predictors of close faculty−student relationships …...raposa et al. predictors of college...

Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. ISSN 0077-8923

ANNALS OF THE NEW YORK ACADEMY OF SCIENCESSpecial Issue:Mentoring: Theoretical Background, Empirical Findings, and Practical ApplicationsORIGINAL ARTICLE

Predictors of close faculty−student relationships andmentorship in higher education: findings from theGallup−Purdue Index

Elizabeth B. Raposa,1 Matthew Hagler,2 Diana Liu,3 and Jean E. Rhodes21Department of Psychology, Fordham University, Bronx, New York. 2Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts,Boston, Massachusetts. 3Gallup, Inc., Arlington, Virginia

Address for correspondence: Elizabeth Raposa, Department of Psychology, Fordham University, 441 E. Fordham Rd, Bronx,NY 10458. [email protected]

College students’ supportive relationshipswithmentors—professors, advisors, and other caring adults towhom stu-dents turn as they develop their interests and career paths—are critical to their development and academic success.The current study sought to explore factors that promote or impede the formation of positive mentor–student rela-tionships during college using a large, nationally representative sample of 5,684 college graduates from the Gallup–Purdue Index. Linear regressionmodels revealed that first-generation college students, as well as students attendinglarger institutions, rated faculty and other college staff as less caring and supportive, and were less able to identifya supportive mentoring relationship during college. Greater engagement at college, including participation in fac-ulty research, academic internships, long-term projects, and extracurricular clubs or activities, was associated withstronger perceptions of faculty support andmentorship while in college. Interestingly, demographic characteristicsmoderated the effects of some extracurricular activities on students’ experiences. For example, participants withmore student loans showed a stronger positive association between participation in long-term academic projectsand perceptions of faculty support, relative to students with few loans. These findings have important implicationsfor policies designed to foster sustained and meaningful faculty–student relationships for all students, includingthose traditionally marginalized on college campuses.

Keywords: faculty−student relationships; natural mentoring; higher education; Gallup−Purdue

Introduction

The relationships, experiences, and knowledgethat students gain during the college years canfundamentally shape their lifetime personal andcareer outcomes.1–3 Supportive relationships withmentors—professors, advisors, and other caringadults at college to whom many students turn asthey develop their interests and career paths—havebeen identified as a key aspect of the college expe-rience critical to young adults’ development andacademic success.1,2,4–6 Students who report moreinteraction with college faculty members, for exam-ple, tend to show greater social integration into thecollege setting and better academic performance.7–9Furthermore, a nationally representative survey ofover 30,000 college graduates found that the ability

to identify one adult mentor at college predictedgreater work engagement and subjective well-beingin the years after college.1,2

Mentors likely influence college students’ successin numerous ways. Adjustment to college and thetransition to adulthood more broadly represent atime characterized by elevated rates of turmoil andrisk, as youth begin to achieve new levels of inde-pendence, while also making important decisionsabout their social lives and careers.10,11 Mentorscan help to offset this risk during the college yearsby providing encouragement and guidance, helpingstudents navigate the identity issues inherent in thecrucial transition to adulthood and opening doorsto educational and career opportunities.12,13 Thesebenefits of mentoring appear to be particularlystrong for underrepresented or academically at-risk

doi: 10.1111/nyas.14342

1Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. xxxx (2020) 1–14 © 2020 New York Academy of Sciences.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8169-3862

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4004-7412

Predictors of college mentoring relationships Raposa et al.

college students.8 For these students, on-campusmentors can serve as institutional agents who pro-vide guidance through the challenges of adjusting tocollege life by helping them understand and adaptto the academic rigors of college, while also trans-lating cultural values and social rules that can seemesoteric.4,14 Indeed, evaluations of college-basedinterventions for first-generation, low-income, andethnic minority students show that supportiverelationships between underrepresented studentsand faculty help to demystify confusing insti-tutional systems,15 promote students’ sense ofbelonging,14,16 and facilitate academic and socialadjustment to college.17Given the ability of supportive relationships

between students and professors, advisors, andother caring adults at college to offset risk andsupport a healthy transition to adulthood, there isgrowing interest in identifying factors that encour-age their formation. To date, few studies haveexamined the student and institutional charac-teristics that promote or impede the formationof mentoring relationships in college. Most of theexisting research has been conducted with relativelysmall, homogenous samples and within single col-leges, making it difficult to compare findings acrossinstitutions and student groups. Moreover, studiesoften examine outcomes associated with men-toring relationships, without exploring variablesthat influence the likelihood of developing thesesupportive relationships. However, research onnaturally occurring mentoring relationships acrossa range of other school and community settingssuggests several broad categories of factors thatmight foster this type of close, intergenerationalrelationship at colleges and universities.First, a variety of youth demographic character-

istics appear to predict access to naturally occurringmentors. Most notably, youth from lower socioeco-nomic backgrounds tend to be less likely to identifya natural mentor within their social networksduring late adolescence and young adulthood.18Financial stress can also impede the formationof informal student–faculty interactions, in partby contributing to burdensome off-campus workobligations and part-time or sporadic enrollment.7Additionally, low-income students are more likelyto have parents who have not attended college, andmay lack familiarity with institutional norms, whilefeeling less entitled to faculty time and attention.19,20

In contrast to the literature on socioeconomicbackground, evidence regarding the impact ofrace and ethnicity on faculty–student interaction ismixed. Some studies show elevated rates ofminoritystudent–faculty communication regarding certaintopics, such as course-related material, but muchlower rates of engagement in other areas, such asfaculty-related research.21,22 Moreover, non-Whitestudents report less satisfying relationships andgreater experiences of discrimination from facultymembers,23 noting that their cultures tend to beundervalued or ignored by college staff, which can,in turn, lead to disengagement of these studentsfrom the college community.24Another set of factors that have been linked

to the promotion of mentoring relationships atschool across developmental stages involves stu-dent engagement in extracurricular activities, suchas clubs, sports, and research extending beyondcoursework.25,26 These ongoing, goal-orientedactivities that occur outside of the classroom mayprovide unique opportunities for extended student–faculty interactions around shared interests,3,9,27–29although few studies have specifically tested the linkbetween extracurricular engagement and the pro-motion of mentoring relationships among collegestudents. Nevertheless, one qualitative study foundthat students who reported more extensive contactwith faculty identified extracurricular activities,particularly scholarship and research programs, asprimary support structures that facilitated faculty–student contact.19 Moreover, mentors who helpstudents focus on a substantive project, such asconducting research, learning a new skill, or col-laborating on a particular area of activism, appearto be particularly influential on student outcomesmore generally.5,30Compared with these academically oriented

extracurricular activities, the evidence for bene-fits associated with athletic participation is moremixed.31 In a qualitative study of collegiate sports,some athletes discussed ways in which sports par-ticipation improved their academic engagement,while others discussed times in which it interferedwith their academic performance owing to the timecommitment required.32 Furthermore, collegiatesports may offer more limited opportunities toengage with adults, particularly academic faculty,relative to extracurricular activities with a moreacademic focus.

2 Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. xxxx (2020) 1–14 © 2020 New York Academy of Sciences.

Raposa et al. Predictors of college mentoring relationships

In addition to student background character-istics and extracurricular engagement, a collegeor university’s size and structure is likely to bea crucial factor in promoting faculty–studentinteraction. Smaller colleges tend to have lowerstudent–faculty ratios and place a greater emphasison undergraduate teaching, thereby increasingthe likelihood of meaningful student–facultyinteractions.7,33,34 Smaller colleges are also lesslikely to have large, lecture-based classes, in whichstudents, particularly those from underrepresentedbackgrounds, tend to report fewer interactionswith professors.35,36 These findings suggest thatsmaller colleges might provide a better structurefor the extended interactions required to fosterfaculty–student mentorship; yet, this question hasnot been directly studied.

Current study

Data from the Gallup–Purdue Index,2 whichgathered information from a large, nationally rep-resentative sample of students who graduated fromcolleges and universities across the United Statesbetween 2000 and 2015, were used to identify fac-tors associated with positive relationships betweenstudents and their professors, advisors, and othercaring adults during college. Analyses tested threeclusters of student characteristics hypothesizedto influence the likelihood of connecting withcaring adults at college: student demographiccharacteristics, such as socioeconomic status andrace/ethnicity; student engagement in extracurric-ular activities, such as faculty-sponsored research,student clubs, or collegiate sports; and institutionsize. Outcomes included two items designed toassess to what extent each student agreed that theyhad a close relationshipwith amentor at college, andwhether students generally felt that faculty caredabout them as people while in college. We hypothe-sized that racial/ethnicminority, lower-income, andfirst-generation college students would agree lessthat they had a mentor in college who encouragedthem to pursue their dreams, and would have lowerperceptions of caring and support from faculty,relative to their peers. In addition, we hypothesizedthat greater engagement in each of the extracur-ricular activities, as well as smaller institution size,would predict greater perceptions of mentorship,as well as caring and support from faculty, incollege.

In addition to examining the main effects ofthese three clusters of variables on each outcome,we also conducted exploratory analyses to testwhether demographic characteristics moderatedthe influence of extracurricular engagement andinstitutional size on each outcome. Past researchhas shown that access to naturally occurringmentors in certain contexts might depend onbackground variables, such as socioeconomic sta-tus and race/ethnicity.18,37 For example, evidencesuggests that youth from socioeconomically dis-advantaged backgrounds are less likely to developnatural mentoring relationships with teachers, inparticular.6,18,37 However, whenmentoring relation-ships with teachers do form, theymay have a partic-ularly potent impact on the educational outcomesof racial/ethnic minority and lower-class youth,while influencing the educational trajectories ofmore privileged youth less strongly or not at all.14,37As such, it is possible, for example, that engagementin internships or faculty research yields amentoringrelationship with a faculty member more often forWhite or upper-class students than for their lessprivileged peers. Likewise, a larger institution sizemay be less likely to influence perceptions of howcaring faculty are among White or higher-incomestudents, who enter college equippedwith resourcesto find mentors even in larger institutions.

Methods

Participants and procedureAnalyses utilized data from the Gallup–PurdueIndex, which consists of web-based survey datafrom college graduates. Participants were recruitedfrom two sources. First, the Gallup Panel consistsof a proprietary, probability-based sample of U.S.adults selected via random-digit-dial and address-based sampling methods. Second, the GallupDaily Tracking Panel is a sample recruited byrandom-digit-dial (50% cellphone and 50% land-line respondents), with minimum quotas by timezone within region. Gallup Panel and Gallup DailyTracking Panelmembers whowere aged 18 or older,living in a U.S. state or the District of Columbia, hadan associate’s or bachelor’s degree, and had internetaccess were invited to participate. Interviews wereconducted online in English and asked participantsto report on demographic variables, aspects of thecollege experience, and current life circumstancesand well-being.



The current study utilized a sample of respon-dents who completed the survey in 2015 andgraduated from college between 2000 and 2015(N = 5684). The average age of the sample was36.1 years (SD = 10.9) at the time of the interview.Almost half of the sample (49.5%) identified asfemale. The majority of the sample (82.0%) iden-tified as White, with the remainder identifying asBlack (7.2%), Hispanic (6.3%), Asian (3.6%), oranother race (0.9%).

MeasuresDemographic characteristics. Participants wereasked to report on a range of demographic char-acteristics, including their race, their parents’ levelof education, and the amount of student loans theyborrowed to complete their undergraduate degrees.For the purpose of analyses, two dichotomous vari-ables were created: one variable indicating whetheror not participants identified as a member of anyminority racial group (versus identified as white,non-Hispanic), and one variable indicating whetherthe participant was a first-generation college stu-dent. In addition, the amount of student loans wasused as a proxy for financial need38 and was codedon a scale from 0 to 4 (0 = $0; 1 = $1–$10,000;2 = $10,001–$20,000; 3 = $20,001–$40,000; and4 = $40,001 or more).

Extracurricular engagement. Participants wereasked to retrospectively report on various extracur-ricular activities they engaged inwhile attending thecollege or university fromwhich they obtained theirundergraduate degree. They indicated whether ornot they had participated in NCAA intercollegiatesports, intramural sports, student clubs or orga-nizations, and research with a professor or facultymember. Additionally, on a 5-point Likert-typescale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree),participants responded to two items that assessedthe extent to which they worked on an academicproject that took a semester or longer to com-plete, and had an internship or job that allowedapplication of concepts learned in the classroom.

Institutional size. Participants provided thename of the college or university from which theyobtained their undergraduate degrees. Researcherscreated a variable indicating each institution’s sizeduring the participants’ graduation year (1 = lessthan 5,000 students; 2 = 5,000–9,999 students;

3 = 10,000–19,999 students; and 4 = 20,000 ormore students).

College mentoring relationships. Participantswere asked to report the sources and levels of sup-port they received while attending the college oruniversity from which they obtained their under-graduate degrees. On a 5-point scale (1 = stronglydisagree and 5 = strongly agree), participants ratedthe extent to which they agreed with the followingstatements: “While attending [College or Univer-sity Name] I had a mentor who encouraged meto pursue my goals and dreams,” and “My pro-fessors at [University Name] cared about me as aperson.”

Covariates. Two covariates were included in allmodels. First, the student’s decade of graduation(2000–2009 or 2010–2015) was included, in orderto control for any cohort effects on the outcomes.Second, gender was included as a covariate, givensome evidence that females report mentoring rela-tionships at higher rates across adolescence andyoung adulthood.27,37

Analytic proceduresTwo sets of linear regression models were usedto examine the three domains of predictor vari-ables (i.e., student demographic variables, studentextracurricular engagement, and institution size)as predictors of each outcome variable. In addition,for each outcome, a single model with all threesets of predictors was run to determine the relativestrength of these predictors. Finally, we conductedexploratory analyses to test whether demographiccharacteristics moderated the influence of extracur-ricular engagement and institutional size on eachoutcome. All other predictors were also included ascovariates in each of these interaction models. In allanalyses, the data were weighted to match nationaldemographics of gender, age, race, education,Hispanic ethnicity, and region.

Results

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations forkey study variables are presented in Table 1. Atotal of 4,406 participants (78%) provided completeinformation for models about having a men-tor while in college, and 4,402 (77%) providedcomplete information for all variables in modelsabout perceptions of caring and supportive faculty.



Table 1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among independent variables and covariates

Variable Mean (SD) Range Freq. (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Research with faculty – 0–1 44.3 – 0.37 0.15 0.05 0.10 0.22 0.02 0.002 −0.09 0.04 0.02 0.012. Semester-long project 3.52 (1.58) 1−5 – – – 0.32 0.04 0.10 0.19 0.03 −0.06 −0.08 0.03 −0.03 −0.073. Internship/job 3.31 (1.59) 1−5 – – – – 0.02 0.09 0.13 −0.04 −0.02 −0.02 0.01 0.03 −0.024. NCAA athletics – 0−1 6.1 – – – – 0.17 0.09 0.01 −0.03 −0.06 −0.02 −0.04 −0.135. Intramural athletics – 0−1 25.0 – – – – – 0.29 −0.005 −0.08 −0.18 −0.02 −0.21 −0.0016. Club/organization – 0−1 55.1 – – – – – – 0.02 0.01 −0.19 0.04 −0.01 0.027. Undergraduate loans 1.68 (1.59) 0−4 – – – – – – – – 0.07 0.14 0.07 0.04 −0.128. Ethnic/racial minority – 0−1 18.0 – – – – – – – – 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.059. First-generation student – 0−1 40.2 – – – – – – – – – −0.01 0.06 −0.0910. Decade of graduation – 7−8 32.4 – – – – – – – – – – −0.03 0.0211. Female – 0−1 49.5 – – – – – – – – – – – −0.0512. Institutional size 2.80 (1.24) 1−4 – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Note: Bold type denotes P < 0.05.

Predicting perceptions of access tomentorship in collegeResults for models predicting college graduates’perceptions of having a mentor while in college arepresented in Table 2. In domain-specific modelsfor demographic predictors, first-generation col-lege students had lower rates of agreement that

they had a mentor during college, over and abovethe effects of gender and decade of graduation,while undergraduate loans (our proxy for lowerfamily income) and racial minority status did notpredict college mentorship. However, it should benoted that in the larger model accounting for allpredictors, first-generation college student status

Table 2. Domain-specific and overall models predicting participants’ perceptions that, “While attending [collegeor university Name] I had a mentor who encouraged me to pursue my goals and dreams”

Domain-specific models Overall model

Predictor β b SE P CI VIF β b SE P CI VIF

DemographicsUndergraduate loans 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.77 −0.03 to 0.02 1.03 −0.02 −0.02 0.01 0.09 −0.05 to 0.00 1.05Racial/ethnic minority −0.02 −0.07 0.05 0.12 −0.17 to 0.02 1.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.95 −0.09 to 0.09 1.04First-generation student −0.08 −0.22 0.04 <0.001 −0.31 to −0.14 1.03 −0.03 −0.09 0.04 0.03 −0.17 to 0.01 1.09

ActivitiesResearch w/ faculty 0.10 0.27 0.04 <0.001 0.20 to 0.35 1.20 0.09 0.26 0.04 <0.001 0.18 to 0.34 1.20Semester-long project 0.21 0.19 0.01 <0.001 0.16 to 0.21 1.28 0.19 0.17 0.01 <0.001 0.14 to 0.20 1.30Internship/job 0.21 0.19 0.01 <0.001 0.17 to 0.21 1.13 0.21 0.19 0.01 <0.001 0.17 to 0.22 1.13NCAA athletics 0.05 0.29 0.07 <0.001 −0.15 to 0.44 1.03 0.05 0.29 0.08 0.31 0.12 to 0.45 1.06Intramural athletics 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.26 −0.03 to 0.13 1.16 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.50 −0.06 to 0.13 1.17Student club/organization 0.15 0.43 0.04 <0.001 0.35 to 0.50 1.16 0.15 0.44 0.04 <0.001 0.36 to 0.53 1.17

InstitutionInstitutional size −0.13 −0.15 0.02 <0.001 −0.18 to −0.12 1.00 −0.10 −0.12 0.02 <0.001 −0.15 to −0.09 1.05

CovariatesFemale 0.05 0.15 0.04 <0.001 0.07 to 0.22 1.06Decade of graduation 0.06 0.19 0.04 <0.001 0.11 to 0.26 1.02

Note: The overall model included all predictors and covariates. Domain-specific models are those in which each cluster of predictors(i.e., demographics, activities, and institutional size)was runwithout any other predictors, except for the covariates (female and decadeof graduation). As such, three separate domain-specific models were run and are demarcated above. Coefficients, SE, P, CI, and VIFfor the two covariates are not listed for domain-specific models because they varied slightly across each model.



Table 3. Domain-specific and overall models predicting participants’ perceptions that, “My professors at [Univer-sity Name] cared about me as a person”

Domain-specific models Overall model

Predictor β b SE P CI VIF β b SE P CI VIF

DemographicsUndergraduate loans −0.01 0.00 0.01 0.66 −0.03 to 0.02 1.03 −0.03 −0.02 0.01 0.04 −0.05 to 0.00 1.05Racial/ethnic minority −0.03 −0.09 0.04 0.03 −0.17 to 0.03 1.02 −0.01 −0.03 0.04 0.47 −0.11 to 0.05 1.04First-generation student −0.04 −0.09 0.04 0.01 −0.02 to 0.04 1.03 −0.03 −0.06 0.04 0.08 −0.14 to 0.01 1.09

ActivitiesResearch w/ faculty 0.07 0.18 0.04 <0.001 0.11 to 0.24 1.20 0.07 0.18 0.04 <0.001 0.11 to 0.26 1.20Semester-long project 0.14 0.11 0.01 <0.001 0.08 to 0.13 1.28 0.13 0.10 0.01 <0.001 0.08 to 0.12 1.30Internship/job 0.14 0.11 0.01 <0.001 0.09 to 0.13 1.13 0.14 0.10 0.01 <0.001 0.08 to 0.13 1.13NCAA athletics 0.04 0.18 0.07 0.007 0.05 to 0.32 1.03 0.01 0.07 0.07 0.34 −0.07 to 0.22 1.06Intramural athletics 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.42 −0.05 to 0.11 1.16 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.94 −0.08 to 0.09 1.17Student club/organization 0.05 0.12 0.04 0.001 0.05 to 0.19 1.16 0.06 0.16 0.04 <0.001 0.08 to 0.23 1.17

InstitutionInstitutional size −0.19 −0.19 0.01 <0.001 −0.21 to −0.17 1.00 −0.18 0.18 0.01 <0.001 −0.21 to −0.15 1.05

CovariatesFemale 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.001 0.09 to 0.23 1.06Decade of graduation 0.05 0.16 0.04 <0.001 0.05 to 0.19 1.02

Note: The overall model included all predictors and covariates. Domain-specific models are those in which each cluster of predictors(i.e., demographics, activities, and institutional size)was runwithout any other predictors, except for the covariates (female and decadeof graduation). As such, three separate domain-specific models were run and are demarcated above. Coefficients, SE, P, CI, and VIFfor the two covariates are not listed for domain-specific models because they varied slightly across each model.

was no longer a statistically significant predictor ofreports about having a mentor in college.In both models, almost all of the college engage-

ment variables, including working on a long-termproject for more than one semester, engaging inresearch with faculty, having an internship or a jobthat allowed application of classroom concepts, andparticipation in NCAA athletics and student clubsor organizations, predicted greater perceptions ofhaving a mentor while in college. However, partic-ipation in intramural sports had no relationship tocollege mentoring in either model.Finally, analysis of the role of institution size

showed that identification with having a mentorduring college decreased as the size of the student’scollege or university increased.

Predicting perceptions of caring andsupportive facultyTable 3 shows results for models predicting partic-ipant perceptions of caring and supportive faculty.Similar to models predicting college mentoringrelationships, analysis of demographic predictorsrevealed that racial or ethnic minority and first-

generation students reported significantly lowerperceptions of caring and support from faculty indomain-specific models, with no effects observedfor undergraduate loans. Again, in the largermodel accounting for all covariates, the studentdemographic variables were no longer statisticallysignificant predictors of perceptions about facultysupport.Almost all of the college engagement variables,

including working on a long-term project formore than one semester, engaging in researchwith faculty, having an internship or a job thatallowed application of classroom concepts, andparticipation in NCAA athletics and studentclubs/organizations predicted greater perceptionsof faculty supportiveness. By contrast, partic-ipation in intramural sports showed no rela-tionship with perceptions of faculty support. Inthe larger model accounting for all covariates,all of these indicators of student extracurricularengagement, except for participation in NCAAor intramural athletics, remained statistically sig-nificant predictors of perceptions about facultysupport.



Table 4. The moderating role of racial or ethnic minority status on the impact of extracurricular and institutionalfactors in predicting perceptions of faculty support and mentorship

Perception of having had a mentor Perception of faculty care

Interaction term β b SE P CI β b SE P CI

Research × Minority 0.001 0.002 0.09 0.99 −0.18 to 0.18 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.39 −0.09 to 0.22Project × Minority 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.16 −0.01 to 0.09 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.16 −0.01 to 0.08Internship × Minority 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.14 −0.01 to 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.25 −0.02 to 0.07NCAA × Minority 0.02 0.26 0.22 0.23 −0.17 to 0.69 0.02 0.19 0.19 0.32 −0.18 to 0.56Intramural × Minority 0.05 0.34 0.11 0.003 0.12 to 0.56 0.02 0.09 0.10 0.34 −0.10 to 0.29Club × Minority 0.005 0.02 0.09 0.84 −0.16 to 0.20 −0.01 −0.03 0.08 0.74 −0.18 to 0.13Institution size × Minority 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.28 −0.03 to 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.06 −0.003 to 0.12

Note: Each interaction term was run in a separate model. Each model also included the following predictors: student genderand decade of graduation; student demographic characteristics (i.e., undergraduate loans, racial/ethnic minority status, and first-generation status); student engagement with extracurricular activities (i.e., research with a facultymember, semester or longer project,internship/job, NCAA athletics, and student club/organization); and institution size. Only interaction term statistics are presentedhere, but full model results are available upon request.

Finally, again consistent with models of stu-dent access to mentors during college, studentsattending larger institutions identified faculty asless caring and supportive.

The moderating role of student demographicsNext, models were run to examine whether eachstudent demographic characteristic interacted withcollege engagement and institutional factors topredict the presence of mentoring relationshipsduring college and overall student perceptions offaculty support.

Racial or ethnic minority status. Results forthe interaction term from each model examiningthe moderating role of racial or ethnic minoritystatus are presented in Table 4. When predictingthe level of agreement that one had a mentor incollege, minority status significantly moderated theimpact of engaging in intramural sports. Simpleslopes analyses indicated that there was a positiverelationship between engagement in intramuralsports and perceptions of college mentorship forracial minority students (b = 0.31, SE = 0.10,P < 0.01), but this relationship was not present fornonracial minority students (b = –0.03, SE = 0.05,P = 0.55; see Fig. 1). Racial or ethnic minoritystatus did not moderate the impact of any otherstudent engagement or institution variables onthe identification of a mentor during college orperceptions of caring and supportive faculty.

Figure 1. The interaction between racial/ethnic minority sta-tus and intramural sports engagement in predicting collegegraduates’ identification of a mentoring relationship duringcollege.

First-generation college student status. First-generation college student status moderated theeffects of institution size on perceptions of facultycaring and support, such that first-generation col-lege students showed a less negative associationbetween institution size and perceptions of facultysupport (b = –0.15, SE = 0.02, P < 0.001), relativeto students who had a parent who had attendedcollege (b= –0.21, SE= 0.02, P< 0.001; see Fig. 2).No other interactions emerged from this set ofanalyses for either outcome (Table 5).

Student loans. Student loan status significantlymoderated the effects of an internship or a job



Table 5. The moderating role of first-generation college student status on the impact of extracurricular and insti-tutional factors in predicting perceptions of faculty support and mentorship



Research × First Generation (FG) 0.02 0.09 0.08 0.26 −0.07 to 0.25 −0.01 −0.04 0.07 0.61 −0.18 to 0.10Project × FG 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.33 −0.02 to 0.07 0.01 0.004 0.02 0.85 −0.04 to 0.05Internship × FG 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.63 −0.04 to 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.09 −0.01 to 0.08NCAA × FG 0.01 0.07 0.18 0.71 −0.29 to 0.42 0.001 0.001 0.15 0.99 −0.30 to 0.30Intramural × FG 0.02 0.14 0.10 0.17 −0.06 to 0.34 0.005 0.02 0.09 0.80 −0.15 to 0.20Club × FG −0.01 −0.05 0.08 0.53 −0.21 to 0.11 −0.01 −0.03 0.07 0.65 −0.17 to 0.11Institution size × FG −0.01 −0.01 0.03 0.87 −0.07 to 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.01 to 0.12


Figure 2. The interaction between first-generation collegestudent status and institution size in predicting college grad-uates’ perceptions of faculty support and caring during college.

that allowed application of classroom concepts ongraduates’ perceptions of having had a mentor incollege. Simple slopes analyses showed that stu-dents with higher levels of loans showed a strongerpositive association between internship or job expe-riences and college mentorship, relative to studentswith lower levels of loans (e.g., for students withloans between $20,001 and $40,000, or roughly onestandard deviation above the mean for the sample:b= 0.21, SE= 0.02, P< 0.001; for students with noloans, or roughly one standard deviation below themean for the sample: b= 0.16, SE= 0.02, P< 0.001;see Fig. 3). In addition, when predicting perceptionsof faculty caring and support, there was a significant

interaction between student loans and participationin a semester-long project, such that participatingin an academic project that took a semester orlonger to complete predicted greater perceptionsof faculty caring and support more strongly forstudents with larger loans (e.g., between $20,001and $40,000: b = 0.11, SE = 0.01, P < 0.001), thanfor students with lower loans (e.g., $0 in loans:b = 0.07, SE = 0.02, P < 0.001; see Fig. 4). Studentloans did not moderate any other student engage-ment variables or institution size for either outcome(full model results are presented in Table 6).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study toexamine demographic and institutional-levelfactors that predict student perceptions of closefaculty−student relationships and access to men-torship during college in a large, nationally rep-resentative sample. The most robust predictors ofperceived faculty support and mentorship wereindicators of extracurricular engagement. Specifi-cally, in both domain-specific and overall models,participation in research with a faculty member,having a job or an internship that allowed for theapplication of classroom learning, completing along-term academic project, and participation instudent clubs/organizations were associated withstronger perceptions of faculty support and connec-tion to mentorship while in college. With respect toinvolvement with sports activities, participation inNCAA athletics predicted access to mentorship in



Table 6. Themoderating role of student loans on the impact of extracurricular and institutional factors in predict-ing perceptions of faculty mentorship and care



Research × Loans 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.45 −0.03 to 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.71 −0.03 to 0.05Project × Loans 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.07 −0.001 to 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.002 to 0.03Internship × Loans 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.04 0.001 to 0.03 −0.01 −0.002 0.01 0.76 −0.01 to 0.01NCAA × Loans −0.01 −0.03 0.05 0.53 −0.13 to 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.30 −0.04 to 0.13Intramural × Loans −0.003 −0.004 0.03 0.88 −0.06 to 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.07 −0.003 to 0.10Club × Loans 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.60 −0.04 to 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.27 −0.02 to 0.07Institution size × Loans 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.17 −0.01 to 0.03 0.01 0.003 0.01 0.76 −0.01 to 0.02


Figure 3. The interaction between initial student loan sizeand involvement in an internship or job that allowed appli-cation of classroom concepts in predicting college graduates’identification of a mentoring relationship during college.

both domain-specific and overall models, as well asgreater perceptions of faculty support in domain-specific models, although these effects were smallerthan other extracurricular activities. Participationin intramural sports did not predict either outcome.These findings suggest that certain extracurricu-

lar activities might be more relevant than others forfostering close student–faculty relationships. In par-ticular, academically oriented activities, such as par-ticipating in faculty research, engaging with long-term academic projects, and completing an aca-demically relevant job or internship were the mostrobust and consistent predictors of faculty–student

mentorship and support. These findings supporttheories that suggest that extended student–facultyinteraction that occurs outside of the classroomand that involves shared interests is key to buildingclose student–faculty relationships.27–29 On theother hand, engagement with athletics may be lesslikely to foster relationships with faculty and otherpotential mentors on campus, depending on thecontext. Participation in structured NCAA athleticshad consistent, though relatively small, effects onstudents’ reports of receiving mentoring while incollege, and also predicted greater perceptions offaculty support when institution size and studentdemographics were not included as covariates inthe model. This finding is consistent with researchindicating that after-school sports can play a keyrole in connecting younger children to potentialmentors.26,39 By contrast, participation in intramu-ral sports did not predict perceptions of faculty orthe formation of close mentoring bonds while incollege. Intramural sports are primarily student-runactivities, with relatively little involvement fromfaculty and staff. College students have finite timeand energy, and it is possible that engagement inpeer-oriented activities, while potentially benefi-cial to peer relations, does not necessarily presentopportunities to connect with faculty or othercaring adults on college campuses.In addition to extracurricular engagement,

student demographics appeared to play a role instudent perceptions of faculty support and mentor-ship. When only demographics were considered,



Figure 4. The interaction between initial student loan sizeand engagement with long-term academic projects in predict-ing college graduates’ perceptions of faculty support and caringduring college.

first-generation students were less likely to endorsehaving a close and supportive relationship with amentor while in college, and first-generation andracial minority status were both associated withlower perceptions of faculty support and caring,aligning with evidence suggesting that under-represented students face obstacles to accessingnaturally occurring mentoring relationships.18,37,40However, models including the full set of predictorssuggested that demographic variables were notpredictive of mentoring relationships or percep-tions of faculty support when covarying for theeffects of extracurricular activities and institutionsize. These findings suggest that extracurricularinvolvement and institution size play a relativelygreater role in accounting for variability in faculty–student relationships. Moreover, it is possible thatethnic minority and first-generation students mightstruggle to connect with college faculty and staff, inpart, because of greater difficulties engaging fully inextracurricular activities that promote mentoringrelationships, owing to factors such as time andfinancial constraints,7 a lower likelihood of livingin on-campus housing,41 or a lack of a sense ofentitlement around seeking out one-on-one facultyinteraction.20Student demographic characteristics also moder-

ated the effects of several extracurricular activitieson faculty–student relationships. First, resultsrevealed that there was a more positive associationbetween participation in intramural sports and

reports of having a mentor in college for racialminority students, compared with White students.Although these analyses were exploratory andfindings should be interpreted with caution, it ispossible that deep engagement with extracurricularactivities, even those that are primarily peer-oriented, signals a greater sense of social belongingon campus for some marginalized students.42 Thisgreater social belonging might, in turn, promotegreater motivation to seek out relationships withcaring adults among these students.43,44 Modera-tion analyses also revealed that participation in anacademic project that took a semester or longer tocomplete predicted greater perceptions of facultysupport more strongly for students with higher loanamounts (our proxy for students’ family income).Likewise, students with higher loan amountsshowed a stronger association between engagementin internship or job experiences that allowed appli-cation of concepts learned in the classroom andperceptions of having had a college mentor. Thesefindings suggest that structured opportunities tointeract with peers and professors outside of theclassroommight be especially important to studentsholding marginalized identities. Since heavy debtburdens may force students to prioritize jobs thatare not academically relevant over engagement inunpaid internships and other out-of-class academicopportunities, institutions should findways to com-pensate students for academic- and career-relatedengagement (e.g., via work–study mechanismsor paid research opportunities). Nevertheless, itis also important to note that student loan sizeis an imperfect indicator of marginalization as afunction of low family income. Loan sizes are alsoinfluenced by factors such as tuition amount, whichvaries widely across schools. These findings should,therefore, be considered exploratory, and futureresearch should more precisely determine the waysthat students’ financial resources may affect theirengagement with extracurricular activities andconnection to caring adults on college campuses.In addition to extracurricular engagement and

student demographic variables, the universitycontext also appears to be important; greater insti-tution size was consistently the strongest predictorof lower perceptions of faculty caring and support,and also a robust predictor of lower ratings of accesstomentorship during college. This finding is consis-tent with previous research suggesting that smaller



colleges create an environment more conduciveto faculty–student relationships due to a greaterfocus on undergraduate teaching and smallerclass sizes.7,33,34 Of note, greater institution sizeappeared to be less problematic for first-generationcollege students. Again, these analyses of potentialmoderators of the effects of institution size wereexploratory and should be interpreted with caution,as well as targeted for replication in future research.However, it is possible that bigger schools tend tohave larger cohorts of underrepresented students,and are therefore more likely to have programs andpolicies in place to support these students. Largeschools also tend to have more diverse faculty,45who may be more likely to form close bondswith diverse students. Future research should alsoexamine additional characteristics of institutionsthat may be driving these findings. For example,institution size is often correlated with the typeof institution (e.g., private, liberal arts institutionversus large, research-oriented institution), and thismay be a factor that also influences students’ level ofextracurricular engagement and faculty orientationtoward mentoring undergraduates.It should be noted that our analyses cannot prove

a causal link between factors like extracurricularengagement and faculty–student bonding owing tothe cross-sectional nature of the data. Previous qual-itative and quantitative work has consistently iden-tified extracurricular activities as a key context inwhich students are able to form close and supportiverelationships with faculty,26,39 suggesting that thisis a plausible interpretation of our findings. Never-theless, it is also possible that variables not assessedin our study, such as student personality or achieve-ment orientation, influence both their likelihood ofextracurricular participation and positive engage-ment with faculty. Furthermore, although the useof retrospective survey methods allowed us to askcollege graduates to reflect on adults who were par-ticularly important to their college experiences, thisapproach is also vulnerable to a number of reportingbiases (e.g., poor memory for college experiencesand negative mood contributing to biased memo-ries of past experiences). In addition, relationshipsbetween extracurricular participation and faculty–student relationships are likely reciprocal, withfaculty mentors connecting students to variousresearch and professional opportunities. Additionalresearch utilizing longitudinal methods, including

multiple assessments of student engagement andperceptions of social support that begin prior tomatriculation, is necessary to fully disentangle thedynamic interrelationships among these constructs.There were also several limitations inherent in

our measurement of faculty–student relationships.In order to collect data from such a large sample, thebrevity of assessment instruments was crucial. Sup-portive relationships with caring adults were there-fore assessed using two items that focused on stu-dents’ self-reports of having amentor during collegeand their perceptions ofwhether faculty cared aboutthem as a person. However, these items do not pro-vide contextual information essential to more fullyunderstanding faculty–student mentoring relation-ships. For example, the mentoring relationshipsremembered by college graduates may very wellhave been relationships with older peers on campus(e.g., teammates and peers in Greek organizations),or with adults from their home communities (e.g.,extended family members and high school teach-ers). Data from a Strada–Gallup Survey showedthat approximately two-thirds of college graduateswho agree or strongly agree with this statementabout having a mentor who encouraged the pursuitof goals and dreams identify the mentor as a collegeprofessor.46 Nevertheless, for up to one-third ofcollege graduates, this item may not be accuratelycapturing information about fostering close rela-tionships between students and college faculty orstaff. Moreover, this same item asked about mentorswho encouraged the students to pursue their goalsand dreams. Although this is surely one importantrole of mentors during college, it will be essentialfor future studies to assess the diverse functionsthat a mentor can have for a young adult, includingemotional support and more mundane practicalsupport around navigating life on a college campus.Students’ perceptions of faculty support and

caring were also tested as a way to assess students’attitudes toward faculty, a construct that likelyreflects, at least in part, faculty attitudes towardmentoring, as well as students’ sense of belongingon campus and orientation toward seeking men-torship from faculty; however, this item still doesnot directly capture whether each student couldidentify a faculty mentor on campus. Future inves-tigations should collect more detailed informationabout the specific kinds of mentoring support pro-vided by college faculty and other adults on college



campuses, as well as how, when, and where studentsmeet them. Quantitative path modeling, as well asin-depth qualitative research, should examine theprocesses by which these mentoring relationshipsimpact students’ psychosocial and academic well-being. Finally, students may have multiple naturallyoccurring mentors, simultaneously or sequentially,and research should, therefore, account for morecomplex webs of social support during one’s timein college.14Despite these limitations, our findings contribute

to a growing body of literature on naturally occur-ring mentoring relationships during college, andtheir impact on student success. The use of a large,nationally representative dataset allowed us to drawconclusions that are likely more generalizable toall college students in the United States, relativeto studies that derive their samples from faculty–student interactions at a single college or university.Findings suggest that extracurricular activities,particularly those that are academically oriented,are closely tied to supportive interactions betweenstudents and college staff, and that these extracur-ricular activities may be particularly importantfor fostering faculty–student relationships withinunderrepresented student groups. Colleges anduniversities should, therefore, work to expandthe availability and accessibility of high-impactextracurricular activities for all students. For exam-ple, to alleviate the time and financial constraints onunderrepresented students, colleges and universi-ties can expand programs that offer students coursecredit for participating in faculty research or aca-demically oriented internships. Large institutions,which appear to be less conducive to mentoringrelationships between faculty and undergraduates,might consider increasing the availability of facultyappointments focused on undergraduate teaching,andmore systematically incentivize and reward fac-ulty for engaging in mentoring activities through-out hiring and tenure or promotion guidelines.47Finally, these extracurricular opportunities tend tobe more readily available to more advanced stu-dents, but colleges and universities should consideradapting them to serve first-year students, giventhat early contact with faculty is associated withclose relationships throughout college.27,48In addition to these institution-level changes,

research should continue to develop and evaluateinterventions that aim to improve students’ ability

to recruit and maintain mentors at college, witha particular emphasis on programs designed forstudents coming from underrepresented back-grounds. As one example, the Connected ScholarsProgram involves a structured curriculum thatteaches first-generation college-bound studentstangible networking skills that empower them toidentify and recruit mentors while in college.49,50In qualitative and quasiexperimental evaluations,students who participated in the program beforeentering their first year of college demonstrated agreater appreciation for the importance of seekinghelp, improved relationships with college courseinstructors, and a higher grade point average at theend of the first semester of college.49,50

Research should continue to explore thesediverse approaches to fostering sustained andmeaningful mentoring relationships for students,both through institutional policies and interven-tions that target students’ attitudes and socialskills. Our findings indicate that such researchcould help to promote naturally occurring men-toring relationships, particularly for marginal-ized students, thereby expanding the scope andequitable distribution of mentoring relationships atcollege.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support ofthe MacArthur Foundation Research Network onConnected Learning and MENTOR: The NationalMentoring Partnership. The writing of this articlewas also supported by a National Science Founda-tion Graduate Research Fellowship awarded to thesecond author.

Author contributions

E.B.R. collaborated on study design, oversaw dataanalysis and interpretation, wrote the first draft ofthe manuscript, and coordinated draft revisions.D.L. conducted data analyses and accepts respon-sibility for the integrity of the data. J.E.R. and M.H.collaborated on the study design and contributedto drafts of the manuscript. All authors read andapproved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.



References1. Gallup–Purdue Index. 2015. Great jobs, great lives: the rela-

tionship between student debt, experiences and perceptions ofcollege worth. Washington, DC: Gallup.

2. Gallup–Purdue Index. 2014. Great jobs great lives. Washing-ton, DC: Gallup.

3. Pascarella, E.T. & P.T. Terenzini. 2005. How College AffectsStudents: A Third Decade of Research. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley& Sons, Inc.

4. Stanton-Salazar, R.D. 2011. A social capital framework forthe study of institutional agents and their role in the empow-erment of low-status students and youth. Youth Soc. 43:1066–1109.

5. Kuh,G.D.& S.Hu. 2001. The effects of student–faculty inter-action in the 1990s. Rev. High. Educ. 24: 309–332.

6. Hagler, M.A. & J.E. Rhodes. 2018. The long-term impact ofnatural mentoring relationships: a counterfactual analysis.Am. J. Community Psychol. 62: 175–188.

7. Kuh, G.D., J. Kinzie, J.A. Buckley, et al. 2006. What mattersto student success: a review of the literature. National Postsec-ondary Education Cooperative.

8. Nagda, B.A., S.R. Gregerman, J. Jonides, et al. 1998. Under-graduate student–faculty research partnerships affect stu-dent retention. Rev. High. Educ. 22: 55–72.

9. Trolian, T.L., E.A. Jach, J.M. Hanson & E.T. Pascarella. 2016.Influencing academic motivation: the effects of student–faculty interaction. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 57: 810–826.

10. Arnett, J.J. 2000. Emerging adulthood: a theory of develop-ment from the late teens through the twenties. Am. Psychol.55: 469–480.

11. Masten, A.S. 2004. Regulatory processes, risk, and resiliencein adolescent development. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1021: 310–319.

12. Greeson, J.K.P. 2013. Foster youth and the transition toadulthood: the theoretical and conceptual basis for naturalmentoring. Emerg. Adulthood 1: 40–51.

13. Hurd, N.M. & M.A. Zimmerman. 2010. Natural mentors,mental health, and risk behaviors: a longitudinal analysis ofAfrican American adolescents transitioning into adulthood.Am. J. Community Psychol. 46: 36–48.

14. Hagler, M.A. 2018. Processes of natural mentoring that pro-mote underrepresented students’ educational attainment:a theoretical model. Am. J. Community Psychol. 62: 150–162.

15. Wallace, D., R. Abel & B. Ropers-Huilman. 2000. Clearinga path for success: deconstructing borders through under-graduate mentoring. Rev. High. Educ. 24: 87–102.

16. Stephens, N.M., T.N. Brannon, H.R. Markus & J.E. Nelson.2015. Feeling at home in college: fortifying school-relevantselves to reduce social class disparities in higher education.Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 9: 1–24.

17. Santos, S.J. & E.T. Reigadas. 2002. Latinos in higher educa-tion: an evaluation of a university faculty mentoring pro-gram. J. Hispanic High. Educ. 1: 40–50.

18. Raposa, E.B., L.D. Erickson, M. Hagler & J.E. Rhodes. 2018.How economic disadvantage affects the availability andnature of mentoring relationships during the transition toadulthood. Am. J. Community Psychol. 61: 191–203.

19. Cotten, S.R. &B.Wilson. 2006. Student–faculty interactions:dynamics and determinants. High. Educ. 51: 487–519.

20. Yee, A. 2016. The unwritten rules of engagement: social classdifferences in undergraduates’ academic strategies. J. HigherEduc. 87: 831–858.

21. Lundberg, C.A. & L.A. Schreiner. 2004. Quality and fre-quency of faculty–student interaction as predictors of learn-ing: an analysis by student race/ethnicity. J. Coll. Stud. Dev.45: 549–565.

22. Kim, Y.K. & L.J. Sax. 2009. Student–faculty interaction inresearch universities: differences by student gender, race,social class, and first-generation status. Res. High. Educ. 50:437–459.

23. Ancis, J.R., W.E. Sedlacek & J.J. Mohr. 2000. Student percep-tions of campus cultural climate by race. J. Couns. 78: 180–185.

24. Garrod, A. & C. Larimore. 1997. First Person, First Peoples:Native American College Graduates Tell Their Life Stories.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

25. Feldman, A.F. & J.L. Matjasko. 2005. The role of school-based extracurricular activities in adolescent development: acomprehensive review and future directions. Rev. Educ. Res.75: 159–210.

26. Zaff, J.F., K.A. Moore, A.R. Papillo & S. Williams. 2003.Implications of extracurricular activity participation duringadolescence on positive outcomes. J. Adolesc. Res. 18: 599–630.

27. Fuentes, M.V., A. Ruiz Alvarado, J. Berdan & L. DeAngelo.2014. Mentorship matters: does early faculty contact lead toquality faculty interaction? Res. High. Educ. 55: 288–307.

28. Braxton, J.M., D. Olsen & A. Simmons. 1998. Affinity disci-plines and the use of principles of good practice for under-graduate education. Res. High. Educ. 39: 299–318.

29. Sax, L.J., A.N. Bryant & C.E. Harper. 2005. The differentialeffects of student–faculty interaction on college outcomesfor women and men. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 46: 642–657.

30. Cox, B.E., K.L. McIntosh, P.T. Terenzini, et al. 2010. Ped-agogical signals of faculty approachability: factors shapingfaculty–student interaction outside the classroom.Res. High.Educ. 51: 767–788.

31. Darling, N., L.L. Caldwell & R. Smith. 2005. Participationin school-based extracurricular activities and adolescentadjustment. J. Leis. Res. 37: 51–76.

32. Paule, A.L. & T.A. Gilson. 2011. Does athletic participa-tion benefit or hinder academic performance? Non-revenuesport athlete experiences. J. Contemp. Athl. 5: 203–217.

33. Arum, R. & J. Roksa. 2011. Academically Adrift: LimitedLearning on College Campuses. New York: University ofChicago Press.

34. NSSE. 2005. Exploring different dimensions of studentengagement: 2005 annual survey results. Center for Postsec-ondary Research.

35. Beattie, I.R. &M. Thiele. 2016. Connecting in class? Collegeclass size and inequality in academic social capital. J. HigherEduc. 87: 332–362.

36. Vianden, J. 2009. Exploring college men’s perceptions aboutinteracting with faculty beyond the classroom. Coll. StudentAff. J. 27: 224–241.



37. Erickson, L.D., S. McDonald & G.H. Elder. 2009. Informalmentors and education: complementary or compensatoryresources? Sociol. Educ. 82: 344–367.

38. Hoxby, C.M. & C. Avery. 2013. The missing ‘one-offs’:the hidden supply of high-achieving, low income students.Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.

39. Eccles, J.S., B.L. Barber, M. Stone & J. Hunt. 2003. Extracur-ricular activities and adolescent development. J. Soc. Issues59: 865–889.

40. Putnam, R. 2015. Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis.New York: Simon and Schuster.

41. Schudde, L. 2016. The interplay of family income, campusresidency, and student retention (what practitioners shouldknow about cultural mismatch). J. Coll. Univ. Student Hous.43: 10–27.

42. Palmer, R.T., D.C. Maramba & S.L. Holmes. 2011. A con-temporary examination of factors promoting the academicsuccess of minority students at a predominantly White uni-versity. J. Coll. Student Retent. Res. Theory Pract. 13: 329–349.

43. Branand, B., D. Mashek, L. Wray-Lake & J.K. Coffey. 2015.Inclusion of college community in the self: a longitudinal

study of the role of self-expansion in students’ satisfaction. J.Coll. Stud. Dev. 56: 829–844.

44. Halpin, R.L. 1990. An application of the Tinto model to theanalysis of freshman persistence in a community college.Community Coll. Rev. 17: 22–32.

45. Myers, B. 2016. Where are the minority professors? Chroni-cle of Higher Education.

46. Strada & Gallup. 2018. Strada–Gallup alumni survey. Wash-ington, DC: Gallup.

47. Jaschik, S. 2015.Mentoring as tenure criterion. Inside HigherEducation.

48. Center for Engaged Learning. 2018. The importance of men-tors and peers in the undergraduate experience. Elon, NC:Elon University.

49. Schwartz, S.E.O., S.S. Kanchewa, J.E. Rhodes, et al. 2016.‘I didn’t know you could just ask:’ empowering underrep-resented college-bound students to recruit academic andcareer mentors. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 64: 51–59.

50. Schwartz, S.E.O. et al. 2017. “I’m having a little struggle withthis, can you help me out?”: examining impacts and pro-cesses of a social capital intervention for first-generation col-lege students. Am. J. Community Psychol. 61: 166–178.


predictors of close faculty−student relationships …...raposa et al. predictors of college...

Documents