Success factors

Earlier I observed that the evidence on success and failure at the university suggested that there were some factors which often seemed to be associated with university success: Briefly set out these related to the student's past academic record, his other entrance qualifications, whether he was part time or full time, his ability to adapt to the demands of a different role, and, finally, characteristics associated with the individual student.

If within broad but tolerable limits the relative, or cumulative effect of these factors on student performance can be specified what should be done with the "poor risk" student, i.e., those students with a low probability of success? It does not seem unreasonable to argue that the poor risk student is likely to fare better if he can be persuaded, or if necessary told, to accept a lighter academic load.

In this way it may well take the less capable student longer to qualify, but he may in fact do so. As of now some students undoubtedly fail because they are trying to do too much.

It may be felt by some people that the "solution" just suggested is altogether too dictatorial: In some ways I do not deny that such is the case. However, I would counter such a view by noting that the Professorial Board, rightly or not, at present has the power to prevent a student from enrolling in more than three units —some presumably the "good risk" students, being allowed to offer themselves in more subjects: In view of such a policy it does not seem unreasonable to impose limits on the load carried by poor risk students