Today I read a report titled 'Retention and Graduation Rates 2008-2009', a study done by UC San Diego's Office of Student Research and Information regarding, well, retention and graduation rates of students at UCSD.
It's kind of shocking and there are a lot of problems with the research.
1) The 4-year graduation rate is a shocking 57% for the total student body. 5 year graduation rate is 80% and 6-years (holy cow, some people stay six years?!) 85%. Wow. The average time to degree for the total student body is 4.2 years and 12.7 quarters.
Why is this problematic?
It further illustrates how access to higher education is a complete myth - especially if students are staying more than four years, thus paying more for tuition. This isn't the fault of students, but rather, the problem is found in the budget cuts. Cutting classes translates to a longer graduation time and thus more tuition, which is exactly what UC students are currently facing.
Furthermore, UC Regents have proposed measures such as increasing tuition for students who stay more than four years as an incentive to get them to graduate sooner. This is insane especially when the four year graduation rate is so low. Barely half of UC San Diego students graduate within four years, which means that such a proposal to increase the tuition for people staying more than four years affects a huge proportion of students.
2) Data regarding retention rates only covers 1 and 2-years. There's no data for 3,4,5, or even 6-year retention rates. The data provided are as follows: 1-year retention rate: 94% and 2-year retention rate: 88%.
Another problem is that the study doesn't clearly define the terminology used in the research. For example, does retention rate refer to the percentage of students from the original class that make it past 1 year and then 2 years or does it mean the percentage from the class already surviving? In other words, if the total entering class of year X is 1,000 and the 1-year retention rate of that class is 90% so 900 students make it to the first year, does a 2-year retention rate of say, 80% refer to 80% of 900, or 80% of 1,000. In terms of raw data, it would be more beneficial to administration to use 80% of 1,000, but once again, these terms aren't defined.
What little data regarding retention rate is heavily political in motive because the trend is clear that the retention rate decreases exponentially with years and why would the university exclude 3 and 4-year retention data? Especially if they're already including 4,5, and 6-year graduation rates. My guess is that the 4-year retention rate at UC San Diego is appalling given the cost of tuition and lack of concern for student well-being at this campus.
3) The study does not address class. It includes data regarding race and gender, but does not show data illustrating the graduation and retention rates of students from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Why does this matter?
Because you can be a person of color and still have a high income. In terms of addressing intersectionality, it is important not to exclude class. The university, if they want to publish a fully comprehensive report, should be addressing class and whether or not being poor affects the likelihood of a student graduating.
This study leaves out some crucial data and isn't widely publicized, but what data it does show, the university makes a very obvious attempt to frame in a positive light. Instead of addressing issues that may contribute to a 94% 1-year retention rate, the study instead chooses to state that this retention rate is one of the best amongst all the UC's. It still doesn't change the fact that 6% of students don't even make it past year 1. Why?
It is important with data such as this, to question and ask why. To me, this data clearly shows inaccessibility of higher education - through low 4-year graduation rates which are much lower amongst students of color than whites and exponentially decreasing retention rates - also lower among students of color than whites. What this shows is the presence of institutional racism which, unlike racism in the 60's, is very concealed. It no longer takes the form of a 'whites only' sign, but rather, takes the form of making institutions that empower communities inaccessible to oppressed communities. Education empowers communities and yet the presence of oppressed communities - people of color, working class, and LGBTQIA are very low and coupled with retention rate figures, the numbers for people in these communities to even graduate college is even lower.
What we are facing is not mis-prioritization, but rather, a clear illustration of the true intent and priorities of the ruling class within the framework of capitalism. There is no mis-prioritization when the UC Regents have been increasing student fees for decades while increasing Regent salaries exponentially - that's a clear illustration of their priorities, which is profit before people by any means necessary. We need to stop being sympathetic and stop framing budget cuts as mis-prioritization. Call it what it is. It's profiteering and extortion of the poor by the rich - something that's been going on for centuries.
Let's put this into the bigger picture. They're cutting education and making education inaccessible while increasing police presence in oppressed communities and increasing military spending. Once again, it's important to note that education empowers communities. Education allows us to think critically, to question the powers that be, and to know our history. Education allows us to become conscious of our situation and how to we liberate ourselves. These are things that the ruling class is intentionally preventing oppressed communities from having. Instead, they're pouring more funds into institutions that have historically disempowered and kept communities down.
This isn't mis-prioritization. This is oppression.
Please keep wrinkling my brain.
ReplyDelete