Dropping out of university: A statistical analysis of the probability of withdrawal for UK university students

By Jeremy Smith, R. Naylor. 2001

287 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0f7df01de187d1cc614ee499267e7cfee5d951ee

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Education

Citations in the corpus

How individual characteristics affect university students drop-out: a semiparametric mixed-effects model for an Italian case study (2011, methodology): “The student background is generally found to be of major importance for withdrawal decisions [17,25].”
The impact of negative experiences, dissatisfaction and attachment on first year undergraduate withdrawal (2006, background): “The only universal and reliable indicator of risk is a student’s prior academic achievement (Johnston, 2000; Smith & Naylor, 2000; SCEE, 2001; NAO, 2002; Forsyth & Furlong, 2003).”
Relative Success? Determinants of College Graduation Rates in Public and Private Colleges in the U.S. (2006, background): “For example, Smith and Naylor (2001) focus on the match between secondary school ‘‘majors’’ and those chosen in college.”
Nonparametric Survival Analysis of the Loss Rate of Undergraduate Engineering Students (2011, background): “college retention rates but also those outside of engineering (Arulampalam, Naylor, and Smith, 2004, 2007; Smith and Naylor, 2001; Zhang et al., 2004).”
Dropout Phenomena at Universities: What is Dropout? Why does Dropout Occur? What Can be Done by the Universities to Prevent or Reduce it? (2013, background): “…Arulampalam, Naylor & Smith (2005) Arulampalam, Naylor & Smith (2007); Belloc, Maruotti, & Petrella (2009); Di Pietro & Cutillo (2008); Glocker (2011) Johnes & McNabb (2004); Lassibille & Gómez (2008); Smith & Naylor (2001); Smith & Naylor (2001); Soo (2009) and Vignoles & Powdthavee (2009).”
Determinants of Degree Performance in UK Universities: A Statistical Analysis of the 1993 Student Cohort (2001, background): “…student from a Social Class I (professional worker) family is about two percentage points more likely to obtain a good 6There is some evidence from Smith and Naylor, 2000b that the effect of social class background on degree performance may be working predominantly through its impact on the…”
Data Envelopment Analysis and Its Application to the Measurement of Efficiency in Higher Education. (2006, unknown): “This observation of a significant difference in efficiency between the lowest and highest performing HEIs has been observed elsewhere using alternative output measures and techniques of analysis (Smith et al 2000; Smith & Naylor 2001).”
Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: the Scottish mental survey 1932 (2003, background): “University degree class is relevant in this context because it is one of the few quantifiable and systematically and comprehensively recorded (HESA, 2002; Smith and Naylor, 2001a, 2001b ) life outcomes with which high cognitive test scores might be associated.”
Motivation and coping with the stress of assessment: Gender differences in outcomes for university students (2017, background): “Yet, in many educational domains, women tend to outperform men, and to show greater intentions to persist at university, than men (Smith & Naylor, 2001; Voyer & Voyer, 2014).”
Educational choice and persistence in male- and female-dominated fields (2008, background): “Sax (1996) found that the proportion of women was positively related to men’s attrition rates, but not to women’s, while Smith and Naylor (2001) found no relationship between gender composition and attrition rates for either men or women.”