reality check: a vital update to the landmark 2002 nces ... · reality check: a vital update to the...

Reality Check: A Vital Update to the Landmark 2002 NCES Study of Nontraditional College Students

Tamara J. Reeves, Ph.D, Leslie A. Miller, Ph.D, and Ruby A. Rouse, Ph.D

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 3

Background 4

The Changing Face of College Students 4

The Impetus for Older Students to Return to College 5

Characteristics as Barriers to Degree Attainment 5

Today’s College Student 5

Purpose 6

Method 6

Results 7

Sample Demographics 7

Characteristics of Today’s College Student 7

Today’s College Student Compared to Those of 10 Years Ago 8

Key Segments of 21st-Century College Students 9

Conclusions 12

Limitations 14

Summary 14

References 14

Tables

1 Educational and Demographic Characteristics of College Students in the 2007–2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 7

2 Percentage of 21st-Century College Students Demonstrating Each of the Seven Nontraditional Characteristics 8

3 Percentage of Students Demonstrating Each of the Seven Nontraditional Characteristics: 10 Years Ago and Today 9

4 Cross-Tabulation of Percentages of Working Learners by Nontraditional Characteristics 10

5 Cross-Tabulation of Percentages of Service Member Learners by Nontraditional Characteristics 10

6 Cross-Tabulation of Percentages of Single Parent Learners by Nontraditional Characteristics 11

7 Cross-Tabulation of Percentages of Minority Learners by Nontraditional Characteristics 11

8 Timeline of Significant Educational, Technological, and Economic/Political Events Since Choy’s 2002 Study 13

Figures

1 Comparison of percentages of college students identifying with Choy’s nontraditional characteristics in 1999–2000 and 2007–2008 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

In a landmark study for the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), Choy (2002) reported •73% of the 1999–2000 undergraduate student population displayed one or more “nontraditional” characteristics—such as delaying enrollment after high school, working at least part-time, and/or being a single parent.

Choy provided valuable information to help U.S. legislators and educational institutions make informed •decisions about how to serve the needs of college students.

Over a decade later, no researchers have updated Choy’s report using NCES data to reflect the frequency •of nontraditional characteristics in today’s college student population.

Purpose

The purpose of the current study was to understand and describe the characteristics of today’s college •students and compare the findings with the results presented by Choy (2002) over 10 years ago.

Method

An analysis was conducted of archived data from the NCES 2007–2008 National Postsecondary Student •Aid Study (NPSAS:08) database on 137,800 students across 1,730 institutions of higher education.

Results

Analysis of archived data revealed approximately 70% of today’s college students demonstrate at least •one nontraditional characteristic compared to 73% in Choy’s 2002 analysis.

Analysis also revealed that while the percentage of today’s college students demonstrating 6 of the 7 •nontraditional characteristics has declined, the percentage of students enrolled in college who do not have a high school diploma has increased from 7% in 1999–2000 to 11% in 2007–2008.

Conclusions and Implications

Nontraditional college students continue to represent the vast majority of undergraduates at today’s •educational institutions, although a shift in percentages may be occurring.

Understanding the shifting characteristics of college students is critical to curriculum, program, •and policy design.

Failure to track trends and provide accurate information may result in educational stakeholders •misunderstanding the needs of 21st-century undergraduates and/or misappropriating educational resources.


4

Reality Check: A Vital Update to the Landmark 2002 NCES Study of Nontraditional Students

Between 1987 and 1997, America experienced a 14% increase in the number of people attending college (College Board, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, 2011). The trend nearly doubled from 1997 to 2007 when the percentage rose to 26%. Typically, when thinking of college students, Americans imagine “traditional” college students—“kids” who enroll immediately upon earning a high school diploma and are financially dependent on their parents (Rouse & Miller, 2011). However, during the dramatic rise in enrollment from 1997 to 2007, Choy (2002) conducted a landmark study for the U.S. Department of Education to examine the characteristics of undergraduate college students. The analysis indicated that 73% of college students in 1999–2000 demonstrated at least 1 of 7 “nontraditional” characteristics, such as working full- or part-time, delaying enrollment, or being financially committed to raising a family. Since Choy’s original study, other researchers similarly recognized significant growth in the number of nontraditional adult learners (Conan, 2010; Hardin, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2006; Rouse & Miller, 2011).

When reporting findings, Choy (2002) emphasized the importance of using current data to report trends about the characteristics of undergraduate college students. Failure to track trends and provide accurate information may result in educational stakeholders misunderstanding the needs of 21st-century undergraduates and/or misappropriating educational resources. The present study updates Choy’s analysis with 2008 NCES data to provide educational stakeholders with the most recent information about the characteristics of today’s typical college student.

BACkgRoUNd

The Changing Face of College Students

After analyzing NCES data for the 1999–2000 school year, Choy (2002) found only 27% of college students met the criteria of a traditional college student—an undergraduate between 18 and 22 years old who enrolls shortly after graduating from high school and takes classes full-time. In contrast, nearly 3 out of 4 college students (73%) identified with at least 1 of 7 nontraditional characteristics. The new “face” of undergraduates included 51% who were financially independent, 48% who attended college part-time, 46% who delayed enrollment in college, 39% who worked full-time, 27% with one or more dependents other than a spouse, 13% who were single parents, and 7% who lacked a high school diploma.

Combined with findings by the U.S. Department of Education, NCES (2006), Choy’s results raised awareness about the changing demographic profile of America’s college students (Hardin, 2008). With knowledge of the actual characteristics of undergraduates, researchers were better able to evaluate public laws related to financial aid and independent status (Nicholas, 2008) and to judge academic institutions’ effectiveness in meeting the needs of nontraditional learners (e.g., Hines, 2008; Pusser et al., 2007).

Choy’s (2002) findings prompted other studies of the 73% of college students who differ from traditional undergraduates. The U.S. Department of Education (2006) found 52% of college students were older than 25 years of age, while Soares and Mazzeo (2008) reported that 45% of undergraduates were over the age of 21. Other studies noted that women enroll in college at higher rates than men; a higher percentage of undergraduates work in professional or managerial occupations (U.S. Department of Education, 2006); and nearly 40% attend college part-time due to other demands (Soares & Mazzeo, 2008).


5

The Impetus for older Students to Return to College

Older, nontraditional students return to school for a variety of reasons. In a quantitative analysis of more than 6,700 nontraditional learners, Miller, Ritter-Williams, and Rouse (2010) found personal development and career advancement motivated most working learners to seek a college degree. Qualitative analysis of open-ended comments from nontraditional students in the study found personal growth and engagement were other motivations for enrollment (Miller et al., 2010). Other researchers suggest the economic crisis of 2007 may have prompted some nontraditional students to seek a degree (Higa, 2010; Libby, 2008). Individuals who dropped out of college in the past may have decided to continue their education after realizing opportunities for promotion tend to be limited without an undergraduate degree. Still other working adults may return to school to set a positive example for their children by demonstrating the importance of a college education (Kimmel & McNeese, 2005, 2006; Libby, 2008; Miller et al., 2010; “Motivations for Returning,” 2010; Sabbaugh, 2003).

Characteristics as Barriers to degree Attainment

Some researchers suggest the nontraditional characteristics identified by Choy (2002) may be barriers to degree attainment (e.g., Ishitani, 2006). For instance, it can be argued that nontraditional college students tend to have less time and money, as well as more responsibilities and financial constraints, than their traditional counterparts. Prior research indicates students who delay enrollment after high school tend also to be from low-income families and represent first-generation college students (Rowan-Kenyon, 2007). Pursuing their degree while also juggling a job and parental/spousal responsibilities, nontraditional undergraduates have less time to devote to schoolwork (Hardin, 2008); they are also less likely to have financial support while attending college and have fewer opportunities to get involved in campus activities. Furthermore, when students deviate from a traditional path (e.g., transferring schools, attending part-time), the amount of money they invest in college increases, reducing the likelihood of graduation (Goldrick-Rab, 2006).

Less traditional college students often view their varied roles through a different lens (Cheng & Alcantara, 2007). Many working learners see their freedom to work while attending school as an opportunity to gain experience and develop time management skills. By earning income while taking classes, they are able to pursue other opportunities while providing for their families. Although it was once thought that having children would pose further difficulties for college students, studies now show that the family members of nontraditional students provide valuable emotional support to alleviate stress while in school (Kirby, Biever, Martinez, & Gomez, 2004). Furthermore, studies show that single parents who complete a college degree are able to significantly improve their economic well-being (Pandey & Zhan, 2007).

Today’s College Student

Regardless of whether the characteristics of nontraditional undergraduates are barriers or opportunities, understanding today’s typical college student is critical. Major economic, political, and social changes have occurred since Choy’s groundbreaking study, including the election of a new president and a global financial crisis. Researchers can no longer assume decade-old data accurately reflect the needs of 21st-century college students. To make appropriate decisions, educational stakeholders must have recent, accurate information about the characteristics of undergraduates in the United States.


6

PURPoSE

The purpose of the current study was to understand and describe the characteristics of today’s college students and to compare the findings with the results presented by Choy (2002) over 10 years ago. Two questions guided the research:

What are the characteristics of today’s college student?•

•How do the characteristics of today’s college student compare with the characteristics identified by Choy (2002) over 10 years ago?

METhod

Archived 2007–2008 data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08), available at the NCES website, was downloaded and analyzed. The dataset included student information from eligible undergraduate institutions that:

offered an educational program designed for persons who had completed secondary education;•

offered at least one academic, occupational, or vocational program of study lasting at least 3 months •or 300 clock hours;

offered courses open to persons other than the employees or members of the company or group •(e.g., union) that administered the institution;

were located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico;•

were not a U.S. Service Academy; and•

signed a Title IV agreement to participate in federal student aid programs with the U.S. Department •of Education. (Cominole, Riccobono, Siegel, & Caves, 2010, p. 14)

The NPSAS:08 researchers accessed data from student records, student surveys/interviews, financial aid records, the National Student Loan Data System, the National Student Clearinghouse, ACT/SAT records, and the NCES. The NPSAS:08 dataset included (a) student contact information, (b) the amount of tuition that the student paid to attend school each year, (c) need analysis results (i.e., family financial contribution), (d) the type of educational institution attended, (e) the student’s undergraduate admission information (e.g., high school diploma, high school GPA, college preparatory courses), (f) student demographics (e.g., race, age, parental educational level), and (g) the amount of financial aid the student was awarded (Cominole et al., 2010).

To verify accuracy of each institution’s student records, NPSAS:08 researchers also collected data directly from undergraduates. The researchers sent students a letter informing them of the NPSAS:08 study and requested they complete a 25-minute online survey. Students who were unable to complete the survey electronically participated in a telephone interview with a trained researcher.

Surveys were administered in three waves to increase the number of respondents. To encourage early responses during the first wave, all participants received a $30 incentive to complete the online survey or telephone interview during the first 3 weeks of data collection (48% of the sample). The second phase required interviewers to make outbound calls; as a result, no incentive was paid during this phase (11% of sample). The third phase included a $30 incentive and resulted in the remaining 41% of the sample.

The final dataset analyzed for the current study included information from 132,800 students. The students attended college at 1,730 eligible postsecondary undergraduate institutions throughout the United States and Puerto Rico during the 2007–2008 school year.


7

Note. Percentages are rounded and may not total 100%.

RESULTS

Sample demographics

Table 1 includes a summary of the demographics of the college students analyzed for the current study. Students were enrolled in different types of institutions (public, private nonprofit, private for-profit), although most (70%) were enrolled in public institutions. The age of undergraduates ranged from 15 to over 30 years, with three fifths (60%) between the ages of 15 and 23. Most students reported a race of White (69%) or Black (15.1%).

Characteristics of Today’s College Student

Almost 10 years after Choy’s landmark study, an analysis of 2007–2008 college student data indicated that 70% of today’s college students reported having one or more of Choy’s seven nontraditional characteristics. As shown in Table 2, almost half (47%) of college students in 2008 were financially independent, and approximately one third (32%) reported working full-time and/or delaying college enrollment after high school. Approximately a quarter (26%) reported attending school part-time. Fewer than 15% indicated they had at least one dependent (14%), were single parents (12%), or did not have a high school diploma (11%).

Table 1Educational and Demographic Characteristics of College Students in the 2007–2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study

Educational & demographic characteristics % (n)N = 133,198

Type of institution of higher educationPublic institutionPrivate nonprofit Private for-profit More than one

69.7% (92,827)13.3% (17,795)9.0% (11,952)8.0% (10,624)

Age15–2324–29Above 30

60.0% (79,680)17.2% (22,974)

23.0% (30,544)

RaceWhiteBlackAsianAmerican Indian or Alaska NativeNative Hawaiian or Pacific IslanderOther or more than one race

69.0% (91,632)15.1% (20,053)6.4% (8,499)1.2% (1,593)1.0% (1,328)6.5% (8,632)


8

Today’s College Students Compared to Those of 10 Years Ago

Although the vast majority of college students still identify with one or more of Choy’s characteristics, the percentage of nontraditional undergraduates has declined by 3% (from 73% to 70%) since the analysis 10 years ago. The percentage of students demonstrating 6 of the 7 characteristics has also declined (see Figure 1).

Over the past decade, the percentage of students who reported working full-time (-7%), being financially independent (–4%), and/or being single parents (–1%) decreased slightly (see Table 3). The most significant decline involved the percentage of students attending school part-time (–22%), delaying enrollment (–15%), and/or having dependents other than a spouse (–13%). The percentage of students who enrolled in college without a high school diploma increased slightly (+4%).

Two-proportion Z-tests were used to examine if the percentages of students demonstrating each characteristic today and 10 years ago differed significantly. The differences were significant (p < .01) for every nontraditional characteristic.

Table 2Percentage of 21st-Century College Students Demonstrating Each of the Seven Nontraditional Characteristics

Seven nontraditional characteristics 21st-century college students N = 132,800

Considered financially independent 47%

Work full-time 32%

Delayed enrollment 31%

Attend part-time 26%

Have dependents other than a spouse 14%

Single parents 12%

Do not have a high school diploma 11%

Consideredfinancially

independent

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Workfull-time

Delayedenrollment

Havedependentsother thana spouse

Singleparents

Attendpart-time

Do not havea high school

diploma

Figure 1. Comparison of percentages of college students identifying with Choy’s nontraditional characteristicsin 1999–2000 and 2007–2008.

■ Y 1999–2000 ■ Y 2007–2008

51%47%

39%

32%

46%

31%

48%

26% 27%

14% 13% 12%7%

11%


9

key Segments of 21st-Century College Students

A post-hoc analysis was conducted on the NPSAS:08 study data to explore additional patterns not specified a priori to increase understanding of segments of the 21st-century college student population. Data analysis revealed interesting trends about four emerging groups:

working learners• —undergraduates who were employed while seeking a college degree;

service member learners• —college students who previously or concurrently served in the military;

single parent learners• —nonmarried undergraduates with children; and

minority learners• —college students representing racial and ethnic minorities.

Working learners. Table 4 includes the characteristics of today’s working learners by the number of hours worked each week, attendance intensity, financial independence, and single parent status. As shown in Table 4, most working learners aligned with a traditional undergraduate profile. Although some working learners did demonstrate other nontraditional characteristics, most reported attending college full-time, being financially dependent on parents, and not being single parents. Only those working learners who worked 40 or more hours per week were more likely to attend college part-time (62%) and be financially independent (79%).

Service member learners. Table 5 displays the characteristics of service members by service type (active duty, reserve, and veteran). When nontraditional characteristics were compared, service member learners across the three service types had similar profiles. Most identified with three nontraditional characteristics: being financially independent (between 66% and 100%), working at least part-time (between 95% and 99%), and attending college part-time (between 47% and 59%). Most, however, were not single parents (between 85% and 90%).

Single parent learner. For the current study, single parent learners were individuals who said they had children and were parenting their dependents by themselves (i.e., not married) at the time of data collection. As indicated in Table 6, most single parent learners identified with three nontraditional characteristics—many attended school part-time (48%), all were financially independent (100%), and approximately 60% reported working 26 or more hours per week.

Table 3Percentage of Students Demonstrating Each of the Seven Nontraditional Characteristics: 10 Years Ago and Today

Seven nontraditional characteristics 10 years agoN = 61,800

21st-century college students

N = 132,800

Percent change Z-Score

Considered financially independent 51% 47% –4% 16.434**

Work full-time 39% 32% –7% 30.294**

Delayed enrollment 46% 31% –15% 64.264**

Attend part-time 48% 26% –22% 96.088**

Have dependents other than a spouse 27% 14% –13% 69.291**

Single parents 13% 12% –1% 6.241**

Do not have a high school diploma 7% 11% +4% 27.71**

**p < .01.


10

Table 4Cross-Tabulation of Percentages of Working Learners by Nontraditional Characteristics

% of college students reporting weekly hours worked in 2007-2008

Nontraditional characteristics 1–15 hours 16–25 hours 26–39 hours > 40 hours

Attendance intensityExclusively full-timeExclusively part-time Mixed full-time & part-time

65.99%15.17%18.84%

54.11%23.67%22.22%

41.32%39.64%19.04%

25.86%62.08%12.05%

Financially independent15–2324–29

23.08%76.92%

32.46%67.54%

46.26%53.74%

75.91%24.09%

Single parent statusSingle parentNot a single parent

6.73%93.27%

9.99%90.00%

13.52% 86.48%

20.71% 79.29%

Table 5Cross-Tabulation of Percentages of Service Member Learners by Nontraditional Characteristics

% of college students reporting type of military service

Nontraditional characteristics Active duty Reserves Veteran


29.0459.0811.89

40.6346.5412.87

36.7747.7515.49

Financially independentIndependentDependent on parents

1000

65.7334.27

1000

Single parent statusSingle parentNot a single parent

12.0487.96

10.0189.99

15.5184.50

Work HoursUnemployed1–15 hours per week16–25 hours per week 26–39 hours per week> 40 or more hours per week

4.984.977.1311.33

76.56

0.0117.9214.3712.92

54.80

0.997.71

12.6814.4566.16

Note. Mixed full-time & part-time attendance intensity indicates students reported attending one semester full-time and one semester part-time.


11

Table 6Cross-Tabulation of Percentages of Single-Parent Learners by Nontraditional Characteristics

% of college students reporting single parent status

Nontraditional characteristics Single parent Not a single parent


36.548.015.5

49.433.517.2


1000

38.961.1


17.98.113.816.543.7

21.517.319.216.225.8

Note. Single parents were defined as individuals who reported having children and were parenting their dependents by themselves (i.e., not married) at the time of data collection.

Table 7Cross-Tabulation of Percentages of Minority Learners by Nontraditional Characteristics

Race/Ethnicity

Nontraditional characteristics White African-American

Hispanic Asian American Indian

Native Hawaiian

Other More than one race


49.1234.4316.45

44.5838.3617.07

44.6537.3717.98

47.8433.5118.65

45.7939.1915.02

37.4440.3822.18

43.5040.4916.01

51.6330.8317.54


43.5756.43

60.9939.00

49.5150.49

43.0956.90

60.4739.53

44.1355.87

51.4648.54

46.1453.86


9.6590.35

28.1571.85

16.2083.80

8.9291.08

20.5279.48

14.3085.70

14.4885.52

13.5986.41


20.317.318.716.327.4

20.812.815.916.234.3

20.213.819.918.028.1

30.218.317.712.221.6

26.111.915.715.530.8

22.712.222.216.426.6

14.517.122.814.431.2

22.514.119.116.3

27.09


12

Minority learners. Also examined were the nontraditional characteristics of college students who were African-American, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, other, or of more than one race/ethnicity. Most minority learners reported similar traditional college student characteristics. College students in every category of race/ethnicity except Native Hawaiian indicated they were enrolled full-time. Similarly, all minority learner groups indicated they are not single parents. Most white, Hispanic, and Asian learners said they were financially dependent on their parents, but African-American and American Indian undergraduates tended to be financially independent (see Table 7). Between 70% and 85% of college students across the categories of race/ethnicity reported working at least part-time, with between 22% and 34% working 40 hours or more each week.

CoNCLUSIoNS

The current study results validate the findings of Choy’s landmark study conducted nearly a decade ago. Analysis of the data from the 2007–2008 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study confirmed that the vast majority of 21st-century undergraduates are nontraditional college students—that is, they identify with one or more nontraditional characteristics, such as attending school part-time, delaying enrollment after high school, working while taking classes, and being financially independent and/or a single parent. Although the findings are consistent with Choy’s analysis of the 1999–2000 data, a slight decline in the percentage of nontraditional undergraduates was observed. A decade ago, 73% of college students were nontraditional (Choy, 2002), compared with 70% today.

Results of the current study indicate statistically significant, although perhaps not practically significant, changes have occurred from 1999–2000 to 2007–2008 in the percentage of college students demonstrating each of the seven nontraditional characteristics. The percentage of students who reported working full-time, being financially independent, and/or being single parents decreased slightly, yet statistically significantly. The most significant declines occurred in the percentage of students attending school part-time, delaying enrollment, and/or having dependents other than a spouse. The percentage of students who enrolled in college without a high school diploma increased.

Since Choy’s initial study, several significant educational, technological, and economic/political events have occurred (see Table 8). In the same year NCES released Choy’s results, President George W. Bush signed the historic No Child Left Behind Act that dramatically changed the focus and culture of American public schools. In subsequent years, significant educational legislation was passed, social media proliferated, and enrollment in online college classes dramatically increased. As the U.S. economy entered a major recession in 2007, Americans were stunned by the shooting at Virginia Tech University that killed 33 students—the deadliest incident on a college campus in U.S. history. In a pivotal event, the American housing industry collapsed in the fall of 2008. Shortly after the U.S. government bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with $400 billion and authorized $700 billion in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Barack Obama was elected president. As of 2011, the U.S. economy continues to struggle with slow economic growth and high unemployment.

These educational, technological, and economic/political events have had a profound effect on the United States—including the country’s more than 19 million college students (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). In his first year in office, President Obama lamented the quality of education in the United States, urging the country to lead the world in the number of college graduates by graduating an additional 8 million students by 2020 (The White House, 2009). Meeting this goal requires timely, innovative, and collaborative strategies among leaders in academia, business, and government.

As detailed in Table 8, America’s educational landscape is fluid and frequently turbulent. History demonstrates it is difficult—if not impossible—for educational stakeholders to make informed, effective decisions without recent and accurate data about the needs and characteristics of current college students. Just as the government calls upon the U.S. Census Bureau to assess the demographic characteristics of the American population every decade, legislators should similarly call upon the National Center of Educational Statistics


13

Table 8Timeline of Significant Educational, Technological, and Economic/Political Events Since Choy’s Study in 2002

YearEvent

Educational Technological Economic/Political

2002

•NationalCenterforEducationalStatisticsreports 73% of 1999–2000 undergraduate college students were “nontraditional” (Choy, 2002)

•TheNoChildLeftBehindAct(NCLB)issignedinto law by President George W. Bush

•FirstBlackBerryisreleased, the first smartphone optimized for wireless email

•Socialnetworkingbecomespopularwith the availability of Friendster

2003•AmendmentandreauthorizationoftheHigher

Education Act to expand access to college for low- and middle-income students

•LinkedInandMySpacelaunch

2004

•ReauthorizationandmodificationoftheIndividuals with Disabilities Improvement Act (IDEA–H.R. 1350) addressing special education placement decisions

•Facebooklaunches

2004

•The Chronicle of Higher Education Wired Campus web blog reports nearly 20% of all college students (almost 3.5 million) are taking at least one online course; 9.7% growth in online enrollment versus 1.5% growth in the overall population of college students

•Firste-reader(Kindle)released

•Twitterlaunches

2007•AVirginiaTechUniversitystudentkills33and

wounds 15 in the worst school shooting event in U.S. history

•Beginningofamajorrecessioninthe United States

2008

•CollapseoftheU.S.housingmarket;$400billionbailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

•Beginningofaglobalfinancialcrisis;$700billionauthorization under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to help address economic problems

•ElectionofBarackObamaasPresident of the United States

2009

•RacetotheTopinitiativethatprovidesabout$4 billion for reforms in K–12 schools

•AmericanReinvestmentandRecoveryActof2009 appropriates approximately $90 million for education to minimize layoffs and modernize schools

•Historicunemploymentduringthe economic crisis; fears of another depression

2010

•AppleoffersthefirstiPadforsale •Continuationoftheeconomiccrisis;slow economic growth; increasing concern about governmental spending; persistently high unemployment

2011•Risingconcernaboutstudentloandebtand

high default rates•Introductionanddebateofgainful

employment legislation

to frequently update its analysis of the characteristics of undergraduate students. Doing so would empower educational stakeholders to develop curriculum, programs, and policies to meet the emergent needs of tomorrow’s leaders.


14

Limitations

Despite the current study’s interesting findings, some important limitations must be considered when interpreting the study results. One limitation was the scope of the data analyzed, which was confined to archived 2007–2008 data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08) available at the NCES website. Only data from undergraduate institutions of higher education located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico that offered at least one academic, occupational, or vocational program of study lasting at least 3 months or 300 clock hours for persons who had completed a secondary education were included. Not included were data from U.S. Service Academies or data from programs not offering courses to persons other than the employees or members of the company or group (e.g., union) that administered the institution. Also not included were data from institutions that did not have a signed Title IV agreement to participate in federal student aid programs with the U.S. Department of Education (Cominole et al., 2010). The characteristics of today’s college students revealed in the current study, therefore, may reflect only those students attending the institutions of higher education within the scope of the study and may not be generalizable to those attending other types of undergraduate institutions.

Another limitation is the accuracy of secondary data. Data from eligible undergraduate institutions were obtained from student records, student surveys/interviews, financial aid records, the National Student Loan Data System, the National Student Clearinghouse, and ACT and SAT records; and institutional data were obtained directly by the NCES. Interviews and surveys were conducted to verify the accuracy of recorded data, but self-reported data, within the initial institutional databases and from interviews and surveys, are based on memory and therefore subject to inaccuracy.

Summary

The study, which replicated Choy’s (2002) analysis of nontraditional students, confirmed the significant number of nontraditional students in American educational institutions and provides academic, business, and governmental leaders with valuable insight about the characteristics of today’s college students. With a better understanding of the characteristics of college students, and how the characteristics change over time, leaders can make more informed decisions about policy, curriculum, and program design—all supporting President Obama’s goal of an additional 8 million college graduates by 2020.

REFERENCES

Cheng, D. X., & Alcantara, L. (2007). Assessing working students’ college experiences: A grounded theory approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, 301–311.

Choy, S. (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates, NCES 2009–012. Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/ 2002012.pdf

College Board. (2006). Trends in college pricing. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://trends.collegeboard.org/

Cominole, M., Riccobono, J., Siegel, P., & Caves, L. (2010). 2007–08 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:08) Full-Scale Methodology Report (NCES 2011-188). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ pubsearch

Conan, N. (2010, August 24). Typical college student no longer so typical [Radio series episode]. In S. Goodwin (Executive producer), Talk of the Nation. Washington, DC: National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129402669


15

Goldrick-Rab, S. (2006). Following their every move: An investigation of social-class differences in college pathways. Sociology of Education, 79, 61–79.

Hardin, C. J. (2008). Adult students in higher education: A portrait of transitions. New Directions for Higher Education, 144(Winter), 49–57. doi:10.1002/he.325

Higa, F. B. (2010). Community college enrollment and the 2007–2009 financial crisis. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Brown University, Providence, RI. Retrieved from http://www.econ.brown.edu/ students/florencia_higa/communitycollege_crisis_May2010.pdf

Hines, M. (2008). Serving adult students: Challenges and commitments. In M. Fennell & S. D. Miller (Executive eds.), 2008-2009 Presidential Perspectives Series: Best Practices in Higher Education (Ch. 4). Philadelphia, PA: ARAMARK. Retrieved from http://www.PresidentialPerspectives.org

Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 861–885.

Kaya, T. (2010, November 16). Enrollment in online courses increases at the highest rate ever [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/enrollment-in-online-courses-increases-at-the-highest-rate-ever/28204?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Kimmel, S. B., & McNeese, M. N. (2005, 2006). The influence of gender, ethnicity, and age on adult motivation and barriers to education. International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, 5, 33–41.

Kirby, P. G., Biever, J. L., Martinez, I. G., & Gomez, J. P. (2004). Adults returning to school: The impact of family and work. The Journal of Psychology, 138(1), 65–76.

Libby, S. (2008). Blue-collar boomers take work ethic to college. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54, A1–A22.

Miller, L. A., Ritter-Williams, D., & Rouse, R. (2010). Bundled value: Working learners’ perceptions of tuition benefits programs. Apollo Research Institute. Retrieved from http://apolloresearchinstitute.com/research-studies/tuition-assistance/bundled-value-working-learners-perceptions-tuition- benefit

Motivations for returning to college. (2010). Online Education Articles. Retrieved from http://samararealty.com/pfc/70-motivation-for-returning-to-college.html

Nicholas, S. (2008). Nontraditional older students. EBSCO research starters: Academic topic overviews. Ipswich, MA: EBSCO Publishing.

Pandey, S., & Zhan, M. (2007). Postsecondary education, marital status, and economic well-being of women with children. Social Development Issues, 29, 1–26.

Pusser, B., Breneman, D. W., Gansneder, B. M., Kohl, K. J., Leven, J. S., Milam, J. H., & Turner, S. E. (2007, March). Returning to learning: Adults’ success in college is key to America’s future. New Agenda Series. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education. Retrieved from http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/researchreports.html

Rouse, R. A., & Miller, L. A. (2011). Americans flunk quiz about today’s college students. Apollo Research Institute. Retrieved from http://apolloresearchinstitute.com/research-studies/nontraditional- students/americans-flunk-quiz-about-today039s-college-students.html

Rowan-Kenyon, H. T. (2007). Predictors of delayed college enrollment and the impact of socioeconomic status. Journal of Higher Education, 78, 188–214.

Sabbaugh, T. M. (2003). Adults in transition: Adults who return to community colleges and graduate: An examination of life-changing event(s) in adult students’ lives prior to readmission and after graduation (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/AAI3118967/


16

Soares, L., & Mazzeo, C. (2008). College-ready students, student-ready colleges: An agenda for improving degree completion in post-secondary education. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/08/college_ready.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Table 273. College enrollment by sex and attendance status: 2003–2009 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0272.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The condition of education 2011 (NCES 2006–033). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011033.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The condition of education 2006 (NCES 2006–071). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov

The White House. (2009, July 14). Press release: Excerpts of the President’s remarks in Warren, Michigan today and a fact sheet on the American Graduation Initiative. Retrieved from Office of the Press Secretary website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Excerpts-of-the-Presidents-remarks-in-Warren-Michigan-and-fact-sheet-on-the-American-Graduation-Initiative/

Acknowledgments

Apollo Research Institute would like to thank Zachary Miller and the team at MarketTools for their assistance with the research. Zachary Miller, Research Assistant at Apollo Research Institute, supported all quantitative data analysis efforts. The MarketTools team was proactive and instrumental in helping us target our desired populations and gathering the necessary data.

About the Authors

Tamara J. Reeves, Ph.d., is a clinical psychologist actively involved in program development and evaluation, teaching, and research. She is currently a lead faculty member in Social Sciences at the University of Phoenix Oklahoma City Campus. Dr. Reeves’ graduate studies emphasized a focus in clinical psychology. She earned both her master’s and doctoral degrees from the University of Memphis.

Leslie A. Miller, Ph.d., PhR, is an academician and consultant with more than 20 years of experience researching, teaching, and working directly with organizations and institutions of higher education. Dr. Miller earned a Ph.D. in educational psychology from the University of Maryland and a master’s in experimental/cognitive psychology from Washington State University.

Ruby A. Rouse, Ph.d., has held a variety of leadership positions in business and higher education. Her current research focuses on the return on investment of higher education. Dr. Rouse received a bachelor’s degree in journalism from Texas A&M University, a master’s degree in speech from the University of Houston, and a doctoral degree in marketing communications from the University of Connecticut.

About Apollo Research Institute

Apollo Research Institute investigates the value of education for the current and future workforce. Through academic and industry partnerships, Apollo Research Institute makes research-based recommendations to help leaders ensure today’s workforce is employable tomorrow. Visit www.apolloresearchinstitute.com.

© 2011 Apollo Research Institute

reality check: a vital update to the landmark 2002 nces ... · reality check: a vital update to the...

Documents