University Times

Last spring, Pitt mailed surveys to 1,169 undergraduates who had formally withdrawn or dropped out after the fall 1994 term despite being in good academic standing.

The No. 1 reason the 278 respondents cited for leaving the University without finishing their degrees was "inability to afford tuition and fees." Among respondents from the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), which enrolls most of Pitt's traditional-age undergraduates, 36 percent said tuition and fees were a major (25 percent) or minor (11 percent) reason they did not return to the University in spring 1995.

Among respondents from the College of General Studies (CGS), which enrolls more students who are older and have full-time jobs, 39 percent cited tuition and fees as a major (25 percent) or minor (14 percent) reason for not returning to the University.

Those numbers compare with a national rate of 33 percent (with 19 percent citing tuition and fees as a major reason, 14 percent as a minor one, for leaving college).

On the other hand, more than half of the Pitt students said money had nothing to do with their decisions to leave the University.

Among the other reasons the survey respondents cited, the most common were: conflicts between demands of job and college; health and emotional problems; and decisions to attend a different institution or to take a break from school entirely.

(For a sampling of students' comments about Pitt and their reasons for not returning, see story on this page.) About half of the students said they planned to re-enroll at Pitt. One-quarter said they would not return. The remaining one-quarter said they were undecided.

The results of the written survey concurred with those of an earlier, less formal telephone survey that Pitt conducted among students who did not return for fall 1994. Many of those students, too, said they dropped out, at least temporarily, because they couldn't afford the University's tuition and fees.

At legislative hearings last spring in Harrisburg, Provost James Maher noted the telephone survey and joined other Pitt administrators in pleading for a 6 percent increase in state funds so the University could minimize tuition hikes this year. But the extra state money was not forthcoming, and Pitt raised tuition this fall for nearly all of its students by 4.5 percent. Tuition for most Pitt full-time, in-state undergraduates now is $5,184 for two semesters.

Pitt undergraduate tuition costs have increased by nearly 90 percent in the last decade. Some administrators and trustees say they fear the University will price itself out of the market if the hikes continue.

According to Pitt officials, the unexpectedly high number of students who did not return for the fall 1994 term was largely responsible for last year's 3.7 percent decline in enrollment. That decline, equal to 840 full-time students, forced Pitt to cut costs and delay some construction projects in order to head off a threatened multi-million dollar budget shortfall last year.

In the wake of the fall 1994 enrollment shortfall, Pitt's senior administration ordered a survey of students who failed to return for the spring term, in the hope of spotting trends that might be helpful in preventing (or at least preparing for) future waves of non-returning undergrads.

"As it turned out," Provost Maher said, "the number of students who did not return in January [1995] was pretty much normal for this University — unlike what we saw the preceding fall, when an unusually large number of students did not return. So this study is probably not very revealing. It represented a fairly small sampling of students, and I wouldn't say it provided us with any surprises or any clear trends." In fall 1994, Pitt enrolled 18,106 full-time and 5,729 part-time undergraduates at its five campuses. Final figures for this year are not yet available.

Maher said the administration plans to conduct a comprehensive study of continuing students this year. An enrollment management committee, chaired by Associate Provost Jack Daniel, is coordinating the project. Maher said: "We're hoping that, through this next study, we'll acquire a good idea of what our student retention problems are and what our options are to address those problems. I've given the committee a deadline of the end of this academic year [to compile study results] so I can make recommendations for next year's budget." For last spring's study, Pitt mailed surveys to 1,169 non-returning undergraduates. Thirty-five packets were returned as undeliverable; 278 students completed and returned the forms. "The 24.5 percent response rate achieved in this study is favorable compared with rates for surveys of similar groups," according to Pitt's Office of Institutional Research, which administered the survey and compiled the results.

Excluded were students who were not seeking degrees, who were studying abroad, or who were suspended, dismissed or denied graduation, among other disqualifications.

The University used a survey form created by the American College Testing Program, which allowed for comparisons between Pitt students' responses and those of students across the nation. The form asked students for comments and suggestions, background information on themselves and why they left Pitt, and other information.

In rating 46 of the University's services and characteristics on a scale of 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) with a 3 rating being neutral, students gave the highest ratings to library facilities and services (average rating: 4.09, with 231 students responding), variety of courses offered (3.74, 238 students), computer services (3.68, 193 students), college mass transit services (3.67, 130 students) and testing/grading system (3.64, 243 students).

Respondents were least satisfied with Pitt's parking facilities and services (2.38 average rating, 208 students responding), day care services (2.76, 38 students), financial aid services (2.86, 158 students), concern for students as individuals (2.88, 230 students), availability of courses students want at the times they can take them (2.95, 253 students), student voice in college policies (2.95, 127 students) and job placement services (2.99, 72 students).

In comparing CAS and CGS students' responses, the following differences were most noticeable, according to the Office of Institutional Research:

* 35 percent of the CAS group, compared with 6 percent of CGS respondents, said they left Pitt to attend another college.

* 22 percent of CGS respondents indicated they left due to conflicts between the demands of job and college, compared with 9 percent of the CAS students.

The survey also showed significant differences between responses of full- and part-time students, including the following: * 31 percent of full-time students, but only 3 percent of part-timers, said the major reason they left was to attend a different college.

* 25 percent of full-time and 3 percent of part-time students said the major reason they left was because they were dissatisfied with their grades.

* 26 percent of part-timers but just 9 percent of full-time students said the major reason they left was because of conflicts between job demands and college.

— Bruce Steele