Students with low socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to leave college without a degree than students with high SES, although there are fewer low-SES students who persist to graduation. The most likely time for students to leave the University is after the first year. The purpose of this qualitative study of low-SES students, both retained and not retained, is to understand their first-year experience and the factors that led to the decision to persist or not. Unlike previous research, neither satisfaction nor obstacles such as finances, academic preparation, or social integration differentiated between students who persisted or not. The difference between those who persisted and those who did not was commitment as defined by the investment model. The committed students believed education was an investment in their future, and their future without a college degree was not an attractive alternative. They were motivated to persist.
BarryC.OkunM. (2011).
Application of investment theory to predicting maintenance of the intent to stay among freshmen. Journal of College Student Retention,
13(1), 87–107.
2.
Baxter-MagoldaM.KingP. (2007).
Interview strategies for assessing self-authorship: Constructing conversations to assess meaning making. Journal of College Student Development,
48(5), 491–508.
3.
Bean, J. (April, 1981). The synthesis of a theoretical model of student attrition. In the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA, Los Angeles, CA).
4.
BurkleyE.AndersonD.CurtisJ.BurkleyM. (2013).
Vicissitudes of goal commitment: Satisfaction, investments, and alternatives. Personality and Individual Differences,
54(5), 663–668.
5.
CabreraA.NoraA.CastanedaM. (1993).
College persistence: Structural equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education,
64(2), 123–139.
6.
CahalanM.PernaL. (2015). Indicators of higher education equity in the United States.
Washington, DC:
The Pell Institute.
7.
CiniM.FritzJ. (1996). Predicting commitment in adult and traditional-age students: Applying Rusbult’s investment model to the study of retention. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED401451)
8.
CreswellJ. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
9.
DeAngeloL.FrankeR. (2016).
Social mobility and reproduction for whom? College readiness and first-year retention. American Educational Research Journal,
53(6), 1588–1625.
10.
HatcherL.KryterK.PrusJ.FitzgeraldV. (1992).
Predicting college student satisfaction, commitment, and attrition from investment model constructs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
22(16), 1273–1296. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00950.x
11.
JuryM.SmedingA.StephensN.NelsonJ.AeleneiC.DarnonC. (2017).
The experience of low-SES students in higher education: Psychological barriers to success and interventions to reduce social-class inequality. Journal of Social Issues,
75(1), 23–41.
12.
LeB.AgnewC. (2003).
Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships,
10(1), 37–57.
13.
LemayE. (2016).
The forecast model of relationship commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
111(1), 34–52.
14.
OkunM.GeoganB.MitricN. (2009).
Quality of alternatives, institutional preference, and institutional commitment among first-year college students. Educational Psychology,
29(4), 371–383.
15.
PajaresF. (2001).
Toward a positive psychology of academic motivation. The Journal of Educational Research,
95(1), 27–35.
16.
RusbultC. (2011). The investment model of commitment processes. In Van LangeP.KruglanskiA.HigginsE. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume 2 (pp. 218–231).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
17.
RusbultC.BuunkB. (1993).
Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
10(2), 175–204.
18.
RusbultC.RighettiF. (2009). Investment model. In ReisH.SprecherS. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 927–930).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
19.
SimmonsO. (2014).
Class dismissed: Rethinking socio-economic status and higher education attainment. Arizona State Law Journal,
46(1), 231–298.
20.
SoriaK.BultmannM. (2014).
Supporting working-class students in higher education. NACADA Journal,
34(2), 51–62.
21.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
22.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (2017). Graduation Rates component (provisional data). Available at: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/
23.
WalpoleM. (2003).
Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education,
27(1), 45–73.
24.
WilsonS. (2016).
Lack of persistence in college and the high-achieving, low-SES student: A review of the literature. Community College Enterprise,
22(2), 42–51.
