↓ Download PDF ← Back to Library
o-%’%=
graphs and interpretations by Peter Townsend
Professor, Environmental Saence and Geology
July 1995 and November 1996
Student Enrollment and Retention
at Antioch College:
could enrollment and retention be related to
campus climate?
I am writing this out of deep concern for Antioch College. Beginning in 1974,
Antioch began a precipitous decline in enrollment which almost closed it. Since
then, despite heroic efforts by the Board of Trustees, by the faculty and staff at the
College, and by many administrators, Antioch has not experienced a robust
recovery. Why not? It is my conviction that a few critical problems have mostly
been mis-diagnosed. And, if problems are not diagnosed accurately, how can we
hope to find successful solutions? We have not taken a careful enough look at
Antioch’s recent history. Without appreciating Antioch’s strengths, understanding
where the real problems lie, and designing appropriate solutions, efforts to stabilize
Antioch have failed, or at least not helped enough. Without better retention, all
other efforts to stabilize Antioch College will not succeed.
What is happening with student retention at Antioch College? To gain
perspective on this question, one needs historical as well as current perspective.
Figure 1 puts our recent enrollment in perspective by presenting full time student
enrollment for 1970 – 1992. In the period 1992 – 1996, FTE enrollment has drifted
down to about 500 students. Since this figure was prepared in 1992, these data are
not shown. Figure 1 shows the precipitous decline in enrollment that began in 1974,
which began to stabilize in 1982, and was stabilized by 1984. Although enrollment
had improved slightly by 1992, it has drifted back down to about 500 by 1996.
From 1973 until about 1983, the college reeled under the effects of the strike,
the firings, and the subsequent enrollment collapse. College administration after
College administration toppled and collapsed under the pressures that resulted.
Administrative instability was such that for one year the Dean of Faculty (with no
Assistant Dean) was also Acting College Provost (equivalent to College President)
and Acting College Business Manager (equivalent to our current Dean of
Administration and Finance).
If we look at the Antioch College average retention/graduation rates since
enrollment was stabilized in 1984, we see some interesting trends. The Antioch
College retention/graduation rates have historically been and continue to be much
lower than at some other quality small private liberal arts colleges. It appears that
staying at Antioch for 4 years is difficult for many students. The best retention rates
in Antioch’s history were 59% retention to graduation in the period 1961-1970.
Why? Over the years, many who have looked at our historic retention rates have
concluded that transitioning from college, to co-op, back to college, and back to co
op, is extremely difficult for many students, as is the uncertainty of not knowing
E
<
C
CO
CD
Q
T3
C
CO
cd c co
JZ
u
= CO
cd to
E >,
P .Q
CO Q.
to 5 T3 a>
s
0)
c
0)
i_
(0
s.
lueuiiiojue gu
where you will be, or who you will be working with, next work period. There is a
common assumption that the stress of change probably accounts for our lower
retention rates. Co-op is such a vital part of Antioch’s educational excellence,
however, that few suggest Antioch should even consider education (or life) without
co-op. Looking at recent historic graduation/retention data may present
opportunities for addressing some important problems.
Recent Trends in Antioch Retention Rates, by year in College
Annual retention rates for students who entered Antioch as transfers or with
no prior college, are available from the registrar’s office for the period 1984-1995.
Examining recent retention rates by year in college and by new or transfer student
status shows that some important general trends exist in recent retention data.
Figure 2 presents retention rates at the end of the first year, for students who entered
Antioch from 1984 through 1995. Although there is a slight decline over time in
these data, the trend is relatively small compared to later trends. Clearly there is
more variation from year to year in transfer retention, than in students who enter
with no prior college. Partly this may be due to smaller numbers of transfers, where
a few students choosing to stay or leave makes a big difference in the average for the
year.
FIGURE 2 ANTIOCH COLLEGE 1st YEAR RETENTION RATE
FOR STUDENTS WHO ENTERED 1984-95
100
c
•—> o
3*
90-
80-
*
70-
60-
50
40-
30-
20
10-|
0
total 1st yr
freshfoik
transfers
-r-a
CO
cn
—f-
CM
CO
O)
T-
a
-l—«-
U) 10
0> CO
e» at
CM
CD
m
CO
cn
CO
OJ
-T-
a
-r-
«0
ao
CO
r>>
CO
~1~
oo
CO
o
cn
cn a> a>
Fall Entered Data from Registrar
Graph by Peter
FIGURE 3
100
c o
c
OJ
«
ss
90-
80-
70-
60
50-
40-
30-
20-
10
0
CM
CO
ANTIOCH COLLEGE 2nd YEAR RETENTION RATE
FOR STUDENTS WHO ENTERED 1984-94
-o— total 2nd yr
-•— freshfolk
P transfers
I “—r-
rt f
00 00
o) en
m
oo
IO
00
at
-I • 1-
h- CO
CO CO
co co
0»
CO
cn
o
<9
a at
at
—r-
CM
a>
at
n at at at
at
0>
at
oi
ai
Fall Entered
Data from Registrar
Graph by Peter
Figure 3 shows retention rates at the end of the second year of study, for
students who entered between 1984 and 1994. There is a discernible and alarming
trend in the overall data. For the period 1984-1987 the data show significantly
higher average retention at the end of the second year than for the period 1988-1994.
It appears that, beginning in 1988, something began to produce a strong negative
influence on Antioch retention, for students who had been here two years.
FIGURE 4 ANTIOCH COLLEGE 3rd YEAR RETENTION RATE
FOR STUDENTS WHO ENTERED 1984-93
100
c o
CD
CD
90-
80 –
70-
60-
50-
40-
30
20-
10-
CM
CO
cn
-o total 3rd yr
•— freshfolk
a— transfers
-r-eo co at
T-
00
at
—T-
co co
-r-
(O
co co
r«. oo at
i
00
CO
CO
CO
oo
CO
-I—
o
CO CO
CO
CO
CM
at
at
CJ
CO
CO
en at
Fall Entered
Data from Registrar
Graph by Peter
Figure 4 shows retention rates at the end of the third year of study, for
students who entered between 1984 and 1993. Figure 4 shows that retention at the
end of the third year of study, of students who entered from 1984-1987, was
noticeably higher than 3rd year retention for students who entered after 1987. As
was true in the case of 2nd year retention, it appears that beginning in 1988,
something was producing a strong negative influence on Antioch retention.
FIGURE 5
c o
c
«
IX
5?
100
90-
80-
70-
60-
50
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
CM
00
en
ANTIOCH COLLEGE 4th YEAR RETENTION RATE
FOR STUDENTS WHO ENTERED 1984-92
total 4th yr
freshfolk
transfers
n
a
co
co at
in
co
at
T-<0
CO
CO
-r-
00
CO
CO
00
CO
-T"
CO
co at
T-
o at
at at at a co
-I-
n
co
co
CO
Ol
Fall Entered Data from Registrar
Graph by Peter
Figure 5 shows retention rates at the end of the fourth year of study. Figure 5
shows that retention at the end of the fourth year of study, of transfer students who
entered from 1984-1987, was again noticeably higher than similar retention of
transfer students who entered after 1987. However, little difference is discernible in
the fourth year, between students who entered as new students in the period 1984-
1987, and students who entered as new students in the period 1988-1992.
FIGURE 6
100
o
c
CD
AVERAGE RETENTION RATES FOR TRANSFER STUDENTS
1984-1987 AND POST 1987
2 3
YEAR AT ANTIOCH Graph by Peter
FIGURE 7
100
AVERAGE RETENTION RATES FOR NEW STUDENTS
1984-87 AND POST 1987
e
CO
DC
1984-87
- new 84-87
-•— new 88-92
YEAR AT ANTIOCH Graph by Peter
Figures 6 and 7 present a summary of the data in Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5. Since
retention rates of students who entered 1984-1987 appear to be noticeably different
from retention rates of students who entered after 1987, the two groups are
separated. Since retention of first time students shows a different pattern from
transfer student retention, Figures 6 and 7 separate new students from transfer
students.
Interpretation and Conclusions
The graphs on the previous pages show what actually happened with
retention in the past; the graphs do not tell us why retention changed. My
interpretation of this data is given below. Something negative happened to affect
retention after 1987. What happened in 1987-88?
In late 1986 or early 1987 College President Alan Guskin fired Dean of Faculty
Connie Pelekoudas. In August of 1987 a new Dean of Faculty, Valora Washington,
arrived. In winter 1988 Michael Bassis arrived as Executive Vice President. The
initiation of Valora's Deanship, the Bassis Vice Presidency, and a perceived general
negative attitude by top administrators toward faculty, staff, and administrators who
tried to suggest ideas and solutions that differed from the accepted solutions,
changed the working atmosphere for many of us to punitive and negative. Either
you overtly supported proposed solutions, you were silent, or you were
"uncomfortable" in your work environment.
Also during this time new faculty were sometimes overtly and sometimes
covertly mentored to see the existing programs and senior faculty in a negative
light. I believe that the ripple effects of punitive treatment for individuals who
exercised free speech, and the often negative mentoring of new faculty changed the
climate from one of general optimism regarding our educational strengths, to one of
general pessimism regarding our educational program and strengths.
An alternative possible interpretation is that students left due to
dissatisfaction with the new curriculum that was instituted in 1987-1988.
For our financial survival, it is imperative that Antioch College regain our
1984 - 1987 retention levels. What changed and how can we change it back? There
seem two obvious routes to determining what changed. We must convene a group
of key campus leaders from that time and ask them to summarize critical differences
before and after 1987-88. The group should be chaired by Connie Pelekoudas (Dean
of Faculty and faculty chair at that time), Steve Schwerner (Dean of Students at that
time), Elaine Comeges (Associate Dean of Students at that time), Joan Chappelle
(Director of Counseling at that time), Melva Rue (Registrar at that time), Katy Jako
should be consulted by phone (Director of Institutional Research at that time), Jewel
Graham (faculty emeritus), Al Denman (faculty chair), Bob Parker (Director of Co-op
at that time). The group should, as a minimum, revisit withdrawal interview data
and should provide us with recommendations on how to return to 1984-1987
retention levels.
What Could Enrollment Have Been If Retention Had Not Fallen?
Figure 8 Shows a graph of actual Antioch College enrollment from 1986
through 1995, and a second curve that is a model of what enrollment would have
been if retention had remained at 1984-1987 levels. Due to increased admissions, we
would have reached an enrollment in the high 700's by 1991. Obviously, something
terrible happened in the year 1987-1988, and this problem remains within Antioch
College today. Unless we find out what it is, and fix it, we are in serious trouble.
How do current graduation/retention rates compare to historic
graduation/retention rates?
FIGURE 8
e o E
e «
UJ
H U.
900
800 H
700
600
500
400
300
200
100 H
GRAPH OF ANTIOCH ENROLLMENT:
actual enrollment and model of enrollment
if retention had remained at 1984-87 levels
Modeled enrollment Antioch would have
attained if retention had stayed at 1984-87 level
Actual Antioch enrollment, 1988-95
1986 1987 1988 1989
—l—
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
—I—
1995
Fail Entered
Historic Graduation/Retention Rates
Figure 9 shows historic Antioch College graduation/retention rates.
Retention at Antioch averaged 59% during the period 1961-1970, under the 4 quarter
calendar. If calendar affects retention, why didn't we consider returning to a four
quarter calendar, instead of trying something untried?
By 1948, extending through 1959, the college was on the 8-8-12-12 calendar.
All faculty taught 40 weeks, and students alternately worked and studied on two
rigidly enforced divisions. Retention/graduation averaged 52%, about the same as
current rates. In the 1973-1976 period, when the four quarter calendar was still in
effect, retention/graduation were reportedly much worse than 59%, but data for that
period are not available. The current calendar was adopted in 1977 because we
concluded that we couldn't afford to run the classroom program all 4 quarters with
enrollment below 800. During the period 1977-1983 College retention was very low,
(average 41% for 78-'80 and '82) and records are incomplete. Low retention during
this time was due to administrative instability and insufficiency, as explained above,
and had little or nothing to do with our calendar.
In 1983 Connie Pelekoudas became Dean of Faculty. He provided stability,
insightful leadership, and was the only Antioch leader who had been able to
stabilize our retention/graduation rates. In 1983 we also began a curriculum that
utilized the strengths of the rather tattered but still excellent faculty who had
weathered the storms of the previous ten years. The college was able to maintain
retention rates begun under Dean Pelekoudas through 1987, when a noticeable
decrease occurred.
Figure 9 shows that at Antioch College there is no historical precedent for
long-term retention above 60%. Some excellent small private liberal arts colleges, in
the past and in the present, have had and continue to maintain significantly higher
retention/graduation rates. For example, current retention/graduation rates at
Albion are about 65%, at Oberlin retention is about 70%, at Kenyon retention is
about 87%, and Kalamazoo, with the off-campus K plan, retention runs about 68%. I
contend that higher Antioch College esprit-de-corps may be responsible for higher
retention in the 1960's. During the 60's Antioch's testing and evaluation office
churned out study after study, presenting clear evidence of the success of the
Antioch education. Ruth Churchill's Office of Educational Testing and Evaluation
was producing data that quantitatively demonstrated how very effective an Antioch
education is. Her annual reports to the faculty educated new faculty to the truly
marvelous effectiveness of the Antioch educational model; and her numerous
national publications educated the outside world to the effectiveness of our
educational program. Due to Ruth Churchill's studies, no new administrator or
faculty member could doubt our educational effectiveness. That knowledge filtered
down to the students and there was much more of a sense of educational success
than there is now. Somehow, we need to regain our sense of appreciation for the
Antioch educational model, and regain an understanding of the successes we have
with students.
FIGURE 9
Antioch College Graduation Rates 1921-1991
•o
m
a
3
TJ
a
a
i-Nn'tinioNcaaanvinviNoaoi-Nn^iooNcoaOfoaoi-Nn^'ioosaaoi-MCUNNNCViMn^^ir>ioininir)ioir)(D<0(0(D(D(DiO(D(0(pNNNNC9aoaocoo9(ooocoooo)0)a o>cno>o>CAcncnocncncncncncAcno>ci>cna)cno>cncncncncno)0)cncno>o>a>ci)cno>o>cncno>o>o>a>
Year Entered Data from Registrar
Graph by Peter
In 1983 Connie Pelekoudas became Dean of Faculty. He provided stability,
insightful leadership, and was the only Antioch leader who had been able to
stabilize our retention/graduation rates. In 1983 we also began a curriculum that
utilized the strengths of the rather tattered but still excellent faculty who had
weathered the storms of the previous ten years. The college was able to maintain
retention rates begun under Dean Pelekoudas through 1987, when a noticeable
decrease occurred.
Figure 8 shows that at Antioch College there is no historical precedent for
long-term retention above 60%. Some excellent small private liberal arts colleges, in
the past and in the present, have had and continue to maintain significantly higher
retention/graduation rates. For example, current retention/graduation rates at
Albion are about 65%, at Oberlin retention is about 70%, at Kenyon retention is
about 87%, and Kalamazoo, with the off-campus K plan, retention runs about 68%.
I contend that higher Antioch College esprit-de-corps may be responsible for
higher retention in the 1960’s. During the 60’s Antioch’s testing and evaluation
office churned out study after study, presenting clear evidence of the success of the
Antioch education. Ruth Churchill’s Office of Educational Testing and Evaluation
was producing data that quantitatively demonstrated how very effective an Antioch
education is. Her annual reports to the faculty educated new faculty to the truly
marvelous effectiveness of the Antioch educational model; and her numerous
national publications educated the outside world to the effectiveness of our
educational program. Due to Ruth Churchill’s studies, no new administrator or
faculty member could doubt our educational effectiveness. That knowledge filtered
down to the students and there was much more of a sense of educational success
than there is now. Somehow, we need to regain our ..sense of appreciation for the
Antioch educational model, and regain an understanding of the successes we have
with students.
