Male Retention at the Community College
Andrew J. Manno
Raritan Valley Community College
amanno@raritanval.edu
Male Retention at the Community College 1
Introduction
Across the country at both two- and four-year colleges, by almost every measure
available, males are underperforming both in relation to previous indicators of male
success and in relation to female success. They are entering college at lower numbers
than in the past, earning lower grades, dropping out more frequently, transferring less
successfully, and graduating at lower rates. At the same time, females are making
remarkable academic progress, outpacing men in all of these categories, making up the
majority of graduates in many disciplines, earning more doctorates overall than men, and
quickly catching up to men in graduating with degrees in disciplines that have
traditionally been male dominated. There is a danger in assuming that increased
opportunities for females translate into disadvantages for males. However, while we
should celebrate female successes, we should be quite concerned about male declines.
The findings that will be presented suggest an increasing male educational
disengagement that has potentially serious social implications. The purpose of this paper
is to bring together some of the major national findings about male collegiate success,
data from selected New Jersey community colleges on male retention, research
suggesting decreased male social engagement, and studies of gendered approaches to
career counseling in order provide the context for suggestions that I will make for
concrete actions at the community college to address these concerns.
Part I: Male Retention Nationally
According to data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES),
between 1970 and 1996, the share of male bachelor’s degrees awarded in traditionally
Male Retention at the Community College 2
male fields decreased substantially while the female share has increased. In business, the
share of male degrees increased by 21%, while the shares of female degrees increased by
994% and the proportion of bachelor’s degrees awarded to males shrank from 91.3% to
51.4%. In agriculture, the male share increased by 12% in comparison to the female
share increase of 1273%, and the proportion of bachelor’s degrees awarded to males
shrank from 95.8% to 63.2%. In architecture, there was a 37% male increase as
compared to a 1288% female increase, and the proportion of bachelor’s degrees awarded
to males shrank from 94.7% to 63.9%. In fields traditionally dominated by women,
however, such as education, visual/performing arts, English, and foreign languages and
literature, there has been a negligible gender shift (Opportunity no. 76). Overall, males
earned only 44.4% of the bachelor’s degrees awarded in 1997 (Opportunity no. 102).
NCES projects that if male declines continue at the current rate, by 2008, females will
earn 58% of all bachelor’s degrees compared to a 42% male portion (Opportunity 83).
Many colleges and universities are taking these trends quite seriously, and have
begun efforts at addressing this growing male educational disengagement. At Dickinson
College in 2000, for example, the male percentage of the freshman class grew to 43%
male from 36% partially as a result of preferences the college gave to “qualified male
candidates at the margin” (Fonda). The Maryland alumni chapter of the AfricanAmerican fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha, furthermore, has created a mentoring program for
high school males intended, according to the program head David Barnett, at “helping
boost their grades and inspiring them to apply to college” (qtd. in Fonda). Barnett adds,
“So many of our boys are in prison. The ones in school—they’re under tremendous
pressure from their peers not to excel academically” (qtd. in Fonda). Noted masculinity
Male Retention at the Community College 3
studies scholar Michael Kimmel supports this notion, indicating that “once we begin to
change the anti-intellectual current in our culture, market forces will help address the
gender gap” (qtd. in Fonda).
Pierce College in Puyallup, WA has attempted to address some of the pressures
that men face as college students by creating a Men’s Program, one of only a handful in
the country. Created in an effort to respond to data indicating that male students at seven
Washington state colleges and universities fail at twice the rate of females, the Men’s
Program works to “create a community of active and successful male learners through
personalized support and academic guidance” and acknowledges that “many men face
difficulties in continuing their education” (“Men’s Programs”). The three key
components of the efforts at Pierce College are mentoring, a student support group, and a
men’s issues lecture series. According to the Program’s administrators, “the cultural
practices that teach boys at a very young age to close off their emotions isolate them as
men in a world that expects them to fend for themselves with little interpersonal support”
(“Men’s Programs”). The Men’s Program, then, recognizes that “men and boys do have
difficulties and the responses can be based in part on some of the models pioneered by
the women’s movement, as men’s centers with a number of supportive connections
available” (“Men’s Programs”).
The trend of male educational disengagement also appears in relation to graduate
degrees. According to Northeast University’s Center for Labor Market Studies, among
1999-2000 Master’s degree recipients, females earned 138 degrees per 100 awarded to
men (Conlin 78). Further, among those students receiving doctorates in 2002, females
received 51% (up from 44% in 1992) while males received 49% (a 15% drop since 1997)
Male Retention at the Community College 4
(Smallwood). This gender shift as a whole is even greater among associate degree
recipients. While the proportion of bachelor’s degrees awarded to males decreased from
56.9% to 44.9% between 1970 and 1996, the proportion of associate’s degrees awarded
to males declined by 17.5% from 57% to 39.5% (Opportunity no. 76) and by 18.1% from
57.1% to 39% from 1966 to 1998 (Opportunity no. 104).
Part II: Male Retention at the New Jersey Community College
Not surprisingly, male retention at the New Jersey community college reflects the
national trends described above. Graduation rates at selected New Jersey community
colleges as reported to NCES for 1999 (the most recent year for which such data has been
reported) indicate that females graduated in every case at higher rates than males, and in
some instances significantly higher:
College
Male Graduate Rate
Female Graduation Rate
RVCC
0.086
0.156
Bergen
0.068
0.117
Brookdale
0.145
0.215
Burlington
0.124
0.152
Mercer
0.117
0.176
Middlesex
0.044
0.123
Morris
0.164
0.264
Ocean
0.206
0.270
Male Retention at the Community College 5
A different pattern emerges, however, when examining 1999 New Jersey community
college transfer rates by gender:
College
Male Transfer Rate
Female Transfer Rate
RVCC
0.253
0.267
Bergen
0.213
0.192
Brookdale
0.201
0.190
Burlington
0.094
0.148
Mercer
0.127
0.094
Middlesex
0.136
0.123
Morris
0.296
0.240
Ocean
0.206
0.270
In five of the eight New Jersey community colleges studied, then, males transfer at a
higher rate than females. However, RVCC data from fall 1998 indicates (and data from
1999-2000 confirms) that, among students who transfer, males earn lower average
cumulative G.P.A.s (3.02 for males and 3.27 for females) as well as earning a lower total
average number of credits upon transfer (66.50 for males versus 67.53 for females),
resulting in what can be characterized as a less successful transfer.
Other indicators of student retention support the contention that males at the New
Jersey community college are underperforming. One measure of student retention is the
“Stop Out Rate,” the rate by which students leave college and don’t return for at least
Male Retention at the Community College 6
three academic years. Of the 1998 RVCC cohort, male stop-outs performed more poorly
than female stop-outs, earning an average cumulative G.P.A. of 0.88 versus the female’s
1.13. Additionally, of the stop-outs, males earned a lower average total number of credits
(8.23 for males, 9.82 for females).
Of 1998 RVCC graduates who didn’t transfer, females slightly outperformed
males in average G.P.A (3.02 for males versus 3.03 for females) and earned a greater
average number of credit hours (65.20 credits for females versus 68.50 credits for males).
Of the RVCC 1998 cohort students who transferred without a degree, females earned a
higher average cumulative G.P.A (2.47 versus the male average of 2.21) and a higher
average total credits earned (31.44 versus the male average of 26.92). Again, the same
patterns apply for 1999 and 2000 data. Fall 2000 RVCC success rates by gender
underscore these findings:
Stop-Out
Graduate
Grad & Tran
Transfer
Still Enrolled
Male
33.2%
4.0%
7.2%
24.1%
19.5%
Female
21.6%
6.1%
9.0%
25.5%
21.3%
In summary, male New Jersey community college students represented by this data drop
out, graduate, graduate and transfer, and are still enrolled at lower rates or less
successfully than females. This mirrors national trends that indicate that the gender
divide in higher education and the resulting male educational disengagement are even
more pronounced for community college students than for students at four year colleges
and universities.
Male Retention at the Community College 7
Part III: Issues at the Male Elementary and Secondary Educational Levels
The lives of boys and men are very different than they were a generation ago.
Higher education public policy expert Thomas Mortenson in the August 1999 edition of
The College Board Review argues that “delayed marriage, unwed motherhood, divorce,
remarriage, working mothers, and other influences have redefined families and have
affected the development of children” (12), one result of which is the “the absence of the
father” and the loss of “the male model” (12-13). Boys face other problems in school
before college. Adult male models are rare in the K-12 classroom, 73.4% of learning
disability diagnoses are for boys, and males “dominate all disability categories” (13),
including speech impairment, mental retardation, and hearing impairment (13). In high
school, girls show signs of better academic preparation (with 36.8% of 1998 high school
freshmen girls reporting A grades to 27.4% of boys) and use pre-college outreach
services more readily (with 2/3 of the clientele female) (13). Of high school students,
73% of those with diagnosed learning disabilities and 76% of those with diagnosed
emotional disturbances are males (13). James Garbarino, Professor of Human
Development at Cornell University states, “Girls are better able to deliver in terms of
what modern society requires of people—paying attention, abiding by rules, being
verbally competent, and dealing with interpersonal relationships” (qtd. in Conlin 78).
The educational gender gap is wide ranging and suggests the extent to which the
educational system is not adequately serving the needs of boys. On national reading tests
administered in 2000 based upon a scale of 0 to 500, female fourth graders scored an
average of 222 points compared to the male average of 212 points, according to NCES
data. On national math tests administered in 2000 based upon a scale of 0 to 500,
Male Retention at the Community College 8
females are quickly catching up to males in subject areas in which females have not in the
past done so well during high school years. Female twelfth graders scored an average of
299 points compared to the male average of 303 points (Conlin).
The gender gap also appears in regards to percentage of involvement in high
school extracurricular activities, with females being involved in non-sports-related clubs
and activities at significantly higher rates than males:
Female
Male
Student Government
27%
19%
Music/Performing Arts
46%
35%
Yearbook/Newspaper
29%
21%
Academic Clubs
36%
28%
Athletic Teams
49%
63%
(Source: 2000 NCES data, Conlin)
The implications of this data are disturbingly clear. The men represented by the data
gathered from this study appear to embrace stereotypic gender roles and gravitate towards
athletics and away from academics, contributing to male educational disengagement.
Part IV: Male Educational and Social Disengagement: College and Beyond
College aged men tend to spend their time differently than women, putting far less
emphasis on academics and civic engagement and more on “playful activities”
(Opportunity no. 133). According to the 2002 freshman survey from the Higher
Education Institute at UCLA, while females spent more of their time participating in
student clubs, doing housework or childcare, studying, or performing volunteer work,
Male Retention at the Community College 9
men spent more time playing video games, watching television, partying, or playing
sports. At every institutional type four-year female college freshmen spent more time per
week on average studying (4.1 hours at public four-year colleges, 5.0 at public
universities, and 7.7 at private universities compared to 2.8 , 3.4, and 5.4 hours
respectively for men) (Opportunity 133). The number of male students spending six
hours or more per week studying has decreased between 1987 and 2002 from 41.4% to
26.9% for a total of a 14.5% decline. During the same period, female student rates
declined from 52.2% to 38.7% for a total of a 13.5% decline. The 2002 freshmen survey
also points out that women spent an average of 1.3 hours per week performing volunteer
work, but men spent only 0.6 hours per week. Freshmen women spent an average of 2.0
hours per week working on student clubs, while men spent only 0.9 hours. Further,
21.9% of women reported spending six or more hours per week “partying,” compared to
29.0% of the men surveyed, and 32% of male freshmen reported watching six or more
hours of television per week compared to 21.1% of women. Men watched an average of
4.0 hours of television per week and played video games for 1.9 hours per week, while
women reported 2.8 and 0 hours respectively. Not surprisingly, with less time devoted to
“playful” activities, 35.2% of women compared to 16.4% of males reported feeling
stressed and overwhelmed with their workloads (Opportunity 133).
Other changing social forces play a part in the educational disengagement of men.
According to the 1990 census, 75% of Americans live in urban areas. Mortenson argues
that
the communications, cooperation, and social networking abilities of
women are more important to success in the newer, dense urban world
Male Retention at the Community College 10
than are the physical strength and aggressive characteristics of males that
were more important in a primarily rural time and place. (14)
The economy, furthermore, has shifted from a goods-producing economy that includes
such industries as manufacturing, mining, and construction to a “private- service
producing” economy that includes such industries as retail trade, wholesale trade,
finance, insurance, and real estate. The goods-producing jobs, then, favoring male
advantages in physical strength and mechanical and motor skills are disappearing, and
some researchers as a result are arguing that men are “disengaging from their economic
roles,” (15) with rates of male participation in the work force declining since World War
II. Thus, “men hold dominant employment positions in industries that represent a
shrinking share of employment [and] . . . are more unemployed and generally less able to
adapt to the changing nature of the new economy” (Opportunity no. 83).
Men are also playing less of a civic role than they once had, with male voting
rates declining 19.1% between 1964 and 1996, while female voting rates declined 11.5%
during the same period (Opportunity no. 83). The result is that more women currently
vote than men (Conlin 79). The social impact of male academic disengagement is great:
Better educated men are. . .on average, a much happier lot. They are more
likely to marry, stick by their children, and pay more in taxes. From the
ages of 18 to 65, the average male college grad earns 2.5 million over his
lifetime, 90% more than his high school counterpart. That’s up from 40%
in 1979, the peak year for U.S. manufacturing. (Conlin 79)
British educators have long since identified the perils of “laddism” (or academic male
disengagement) and have worked for the past decade to combat it, but the American
Male Retention at the Community College 11
educational system has not even named the phenomenon, much less raised public
attention or started a sustained national effort to address it (Conlin 78).
Part V: Gender and Counseling
Attempts at addressing male social disengagement are beginning to get underway
in the area of college level career counseling. According to several studies, men “express
more negative stigma towards career counseling services than women” (Rochlen et al
127) and as a result are less likely to use traditional career counseling services. Pilot
studies revealed that alternative career counseling services that take into account
masculine attitudes towards traditional career counseling have been effective in
increasing career counseling service use by men:
Men preferred a more structured, directive approach to career counseling
than a more integrative, affectively oriented career counseling process. . . .
Alternative services (classes, videotapes, structured interventions). . .were
perceived as more structured and less emotionally intrusive. . .and more
palatable to those with high traditional masculinity. (128).
In addition, researchers found that modifying labels in career counseling brochures also
increased positive male response to career counseling services. For example, the word
“counselor” was changed to “consultant,” “emphasizing the process of career counseling
as one that involves a structured process and emphasizing that in career counseling the
client makes the decisions” (130). This kind of re-positioning of traditionally provided
college services to meet the emotional realities of men is a good example of the kinds of
changes that need to be made at community colleges (as well as at colleges and
universities) to increase male academic engagement.
Male Retention at the Community College 12
Part VI: Recommendations
There is a national problem with male educational disengagement. National data
suggests that men are entering college at lower numbers than in the past, earning lower
grades, dropping out more frequently, transferring less successfully, and graduating at
lower rates. They are also underperforming in relation to females in these categories, and
the decline in male educational success also appears with recipients of Master’s degrees
and doctorates. Data from selected New Jersey community colleges supports this
national data. Even attempts to dis-aggregate the national data to account for race and
ethnicity ultimately identify a “sharp downturn in the male share of traditional-aged
undergraduate enrollment among middle- and upper-income whites” (King 4).
This trend towards male educational disengagement has broad implications, the
most disturbing of which is an associated male social disengagement. Young men are
involved far less than young women in academic activities, for example, while their
college age male counterparts spend less time studying and volunteering and more time
partying, watching television, and playing video games than females.
Addressing this trend is incredibly complicated and far beyond the scope of this
paper. In fact, a broader societal shift might need to take place to begin to deal with these
issues. A large part of the problem, furthermore, is that there has not been an extended,
systematic discussion of these issues. Administrators at community colleges and fouryear colleges alike should begin to address this until-now-hidden dilemma. Male social
disengagement and its educational consequences should be made an important agenda
item for college administrators serious about gender equity and retention.
Male Retention at the Community College 13
Works Cited
Conlin, Michelle. “The New Gender Gap.” Business Week. May 26, 2003.
Fonda, Daren. “The Male Minority.” Time. December 02, 2000.
Guerin, Keith, RVCC Director of Institutional Research. NJ Community College
Success Rate data reported to NCES. January 22, 2004.
King, Jacqueline. “Gender Equity in Higher Education: Are Male Students at a
Disadvantage?—Updated Tables and Figures, August 2003.” American Council
on Education Center for Policy Analysis. 2003.
Mortenson, Thomas. “Changing Industrial Employment Effects on Men and Women
1939 to 1988.” Postsecondary Education Opportunity, no. 83, May 1999.
---. “Gender Differences in Time Use of College Freshmen 1987 to 2002.”
Postsecondary Education Opportunity, no. 133, July 2003.
---. “Projecting Bachelor Degree Recipients By Gender 1980 to 2000.” Postsecondary
Education Opportunity, no. 102, December 2000.
---. “Where Are the Boys? The Growing Gender Gap in Higher Education.” College
Board Review, no. 188, August 1999.
---. “Where Are the Guys?” Postsecondary Education Opportunity, no. 76, October
1998.
---. Where the Guys Are Not: The Growing Gender Imbalance in College Degrees
Awarded.” Postsecondary Education Opportunity, no. 83, May 1999.
“Pierce College—Men’s Program.”
http”//www.pierce.ctc.edu/mensprogram/index.php3. October 17, 2002.
Rochlen, Aaron, Christopher Blazina, and Rajogopal Raghunaan. “Gender Role Conflict,
Male Retention at the Community College 14
Attitudes Toward Career Counseling, Career Decision Making, and Perceptions
of Career Counseling Advertising Brochures.” Psychology of Men &
Masculinity. 3:2, 2002: 127-137.
Smallwood, Scott. American Women Surpass Men in Earning Doctorates,” The
Chronicle of Higher Education. December 12, 2003.