Table 5 indicated that there were several types of programmes and initiatives that could be set in place even before a student had started the application process. It is split into 3 progressive stages, pre-application before the student applies, post-offer which covers the period after a student has accepted a place and finally the induction period, normally the week before classes start.
Pre application
Even before students apply for university there will be a myriad of influences that can shape subsequent application behaviour. The key players in this early process are government, schools, parents and the institutions themselves. The government can have an impact through its policies on WP and funding proposals, both of which may have an impact on retention at a systemic level. Schools and parents have a more direct impact in influencing student application behaviour. School leavers are increasingly being expected to attend university and this pressure inevitably means that some students will attend against their wishes. Again this is not a new issue, Yoshino (1958) recognised it and attributed significant dropout to it, but it does seem to be a phenomenon of increasing participation.
The institutions themselves can influence student behaviour through the use of marketing, a tool that has gradually become part of the university arsenal in the context of an increasingly challenging environment. Prospectuses and open days, once simply sources of information for students, are now along with marketing approaches, such as TV advertising, being used to sell the institution as a product to prospective students. Given the pressures of an increasingly competitive HE market, the temptation may be to ‘oversell’ the institution in an attempt to attract students. The inevitable result is that some students find that the reality does not match their expectations, and subsequently this can impact on retention. The problem was identified in NA some time ago (Habley 1981), but is becoming an issue in the UK as
we move closer to the NA model of HE. Lowe and Cook (2003) for example investigated how student expectations about a number of aspects of university life are met. They suggested that the sometimes unrealistic expectations needed to be addressed before students come to university. Additionally strong staff-student relations should be built from an early stage (students indicated low expectations of the approachability of staff and had these expectations confirmed) and resources should be geared toward intervening early before students’ expectations were dashed/realised.
Selection
Because there has been a long history associating academic weakness with withdrawal and failure, selection has always been viewed as a low-cost method of dealing with retention. Lins & Pitt (1953) for example call into question the wisdom of recruiting drop-out prone probation students (students admitted with low hi-school grades). Likewise Shuman (1956) suggests that the recruitment process should be significantly more robust, suggesting the use of entrance tests, but he also acknowledges that applicants need counselling to ensure they are making the right choice and to save them from “..grimly failing at a task for which they were ill- fitted”. (p348). Sarnoff & Raphael (1955) also call for a more stringent recruitment processes that should include psychological testing, a conclusion drawn for an in- depth qualitative analysis of student behaviour. Slocum (1956) is somewhat more explicit about who should be recruited:
The college provides learning opportunities for capable persons who are motivated to succeed. It should not be cast in any other role. (p 63)
This sentiment was strong in much of the research, perhaps not surprisingly because there was a growing consensus that hi-school grades were one of the strongest indicators of subsequent college performance. In the UK this feeling that the university environment was only suitable for certain students was also evident. Mountford (1957) in relation to the issue of what was considered acceptable wastage rates states:
In judging this issue, however it should be said that it is no part of the function of a university to spoon-feed its students or act as a forcing house for intellectual weaklings. (p 15)
The response in the UK was broadly in line with NA, Kelsall (1963) for example suggests that in order to deal with the problem of attrition then more efficient and effective selection strategies would be needed.
More recent work emanating from disciplines such as marketing have suggested a more integrated approach to ensuring student satisfaction that includes recruiting students that fit the institution by considering a whole raft of student related variables and not just entry points (Schertzer and Schertzer 2004). Even so there is still a hint of selection here, albeit non-academic based. Another useful marketing concept that could be applied to student support is the idea of customer relationship management. The concept is described by Nichols et al (1998) in the context of the development of a predictive tool aimed at identifying students who need support. They state:
Each member of the Enrolments team understands the concept of marketing for repeat business (retention). The current first-tear class is here; it is already a captive audience. Expenditures to retain these students to the second year are much less costly than recruiting a prospective student to the University. (p 35)
This idea is potentially attractive to those institutions that are forced to recruit their students rather than select them. Recruitment and selection strategies are problematic for these types of institutions, mainly because they simply do not have the luxury of being able to select their students. Additionally in the current climate of widening participation, selection strategies are potentially in direct conflict with the ethos and ideas behind the provision of HE for a wider group than selection would suggest. Whilst selection based on pre-university academic achievement is a potentially problematic method of recruiting, we know from research that there are many other characteristics that might indicate dropout likelihood. These other characteristics consist of both background and psychological variables, and in particular much early research on dropout was related to psychological aspects of the student character. Again basing an admissions policy on background variables such as social status, where you live or any of the other many background variables is potentially problematic (although it could be argued that just such a system operates covertly in many institutions here and the US).
Usually institutions that recruit as opposed to those that select have higher absolute dropout rates. This can be extended down to course level in any particular institution. Essentially the more recruiting a course has to do to achieve target recruitment levels then the higher the dropout rate will be. For recruiting courses the idea of recruiting strategy becomes real because often the decision to recruit or not takes place at the coal-face through interview and clearly the types of student applying at this late stage will differ from the student who has perhaps used the traditional route. This situation is a reality for many courses but there is little evidence of the effect of front-line recruitment policy on student retention, nor on the types of student that enter university through these alternative routes.
Post acceptance
Whilst these solutions apply to students who have officially obtained a place to study at an institution, they attempt to engage the student before they actually arrive. Examples of strategies that would come under this general umbrella would be pre- entry taster sessions, or supplementary session, and Summer schools. Raab and Adam (2005) present a combined programme that includes a summer pre-entry component and then continues with various forms of academic and social support throughout the first year. What is particularly interesting about this programme is the popularity, with three applicants for every place. Participants are selected on the basis of need. These types of programmes are intended to provide students who have been offered places with some form of preparation. Additionally activities that generate early contact and familiarity for the student, such as a letter of congratulations, and other forms of correspondence would be included here. It is essentially creating a customer relationship early and is a common feature in many US institutions where there is much more of a “student as customer” ethos than in the UK and where student integration begins at the point of offer, not at the point of arrival. Despite this there is a growing recognition of the need for early engagement in the UK. An example is provided Keenan (2008) who presents a detailed and engaging programme that begins before students arrive through the use of information technologies and continues into induction where the key idea is to provide as seamless a transition as possible
Induction
It is this very early stage that students are at their most vulnerable psychologically and emotionally. It is essentially the first critical episode in what Tinto (1993) referred to as the separation stage, and non-traditional students find this separation stage particularly difficult (Elkins et al. 2000). Institutions universally recognise this and provide a period of induction in the week before classes start. The content of an induction week has remained broadly consistent for some time. Knode (1931) for example identifies some common content for inductions including; study guides; information on rules and regulations; library tours; registration; social event information and information about available student services.
Induction though has gradually been seen as a potential method of easing the transition shock that many students feel and its potential more as a social integrating mechanism has found favour with many. An early example of this is Brown (1957) who explains how Freshmen were taken on a 2 day residential event along with staff and support staff in order to foster sense of belonging and more recently an example of an intensely planned induction week is presented by Edward (2003). Whilst accepted as essential by most, there has developed a discourse over the past decade or so as to the idea of induction as an event, as it is traditionally viewed, or as an ongoing process that essentially lasts as long as the student lifecycle (however long the lifecycle is for any particular student). The implication here is that students are engaged in an induction process for the whole time that they spend at an institution. Induction week is simply one stage of the induction process, albeit a vital one.