buchanan warnedwe were being overtaken by Latinos, mostly Mexicans.

This is not immigration as America knew it ... This isan invasion, the greatest in history. Nothing of this magni-tude has ever happened in so short a time.

Buchanan was talking mostly about illegal immigrantscrossing the southwest border and added that, if not cur-tailed, it would mean the end of the United States as weknow it and the cities of the southwest will look likeCiudad Juarez and Tijuana, as some do already.

Many would find Buchanans dissection preposterousand Huntingtons jingoistic in spite of his learned reputation, yet the latestCensus figures, released in February, reveal a phenomenal growth of theauthentic Latino population in the U.S., mostly Mexicans, during the lastdecade, growth expected to continue into the next decade.

You can look at the Census numbers and interpret them whichever wayyou want, and some can be bewildering, but the numbers in their rawestform are unassailable. The U.S. Latino population mostly Mexican hasbecome a force to contend with and, according to trends, is on course tobecome the dominant group, particularly in the southwestern states.

The Census counts currently 48.4 million Hispanics, making them thenations largest race minority as of 2010. Worldwide, only Mexico with 111million has a larger Hispanic population.

The projections are that by July 2050, Hispanics will number 132.8million, or 30 percent of the nations population.

Forty-seven percent of the Hispanic-origin population lives in Californiaor Texas, with California numbering 13.7 million and Texas 9.1 million.Latinos are the largest minority group in 21 states.

Sixteen states have at least a half-million Hispanics. New Mexicos pop-ulation is almost half Latino, mostly Mexican. In one year, Alabamaincreased its Latino population 6.6 percent.

Mexicans account for 66 percent of the Hispanic-origin people in theU.S., followed by Puerto Ricans with 9 percent, Cubans 3.4 percent,Salvadorans 3.4 percent and 2.8 percent Dominicans.

In one year alone, between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009, the U.S.Hispanic population increased 3.1 percent.

You think you know where most are coming from Mexico and why those U.S. olive green-uniformed immi-gration cops are going crazy manning detection radar andconstructing barriers along the border and still they come.

Actually, the U.S. illegal population is only about 12 mil-lion, two-thirds Latinos and, yes, mostly Mexicans.However, the rest of the explosive Latino population is U.S.-born or legal, and Latinos have one of the highest birthrates in the country, so they aint going to go away soon.

Twenty-six percent of children 5 or younger wereHispanic. All in all, Hispanics account for 22 percent of chil-dren younger than 18. The median age of Hispanics in 2009was 27.4 years compared to 36.8 years for the entire U.S.

In July 2008-09, California had the largest Hispanicnumerical increase with 312,000, followed by Texas300,000 and Floridas 105,000 but it is Texas whoseLatino growth mostly Mexicans is called phenomenal.

The Texas population grew to 25.1 million, account-ing for nearly 25 percent of the nations total growthsince the last count, and Latinos, mostly Mexicans, pro-vided two-thirds of the increase, Census officials said.

Non-Hispanic Whites now make up only 45 percentof the Texas population, down from 52 percent in 2000,and if their numbers continue to shrink, they could beon their way to becoming what was once unthinkable inTexas the minority group.

I never thought Id ever see my native Texas goingMexican, but the signs become more obvious every timeI visit my home turf in the Rio Grande Valley, which isseveral times a year.

Anglos are less ubiquitous, and in ways, their customs are now becom-ing the exception or are conforming to Latino ways, although many Latinoshave corrupted the language and their traditions into an ersatz ethniclifestyle, if at all.

Latinos, mostly the younger generations speak to me in English or inbarely pidgin Spanish or cyberspeak gobbledygook, and in a weird sort ofway, I feel ostracized all over again in this reformist Latino age.

Help! The Latinos Mostly Mexicans Are Coming. No, Wait, They Are Here!

KALEIDOSCOPE

LATINO

KALEIDOSCOPE

LATINO

Carlos D. Conde, award-winning journalist and commentator, for-mer Washington and foreign news correspondent, was an aide in theNixon White House and worked on the political campaigns of GeorgeBush Sr. To reply to this column, contact [email protected].

LATINO KALEIDOSCOPE by Carlos D. Conde


Page 11

Page 20

MAGAZINE

CONTENTS

MARCH 21, 2011

Cooke Initiative Shows Elite School StudentsBenefit from Low-IncomeTransfers by Jeff Simmons

8

El Paso Dominates Community College Rankingsfor Hispanics

Community Colleges for Hispanics by Mary Ann Cooper

DividedWe Fail SuggestsWays to ImproveCommunity College Graduation ... by Angela Provitera McGlynn

Helping StudentsTake the Proper Steps to Earn aCollege Degree by Melissa Campbell

Measuring the Cost of First-Year Dropoutsby Michelle Adam

CUNYs New Community College Gets Readyto Debut by Marilyn Gilroy

11

15

18

20

24

Going Green in MoreWays than OnebyThomas G. Dolan

TexasTech and El Paso C.C. Partnership ProvidesCareer Path for Hispanic Students ... by Roxanne Schroeder

30

27

Online ArticlesSome of the above articles will also be available online;go to our website: www.HispanicOutlook.com.

Measuringthe Cost ofFirst-YearDropouts


Page 24

Page 30

DEPARTMENTS

Cover photo courtesy of Jack Kent Cooke Foundation

IInn tthhee TTrreenncchheess ...... by Ana HernndezSuccess Lives Here: The Impact of the Residential Experience onStudent Success

Help! The Latinos Mostly Mexicans Are Coming. No, Wait, They Are Here!

Latino Kaleidoscope by Carlos D. Conde

Book Review by Mary Ann Cooper The Community College Guide

FYI . . .FYI . . .FYI . . .

5

36

33

23

HHiissppaanniiccss oonn tthhee MMoovvee 32

IInntteerreessttiinngg RReeaaddss aanndd MMeeddiiaa......

33

PPrriimmiinngg tthhee PPuummpp...... by Miquela RiveraTeaching Latino Students Time Management Skills

Back Cover

HO is also available in digital format; go to our website: www.HispanicOutlook.com.

HHiigghh SScchhooooll FFoorruummHHiigghh SScchhooooll FFoorruummNational Report Card: Todays 12th-Graders LagBehind Their 1992 Counterparts by Mary Ann Cooper

34

Cooke Initiative Shows Elite School Students Benefit from Low-Income Transfersby Jeff Simmons

They might be high-achieving, but oftenlower-income students who enroll at com-munity college campuses dont necessarily

see a brighter light at the end of their academictunnel: the opportunity to continue their studiesat a four-year institution.

A recent study, though, is shedding light onthe dilemma and detailing the effective endeav-ors of one initiative to shepherd these studentsdown a clearer path through higher education.

The college enrollment gap for underrepre-sented students in U.S. higher education has beensubstantial for decades, prompting policymakers,foundations, educators and experts to repeatedlyclamor for strengthened efforts to improve col-lege access, particularly for first-generation andlow- to moderate-income students.

While a variety of local, statewide and nation-al efforts have aimed to narrow the gap whether through redirecting funding or over-hauling programs some have looked towardcommunity colleges as a solution and a potentialgateway to four-year institutions.

The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation recentlyannounced the results of a five-year study ofcommunity college transfers to some of thenations most highly selective colleges. Thereport, Partnerships that Promote Success: TheEvaluation of the Community College TransferInitiative, examined the success of programsand policies that encouraged talented lower-income community college students to transferto eight participating institutions.

An evaluation of the foundations CommunityCollege Transfer Initiative (CCTI) identifiedwhether practices appropriately recognizedthese students in community colleges andimproved their experiences in transferring to theeight, including whether they were able toachieve academic and personal success.

I dont think that people ever thought aboutelite colleges being connected to community col-leges, said Emily Froimson, director of highereducation programs at the foundation, whereshe oversees the higher education scholarshipprograms and grant-making initiatives involving

colleges and universities. People did not thinkof it as a potential pipeline. It seemed incongru-ous six or seven years ago.

Many talented community college studentsfrom low-income families would not considerapplying to a selective four-year college or uni-versity without encouragement and support,noted Cathy Burack, a senior fellow at BrandeisUniversitys Center for Youth and Communitiesand a senior researcher of the report. The CCTItruly transforms their lives. It offers an opportu-nity to students whose talents might have other-wise gone unrecognized to reach their potentialand set examples for other low-income, first-generation community college students.

Since 2001, the private foundation hashelped young, promising students to reachtheir full potential through education, and pro-vided challenging opportunities to high-achiev-ing students from lower-income familiesthrough a Young Scholars Program, scholar-ships for undergraduate and graduate study,and grants to nonprofit organizations and edu-cational institutions.

The foundation asked 150 four-year institu-tions to apply for the CCTI program, and in 2005

launched CCTI to promote sustainable, long-term increases in the number of high-achievingcommunity college students from low-incomefamilies transferring to the nations selectivefour-year institutions so they could completebachelors degrees.

Accordingly, the foundation awarded grantstotaling approximately $7 million over four yearsto the eight four-year institutions: AmherstCollege and Mount Holyoke College, both inMassachusetts, Bucknell University inPennsylvania, Cornell University in New York, theUniversity of California-Berkeley, the Universityof Michigan-Ann Arbor, the University of NorthCarolina-Chapel Hill and the University ofSouthern California.

Since then, with the foundation partneringwith them, the institutions collaborated withcommunity colleges to create sustainable path-ways for exceptional students. And, the reportnoted, coordinators worked with potential trans-fers to advise on transfer admission options andfinancial aid, and offer orientation, tutoring andother support mechanisms for newly transferredcommunity college students.

Initially, the foundation required a couple of

REPORTS


Photo Jack Kent Coo

ke Fou

ndation

things from the institutions, Froimson said. Werequired that they increase the number of slotsavailable for low-income community collegetransfer students. We were looking to increaseopportunity. It also was essential that the four-year institutions be able to provide financial aid.We did that because many institutions wereusing transfers to fill in for attrition, and werenot making financial aid available. That really

does not allow for the transfer of low-incomestudents if you do that.

The foundation chose the Center for Youthand Communities at Brandeis Universitys HellerSchool for Social Policy and Management toassess the program. The recent study highlightedselected findings from the evaluation, focusingon promising practices and lessons learned,with a goal of conveying information in hopesthat other interested institutions could not onlyfind them instructive but replicate them.

We were mindful of the fact that each insti-tution has its own culture and each started froma different place, Froimson said. Some, likeBucknell, had very few community college trans-

fers. They were started from a very early stage,and this allowed them to create something thatwould entirely fit their culture.

The initiative recognized both the importanceof attendance at selective colleges and universi-ties on students future success, particularly forthose from lower-income families, and the con-tributions that the students could make at thefour-year campuses.

The biggest obstacle for most of the stu-dents was financial. Many students did not imag-ine that they could afford the tuition, said SusanLanspery, who served as the studys co-principalinvestigator, along with Burack.

We always expected that CCTI would bene-fit the students who transferred, so that theywould understand what they needed to do tosucceed, and they would see these institutionsas the right places for them, Froimson noted.That was the goal.

The new study found that, over a period ofthree years, the institutions enrolled nearly2,000 additional lower-income community col-lege students, far exceeding the goals of the ini-

tiative, and that all eight strengthened their abil-ity to recruit qualified students and supporttheir success. CCTI programs and practices alsoenhanced transfer students readiness for acad-emic and social success, facilitating theirsmooth transition into highly selective collegesand universities.

The report noted that six out of eight cam-puses were expected to continue their efforts.

And, in fact, CCTI significantly transformed stu-dents lives, and the students have made signifi-cant contributions to the institutions where theymatriculated.

The students made huge contributions tothe universities and colleges through the class-rooms, through development of new associa-tions and organizations, through their engage-ment in campuses overall, Froimson said. Atmany of these institutions, the students becamesought after by the faculty and by the institution.But what surprised us was the impact or benefitthat the program provided to the institutionsthemselves.

The report drew conclusions not solely on


Cooke Initiative Shows Elite School Students Benefit from Low-Income Transfers

Photo Jack Kent Coo

ke Fou

ndationThe foundation awarded

grants totaling approximately$7 million over four years toAmherst, Mount Holyoke,

Bucknell, Cornell, UC-Berkeley,University of Michigan-AnnArbor, University of North

Carolina-Chapel Hill and the University of Southern California.

interviews but also after a careful review of stu-dent records, academic data and financialrecords.

According to the report: CCTI improved collaboration and communi-cation among the four-year campuses, and intheir departments and administrative offices. Meaningful partnerships with community col-leges made recruiting and preparing the rightstudents much easier. CCTI also benefited students, at times trans-forming their lives. Many had not envisionedthemselves even finishing community college, orsucceeding at a four-year institution or planningto attend graduate school. Critical to program effectiveness and sustain-ability were institutional readiness and buy-infrom the start of CCTI. Promoting CCTI students academic andsocial integration while using data to improveand sustain programs supported student successat the institutions. CCTI made intellectual contributions to thecampuses and classrooms, became heavilyinvolved on campus and increased diversity.

Some of these programs were relativelysmall, but in terms of taking nontraditional stu-dents with diverse backgrounds, I think that ithad a pretty significant effect on diversity,Froimson said. Many of these institutions, par-ticularly liberal arts colleges, did not have manynontraditional students. In terms of the class-room discourse, to have these students whowere mature and not taking school for granted,and were not privileged, was a different perspec-tive and was particularly important.

Several institutions had a head start becausethey already had a strong mission around equal-ity and diversity, she said. For instance, womenscolleges were founded to serve a population notbeing properly served by other institutions, so,she said, This has been a natural fit for them totake on community college students.

Among the CCTI students surveyed, 41 per-cent were the first in their family to attend afour-year college, and many of them would nothave considered attending a selective institutionwithout the encouragement of CCTI programs.Pivotal to success was assistance with admis-sions and financial aid applications, as well aswith orientation and academic support.

Partnerships were really the key to easingthe transfer process and making it more man-ageable, Lanspery said, pointing out that institu-tions initially sought to achieve diversity goals by

striving to recruit high school students, over-looking the opportunity to entice communitycollege recruits.

So the University of North Carolina-ChapelHill started a team involving deans and transferadvisors from community college partners aswell as representatives from its College of Artsand Sciences, Student Affairs and Student Aid,among others.

Cornells similar Pathway to Success AdvisoryCommittee included admissions staff, deans andother administrators as well as representativesfrom community colleges.

Amherst hosted an annual CommunityCollege Collaborative Faculty Workshop, whichincluded Amherst CCTI students, workshops onteaching and learning for Amherst and commu-nity college faculty, and opportunities for com-munity college advisors and students to learnmore about the CCTI.

Other examples of how institutions navigatedpartnerships included identifying partners in thecommunity to boost involvement. For instance,using CCTI grant funds, Mount Holyoke funded afull-time transfer liaison to coordinate thePathways Program at Holyoke CommunityCollege. The liaison, an alumna of both HolyokeCommunity College and Mount Holyoke, encour-aged and advised eligible students.

Bucknell maintained consistent communica-tion with point people at its five community col-lege partners, using its grant funding to helppartners cover participation costs.

As part of the research, investigators inter-viewed a number of students and administrators,as well as faculty, and found the benefits to cutacross all segments of campus life.

For instance, the report noted that CCTI itselfimproved cross-campus collaboration and com-munication between campus units.

Researchers said the students made intellec-tual contributions to the four-year campuses andeven transformed classroom discussions. Facultypointed out that on several campuses, CCTI stu-dents often do supplemental reading and askedfor extra reading. They had insights and edgyquestions that enriched class discussions.

Schools and departments that initially resist-ed accepting CCTI students are now doing so,and faculty who initially resisted the programhave since inquired about how to recruit moreCCTI students.

We found that for all of the sites, some to agreater degree than others, they were very care-ful about recruiting students who were likely to

be able to handle the work, and at the sametime they were very focused on low-incomefirst-generation students, Lanspery said. Theyfound there were more students than they hadroom for who were capable of handling thework, so they could focus on students who werethe best fit.

Their attendance on campus inspired admin-istrators, faculty and other students throughtheir appreciation for resources that other stu-dents might take for granted, as one adminis-trator said.

CCTI students formed transfer student orga-nizations at three campuses, improving life forall transfer students by raising awareness of, andhelping to address, transfer students concerns.

The campuses came to quickly realize thatbeyond this being the right thing to do, these stu-dents were real assets and really became part ofand enriched their communities, Burack said.Once they got admitted, they just took advan-tage of every second of the experience.

Added her colleague, Lanspery: We felt theywere people who never had a chance to shine insome ways, and once they had the opportunity todo so, they took advantage of every opportunity.

Since enrolling, many CCTI students wonawards and honors and assumed leadershiproles on campus. Several won competitive schol-arships that were open to all students, and manyconducted research with faculty. Others becameformal or informal peer mentors and ambas-sadors to potential CCTI applicants currently atcommunity colleges.

They take on this role because they want togive back and to offer the kind of informationthat professional staff cant necessarily provide,the report stated.

The study further noted that developingprocesses and systems to increase transparencyand flexibility between institutions, along with awillingness to negotiate, were often more effec-tive than formal articulation agreements andstrict policies.

Froimson and the researchers stressed thatthe lessons learned from the study can beachieved on a national scale by some of the coun-trys best four-year institutions, although eachwould need to tailor its programs based on differ-ent academic environments and starting points.

The report has been getting a fair amount ofattention, she said. I hope it will be used toincrease a number of partnerships betweencommunity colleges and elite institutions.


El Paso Dominates CommunityCollege Rankings for Hispanicsby Mary Ann Cooper

Community colleges are attended by close to half of the undergraduatestudents in the United States and have become more important thanever in the nations goal to elevate the numbers of the college-educat-

ed entering the work force.Since 1985, more than half of all community college students have

been women. In addition, the majority of Black and Hispanic undergradu-ate students in this country study at these colleges.

As in years past, The Hispanic Outlook in Higher EducationMagazine has prepared an analysis of community colleges based onenrollment, faculty diversity and degrees granted from a Hispanic point ofview. Our analysis comes from figures provided by the National Center forEducation Statistics (NCES). This year, however, weve added the elementof looking back at degrees granted five years ago.

Our comparison of figures for 2004 and for 2009 tells a story of con-sistency in some cases and inconsistency in others. Some schools thatwerent even on our radar screen in 2004 were among the Top 25 or Top50 in granting A.A. degrees to Hispanics.

As for consistency, El Paso Community College (EPCC) in Texas onceagain ranked first nationally in all three categories enrollment, degreesgranted and Hispanic faculty members. And five years ago, it ranked first inHispanic enrollment.

In the category of highest percentage of Hispanic enrollment, El Pasoranked second to another Texas school, Laredo Community College, with86 percent compared to Laredos 96 percent.

In the categories of the percentage of degrees granted in 2004 and2009 as well as Hispanic faculty, El Paso ranked in the top five schools ofthose Top 50 lists.

What accounts for El Pasos consistent success? Under the leadership ofPresident Richard M. Rhodes, El Paso Community College boasts morethan 130 academic programs and more than 350 personalenrichment/continuing education courses. In addition to services that havebecome the norm in community colleges, such as distance education,online courses and dual credit, EPCC has instituted Student TechnologyServices (a student-run technology training program) and Early CollegeHigh School (where students earn an associate degree at the same timethey are earning a high school diploma). EPCC, says Rhodes, has alsoestablished close ties to its community, making it the leading provider oftraining for local area business and industry.

There is an important change in this years data report that must be noted.

Data are derived from various lists compiled by NCES and its IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System. NCES has created a new data-gatheringsystem. Because of the new system, not all schools are on every data list.Schools have been given two years to comply with the new NCES data-gather-ing system. The Hispanic Outlook has combined all available data from allNCES lists to give fair representation to all institutions during this transition.

The White House Summit on Community CollegesIn fall 2010, Jill Biden, wife of Vice President Joe Biden, hosted the

first-ever White House Summit on Community Colleges. It was furtherrecognition that, as she put it, Community colleges are uniquely posi-tioned to provide the education and training that will prepare students forthe jobs in the 21st century.

The summit was one of several initiatives launched by the Obamaadministration to fulfill the presidents stated goal of regaining superiorityin producing college graduates in the United States. At the summit,President Obama explained the urgency of this goal. In just a decade,weve fallen from first to ninth in the proportion of young people with col-lege degrees. That not only represents a huge waste of potential; in theglobal marketplace it represents a threat to our position as the worldsleading economy.

He directly connected community colleges to meeting that nationalgoal. We know, for example, that in the coming years, jobs requiring atleast an associates degree are going to grow twice as fast as jobs that dontrequire college. We will not fill those jobs or keep those jobs on ourshores without community colleges.

The president pointed out the strengths of the community college sys-tem this way: These are places where young people can continue theireducation without taking on a lot of debt. These are places where workerscan gain new skills to move up in their careers. These are places whereanyone with a desire to learn and to grow can take a chance on a brighterfuture for themselves and their families whether thats a single mom, or areturning soldier or an aspiring entrepreneur.

The importance of the community college reaches far beyond the bor-ders of America. And community colleges arent just the key to the futureof their students. Theyre also one of the keys to the future of our country.We are in a global competition to lead in the growth industries of the 21stcentury. And that leadership depends on a well-educated, highly skilledwork force.

RANKINGS


FACULTY RANK INSTITUTION TOTAL MEN WOMEN TOTAL MEN WOMEN %

1. El Paso Community College, TX 1,340 680 660 726 377 349 54%2. San Antonio College, TX 1,426 744 682 390 195 195 27%3. Houston Community College, TX 3,193 1,539 1,654 320 176 144 10%4. Northwest Vista College, TX 818 417 401 260 133 127 32%5. Santa Ana College, CA 1,004 422 582 229 105 124 23%6. Laredo Community College, TX 304 176 128 224 129 95 74%7. St. Philips College, TX 712 426 286 221 134 87 31%8. East Los Angeles College, CA 917 512 405 218 121 97 24%9. Palo Alto College, TX 535 278 257 205 101 104 38%10. Central New Mexico Com. Coll., NM 1,098 514 584 199 108 91 18%11. Lone Star College System, TX 2,845 1,228 1,617 199 86 113 7%12. Del Mar College, TX 700 343 357 198 92 106 28%13. Riverside Community College, CA 1,442 730 712 197 110 87 14%14. Pima Community College, AZ 1,553 693 860 176 71 105 11%15. Southwestern College, CA 821 392 429 176 81 95 21%16. Mt. San Antonio College, CA 1,279 617 662 174 88 86 14%17. Austin Community College District, TX 1,822 918 904 174 90 84 10%18. Central Texas College, TX 2,467 1,517 950 163 103 60 7%19. City College of San Francisco, CA 1,849 790 1,059 156 84 72 8%20. Valencia Community College, FL 1,491 705 786 155 65 90 10%21. Grossmont College, CA 851 449 402 146 75 71 17%22. Pasadena City College, CA 1,074 514 560 146 74 72 14%23. Texas State Tech. Coll. Harlingen, TX 244 153 91 146 91 55 60%24. Cerritos College, CA 758 363 395 145 75 70 19%25. Tarrant County College District, TX 1,904 900 1,004 144 78 66 8%26. Fresno City College, CA 985 483 502 138 51 87 14%27. Rio Hondo College, CA 523 263 260 135 67 68 26%28. Imperial Valley College, CA 343 196 147 134 78 56 39%29. CUNY/Hostos Community College, NY 357 177 180 125 63 62 35%30. Chaffey College, CA 859 390 469 119 42 77 14%31. CUNY/Borough of Manhattan C.C., NY 1,298 656 642 118 56 62 9%32. Reedley College, CA 670 325 345 117 51 66 17%33. New Mexico State Univ.-Dona Ana, NM 471 225 246 117 57 60 25%34. Palomar College, CA 1,143 577 566 116 64 52 10%35. San Diego City College, CA 855 409 446 112 56 56 13%36. San Jacinto Community College, TX 1,209 560 649 112 57 55 9%37. Long Beach City College, CA 975 448 527 111 48 63 11%38. Santa Barbara City College, CA 950 370 580 107 41 66 11%39. Hillsborough Community College, FL 1,271 649 622 107 55 52 8%40. CUNY/LaGuardia Comm. Coll., NY 984 452 532 103 49 54 10%41. Santa Monica College, CA 1,320 606 714 102 38 64 8%42. El Camino Comm. Coll. District, CA 921 432 489 96 43 53 10%43. San Diego Mesa College, CA 880 427 453 90 43 47 10%44. American River College, CA 1,098 563 535 88 49 39 8%45. Luna Community College, NM 154 72 82 87 45 42 56%46. Milwaukee Area Technical Coll., WI 1,639 839 800 86 48 38 5%47. San Bernardino Valley College, CA 577 254 323 85 41 44 15%48. Arizona Western College, AZ 425 230 195 84 46 38 20%49. CUNY/Bronx Community College, NY 674 382 292 82 51 31 12%50. Mt. San Jacinto Comm. Coll. Dis., CA 745 371 374 81 37 44 11%


TOTALRANK INSTITUTION STATE ENROLLMENT TOTAL MEN WOMEN %

1. El Paso Community College TX 28,168 24,196 10,034 14,162 86%2. East Los Angeles College CA 35,717 22,913 9,480 13,433 64%3. Houston Community College TX 54,942 15,836 6,517 9,319 29%4. Riverside Community College CA 36,586 14,917 6,274 8,643 41%5. Southwestern College CA 21,597 13,313 6,205 7,108 62%6. Santa Ana College CA 31,073 13,107 6,766 6,341 42%7. Rio Hondo College CA 22,432 12,904 6,271 6,633 58%8. Lone Star College System TX 46,504 11,622 4,676 6,946 25%9. San Antonio College TX 24,135 11,557 4,794 6,763 48%10. Central New Mexico Community College NM 27,999 11,222 4,631 6,591 40%11. Mt. San Antonio College CA 29,935 10,640 4,809 5,831 36%12. Valencia Community College FL 39,008 10,531 4,315 6,216 27%13. San Jacinto Community College TX 27,011 10,397 4,446 5,951 38%14. Pima Community College AZ 35,880 10,170 4,386 5,784 28%15. Austin Community College District TX 40,248 10,065 4,365 5,700 25%16. Long Beach City College CA 27,894 9,945 4,652 5,293 36%17. Fresno City College CA 25,511 9,881 4,634 5,247 39%18. El Camino Community College District CA 27,237 9,449 4,369 5,080 35%19. Chaffey College CA 21,399 9,317 3,666 5,651 44%20. Pasadena City College CA 26,453 9,208 4,123 5,085 35%21. Santa Monica College CA 32,313 9,192 4,003 5,189 28%22. Tarrant County College District TX 44,355 9,125 3,803 5,322 21%23. Cerritos College CA 21,776 8,971 3,812 5,159 41%24. Laredo Community College TX 9,361 8,964 3,765 5,199 96%25. Palomar College CA 27,442 8,360 4,246 4,114 30%26. Bakersfield College CA 18,402 8,242 3,477 4,765 45%27. Los Angeles Trade Technical College CA 15,968 8,122 4,542 3,580 51%28. Los Angeles Valley College CA 19,951 8,087 3,387 4,700 41%29. Los Angeles City College CA 19,873 7,980 3,392 4,588 40%30. CUNY/Borough of Manhattan Com. Coll. NY 21,424 7,583 2,974 4,609 35%31. Los Angeles Mission College CA 10,792 7,569 2,750 4,819 70%32. College of the Canyons CA 21,575 7,206 4,289 2,917 33%33. Los Angeles Pierce College CA 21,928 7,156 3,079 4,077 33%34. Del Mar College TX 12,069 7,152 2,878 4,274 59%35. San Bernardino Valley College CA 14,916 7,108 3,093 4,015 48%36. City Colleges of Chicago-Richard J. Daley Coll. IL 9,991 7,087 2,927 4,160 71%37. Reedley College CA 15,384 7,049 2,744 4,305 46%38. Northwest Vista College TX 14,587 6,691 2,903 3,788 46%39. Ventura College CA 14,395 6,540 2,760 3,780 45%40. Northern Virginia Community College VA 46,619 6,390 2,852 3,538 14%41. City Colleges of Chicago-Wilbur Wright Coll. IL 12,866 6,380 2,629 3,751 50%42. San Joaquin Delta College CA 20,223 6,304 2,568 3,736 31%43. San Diego City College CA 18,074 6,270 2,699 3,571 35%44. CUNY/LaGuardia Community College NY 17,028 6,199 2,447 3,752 36%45. Hillsborough Community College FL 26,964 6,115 2,514 3,601 23%46. CUNY/Bronx Community College NY 10,420 6,065 2,333 3,732 58%47. New Mexico State University-Dona Ana NM 9,021 5,893 2,501 3,392 65%48. Sacramento City College CA 27,171 5,876 2,413 3,463 22%49. Oxnard College CA 8,642 5,854 2,389 3,465 68%50. Imperial Valley College CA 8,831 5,824 2,365 3,459 66%

Community Colleges by HispanicFull-Time Enrollment

Community Colleges by HispanicFull-Time Enrollment

Source: 2009 ED/NCES

HISPANIC ENROLLMENTHISPANIC

ENROLLMENT


FACULTY RANK INSTITUTION TOTAL MEN WOMEN TOTAL MEN WOMEN %

1. El Paso Community College, TX 1,340 680 660 726 377 349 54%2. San Antonio College, TX 1,426 744 682 390 195 195 27%3. Houston Community College, TX 3,193 1,539 1,654 320 176 144 10%4. Northwest Vista College, TX 818 417 401 260 133 127 32%5. Santa Ana College, CA 1,004 422 582 229 105 124 23%6. Laredo Community College, TX 304 176 128 224 129 95 74%7. St. Philips College, TX 712 426 286 221 134 87 31%8. East Los Angeles College, CA 917 512 405 218 121 97 24%9. Palo Alto College, TX 535 278 257 205 101 104 38%10. Central New Mexico Com. Coll., NM 1,098 514 584 199 108 91 18%11. Lone Star College System, TX 2,845 1,228 1,617 199 86 113 7%12. Del Mar College, TX 700 343 357 198 92 106 28%13. Riverside Community College, CA 1,442 730 712 197 110 87 14%14. Pima Community College, AZ 1,553 693 860 176 71 105 11%15. Southwestern College, CA 821 392 429 176 81 95 21%16. Mt. San Antonio College, CA 1,279 617 662 174 88 86 14%17. Austin Community College District, TX 1,822 918 904 174 90 84 10%18. Central Texas College, TX 2,467 1,517 950 163 103 60 7%19. City College of San Francisco, CA 1,849 790 1,059 156 84 72 8%20. Valencia Community College, FL 1,491 705 786 155 65 90 10%21. Grossmont College, CA 851 449 402 146 75 71 17%22. Pasadena City College, CA 1,074 514 560 146 74 72 14%23. Texas State Tech. Coll. Harlingen, TX 244 153 91 146 91 55 60%24. Cerritos College, CA 758 363 395 145 75 70 19%25. Tarrant County College District, TX 1,904 900 1,004 144 78 66 8%26. Fresno City College, CA 985 483 502 138 51 87 14%27. Rio Hondo College, CA 523 263 260 135 67 68 26%28. Imperial Valley College, CA 343 196 147 134 78 56 39%29. CUNY/Hostos Community College, NY 357 177 180 125 63 62 35%30. Chaffey College, CA 859 390 469 119 42 77 14%31. CUNY/Borough of Manhattan C.C., NY 1,298 656 642 118 56 62 9%32. Reedley College, CA 670 325 345 117 51 66 17%33. New Mexico State Univ.-Dona Ana, NM 471 225 246 117 57 60 25%34. Palomar College, CA 1,143 577 566 116 64 52 10%35. San Diego City College, CA 855 409 446 112 56 56 13%36. San Jacinto Community College, TX 1,209 560 649 112 57 55 9%37. Long Beach City College, CA 975 448 527 111 48 63 11%38. Santa Barbara City College, CA 950 370 580 107 41 66 11%39. Hillsborough Community College, FL 1,271 649 622 107 55 52 8%40. CUNY/LaGuardia Comm. Coll., NY 984 452 532 103 49 54 10%41. Santa Monica College, CA 1,320 606 714 102 38 64 8%42. El Camino Comm. Coll. District, CA 921 432 489 96 43 53 10%43. San Diego Mesa College, CA 880 427 453 90 43 47 10%44. American River College, CA 1,098 563 535 88 49 39 8%45. Luna Community College, NM 154 72 82 87 45 42 56%46. Milwaukee Area Technical Coll., WI 1,639 839 800 86 48 38 5%47. San Bernardino Valley College, CA 577 254 323 85 41 44 15%48. Arizona Western College, AZ 425 230 195 84 46 38 20%49. CUNY/Bronx Community College, NY 674 382 292 82 51 31 12%50. Mt. San Jacinto Comm. Coll. Dis., CA 745 371 374 81 37 44 11%

Community Colleges byHispanic Faculty

Community Colleges byHispanic Faculty

Source: 2009 ED/NCES

HISPANIC FACULTYHISPANIC FACULTY


N/A: Indicate schools that were not in the top 50 communitycolleges in granting degrees to Hispanics in 2004 from NCES

Five-Year Comparison Degrees Granted to Hispanics

Five-Year Comparison Degrees Granted to Hispanics

2009 TOTAL 2009 2004 TOTAL 2004 % RANK INSTITUTION TOTAL HISP. % HISP. TOTAL HISP. % HISP. DIFF.

1. El Paso Community College, TX 2,104 1,792 85% 1,705 1,443 85% same2. Valencia Community College, FL 5,128 1,127 22% 3,996 628 16% 6%3. Mt. San Antonio College, CA 2,107 868 41% 1,264 485 38% 3%4. Riverside Community College, CA 2,501 846 34% 2,133 598 28% 6%5. Texas Southmost College, TX 865 790 91% 801 750 94% -3%6. East Los Angeles College, CA 1,215 769 63% 1,254 873 70% -7%7. Southwestern College, CA 1,152 695 60% 1,064 586 55% 5%8. Santa Ana College, CA 1,292 652 50% 1,373 680 50% same9. Houston Community College, TX 2,720 648 24% 1,923 470 24% same10. CUNY/Borough of Manhattan C. C., NY 2,387 632 26% 2,207 532 24% 2%11. Pima Community College, AZ 2,232 612 27% 1,835 473 26% 1%12. Laredo Community College, TX 626 600 96% 794 754 95% 1%13. San Jacinto Community College, TX 1,815 573 32% 1,680 418 25% 7%14. Lone Star College System, TX 2,450 567 23% 1,841 312 17% 6%15. Del Mar College, TX 1,065 561 53% 790 389 49% 4%16. Central New Mexico Com. Coll., NM 1,373 538 39% 1,079 393 36% 3%17. Rio Hondo College, CA 833 529 64% N/A N/A N/A N/A18. Chaffey College, CA 1,274 523 41% 1,110 418 38% 3%19. Fresno City College, CA 1,436 523 36% 1,468 428 29% 7%20. Cerritos College, CA 1,050 511 49% 1,232 588 48% 1%21. San Antonio College, TX 1,125 504 45% 932 394 42% 3%22. CUNY/LaGuardia Comm. Coll., NY 1,601 484 30% 1,361 471 35% -5%23. New Mexico State Univ.-Dona Ana, NM 744 456 61% 479 283 59% 2%24. Hillsborough Community College, FL 2,452 438 18% 1,937 275 14% 4%25. Tarrant County College District, TX 2,385 431 18% 1,870 280 15% 3%26. Bakersfield College, CA 993 412 41% 898 325 36% 5%27. Northern Virginia Comm. Coll., VA 3,210 411 13% N/A N/A N/A N/A28. Pasadena City College, CA 1,683 409 24% 1,844 478 26% -2%29. Southwest Texas Junior College, TX 466 400 86% N/A N/A N/A N/A30. Ventura College, CA 1,068 398 37% 869 305 35% 2%31. Fullerton College, CA 1,140 396 35% 1,104 304 28% 7%32. CUNY/Bronx Community College, NY 812 392 48% 819 364 44% 4%33. Allan Hancock College, CA 983 390 40% 1,120 349 31% 9%34. Imperial Valley College, CA 466 382 82% 328 285 87% -5%35. Mt. San Jacinto Comm. Coll. Dist., CA 1,511 366 24% N/A N/A N/A N/A36. Palomar College, CA 1,611 365 23% N/A N/A N/A N/A37. Central Texas College, TX 2,425 361 15% 1.93 262 14% 1%38. Nassau Community College, NY 2,703 350 13% 2,817 314 11% 2%39. Citrus College, CA 945 342 36% 684 252 37% -1%40. Oxnard College, CA 515 334 65% 510 311 61% 45%41. Los Angeles Valley College, CA 887 321 36% 893 298 33% 3%42. El Camino Comm. Coll. District, CA 1,139 320 28% 1,377 399 29% -1%43. Reedley College, CA 694 316 46% 586 314 54% -8%44. Suffolk County Comm. Coll., NY 2,618 316 12% N/A N/A N/A N/A45. Hartnell College, CA 499 311 62% 547 296 54% 8%46. San Bernardino Valley College, CA 697 309 44% 700 288 41% 3%47. Santa Monica College, CA 1,329 309 23% 1,409 350 25% -2%48. Bergen Community College, NJ 1,481 297 20% N/A N/A N/A N/A49. Long Beach City College, CA 968 287 30% N/A N/A N/A N/A50. Phoenix College, AZ 782 286 37% N/A N/A N/A N/ASource: 2009, 2004 ED/NCES

DDiivviiddeedd WWee FFaaiill SSuuggggeessttss WWaayyss ttooIImmpprroovvee CCoommmmuunniittyy CCoolllleeggeeGGrraadduuaattiioonn RRaatteess aanndd CClloossee

AAcchhiieevveemmeenntt GGaappssby Angela Provitera McGlynn

Colleen Moore and Nancy Shulock at theInstitute for Higher Education Leadership &Policy at California State University-

Sacramento produced the document titledDivided We Fail: Improving Completion andClosing Racial Gaps in CaliforniasCommunity Colleges (October 2010).

With nearly one in four community collegestudents in America enrolled at one ofCalifornias 112 community colleges, and educa-tional attainment in that state slipping with eachgeneration, improving associate degree comple-tion, certificate completion, and transfers tobaccalaureate institutions is imperative for thefuture of Californias economic competitiveness.Given the states enrollment numbers,Californias progress is tied to the success of thenations agenda of restoring Americas competi-tiveness in the global economy.

Nationwide, too, few Americans completesome level of postsecondary education.Internationally, the United States has fallen to12th place among 36 industrialized nations fromits number one position in decades past. TheGlobal Education Digest (2009) reports that inthe United States, 40 percent of Americans holdan A.A. degree or higher, and that attainmentrate has been about the same for the last 40years.

The Organisation for Economic Co-opera-tion and Development (OECD), an internationalorganization of the 30 most economicallyadvanced countries, put the rate at 39 percentin 2008. Degree attainment rates in other coun-tries continue to climb while Americas ratesremain flat.

One chart from the Divided We Fail reportshows the percent of adults with at least an asso-

ciate degree by age group, by leading OECDcountries, in the United States, and in California.Korea, Canada, Japan, New Zealand and Norwaylead the world. Notice that Ireland, Denmark,Belgium and Australia are not depicted on thechart, and they are all ranked ahead of the U.S.on higher educational attainment among youngadults.

The United States is slipping. One of the rea-sons for the slippage is that the world leadersgraduate far more A.A. degree earners and cer-tificate completers than America does.

Attrition is a bigger higher education prob-lem in America than access. More than 40 per-cent of college students throughout the UnitedStates who earn more than 10 college creditsnever complete a two- or four-year degree. Ournation is number one of first-world nationswhose younger people (18 to 24 years old) are

REPORTS


Percent of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher by Age Group - Leading OECD Countries, the U.S., and California

Source: National data are from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developments Education at aGlance 2010. Not shown on the graph are Ireland, Denmark, Belgium and Australia, which also rank ahead of theU.S. on attainment among young adults (and have increasing attainment levels for younger populations). Data

for California are from the American Community Survey 2006-2008 three-year estimates.

55 to 6445 to 5435 to 4425 to 34

eerge

D eta icossA

htiw stlu

dA fo tnecr eP

reh

giH ro

Canada Japan New Zealand Norway United States0%

20%30%40%

50%

60%

10%

CaliforniaKorea

less well educated than its adults betweenbetween 25 and 65 years old.

Another chart from the report (page 17)shows racial/ethnic distribution of degree seek-ers compared to those who earn a degree. Wecan see from the pie chart that minority studentsmake up a much smaller percentage of degreecompleters. Forty-three percent of Latino/a andBlack students seek a degree, but only 30 per-cent actually earn the credential.

The percentage drop is largely accounted forby Latinos representing a third of incomingdegree seekers but less than 25 percent ofdegree completers.

Americans 35 years and older still rankamong world leaders in percentages of collegeeducated, reflecting the educational progress ofearlier times. Basically, we are losing educa-tional capital among our younger generation.Divided We Fail states that poor educationalattainment in California mirrors what is seenthroughout the nation. National data suggest thattodays young adults will be less well educatedthan the previous generation, without quick

interventions to increase both college enroll-ment and degree completion.

Demographic changes in America make itimperative to graduate more Latino/a, Black,low-income and first-generation students, cate-gories that often overlap. In California, as in thenation as a whole, educational attainment ofLatinos is low relative to that of other groups.The Latino working-age population in Californiais currently 34 percent and is expected to growto 50 percent by 2040. Unless there is significantprogress in Latino/a degree completion,California is in deep economic trouble.

Moore and Shulock found that racial/ethnicdisparities persist. Their key findings, shown inthe executive summary, include: Too many students fail to complete postsec-ondary degrees and certificates. Specifically, 70percent of students seeking degrees when theystarted had not completed a certificate or adegree and had not transferred to a universitywithin a six-year period. Those noncompletionstatistics are even greater for Black students (75percent) and Latino/a students (80 percent).

Additionally, they found that most students haddropped out of the postsecondary education sys-tem completely; only 15 percent of the noncom-pleters were still enrolled. Too many students miss critical milestones intheir educations. Certain milestones, that is,intermediate markers of student success, arecorrelated with degree completion. For example,one such milestone is completing 30 credits the minimum number of college credits to showa marked economic benefit. Only 40 percent ofstudents seeking degrees had earned at least 30college-level credits at a California communitycollege after six years. Again, a lower rate ofLatino students (35 percent) and Black students(28 percent) reached the 30-credit threshold. Latinos face more hurdles at the end of theroad. Completing 30 credits often providesmomentum to earn a degree. However, fewerLatino students (47 percent) than White students(60 percent) who reach the 30-credit milestonecomplete a certificate, associate degree, ortransfer to a four-year college. For Asian-PacificIslander students, the rate is 58 percent; and forBlack students, 53 percent. Transfer to a four-year institution does notnecessarily mean the completion of a two-yearprogram, and this is especially true for Blackstudents. Transfer success is low. Only about 23 per-cent of students seeking a degree transferred toa university. Latinos were only half as likely asWhite students to transfer: 14 percent vs. 29 per-cent. The majority of students dont follow an edu-cational Master Plan. In other words, many stu-dents who transferred did not complete a trans-fer curriculum at the community college (57percent did not complete a two-year program).Only half of Californias community college stu-dents (52 percent) transferred to a Californiapublic university. The for-profit educational sectors role isgrowing. An increasing proportion of transferstudents are enrolling in the for-profits. Little isknown about student outcomes of this sector,and with high costs that lead students into greatdebt, this trend is worrisome. A complex trans-fer process and enrollment limits at University ofCalifornia (UC) and California State University(CSU) contribute to the trend. Black studentsare especially likely to transfer to the for-profitsector.


A Model for Improving Student Outcomes

Colleges perform cohort analysis of studentprogress through milestones, by race/ethnicity:

Where do students get stalled? Which students?

following?

Stakeholders (interest groups, community advocates,policy researchers, etc.) compare current performance levels with desired outcomes

Colleges do additional analysis (e.g., studentinterviews, data on student use of services) to learnwhy students are getting stalled and why they are not following successful enrollment patterns

Stakeholders examine current policies to determineif they support or create barriers to student success

Colleges implement new practices based on dataanalysis, share results with other colleges, identifyeffective practices as well as barriers toimplementing such practices

Stakeholders draw from practices in other states to construct new policy agendas

Institutional Practices State/System Policies

California Community Colleges SystemGovernor, Legislature,

community colleges board of Governors

Changes in practice

Increased completionReduced racial/ethnic gaps in completion

Changes in policy

Identify opportunitiesfor policy changes tosupport and bring to

scale successful practices

What known successful patterns are they not

Public reportingof milestone

achievements

Source: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy, Divided We Fail: Improving Completion and Closing Racial Gaps

in Californias Community Colleges

Demographics are not destiny. The reportconfirms what previous research has shown.Some colleges of similar size, demographicmakeup and resources do better than others ingraduating their students, showing that practicesand policies at colleges do make a difference.Completion rates and levels of disparity varywidely across colleges. Patterns of student enrollment provide cluesfor improvement. Students who followed certainenrollment patterns did much better academi-cally. For example, 59 percent of students whoearned at least 20 credits in their first collegeyear went on to complete a certificate, a degreeor transferred within six years. This compares to21 percent of students who had not earned atleast 20 credits in their first year. Additionally,55 percent of students who passed college mathwithin two years completed a certificate, adegree or transferred compared to only 21 per-cent of those who did not. And 50 percent of stu-dents who completed college-level English with-in two years earned a degree or certificate ortransferred compared to 20 percent of studentswho did not. Few students followed the success patterns,and there were large racial/ethnic gaps. Thenumbers are bleak: Only one-fourth of studentsseeking degrees earned at least 20 credits intheir first community college year. Only 29 per-cent passed at least one college-level mathcourse within two years. Only 36 percent passedat least one college-level English class within twoyears. Black students were the least likely to fol-low the success patterns and completed only halfthe credits they attempted. On average, studentsseeking degrees dropped or failed more than athird of the credits they attempted.

Moore and Shulock offer recommendationsfor practice, policy and their integration that aredata-based and can improve degree and certifi-cate completion rates in general and especiallyfor historically underserved students. They saythat increasing overall completion rates andreducing racial/ethnic disparities in degree com-pletion must occur on two mutually supportivefronts changes to institutional practices at thecollege level and changes to state and systempolicy. Both fronts rely on the strategic use ofdata to track student milestone achievement andenrollment patterns. Public reporting of the datais crucial, along with meetings of educators andadministrative leaders to discuss and change

policies that prevent the implementation of effec-tive practices.

Campus practices must be improved.Moore and Shulock suggest that the chancel-

lors office should coordinate a systematic andsystemwide effort to analyze student progressthrough milestones and enrollment patternsthroughout the community college system inCalifornia and then create a formal processwhereby colleges share best practices. Collegesshould report their milestone data by subgroups(race/ethnicity, gender, age).

Funding should be based on a model thatrewards colleges for helping students achievemilestones, including completing college-levelmath and English and for helping underpre-pared students meet milestones for success. Theboard of governors should ensure that all stu-dents who want to earn a degree should beassessed for college readiness and receiveappropriate guidance into courses that will facil-itate their transition to college and their academ-ic success once they are enrolled.

The legislature should ensure that studentsare encouraged to complete an associate degreeprior to transferring, ensure sufficient capacityat UC and CSU for transfer students, and investi-gate recruiting practices and completion rates atfor-profit colleges.

The chart A Model for Improving StudentOutcomes (page 16) from the reports execu-tive summary offers a visual depiction of howinstitutional practices and state and system poli-cies could interact to produce an increase in

degree completion rates and a reduction inracial/ethnic degree completion gaps.

Many states are addressing declining educa-tional attainment and the White-underservedachievement gap. Twenty-three states participatein Complete College America, a foundation-funded initiative that addresses state policychange. The Education Trust and the NationalAssociation of System Heads are working with24 public higher education systems throughoutthe nation to reduce achievement gaps. TheLumina Foundation and the Gates Foundation

have both been actively involved in improvingcollege graduation rates and narrowing achieve-ment gaps as well.

Californias model for improving student out-comes is a valuable contribution to addressingthis national priority.

For more information, consult the completeDivided We Fail document available online at:www.edexcelencia.org/research/divided-we-fail-improving-completion-and-closing-racial-gaps-california-community-colleges.

Angela Provitera McGlynn taught psycholo-gy at a community college for 35 years and iscurrently a national consultant on teachingand learning.


Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Degree Seekers Compared to Completers

CompletersDegree Seekers

Latino 23%

Latino 34%

Black9%

Black7%

White48%

White40%

API18%

API22%

Source: Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy, Divided We Fail: Improving Completion and Closing Racial Gaps in

Californias Community Colleges

Helping Students Take the Proper Steps to Earn a College Degreeby Melissa Campbell

Arecent report from Jobs for the Future, a nonprofit architect of educa-tional and work force strategies to increase Americas economic com-petitiveness, recommends the creation of intermediate milestones

along the path to degree completion as a way of helping students succeed incollege, and ultimately ensure long-term economic growth and prosperity.

Published in September 2010, Taking the Next Step The Promise ofIntermediate Measures for Meeting Postsecondary Completion Goals distin-guishes between milestones that must be attained in order to obtain a degreeand success indicators that increase a students chances of completion.

Just gathering the data on degree completion and other final outcomesis too little, too late if the ultimate goal is improving outcomes rather thanjust reporting them, said Nancy Shulock, Ph.D., the reports co-authorand director of the Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy.

To that end, the report reviews 11 initiatives that make use of this inter-mediate milestone approach, from individual institutions to cross-statework groups, explores the ways they are being used and considers howthey can be used effectively.

The initiatives featured in Taking the Next Step are: Access to Success initiative, managed by the National Association ofSystem Heads and the Education Trust The Achieving the Dream Cross-State Work Group American Association of Community Colleges Voluntary Framework ofAccountability Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Student Progress and CompletionMeasures for Grantees California Leadership Alliance for Student Success City University of New York Complete College America National Community College Benchmarking Project Ohio Performance Funding Tennessee Performing Funding Washington State Student Achievement Initiative

Tracking milestones can help us understand where students arefalling off the pathway to a college degree, and tracking success indicatorscan point to why they may not be progressing, said Shulock.

The concept of milestones was first explored in 2006 by Peter Ewell,who outlined a continuum of events a student would progress through,from pre-college coursework to college completion, including ESL classes,earning the first college credit, completing one year of college, earning acertificate or degree, getting a job.

The Community College Research Center built upon Ewells work and fur-ther expanded the concept to pair milestones with momentum points, whichare defined as measurable educational attainments that predict completion ofa milestone. Some examples include: completion of one pre-collegiatecourse, completion of a career exploration or introduction course, comple-tion of one college-level gatekeeper math or English course, completion of 15college-level or vocational credits, completion of 30 college-level or vocation-al credits and completion of 30 college-level/vocational credits in one year.

A 2009 report from the Institute for Higher Education and LeadershipPolicy, authored by Shulock, also employed the milestones concept but

paired them with success indicators that included: Completing a specific number of credits in a specified period of time Completing gateway course in a specified period of time Completing a student success course Earning summer credits Enrolling continuously Avoiding excessive course withdrawal and late registration for classes

In 2009, the National Governors Association (NGA) also weighed in onthe matter, suggesting that figuring out where students get stalled on theirpath to degree completion could help policymakers find ways to smooththe way to improve student outcomes. In an issue brief, the NGA describesthree types of milestones: remediation milestones, retention milestonesand attainment milestones.

Despite some differences in the various milestone frameworks, one com-monality is that they all stress the importance of looking at the milestone datafor specific subgroups to identify tailored approaches to different studentpopulations. These subsets of students include full-time, part-time, transferstudents, students in STEM files, adult students, students with limited Englishproficiency, underrepresented minorities and level of preparation for college.

Examples of the application of milestone tracking show a number ofapproaches. The first initiative to use the concept, Achieving the Dream,was deployed by Jobs for the Future when it created the Cross-State DataWork Group, which consisted of college systems in Connecticut, Florida,North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Virginia. By sharing approaches and data,the participants were able to identify areas of strengths and weaknesses.For example, more students earned degrees in Florida than in Texas, per-haps because Floridians who complete an associate degree are automati-cally granted admission to a four-year school.

Another large-scale milestone initiative is the Access to SuccessInitiative of the National Association of System Heads (NASH) and theEducation Trust, which is comprised of 24 public higher education sys-tems. Collectively, they have pledged to cut achievement gaps for low-income and minority students in half by 2015. This program stands to havefar-reaching effects if successful: NASH member institutions serve 40 per-cent of the countrys college students.

Complete College America is a nonprofit dedicated to increasing the coun-trys college graduation rates, particularly among underrepresented popula-tions, through state-level policy change. To date, 22 states have committed tobeing accountable for specific outcomes, which include a series of milestones,and for reporting on those outcomes using a common set of measures.

Several single-state or single-institution initiatives are noted, and inter-estingly, all four involve performance-based funding.

In Washington, the Student Achievement Initiative is spearheaded by theWashington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. Six sets ofachievement points, relating to basic skills through degree or certificatecompletion, provide an opportunity for colleges to earn points based onthe number of students who reach these milestones. Performance-basedfunding, awarded in addition to regular state appropriations, is based onyear-over-year increases in the number of points a school earns. Currently,the amount of funding allotted for the program is less than 1 percent of the

REPORTS


systems budget, but there appears to be interest at the state level inincreasing the performance-based funding pool.

Another state-based initiative in Ohio also applies performance-basedfunding but uses different criteria for four-year schools and communitycolleges. Criteria for two-year colleges include milestones as well as theaccumulation of points for meeting those milestones, both of which grewout of the states participation in the Achieving the Dream Cross-State DataWork Group and were influenced bythe program in Washington state.Unlike Washington, however, perfor-mance-based funding is a portion ofeach schools basic state allocation,currently 5 percent, but proposed toincrease to 30 percent in the future.

At the City University of New York,performance-based funding is pro-vided when funds are available, butthe important element of this institu-tions use of milestones, at both thetwo- and four-year schools within thesystem, is that the university hashighlighted its commitment toimproving performance in theseareas and is clear about communi-cating it as an institutional priority.

The Tennessee Higher EducationCommission implemented perfor-mance funding measures for the 2005-10 funding cycle, targeting student per-sistence for community colleges.Milestones include looking at fall-to-fall persistence rates as well as eightadditional measures that include devel-opmental course grades, enrollment ina college-level course and completionof college algebra, to name a few.

Four multi-institutional initiativesare discussed as well. The National Community College BenchmarkingProject involves 210 participating colleges who report on how well theyare performing on a common set of more than 130 benchmarks. Althoughnot all schools report on all 130 benchmarks, participants are privy to thecomplete dataset, which is not publicly available. The premise is that theavailability of comparative data can help states develop appropriateaccountability measures.

The California Leadership Alliance for Student Success includes 12 com-munity colleges, a little more than 10 percent of the states total number oftwo-year schools, but the data these schools are generating have the poten-tial to be extrapolated to benefit the entire community college system in thestate and influence the creation of state-level policy. Funded by a number offoundations, the alliance brings together college leaders to focus on student

success issues and collect data on common milestones, such as completionof the first college-level course in English composition, U.S. history and col-lege algebra, or percentage of courses completed successfully.

The American Association of Community Colleges Voluntary Framework ofAccountability, which will release its first reports in fall 2011, is modeled on asimilar project at the four-year university level, with institutions demonstratingaccountability to state policymakers for their educational outcomes. It is likely

that milestones will play an importantpart in demonstrating accountabilityat the community college level.

Another nascent initiative at theBill & Melinda Gates Foundationaims to develop a common report-ing template for grantees in its com-munity college portfolio, which willmake it easier to share best prac-tices through the use of commonmetrics. Many of the foundationscurrent metrics involve milestonesand success indicators, so it is rea-sonable to assume that the ultimatereporting tool will use them as well.

After analysis of these 11 initia-tives, the reports authors make sev-eral recommendations for maximiz-ing the ability of intermediate mea-sures to increase student success. The first recognizes that clearlydistinguishing between a milestoneand a success indicator can be helpfulto institutions in fine tuning both theirdata collection and their practices. Milestones also appear to be use-ful in implementing performance-based funding and should perhaps begiven more attention in this regard,particularly because of a new focus of

points along the continuum versus the final outcome of degree completion. While data collection based on milestones provides valuable insight intothe issues of degree completion, it appears that breaking down the data tostudy specific cohorts or groups can facilitate more targeted interventions. Of course, the collection of this data relies upon the ability of institutionsto efficiently and accurately collect information about their students, as wellas an institutional commitment to the collecting and reporting of data.

Overall, though, the use of milestones to increase college degree com-pletion shows great promise as a way to advance the careers of our coun-trys citizens across all populations.

Understanding how these different measures can be used will encouragemore institutions and states to use them in their efforts to help more studentssucceed, said Shulock. And at the end of the day, success is the goal.


Helping Students Take the Proper Steps to Earn a College Degree

Nancy Shulock, Ph.D., Report Co-Author, Director of the Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy

More than one out of five students nationwide dont return to collegeafter their first year, and two out of five dont graduate after sixyears. These are statistics that Patrick Riccards, executive director

for communications and public affairs of the American Institutes forResearch (AIR), already knew when embarking upon unprecedentedresearch, the results of which were revealed in October 2010.

While Riccards and his crew at AIR were far from satisfied with thesestatistics, they wanted to explore this reality a step further. They wanted tofind out what the actual cost is to our nation when this large percentage ofstudents doesnt make it past the first year of college. How are taxpayersand government monies impacted when money invested in the educationof our people has little or no return on its investment? And how can states,colleges and universities make changes that would ensure a better return and, ultimately, a better-educated nation?

According to AIR, most students attend public colleges that are subsi-dized by taxpayers through state appropriations and grants to students.Nationwide, these subsidies average nearly $10,000 per student per year.Understanding this, AIR set out to determine exactly how much money wasspent on the total number of students who, after one year, didnt followthrough. Researchers analyzed 2003-08 data from the federal IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and published their find-ings in a report titled Finishing the First Lap: The Cost of First-YearStudent Attrition in Americas Four-Year Colleges and Universities.

The results of study were eye-opening: Researchers found that the 30percent of first-year college students who failed to return to campus for asecond year accounted for $6.2 billion in state appropriations for colleges

and universities and more than $1.5 billion in grants to these students. Thestudy did not look at community colleges, but did point out that first-yeardropout rates were even higher therein.

Every year, first-year college students receive significant funding fromcolleges, states and the federal government. And every spring, hundreds ofthousands of students decide not to return to college, said Dr. MarkSchneider, an AIR vice president and former commissioner of the federalNational Center for Education Statistics (NCES). When students enroll in acollege or university and drop out before the second year, they have invest-ed time and money only to see their hopes and dreams of a college degreedashed. These costs can be heartbreaking for students and their families,but the financial costs to states are enormous.

The results of this report come at a time when more and more statesare slashing their budgets and cutting back on educational dollars, and thefederal government is seeking ways to balance its own budget. It comes aslittle surprise, then, that in publishing this report, AIR has received atremendous response.

The response has been overwhelming. Folks didnt realize the kind ofimpact that this has. Weve spent so much time in the country talking aboutgraduation issues at high schools that we havent really looked at theseissues in terms of higher education, said Riccards. People are surprisedby the number of students who dont return for their second year, and howfew actually get a degree. And then by the cost.

Weve talked a lot about how everyone needs to go to college and howits a pathway to a career. But just in terms of grant money alone, wevespent nine billion dollars over five years on students who dont return for asecond year of college. In this economy, this is a real issue.

In addition to releasing figures on overall costs incurred by states and thefederal government for first-year dropouts, the report posted the losses experi-enced by each individual state. According to these results, 13 states had morethan $200 million of state funds during a five-year period lost to students drop-ping out before their second year of college. These findings were the combina-tion of state appropriations and state grants provided from 2003-08.

The states that incurred these high costs included the following:California ($467 million), Texas ($441 million), New York ($403 million),Illinois ($290 million), North Carolina ($285 million), Ohio ($277 mil-lion), Florida ($275 million), Indiana ($268 million), Michigan ($239 mil-lion), Georgia ($237 million), Louisiana ($213 million), Tennessee ($205million) and Kentucky ($201 million). The average state spent $120.5 mil-lion in state subsidies to first-year dropouts between 2003 and 2008.

Many of these states with high dropout costs tend to have large anddiverse populations, with significant numbers of Hispanics and otherminority populations. The report, however, did not break down costs relat-ed to any specific populations.

There are a couple of factors with the top 13 states. They are largerstates and have a large number of colleges and universities. The free-rideapproach is also more common in the West than the East. In Texas, oneout of four drop out after the first year. You look at California, and they doa better job with this. Their first-year retention rate is 86 percent, and lessthan one out of three graduate.

According to Riccards, the actual number of college students droppingout after their first year hasnt changed that much nationwide, but the costsfor these dropouts have. The numbers have been relatively steady thedropout rate and graduation rate is not that different from 10 years ago.But the costs are becoming more acute and a greater issue because states


ADMISSIONS/RECRUITMENT

Measuringthe Cost ofFirst-YearDropouts

by Michelle Adam

have less money to spend. The cost of colleges has increased over 300 per-cent over a time where weve had little inflation. The majority of costs forschools are for faculty and utilities, and these costs continue to go up with-out more students, he said.

The report measured how these actual costs for states increased from2003 to 2007. Starting out at just under $1.2 billion in the 2003 academicyear, costs increased by about 15 percent, to $1.35 billion, by the 2007 aca-demic year (the last year for which data are available), it stated. While 2007figures were the last ones available at that time, these costs are accelerating.

In addition to state appropriations, AIR researched the changes in stategrants to students during this sametime period. Both Bush and Obamaadministrations increased the fund-ing for the Pell program, and thelosses through that program are sub-stantial, the report cited. Amongfour-year colleges, in the 2003 acad-emic year, about $240 million in stategrants and $270 million in federalstudent grants went to students whodid not return for a second year atthe same college. State and federalgovernment grants to college stu-dents who dropped out before start-ing their second year increased dra-matically; state grants to these stu-dents increased by a third; federalones, by close to 40 percent.

While the cost of educating stu-dents nationwide has gone up, alongwith the loss of invested dollarswhen students dont follow throughon their education, this is less thecase in other countries, according tothe report.

The United States spends moreon higher education than any othernation in the world. We spent abouttwice as much per student as theUnited Kingdom, Germany, or Japan,and about three times as much asmost other industrialized countriesin Europe and Asia, the report stat-ed, based on information from theOECD Factbook (issued by theOrganisation for Economic Co-oper-ation and Development).

Riccards attributed these differ-ences in cost to the fact that here inthe U.S., we say every kid goes tocollege. This is not true in othercountries. Also, the brightest inthose countries come to the U.S. foreducation. And given that suchlarge numbers of students do aim to

go to college here in the U.S., it should continue to be encouraged. WhatAIR would like to see happen, in the face of rising education costs and acontinuation of students dropping out, is to see colleges, universities andstates become more accountable for those dollars spent to improve col-lege retention and graduation rates so that there is a return on investmentin education.

It is important we dont use this data to write off students. Policymakers atthe state level have to hold universities accountable for a return on investment.We also have these grant monies that are supposed to get people to graduatefrom college, but there is nine billion dollars that arent delivering their

promise, said Riccards. It is up toschools to provide the support andimprove the odds of students return-ing a second year and graduating. Wereally struggle with our state-run insti-tutions with this, whereas our IvyLeagues have these supports.

Asked how colleges and univer-sities have responded to the findingsof Finishing the First Lap: The Costof First-Year Student Attrition inAmericas Four-Year Colleges andUniversities, Riccards said he waspleased by the results. We have hada number of institutions who havelooked at the numbers and havebeen equally surprised, and havesaid that this is something we needto address. They are being respon-sive to this and seeing that there isan issue here that we need to startaddressing, he said. Many col-leges and universities are also say-ing that these numbers cant betrue. But the data we are using iswhat the colleges and universitiesgive to the federal government. Thedollar figures really catch them.

Riccards and AIR are hoping thatthe reality of that price tag duringhard economic times will createamong schools a much greatersense of urgency to address the highdropout rates and the equally highrates of students who dont graduatefrom college despite the investedhours and money (the study didnteven include the cost of studentsdropping out after their second year,or students leaving community col-leges before graduating). WithHispanic student graduation rates at45.6 percent, its even worse. If youare Hispanic, you have a one-in-twochance of earning a degree, said


As a good consumer, weneed to make sure we go tocolleges with a better than

half chance of graduating.

Patrick Riccards, Executive Director of Communications and Public Affairs,

American Institutes for Research

Riccards. What is it that colleges are doing to help students? What kind oftracking are we doing to make sure we have a better than 50-50 chance ofgraduating students?

In an effort to support this kind of change, AIR has provided all of thestudy results on a website, www.collegemeasures.org. Anyone visiting thesite can look at data by institution, state or by federal level. Students canalso benefit from the information listed, since they can become better con-sumers about the colleges they are considering attending.

When a kid is making a decision regarding college, he or she canlook at a lot of factors, including seeing how many students are graduatingfrom that college after six years, said Riccards. As a good consumer, weneed to make sure we go to colleges with a better than half chance of grad-uating. Far too many times, the chances of graduating is no better than acoin flip, and most colleges dont show their graduation rates.

The data researched and released by AIR will also provide states, col-leges and universities with a clearer sense of what they are spending onstudents who are not obtaining degrees.

K-12 schools are measured based on students receiving diplomas. Butwe dont have incentives for colleges to graduate students. Yet, if I were run-ning a state board of education and looking at these numbers, Id find itinteresting to see how one school does better than another at graduating stu-dents. If I were trying to decide how to spend tax dollars, it would be wiserfor me to spend money on schools that graduate kids, said Riccards.Colleges need to make sure that more kids who receive taxpayer money canstay in longer and later graduate and contribute to the economy afterwards.



by Ana Hernndez

Theopportunity to join a community sharing the common goalof pursuing ones academic dreams, coupled with theunique experiences and perspectives each member con-

tributes, creates a truly rich environment.Impromptu late-night debates over political, philosophical and social

issues outside a residential setting are hard to match. Imagine living in acommunity where diversity is embraced, social responsibility is valued andlifelong friendships are formed. These communities develop in residentialhalls on university campuses around the world.

Living on campus is an important step for any student in building asolid foundation for success in college and beyond. More than conve-nience, it is about making connections, building community and findingones place both academically and socially at an institution of higher edu-cation. Residential students are invested and involved in campus life andare more likely to be satisfied with their university experience, develop astrong affinity to the institution and persist and progress at a higher ratethan those who have never lived on campus.

The life skills developed as part of a residential community will stay withstudents well after graduation. The residence hall environment offers not onlythe c

03/21/2011 Community Colleges Pave the way

Documents

Transcript of 03/21/2011 Community Colleges Pave the way