High dropout rates in engineering programmes are conventionally attributed to student deficits: lack of academic preparation or motivation. However, this view neglects the causal role of "normative friction": the complex system of administrative rules, exam validity windows, and prerequisite chains that constrain student progression. This paper introduces "The Regularity Trap," a phenomenon where rigid assessment timelines decouple learning from accreditation. We operationalize the CAPIRE framework into a calibrated Agent-Based Model (ABM) simulating 1,343 student trajectories across a 42-course Civil Engineering curriculum. The model integrates empirical course parameters and thirteen psycho-academic archetypes derived from a 15-year longitudinal dataset. By formalizing the "Regularity Regime" as a decaying validity function, we isolate the effect of administrative time limits on attrition. Results reveal that 86.4% of observed dropouts are driven by normative mechanisms (expiry cascades) rather than purely academic failure (5.3%). While the overall dropout rate stabilized at 32.4%, vulnerability was highly heterogeneous: archetypes with myopic planning horizons faced attrition rates up to 49.0%, compared to 13.2% for strategic agents, despite comparable academic ability. These findings challenge the neutrality of administrative structures, suggesting that rigid validity windows act as an invisible filter that disproportionately penalizes students with lower self-regulatory capital.
翻译:工程专业的高辍学率通常归因于学生自身的不足:学业准备不足或缺乏学习动机。然而,这种观点忽视了“规范性摩擦”的因果作用:即由行政规则、考试有效期窗口和先修课程链构成的复杂系统,这些因素共同制约了学生的学业进展。本文提出了“规律性陷阱”这一现象,即僵化的考核时间表使学习过程与资格认证脱钩。我们将CAPIRE框架操作化为一个经过校准的基于代理的模型(ABM),模拟了1,343名学生在包含42门课程的土木工程专业课程体系中的学习轨迹。该模型整合了经验性的课程参数以及基于15年纵向数据集推导出的十三种心理-学业原型。通过将“规律性制度”形式化为一个衰减的有效性函数,我们分离出行政时间限制对辍学的影响。结果显示,86.4%的观察到的辍学案例是由规范性机制(有效期连锁失效)驱动的,而非纯粹的学业失败(5.3%)。虽然整体辍学率稳定在32.4%,但学生的脆弱性表现出高度异质性:具有短视规划视野的原型面临高达49.0%的辍学率,而具有战略规划能力的代理辍学率仅为13.2%,尽管两者的学术能力相当。这些发现挑战了行政结构的中立性,表明僵化的有效期窗口充当了一种隐形过滤器,不成比例地惩罚了自我调节能力较低的学生。