Understanding College Student Subpopulations PDF

Understanding College Student
SUBPOPULATIONS
A Guide for
Student Affairs
Professionals
Lyle A. Gohn
Ginger R. Albin
EDITORS
Student Affairs Administrators

in Higher Education
SUBPOPULATIONS

in Higher Education
SUBPOPULATIONS
A Guide for Student Affairs Professionals
Lyle A. Gohn
Ginger R. Albin
EDITORS

in Higher Education
Understanding College Student Subpopulations: A Guide for Student Affairs Professionals
Copyright © 2006 by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators

(NASPA), Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form
or by any electronic or mechanical means without written permission from the publisher.
First edition.
NASPA does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age,
affectional or sexual orientation, or disability in any of its policies, programs, and services.
ISBN 0-931654-43-2
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments
CHAPTER 1
Introduction to College Students: Generations,
Stereotypes, and Subpopulations
Lyle A. Gohn and Ginger R. Albin
CHAPTER 2
Predicting the Future Based on Demographics
CHAPTER 3
Student-Athletes
Jennifer L. Greer and Jennifer D. Robinson
CHAPTER 4
African American Students
Andrew J. Mauk and Willis A. Jones
CHAPTER 5
Honors Students
Billy H. Satterfield
CHAPTER 6
First-Generation College Students
Jennifer A. Hottinger and Caleb P. Rose
vii
CHAPTER 7
Students with Disabilities
Lynn T. Meade
CHAPTER 8
Native American Students
Jacob G. Murdock and Billy H. Satterfield
CHAPTER 9
Nontraditional Students
Jeremy D. Dickerson and Theres W. Stiefer
CHAPTER 10
Working Students
Ginger R. Albin and Trevor T. Francis
CHAPTER 11
Students Living in Residence Halls
Sandra Y. Vasquez and Bradley A. Rohrer
CHAPTER 12
Students in Greek-letter Organizations
Andrew J. Mauk
CHAPTER 13
International Students
Teresa B. Bevis
CHAPTER 14
Transfer Students
Michael T. Miller and Sara R. Hillis
viii
CHAPTER 15
Latino/a/Hispanic Students
Erika Gamboa and Sandra Y. Vasquez
CHAPTER 16
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Students
Annemarie Vaccaro
CHAPTER 17
Asian American Students
Fred A. Bonner II, Michael E. Jennings, Yi-Hsuan Chen, and
Shailen M. Singh
CHAPTER 18
Conclusion
Contributors
ix
Acknowledgments
This e-book was designed primarily as a resource for professionals and

graduate students in the student affairs profession. The editors hope that the
book will be used in staff discussions, classrooms, and for further research.
The editors would like to express their great appreciation to NASPA for
publishing this e-book, and a very special thanks to Melissa Dahne, director
of publications for NASPA, for her extraordinary effort in reviewing all of
the chapters and providing many superb suggestions for improvement.
The chapter authors, many of whom are recent graduates of higher education
master’s and doctoral programs, devoted an enormous amount of time
and effort in researching and writing the chapters. The book simply could
not have been written without the commitment of each of the following
individuals: Teresa B. Bevis, Fred A. Bonner II, Yi-Hsuan Chen, Jeremy
D. Dickerson, Trevor T. Francis, Erika Gamboa, Jennifer L. Greer, Sara R.
Hillis, Jennifer A. Hottinger, Michael E. Jennings, Willis A. Jones, Andrew
J. Mauk, Lynn T. Meade, Michael T. Miller, Jacob G. Murdock, Jennifer D.
Robinson, Bradley A. Rohrer, Caleb P. Rose, Billy H. Satterfield, Shailen M.
Singh, Theres W. Stiefer, Annemarie Vaccaro, and Sandra Y. Vasquez.
Prior to submitting each chapter to NASPA, most chapters were reviewed

by two or more professionals or faculty in the field of student affairs or
higher education. Their keen suggestions for improvements were most
beneficial in rewriting the final versions. We offer our deep appreciation
to the following reviewers: Amefil Agbayani, director of Student Equity
xi
Excellence & Diversity (SEED), University of Hawaii at Manoa; Randy
Alexander, director of university housing, University of Arkansas; Fred
Bonner II, associate professor of higher education, Texas A&M University;
Johnetta Cross Brazzel, vice chancellor for student affairs, University of
Arkansas; William Brescia, director of instructional technology, academic
and faculty affairs, University of Tennessee Health Science Center; Doris
M. Ching, emeritus vice president for student affairs, University of Hawaii
System; James F. Conneely, vice president for student affairs, Eastern
Kentucky University; Mark von Destinon, professor of behavioral sciences,
Cochise College; Larry H. Dietz, vice chancellor for student affairs and
special assistant to the chancellor, Southern Illinois University–Carbondale;
Gina Ervin, senior associate director of pre-college programs and director of
educational talent search, University of Arkansas; Janice J. Gerda, assistant
professor in higher education administration and student personnel, Kent
State University; Suzanne E.Gordon,adjunct faculty,Clemson University,and
former associate vice president for student services, University of Arkansas;
Derrick L. Gragg, director of athletics, Eastern Michigan University; Rolf
Groseth, vice president for inter-campus affairs, Montana State University;
Juan R. Guardia, director of multicultural affairs, Florida State University;
Debra L. Hammond, executive director of the university student union,
California State University–Northridge; Barbara Hinton, associate dean of
academic affairs, University of Arkansas; Richard E. Hoover, senior lecturer
in educational administration, University of Nebraska; Anne L. Jannarone,
director of the Center for Students with Disabilities, University of Arkansas;
Cheryl Lovell, associate dean, University of Denver; Christopher Lucas,
professor in the department of educational leadership, counseling, and
foundations, University of Arkansas; Sherry L. Mallory, special assistant
to the vice president of student affairs and academic support services,
Western Washington University; Suzanne McCray, associate dean of the
Honors College, University of Arkansas; Salvador B. Mena, associate dean
for community living and multicultural affairs, Goucher College; Michael
Miller, professor and interim head of the education, leadership, counseling,
and foundations department, University of Arkansas; Kenneth J. Osfield,
compliance officer, University of Florida; Terry Don Phillips, athletic director,
Clemson University; Daniel J. Pugh, associate vice chancellor for student
affairs and dean of students, University of Arkansas; James J. Rhatigan, vice
president of student affairs emeritus, Wichita State University; Sylvia Scott,
director for nontraditional/commuter students, University of Arkansas;
xii
Joseph Seabrooks Jr., assistant vice chancellor for student affairs, University
of Arkansas; Mary Alice Serafini, assistant vice chancellor for student affairs,
University of Arkansas; Donna M. Talbot, associate professor, department
of counselor education and counseling psychology, Western Michigan
University; Ashley Tull, associate dean of students, University of Arkansas;
Edward G. Whipple, vice president for student affairs, Bowling Green State
University.
In addition, the editors would like to extend a special thank you to Karen
Lentz Madison, a professional writing consultant and associate director of
Loyola College in Maryland’s Writing Center, who reviewed most of the
chapters for grammar, style, and consistency.
xiii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction to College Students: Generations,

Stereotypes, and Subpopulations
Today’s college students are an extremely diverse group of people. Many

subpopulations can be identified within this larger group. This book
looks at who college students are, how they have changed, and how they
will be different in the future. It analyzes the unique qualities of various
subpopulations found on college and university campuses nationwide, and
examines how these factors affect student success.
Numerous authors (Boyer, 1987; Coomes & DeBard, 2004; Howe & Strauss,
1993, 2000, 2003; Levine, 1980; Levine & Cureton, 1998; Horowitz, 1987;
Light, 2001; Loeb, 1994; Moffatt, 1989; Strauss & Howe, 1991) have
written about the various college student generations, how they are similar
and different, and their experiences. Horowitz described the dominate
student subpopulations that have existed since the 1700s and discussed how
each subculture had an impact on the college community and campus life.
Horowitz identified several significant subcultures that have existed during
the past few centuries including the College Men, the Outsiders, and the
Rebels, and in more recent years, the College Women and the Nerds.
Howe and Strauss (1993, 2000, 2003), Levine and Cureton (1998), and
Coomes and DeBard (2004) approached college students more from
generational differences, describing how each generation has developed
differently primarily as the result of community/world issues, family values
and priorities, changes confronted by or due to progress that has occurred in
society, and reactions to previous generations, all of which have attributed to
differences in student generations.
Introduction 1
Today, college campuses primarily comprise students from the Millennial
or Y generation combined with a significant number of Generation X
students and many returning Baby Boomers. With such a blend of students
on college campuses, perhaps there is no simple way to describe today’s
students other than to think of them as a mixture of several generations,
several subcultures, several subgroups, all with different agendas, different
goals and ambitions, different attitudes, and different experiences that have
shaped and are shaping their future.
This book will describe today’s college student subpopulations, their

demographics, their differences and similarities, their unique issues and
concerns, how they as a group of students develop, the unique benefits they
derive from college, and some examples of campus successes that have been
designed to meet each subpopulation’s particular needs.
College Generations and How College Students Have Changed

Over the Years
Howe and Strauss (2000) defined a generation as “a society-wide peer group,

born over a period roughly the same length as the passage from youth to
adulthood (in today’s America, around twenty or twenty-one years), who
collectively possess a common persona” (p. 40). They further indicated that
there are three attributes that identify the generation persona: “perceived
membership in a common generation; common beliefs and behaviors; and a
common location in history” (p.41). According to Howe and Strauss (2003),
three rules apply to rising generations:
First, each rising generation breaks with the young-adult generation, whose
style no longer functions well in a new era. Second, it corrects for what it
perceives as the excesses of the current midlife generation—their parents
and leaders—sometimes as a protest, other times with the support of parents
and leaders who seek to complement their own deficiencies. Third, it fills the
social role being vacated by the departing elder generation. (p. 21)
Coomes and DeBard (2004) suggested that a combination of history and popular
culture help shape the values, attitudes, and beliefs of each generation. They
further pointed out, as does Howe and Strauss (2000) and Levine and Cureton
(1998), that there appears to be a cyclical nature of generations such as periods of
innovation versus conservatism or concerns for others versus self.
2 Understanding College Student Subpopulations

Levine in his two books (Levine, 1980; Levine & Cureton, 1998) perhaps
best described the college-aged student generations of the past century as
follows:
· Students of the 1920s – wet, wild, and wicked or “lost” generation
· Students of the 1930s – somber and radical or“Depression” generation
· Students of the 1940s – mature and “In a Hurry”
· Students of the 1950s – “silent” generation
· Students of the 1960s and 1970s – angry and activist and “sex, drugs,
and rock and roll” or “ baby boomers”
· Students of the late 1970s and 1980s – “me” generation
· Students of the 1980s and 1990s – Generation X or 13th Gen or

“slackers” or “busters”
Students entering college in 2000 have been identified as the Millennials or

Y Generation (Howe & Strauss 2000, 2003; Coomes & DeBard), named for
the beginning of the new millennium. Table 1.1 provides descriptive data,
estimated college years, both as entering freshmen and years of enrollment
(up to 6 years beyond initial enrollment), and estimated enrollment numbers
of students who dominate college campuses today.
Table 1.1 Current College Student Generations
Estimated Years as Estimated Years Estimated No.

Description Years Born Total No. Entering Freshmen Enrolled in College Enrolled 2002
Baby Boomers 1943-1960 70 mil 1961 -1982 1961 -1988 NA
Gen X 1961-1981 80 mil 1979-1999 1979-2005+ 5.8 mil
Millennials 1982-2002 100 mil 2000-2021 2000-2027+ 6.9 mil
Source for Years Born and Total No.: Strauss & Howe, 1991; Howe & Strauss,2000; Source for
Estimated No. Enrolled 2002: Coomes & DeBard, 2004.
Introduction 3
Dramatic changes have occurred in regard to the racial/ethnic profile of
these generations as demonstrated in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 NonWhite Race and Latino Ethnicity, by Generation, in 1999. (Howe & Strauss,
2000, p. 15).
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002).
The continuing changes during the next several years in racial/ethnic profiles
of generations will have a profound impact on college students, in their
composition, attitudes, values, and relationships. Chapter 2 will describe the
projected changes in demographics for the foreseeable future.
Generations are shaped by what has occurred or is occurring within a

society at a given time, particularly during youth. As examples, previous
generations were shaped by the Great Depression, world wars, the Cold
War, travel in space, television, race relations, and sexual freedom (Levine &
Cureton,1998); whereas, most of today’s students (Gen X and Millennials)
have been affected by issues such as the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster,
divorce and family separations, working parents, latchkey environments,
technology, school shootings/safety, instant gratification, tension in the
Middle East, girl power, September 11, 2001 and terrorism, and globalization,
to name a few (Coomes & DeBard; Howe & Strauss). Generational values
and attitudes evolve from these experiences or confrontations creating
differences (and in some cases, similarities) between generations of college
students as described by DeBard in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Comparing Generation Values
Views Toward Boomers Gen Xers Millennials
Confident of self, not

Level of trust authority Low toward authority High toward authority
Loyalty to institutions Cynical Considered Naïve Committed

Following a hero or
Most admire Taking charge Creating enterprise integrity
Career goals Build a stellar career Build a portable career Build parallel careers
Title and the corner

Rewards office Freedom not to do Meaningful work
Parent-child
involvement Receding Distant Intruding
Having children Controlled Doubtful Definite
Family life Indulged as children Alienated as children Protected as children

Structure of account-
Education Freedom of expression Pragmatic ability
Once a year with “Sorry, but how am I Feedback whenever I

Evaluation documentation doing?” want it
Political orientation Attack oppression Apathetic, individual Crave community
The big question What does it mean? Does it work? How do we build it?
Source: DeBard, 2004, p. 40.
Student Stereotypes
Stereotyping groups of people is commonplace. It seems no matter how

hard we try as individuals to eliminate such behaviors from our lives, far too
often we end up identifying a characteristic or behavior of a few individuals
within a group and then generalizing it with all individuals within the entire
group. Stereotyping is generally viewed as unhealthy and often derogatory
in regard to a particular subgroup. The Merriam Webster Dictionary (1994)
defined stereotype as, “An idea that many people have about a thing or a
group and that may often be untrue or only partly true” (p.707).
Introduction 5
So, are stereotypes always inappropriate? Certainly, when used in a derogatory
manner, or when assumptions are made about individuals based on common
patterns or behaviors of the group at large. But when we are trying to describe
certain characteristics of a particular group or subgroup often the result is
some degree of stereotyping, which is not always negative, but simply a
generalization of who the group is, and how it may differ from other groups.
What is most challenging is to recognize that these descriptions are related
to a group of people who may be identified by race, gender, socioeconomic
status, language, clothing worn, religion, or other factors, but not individuals
within this group.
As an example, in a recent class a student sneezed and someone immediately

responded with the saying, “Bless You.” The primary author, somewhat
out of ignorance, asked the students if they knew the root of this saying
and further stated that he had noted that several friends who were of the
Catholic faith (stereotype #1 for me) often used this phrase. Turning to one
of the Hispanic students in the class, the author directly asked her if she
knew. She responded, “I don’t know, I’m not Catholic,” The author realized
he had just been guilty of a second stereotyping. There was no harm done in
this case—except for the fact that he had generalized and made assumptions
forming a stereotype of Catholics and Hispanics.
How many times do we all do this as we attempt to classify new acquaintances,

colleagues, people in general, and the students on our campuses? Related to
this quandary is the difficulty we find today in defining Hispanic or Latino
people. Some might think of Hispanic as a race like Black, Caucasian,
Asian or Native American. However, as we learn more about Hispanic/
Latino people, we understand that they may be of different races and still
be Hispanic/Latino as a group of people. What bonds them together is not
race; rather, it’s the origin of their forefathers. So, to adequately describe
Hispanics/Latinos as a collective group would be nearly impossible, but
there is some commonality to the people within the total group.
Obviously, the same holds true for other minority (defined by race or
ethnicity) groups, such as Native or Asian Americans or members or
believers of a particular religion. Even the stereotype that all of the baby
boomers who were of traditional college age during the 70s were “hippies”
is a misrepresentation of the group. As Strauss recently said in a speech at
the 2006 NASPA national conference, all baby boomers in some ways are
identified as hippies just because they wore bell-bottom jeans, let their hair

grow longer than the norm, listened to oppositional music, and so forth.
But, according to Strauss, when asked how many participated in one or
more of the three activities used to define a hippie, less than 10% answered
affirmatively. These examples can be used to describe all generations or
subpopulations within a total college or university campus, but they do not
describe individuals within each subpopulation. And, to further complicate
the discussion, individual students might belong to or be identified with
more than one subgroup or subpopulation.
Who are the Student Subpopulations?
Who are the subpopulations on today’s college campuses? Most campuses

indirectly, if not directly, target or designate students into identifiable
subpopulations through the various services offered or administrators
assigned to work with particular groups of students. National, state, and
campus research centers also categorize students based on the following
particular characteristics: gender, race/ethnicity, level of enrollment, credit
hours enrolled, financial dependency, place of residence while enrolled, home
residence, socioeconomics of family, high school GPAs, standardized test
scores, age, marital status, hours of work, and so forth. All of these factors, to
some degree, classify students and place them in subpopulation categories.
This book will focus primarily on undergraduate students and

students who are enrolled in accredited colleges or universities and
are degree-seeking. Obviously, this focus leaves out thousands and
perhaps millions of individuals who may be enrolled in colleges
and universities or non degree-granting institutions, but who are
primarily taking courses specifically designed to enhance their career
skills, for pleasure, or simply exploring. In general, these students
most likely are nontraditional based on age and other characteristics
and are not the focus of this book.
We are also confident that other authors or administrators, depending

on their campuses, might classify students in other subpopulations.
As examples, we do not discuss commuter students, but many
commuter students are both traditional-aged and nontraditional
students who live at home or off campus. Nor do we discuss band
students, another unique group of college students who clearly have
strong identity through their mutual involvement with their music
Introduction 7
and organized activities such as rehearsals and marching. Another
important subpopulation is religious groups. Both of these groups
represent an acknowledged gap in the present study.
Most students identify with or others identify them within one or two
major subpopulations; however, most students during their college careers
change subpopulations or overlap in several different subpopulations. We
have identified the following major subpopulations to present:
1. Traditional Students – Students are grouped in this major
classification according to their age, how recently they graduated high
school, their living accommodations, membership in organizations,
abilities, and race, ethnicity or heritage.
a. Greek Students – Students who are members of a local or
national fraternity or sorority on a college campus. Most are of
traditional age (18-24) and often live in or have lived in a fraternity
or sorority house.
b. Residence Hall Students – Students who reside or have
resided in a traditional residence hall on- or off- campus.
Most are of traditional age, and most are first- or second- year
students.
c. Students in Honors Programs and/or High-Ability Students
– Students who have been chosen to participate in a unique or
special campus or college program designed for those entering
students who have excellent test scores or high school grade
point averages or those who have earned, through scholarly
work and activities, the opportunity to participate in an honors
program. Many of these students are also on some type of
academic scholarship and most are traditional-age.
d. Student-Athletes – Students who participate in collegiate
athletics at all levels including NAIA, NJCAA, and NCAA.
Most all are of traditional age and characteristics.
e. First-Generation Students – Students whose parents have
not attended college. Most are of traditional college age, but
many can be classified as nontraditional students due to other
characteristics.
f. Minority Students – Students who identify with a particular
race, ethnicity, or heritage. Most are of traditional age, but

many do have delayed enrollment and are part-time enrollees
and, thus, are also identified as nontraditional students. These
minorities include:
1). African American
2). Hispanic or Latino
3). Asian American
4). Native American and Alaskan American
g. Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Students – Students who identify
themselves as either Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual.
2. Nontraditional Students – Most commonly determined by the
age of 25-years and older, but more recent definitions include the
following factors: independence (financial); delayed college enrollment
(from time of high school graduation); part-time attendance; full-time
employment; supporting dependents; or GED diploma.
3. Students who may be both Traditional and Nontraditional
a. Working Students – Students who work while enrolled
in college.
b. Transfer Students – Students who transfer one or more
times from their original entry institution to another higher
education institution(s).
c. International Students – Students who are on student visas
enrolled in higher education institutions.
d. Students with Disabilities – Students with a classified disability.
With these numerous categories and characteristics, along with the
differences in generations, describing subpopulations and identifying their
unique issues and concerns can at times be problematic. But if for no other
reason, identifying students by their primary subpopulation may assist
college and student affairs professionals to better meet the needs of their
students.
Developmental Theories Overview
Student development theory is valuable to higher education professionals as

it helps direct our examination and interpretation of student experiences so
that we can better meet our students’ needs. Student development theories
Introduction 9
help describe what students experience in college, and help explain why
students choose to engage in certain behavior. Ultimately, awareness and
application of student development theories can be used to try to predict
outcomes and to design programs and workshops to better meet the
challenges and issues that students face during their college experience.
To illustrate how student developmental theories can apply, Jordan (2000)

explained that community college advisors often encounter students
experiencing trouble with Stage 4 of E.H. Erikson’s development theory
in which students experience feelings of inadequacy because they lack
confidence. “This stage can be especially challenging for some members
of minority and lower socioeconomic groups if they experience early
negative expectations” ( Jordan, 2000, p. 22). When higher education
professionals understand common development theories that apply to
various subpopulations, they can use theories as a guide to solving practical
problems. We can also use theoretical concepts to develop programming to
meet the unique needs and challenges students encounter in college. With
the diverse population of students on our college campuses today, we need
a way to make sense of their experiences, and student development theories
can aid in our understanding.
Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998) divided the most relevant student
development theories into three broad categories including: (a) psychosocial
and identity development theories; (b) cognitive-structural theories; and (c)
typology theories. The purpose of this section is to provide a brief overview
of the major student development theories as outlined by Evans et al. so that
higher education professionals can understand how theory has a practical
application to the needs of specific subpopulations of students.
Psychosocial and Identity Development Theories
Student Affairs Professionals should have a working knowledge of
psychosocial and identity development theories because these theories
address developmental issues occurring in the lives of students. As students
mature, they encounter a series of transitions and life events, often resulting
in crises. Student Affairs Professionals can apply theory to help students
learn to resolve and to deal with these various life events. “Psychosocial
theorists examine the content of development, the important issues
people face as their lives progress, such as how to define themselves, their
relationships with others, and what to do with their lives” (Evans et al., 1998,

p. 32). Table 1.3 provides a brief overview of five psychosocial and identity
development theories.
Table 1.3 Psychosocial and Identity Development Theories
Development Theory Description
Chickering’s Theory of Proposed seven vectors of development comprising the formation

Identity Development of identity. Students move through the following:
1. Developing competence
2. Managing emotions
3. Moving through autonomy toward interdependence
4. Developing mature interpersonal relationships
5. Establishing identity
6. Developing purpose
7. Developing integrity
Josselson’s Theory of Josselson’s theory developed from the 5th stage of Erik Erikson’s
Identity Development in eight stages of identity development and Marcia’s four identity
Women states. Foreclosures are women who do not experience identity cri-
sis or little identity change. Identity achievement women develop
an identity of their own. Moratoriums experience and explore new
identities and experience some degree of identity conflict. Identity
diffusion women experience much crisis and difficulty establishing
relationships and positive identity.
Cross Model of Psycho- Cross developed a five-stage sequential process in which African
logical Nigrescence American’s transition from “non-Afrocentrism to Afrocentrism to
multiculturism” (p. 74).
Helms’s White Identity Helms “proposed a model of white racial identity development
Development Model based on the process of moving toward a nonracist white identity
and hence the abandonment of racism” (p. 76).
Phinney’s Model of Ethnic Phinney’s model focuses on the development of ethnic identity
Identity Development based on what individuals learn from their surroundings. Individu-
als in Stage 1 are indifferent to ethnicity. Individuals in Stage 2 are
more aware of ethnic identity. In the final stage of identity devel-
opment, individuals resolve identity inconsistency.
Cass’s Model of Homo- Individuals move from “minimal awareness and acceptance of
sexual Identity Formation homosexual identity to a final stage in which homosexual identity is
integrated with others as aspects of the self” (p. 92).
D’Augelli’s Model of Les- D’Augelli’s theory comprises six interactive processes which are
bian, Gay, and Bisexual pliable and shaped by society and environment.
Development
Schlossberg’s Transition According to Schlossberg’s theory, student’s ability to cope with

Theory change is based on four factors.
Source: Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998).
Introduction 11
The identity development theories outlined above are applicable to the
diverse student body on our campuses today. Identity development theories
help us explain, describe, and predict student behavior to the general student
population (Chickering); to female students ( Josselson); to minority students
(Cross and Phinney); to majority students (Helms); to gay/lesbian/bisexual
students (Cass and D’Augelli), as well as to adult students (Schlossberg).
Cognitive-Structural Theories
Cognitive-structural theories explain how students think and interpret
their experiences. “Cognitive-structural theories can help student affairs
professionals understand how students view situations they are experiencing
and provide guidance about how to communicate effectively with students” (p.
125). When higher education professionals understand students’ reasoning
processes, we can guide them in the process of decision-making. Table 1.4
provides a brief overview of three major cognitive-structural development
theories.
Table 1.4 Overview of Major Cognitive-Structural Development Theories
Developmental Theory Description
Perry’s Theory of Intellectual Comprises nine positions to understand how students

and Ethical Development interpret and make meaning of the teaching and
learning process in which students move from a
black-and-white perspective to a more sophisticated
perspective in which student’s affirm their identity
and their belief systems.
Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Focuses on a sequential process of developing moral

Development judgments.
Gilligan’s Theory of Women’s Outlines a moral development theory specific to

Moral Development women that emphasizes caring and attachment to
others.
The cognitive-structural theories outlined above are applicable to the

general student body on our campuses today. Knowledge of these theories
can assist higher education professionals in designing workshops and classes
to further aid students in their growth and development during the college
experience.

Typology Theories
Although in this book we do not discuss typology theories, typology theories

can explain how students approach their world (Evans et al.). Higher
education professionals can use these theories to understand how students
cope with everyday stressors. Table 1.5 provides a brief overview of three
major typology theories.
Table 1.5 Overview of Major Typology Theories

Developmental Theory Description
Kolb’s Theory of Comprises four-stage series of steps to learning consisting of feel-
Experiential Learning ing, watching, thinking and doing. Students choose which abilities
they will use when they are in a learning state
Holland’s Theory of Comprises six personality types that exhibit certain behaviors that
Vocational Personalities lend positively to certain environments based on their personality
and Environments orientation
The Myers-Briggs Assesses personality types into one of the four scales. High scores
Adaptation of Jung’s indicate preference for certain personality traits
Theory of Personality Type
The typology theories listed above can be quite helpful in guiding higher
education professionals as they assist students with academic and career
plans. We can use these theories to help us design specific training and
classroom experiences that will benefit students long-term in their daily
lives as well as in their professional careers.
Retention issues
The attrition of college students has been a major issue in higher education
particularly during the past 20 years. Political pressure from legislatures,
taxpayers, parents, media, and higher education leaders has kept this issue
on the front burner. Why is this so important? Just a few decades ago,
many students (those who were in college in the 1950s and 60s) heard this
often-made statement at orientation: “Look to your left and look to your
right. Those individuals won’t be here.” Then, colleges and universities were
bursting at the seams with enrollments and needed to weed out students.
However, times changed. State and federal legislation and policies were
Introduction 13
implemented (e.g., the Higher Education Act of 1965, Section 504, the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Title IX, etc.) with doors opening to more students than
in the past. With these came the need for building construction, community
college development, and new faculty hires. The general public also began
to hold higher education in higher esteem. Related to this change came
an impetus on faculty to produce competitive research, while competition
and winning athletic teams became the darlings of media, alumni, and
communities. The combination of all of these changes served as a catalyst for
universities to develop into economic engines for communities and states.
At the same time, accountability for all of these developments became a
priority. Now students were told at orientation that the students on either
side of them would be graduating in 6 years, and the public began asking
the question, “Why is it taking so long for college students to graduate from
college?”
To some degree the answers seem rather simple. As the doors opened to
larger numbers, student preparation for college was more diverse resulting
in more students being less prepared for college courses. In addition, as state
and federal funding priorities shifted, college became more expensive. Family
and/or financial priorities changed; more students worked and worked longer
hours enrolling in fewer credits per semester, thus taking longer to graduate.
Certainly the issues are more complicated than this simple explanation, but
all of these factors contributed to the retention issues.
Numerous researchers and authors have assessed the reasons for attrition
from college and what should be done to enhance the college experience
and improve graduation rates (Astin & Osguera, 2005; Carey, K., 2005;
Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J. & Associates, 2005; Levitz,
R.S., Noel, L. & Richter, B.J. (1999); Reason, R.D., 2003; Tinto, 1987). In
the most recent study by the Higher Education Institute, Astin and Osguera
(2005) summarized several major factors that impact retention and ultimately
graduation from college: high school preparation, standardized test scores,
type of institution (private, public, two-year, four-year, graduate/research),
race, and gender. Other factors that often contribute to the outcome include
parental college experience or degree; family income or socioeconomic status;
high school preparation including courses, hours working and type/location
of work; involvement in educational experience; place of residence while
enrolled; and so forth. Choy (2002) identified seven risk factors that have a
significant impact on attrition: delayed enrollment in college from date of

high school graduation of one year or more; part-time enrollment; full-time
employment; financial independence; having dependents or children; being
a single parent; and GED or high school certificate of completion. These
factors are also used to identify nontraditional students.
National studies indicate that approximately 56-58% of those students

who begin college at a four-year institution complete their degree from
their entry institution within six years (Carey, 2005; Astin & Osequera,
2005). If those students who are still enrolled after six years are assumed
to graduate, the percentage increases by approximately three percent (Astin
& Osequera). Carey reported that approximately 23% of the students who
began at a four-year institution in 1995 transferred to another institution
within six years. However, there is no national data base that tracks students
from one institution to another making it impossible to determine exactly
how many students who begin college ultimately graduate. Adelman (2004)
studied those students who entered both two-year and four-year institutions
including those who transferred between institutions and found that of
those students who entered college in 1992 and completed 10 credits, 48.7%
graduated in eight-and-a-half years and 33.2% had received degrees from an
institution different than their original institution. However, of those whose
entry institution was a four-year college or university, 66.5% completed their
degree and, of those, 80.2 % received degrees from their entry institution.
Tables 1.6 and Graph 1.1 describe the retention and graduation results by
institution type (Astin & Osequera) and by racial and ethnic subgroups
(Carey). This data is also comparable to other national data sources such as
NCES as reported in the 2005-06 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education
Almanac.
Table 1.6 Weighted Six-Year Degree Attainment Rates by Gender and Institutional Type of
Entering First-time, Full-time Freshmen, Fall 1994
Percentage Completing Bachelor’s Degree

Within Six Years
Institutional Type Women Men Total
Public University 59.6 55.6 57.7
Public 4-Year College 50.9 43.0 47.4
Private University 79.8 79.4 79.6
Nonsectarian 4-Year College 68.8 65.0 67.0
Catholic 4-Year College 61.2 58.3 60.2
Other Christian 4-Year 6.2.8 59.4 61.3
All Institutions 59.5 55.3 57.6
Source: Astin, A.W. & Osequera, L. (2005) p. 11.
Introduction 15
Graph 1.1 Institutional 6-Year Graduation Rates at 4-Year Institutions, by Race and Ethnicity,
Entering Class of 1997. (Carey, 2005, p. 2)
Source: Education Trust calculations from U.S. Department of Education Graduation Rate
Survey Data.
The U.S. News & World Report special issue, America’s Best College (2005),
utilizes retention and graduation rates as two of its key factors in ranking
colleges and universities. But, it also utilizes a factor that calculates the
predicted six-year graduation rates and compares the difference with actual
rates. Many institutions outperform the predictions while others fall short.
Kuh et al. studied how institutions engage their students in the learning
environment and the impact such has on success. All of this suggests that
in addition to the predictable factors relating to students as described by
Astin and others, student success—particularly with regarding to student
subpopulations—can also be significantly impacted by: the campus
environment, climate, attitudes and values; faculty teaching and involvement;
institutional priorities, resources, and policies; and services and support
offered.
The following chapters will provide more detailed information regarding

retention and graduation rates and issues related to and suggestions for
improving retention rates of student subpopulations.
Benefits of Higher Education
Benefits of higher education are realized by both individuals and society.

Traditionally, higher education has been associated with such benefits as

contributing to the public good through an educated citizenry; so, in the
interest of the future of our nation, we support public higher education
through various taxes. Today, public perception is that the benefits of higher
education are more of a personal investment (Malveaux, 2003). For middle-
and higher-income students, obtaining a degree is beneficial for maintaining
and further improving their socioeconomic status. For low-income students,
higher education comes with a particularly urgent mandate to provide
social and economic mobility. Table 1.7 provides an overview of some of the
benefits college graduates receive for participating in higher education.
Table 1.7 Benefits of Higher Education for College Graduates
Individual Benefits Societal Benefits
Higher levels of education and higher Lower levels of unemployment

earnings for all racial groups
Higher levels of education and higher Lower levels of poverty

earnings for both males and females
Earnings premium relative to costs of Less likely to depend on social programs which
education decreases demands on public budgets
Higher lifetime earnings Lower smoking rates
Wider opportunities More positive perceptions of health
Higher standard of living Lower incarceration rtes
Development of verbal, quantitative, and Higher levels of community-civic participation

subject matter competence including volunteerism and blood donations
Cognitive skills and intellectual growth
Psychosocial change (i.e., esteem, identity,

and autonomy)
Attitudes and values (i.e., cultural, aesthetic,

and intellectual sophistication
Moral development (i.e., shift from

conventional moral reasoning to principled
reasoning)
Quality of life after college
Source: Baum & Payea, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005.
Introduction 17
As Table 1.8 illustrates, the individual benefits of attending college are
prominent. “Over their working lives, typical college graduates earn about
73 percent more than typical high school graduates, and those with advance
degrees earn two to three times as much as high school graduates,” (Baum
& Payea, 2004, p. 9). Society tends to view college as preparation for the
workforce through the development of practical skills leading to gainful
employment (Aronowitz, 2000; Gould, 2003; Lagemann, 2003; Scott and
Sloan, 1991; Wirth, 1972). To illustrate, an extensive poll of public opinion
of higher education found the public more than satisfied with the quality of
American colleges and universities. The poll found that the public identified
as the most important role for college the preparation of undergraduates
for the workforce (Selingo, 2003). Thus, an ultimate benefit of a college
education is that the student will be prepared to enter the labor force with
the skills necessary to obtain profitable employment.
Earnings Premium
Throughout the literature, American public opinion views a degree as a
ticket to socioeconomic prosperity as one of the major benefits of a college
education. A college degree opens the window for future financial earning
power greater than the earning power of a high school diploma. Quantitative
studies were also found in the literature review supporting the argument that
a college degree provides higher future earnings power than a high school
diploma. Porter (2002) provided statistics on the earnings discrepancy
between high school graduates and college graduates, which further pointed
to the benefits of achieving a college education. The literature confirmed
that as the educational attainment level increases, so does the future earning
power of students. Earnings premium increase with the level of educational
attainment and observed and adjusted earnings were higher for individuals
who earn some level of advanced degree beyond a high school diploma (Perna,
2003). The investment of pursuing college beyond high school is worth the
cost because the rate of return is high enough to justify the financial burden
associated with pursuing a college degree (Porter, 2002).
Personal Growth and Development
In a study conducted by Porter (2002), findings supported the claim that
college graduates enjoy benefits beyond increased income, such as increased
personal and professional mobility, improved quality of life for their offspring,
and more leisure activity. Research also found a positive correlation between
completion of high school education and good health, in addition to a

high correlation between higher education and cultural and family values.
Unique benefits of college education for the family include such impacts as
narrowing differences between sexes, selection of marriage partners, delay in
marriage, reduction in divorce rate and birth rate, increased time and money
devoted to children, and increased achievement of children (Bowen, 1979).
Benefits for the Public Good

A college education has long been associated with providing a range of
benefits to students such as socioeconomic mobility and job preparation.
Additionally, a college education has also been associated with providing
benefits to society through an educated citizenry, cultivated intellect, and the
overall concept of a well-rounded individual. Malveaux (2003) contended
that the more important benefits of college attendance should be recognized
including improvements in social opportunities, civic participation, and
economic and educational potential for youth. Malveaux argued that
education should not be perceived only as a public good in the eyes of the
financially disadvantaged; instead, higher education should be regarded
as a public good in the eyes of the community, the for-profit sector, and
Congress. Furthermore, Kuh (1985) presented a literature review confirming
the positive benefits of higher education for knowledge acquisition, and for
intellectual, social, personal, and career development.
The Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, D.C. (1998),

reported on the individual and societal benefits of attending college, providing
a broad overview of the range of benefits that accrue from college education.
Public economic benefits were reviewed, including increased tax revenues,
greater productivity, increased consumption, increased workforce flexibility,
and decreased reliance on government financial support. Private economic
benefits were also reviewed, including higher salaries and benefits, high
employment levels, higher savings levels, improved working conditions, and
personal/professional mobility. In addition, public social benefits, including
reduced crime rates, increased charitable giving, increased quality of civic
life, social cohesion, and improved ability to adapt and use technology were
reviewed, as well as private social benefits, including improved health/life
expectancy, improved quality of life for offspring, better consumer decision
making, increased personal status, and more hobbies and leisure activities.
Finally, benefits of a college education that are cited in the literature can be
classified into two broad categories: individual benefits (namely financial)
Introduction 19
and societal benefits (namely cultural). Considering the cost of a degree,
students want to know first and foremost that one of the major benefits of
their college education will be a high return on their educational investment
through gainful employment. The literature confirmed through several
quantitative studies that employees with some level of higher education
attainment beyond the high school diploma do have greater earning power.
Aside from financial and economic benefits, students benefit socially and
culturally from college attendance. Students also benefit intellectually by
strengthening many core skills. Traditionally, the major benefit of higher
education has always been regarded as providing well-rounded individuals
who can contribute to society. Any form of education beyond the high school
diploma will benefit the individual in some way, be it financial or aesthetic.
In summation, college campuses are and be will be composed of a very

diverse group of students representing numerous subpopulations, similar to
the society at large. The following chapters will explain in greater detail who
college students are today, and how they have changed over time. Furthermore,
the chapters will discuss how college students will be different in the future,
and the uniqueness and needs of various student subpopulations that exist
on most college and university campuses in the United States.

References
Adelman, C. (2004). Principal Indicators of Student Academic Histories

in Postsecondary Education, 1972-2000. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Almanac Issue 2005-06. (2005). The Chronicle of Higher Education. August 26,
Vol LII, No. 1. Washington, D.C.
Aronowitz, S. (2000). The knowledge factory: Dismantling the corporate

university and creating higher learning. Boston: Beacon.
Astin, A.W. & Osequera, L. (2005). Degrees attainment rates at American

colleges and universities. (Rev. ed.) Los Angeles: Higher Education
Research Institute, UCLA.
Bowen, H.R. (1979). What college does for the family. AGB Reports, 21(6),
37-42.
Boyer, E.L. (1987). College, the undergraduate experience in America. New

York: Harper and Row.
Carey, K. (2005). One step from the finish line: Higher graduation rates are
within our reach. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from http://www2.edtrust.
org/NR/rdonlyres/12656449-03FD-4F3F-A617-920E58F009C0/0/
one_step_from.pdf
Choy, S. P. (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates: Findings from the condition

of education 2002. Retrieved April 12, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2002/2002012.pdf
Coomes, M.D. & DeBard, R. (2004). Serving the millennial generation.

New Directions for Student Services, (106), 73-85.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-Dibrito, F. (1998). Student development

in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gould, E. (2003). The univer$ity in a corporate culture. New Haven: Yale

University.
Horowitz, H.L. (1987). Campus Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Introduction 21
Howe, N. & Strauss, B. (1993). 13th gen: abort, retry, ignore, fail? New York:
Vintage Books.
Howe, N. & Strauss,W. (2003). Millennials go to college. AmericanAsssociation

of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers and LifeCourse
Associates.
Howe, N. & Strauss, B. (2000). Millennials rising: the next great generation.
New York: Vintage Books.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1998). Reaping the benefits: Defining
the public and private value of going to college. The new millennium project on
higher education costs, pricing, and productivity. Washington, D.C.: ERIC
Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED420256)
Jordan, P., (2000). Academic advising in the 21st century. NACADA Journal,
20(2), 21-30.
Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H.. Whitt, E.J. & Associates. (2005). Student
success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Kuh, G.D. (1985).The case for attendance: The outcomes of higher education.
Journal of College Admission, (107), 3-9.
Lagemann, E.C. (2003). The challenge of liberal education: Past, present,

and future. Liberal Education, 89(2), 6-13.
Levine, A. (1980). When Dreams and Heroes Died. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Levine, A. & Cureton, J.S. (1998). When hope and fear collide. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Levitz, R.S., Noel, L. & Richter, B.J. (1999). Strategic moves for retention
success. In G.H. Gaither (Ed.), Promising practices in recruitment,
remediation, and retention (pp.31-50). (New Directions for Higher
Education, n. 108) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press.

Loeb, P.R. (1994). Generation at the crossroads. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Malveaux, J. (2003). What’s at stake: The social and economic benefits of higher
education. Research report. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination
Board. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED472454.
Mish, F. C. (1994). The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (New ed.). Springfield,

MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Moffatt, M. (1989). Coming of age in New Jersey. New Brunswick: Rutgers

University Press.
NASPA 88th Annual Conference. (March 14, 2006). Speech by William

Strauss. Washington, D.C. Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.
Perna, L.W. (2003). The private benefits of higher education: An examination

of the earnings premium. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 451-472.
Porter, K. (2002). The value of a college degree. Washington, DC: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (Eric Document Reproduction
Service No. ED470038).
Reason, R.D. (2003). Student variables that predict retention: Recent

research and new developments. NASPA Journal, 40(4), pp. 172-191
Selingo, J. (2003). What Americans think about higher education. Chronicle

of Higher Education, 49(34), A10-A15.
Sklaroff, S. (Ed.). (2005). America’s best colleges. U.S. News & World Report,
1-278.
Strauss, W. & Howe, N. (1991). Generations. New York: William Morrow

and Company, Inc.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wirth, A.G. (1972). Education in the technological society: The vocational-

liberal studies controversy in the early twentieth century. Scranton, PA:
Intext Educational Publishers.
Introduction 23
CHAPTER 2
Predicting the Future Based

on Demographics
During the past century, higher education has changed dramatically, but
perhaps the greatest change has been those whom the institutions have
been serving—the college students. This chapter will review changing
demographics, the emerging demographics of elementary, secondary,
and college students, and other factors that will ultimately modify the
composition of future college students enrolled in degree-granting colleges
and universities.
The critical factors influencing these changing demographics in the United

States are: race; migration and immigration; birth rates; mortality rates
and age; and gender. All of these factors will ultimately affect the profile of
college students as well as enrollments. The statistics on the following pages
will reveal the effects and some related dramatic educational issues that will
require attention.
National Demographics
The U.S. population is continuing to grow and is increasingly diverse. “The
growth of 32.7 million people in the 1990s represented the largest numerical
increase of any decade in U.S. history,” (Hobbs & Stoops, 2002, p. 1). During
the last century, the total U.S. population grew to 281.4 million in 2000 as
illustrated in Table 2.1 (Hobbs & Stoops, 2002; Perry & Mackun, 2001).
Predicting the Future Based on Demographics 25

Table 2.1 Total Population in United States, 1900-2000
Year Population in Millions
1900 76.0
1910 92.0
1920 105.7
1930 122.8
1940 131.7
1950 150.7
1960 179.3
1970 203.2
1980 226.5
1990 248.7
2000 281.4
Source: Hobbs & Stoops, 2002
The total U.S. population in 2010 and 2050 is projected to be 308,936,000

and 419,854,000, respectively; from 2000 to 2050, the U.S. Census
Bureau estimates that the population will increase approximately 50%
(Table 2.2). As the U.S. population has grown during 1900 to 2000, the
racial composition has shifted dramatically. According to Hobbs and
Stoops, “In 1900, about 1 out of 8 Americans was of race other than
White. By 2000, about 1 out of 4 Americans was of a race other than
White” (p. 76).
The racial prof ile will continue to shift in that the Hispanic and Asian
populations are growing more rapidly than other racial groups (National
Center for Health Statistics [NCHS], 2005). Although the White
population is projected to continue to grow in actual numbers, the
percentage of White, non-Hispanics is projected to decrease to
approximately 50% of the total population, while the percentage of all
other minority races is projected to increase steadily from 2000 to 2050.
However, the number of Hispanics (of any race) is increasing more than
any other minority race. Hispanics are projected to increase from 12.6%
in 2000 to 24.4% and triple in actual numbers (from 35,622,000 to
102,560,000) in 2050. Table 2.2 illustrates the projected population of
the United States broken down by race for the next five decades.

Table 2.2 Projected Population of the United States, by Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000 to
2050. (In thousands except as indicated. As of July 1. Resident population.)
Population or percent
and race or Hispanic
origin 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
POPULATION
.TOTAL 282,125 308,936 335,805 363,584 391,946 419,854
.White alone 228,548 244,995 260,629 275,731 289,690 302,626
.Black alone 35,818 40,454 45,365 50,442 55,876 61,361
.Asian Alone 10,684 14,241 17,988 22,580 27,992 33,430
.All other races 1/ 7,075 9,246 11,822 14,831 18,388 22,437
.Hispanic (of any

race) 35,622 47,756 59,756 73,055 87,585 102,560
.White alone, not
Hispanic 195,729 201,112 205,936 209,176 210,331 210,283
PERCENT OF TOTAL
POPULATION
.TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
.White alone 81.0 79.3 77.6 75.8 73.9 72.1
.Black alone 12.7 13.1 13.5 13.9 14.3 14.6
.Asian Alone 3.8 4.6 5.4 6.2 7.1 8.0
.All other races 1/ 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.1 4.7 5.3
.Hispanic (of any

race) 12.6 15.5 17.8 20.1 22.3 24.4
.White alone, not
Hispanic 69.4 65.1 61.3 57.5 53.7 50.1
1/ Includes American Indian and Alaska Native alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander alone, and Two or More Races.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2004, "U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
Origin," <http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/> Internet Release Date: March
18, 2004.
Population growth also is shifting where people live from the populous metropolitan
areas of the Northeast and East to the suburban portions of metropolitan areas
of the South and West (Hobbs & Stoops). Between July 1, 2004, and July 1,
2005, the fastest growing states were Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Texas, and
Georgia. The largest numerical population increase (1.5 million) and the
fastest growth rate (1.4%) were recorded for the Southern region between
2004 and 2005; whereas, the Western region of the United States comprised

23% of the U.S. total population making this region second to the South
(Bernstein, 2005).
The origins of immigrants to the United States (Figure 2.1) have shifted from
primarily European origins to Latin American (approximately one half )
and Asian origins (approximately one quarter). According to Broido, “This
immigrant population is highly concentrated in urban areas and along the
East and West Coasts of the United States, (as well as a few very large mid-
western cities)” (as cited in Coomes & DeBard, 2004, p.75).
Figure 2.1. Human Population: Fundamentals of Growth Effects of Migration on Population

Growth (Population Reference Bureau, 2006)
Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1998 Statistical Yearbook.
Carnevale and Fry (2000) noted, “In the three decades between 1950 and
1980, about 450,000 immigrants came to the United States legally each
year. By 1980, that number had soared to 800,000 annually.” (p.15).
This increase has led to another factor in demographic change: birth rate. According
to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS, 2005), the national
fertility average was 66.1 per 1,000 in 2003, a decline from 106.2 in 1950.
Blacks, non-Hispanic had very high rates of 153.5 in 1960 but had declined
to 66.3, similar to the national average. Asian or Pacific Islander and Native
American birth rates have historically been low with both currently below

the national average. However, in 2003 the fertility rate for Hispanic women
(96.9 births per 1,000 women age 15-44 years) was 66% higher than for
White, non-Hispanic women (58.5 per 1,000). According to Buckner and
Lowe (2005), one-fifth of all women who gave birth in California, between
June 2002 and June 2003, either did not speak English well or did not speak
it at all. Three other states that had high rates of women who did not speak
English well or did not speak it at all giving birth included Texas (14.4%),
Arizona (14.4%) and Nevada (14.2%), all higher than the national average
(8.2%).
Around mid-century the U.S. gender composition shifted from a male majority
population to female majority population (Hobbs and Stoops, 2000). In fact,
the ratio of males “declined each decade from 1910 to 1980, then increased
during the 1980s and the1990s” (p. 1). Figure 2.2 provides an illustration
of the age and sex distribution of the U.S. population in 1900, 1950, and
2000.
Figure 2.2. Age and Sex Distribution of the Total Population: 1900, 1950, and 2000 (Hobbs &
Stoops, 2002, p. 54)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census of population, 1900, 150, and 2000.
The U.S. population is aging. In 1900, 50% of the population was less than
22.9 years old, and at the end of the century the median age had increased
to 35.3 years old—the highest median age ever (Hobbs & Stoops).
The U.S. population age 75 years and over rose from 2.6 to 5.9 % between 1950–
2004, and it is projected that this proportion of the population will increase
to 11.6% by 2050 (NCHS). In addition, “the population group age 55-64

years is projected to be the fastest growing segment of the adult population
over the next decade” (NCHS, p. 5). The percentage of the population aged
55–64 is estimated to stay constant because the Baby Boomer generation
will continue to age and a steady number of individuals will continue to
move into this age bracket. Even though the U.S. population is aging,
Americans are staying healthier longer, which opens up opportunities at
retirement that may not have been a consideration for past generations. The
boomer generation very likely will change how Americans view retirement.
This segment of the U.S. population has already demonstrated an interest in
lifelong learning which will continue to impact and alter higher education.
Table 2.3 Percentage of U.S. population by age and year (NCHS, 2005)
Under 18 75 years
Year years 18-54 years 55-64 years 65-74 years and over
1950 31.3 51.8 8.8 5.6 2.6
2000 25.7 53.3 8.6 6.5 5.9
2004 24.9 52.8 9.9 6.3 6.1
2050 23.5 45.0 10.9 9.0 11.6
All of the factors discussed above contribute to the changes in the

demographics of the United States that will ultimately impact the
composition of the college student body. With a shift in the racial profile of
the United States, more minority students than ever are projected to attend
college. With population that is majority female rather than male, the trend
will continue with more females enrolling in college than males. Moreover,
older students will require increasing consideration in the future of higher
education.
Elementary and Secondary Education

In order to illustrate the impact that growth and diversity of the U.S.
population will have on higher education, it’s important to discuss future
projections for elementary and secondary education enrollment so that
we can better understand who may be coming to college in the future.
Enrollment growth rates between 2002–2014 for both public and private
schools are predicted to be slower (4%), as compared to growth (19%) that
occurred between 1989 and 2002 (Hussar, 2005).

Figure 2.3 Actual and Projected Numbers for Elementary and Secondary Enrollment, Total and
by Grade Level: Selected Years, 1989-2014 (Hussar, 2005, p. 5)
Note: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Source: U.S. Dept. of Education NCES: Common Core of Data Surveys, various years; Private
School Universe Survey, various years; and National Elementary and Secondary School
Enrollment Model.
Although the total growth in PK-12 will not be as significant, there will
be tremendous shifts in where these school-aged children reside. Hussar
reported that between 2002 and 2014 public elementary and secondary
enrollment is projected to increase in two of the four regions of the United
States with the West increasing 13% and the South increasing 5%. The
Northeast and Midwest will decrease 5% and 2%, respectively. Figure 2.4
illustrates the projected changes in public and secondary school enrollment
by state.
Figure 2.4 Projected percentage change in grades PK-12 enrollment in public schools, by
state: Fall 2002 to fall 2014 (Hussar, 2005, p. 29)
Source: U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Common Core of
Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 2002-03;
and State Public Elementary and Secondary Enrollment Model, 1980-2002.

High School Graduates
Growth in high school graduates will be more significant than growth
in PK-12. According to Hussar, high school graduates will increase 10%
between 2001–02 and 2013–14 or from 2.9 million to 3.2 million graduates.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE, 2003) and
Hussar (2005) both predicted a peak between 2008–10 (NCES – 3,328,000
in 2009 and WICHE – 3,195,259 in 2008) followed with a slow decline of
approximately 100-150,000 graduates by 2014. However, WICHE (2003)
predicted a rebound with modest gains in future years reaching 3,188,121
by 2017-18. Figure 2.5 illustrates the predicted change in public and private
high school graduates.
Figure 2.5 Number of U.S. Public and Nonpublic High School Graduates 2001-02 (actual) to
2017-18 (projected) (WICHE, 2003)
Source: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2003.
More dramatic than elementary and secondary enrollments, the

number of high school graduates will vary significantly regionally.
According to Hussar, public high school graduates in the West region
will increase by 17% between 2001-02 and 2013-14 followed with
increases of 12% in the South, 4% in the Northeast, and 3% in the
Midwest. WICHE illustrated this change in Figure 2.6 projecting
public high school graduates in each state through 2017.

Figure 2.6 Projected Percent Change in Number of Public High School Graduates between
2001-02 and 2017-18 (WICHE, 2003)
Source: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 2003.
Even more interesting, WICHE predicted that by 2017-18, 22.1% of high

school graduates will be Hispanic as compared to 12.3% in 2002-03; whereas,
Black, non-Hispanic graduates will remain about the same statistically at
13.2% (WICHE, 2003). In a media release regarding high school graduates,
WICHE (2004) reported the following:
In the graduating class of 2014, only about half of the students are projected
to be White, non-Hispanic, while half will represent a racial/ethnic
minority. Hispanics are expected to be the fastest-growing group in the U.S.,
representing over one-fifth of that class; Asian/Pacific Islander students will
also increase their share. Black, non-Hispanic numbers are expected to hold
steady, and White, non-Hispanics will see their share of enrollments and
graduation rates decline. (¶7)
According to WICHE (2003), the number of Hispanic graduates will
increase to 541,000 by 2013-14. This significant growth will occur in all
states except Hawaii with the West and South regions of the country
experiencing the most significant gains.
WICHE (2003) indicated that White, non-Hispanic graduates will decline
beginning in 2008-09 to 1.6 million by 2013-14 as compared to 1.8 million
in 1993–94. All regions of the country will experience this decline with the
Midwestern region experiencing the most significant decline. Several states

will lose more than 20% of their White, non-Hispanic graduates while many
others will lose 10% or more.
The number of Black, non-Hispanic public school graduates will be a
modest increase as compared to other racial/ethnic minorities with 365,000
graduates by 2013–14. The South will continue to graduate more than half
of the total students (WICHE, 2003).
By 2013–14, Asians/Pacific Islander graduates will be approximately
189,000 with a steady increase in all regions of the country. Although the
West has traditionally accounted for more than half of the total graduates,
the South will have a strong gain, accounting for 21% of the total graduates.
It is also interesting to note that the Northeast region will increase its share
of American Indian/Alaska Natives graduates (WICHE, 2003). Figure 2.7
displays the dramatic changes in distribution by race in public high school
graduates, many of whom will continue as traditional-age college students.
Figure 2.7 Distribution of Public High School Graduates by Race/Ethnicity, U.S., 2013-14
(projected) (WICHE, 2003)
College Enrollments
Undergraduate, graduate, and professional students in degree-granting
colleges and universities have increased since 1869-70 when only 52,286
students were enrolled (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],
2004a). By 1899, the number increased to 237,592, and by 1949 (50 years
later) had grown to 2,659,021 with approximately an even split of enrollment
between private and public institutions. By 1959, the enrollments increased
to 3,639,847, and in a short five years that followed (1964), 5,280,020
students were enrolled in colleges across the country with approximately

two-thirds (65.7%) enrolled in public institutions. There has been a steady
growth each year since 1960 with the exception of 1984 and 1985 and
1993 to 1996 when enrollments declined between two and three hundred
thousand students (NCES, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c).
As evident in Figure 2.8, since 1989 total college enrollment has continued
to increase at a rather rapid pace from 13,538,560 to 16,611,711 by 2002,
a 22.7% increase. In 2002, 76.8% of these students were enrolled in public
institutions (NCES, 2004a, 2004d). Carnevale and Fry (2000) using NCES
1996 data and other sources predicted undergraduate enrollment would
grow to “about 16 million by 2015” (p. 8). Similarly, Hussar predicted that
undergraduate students would grow by 16.4% from 2002 to 2014, a change
from 14,257,000 to 16,593,000 students; whereas, graduate and professional
school enrollments would increase by a larger percentage (22.2%) or from
2,355,000 to 2,877,000, and total college enrollment would increase to
19,470,000 million by 2014, a 17.2% increase from 2002 (Figure 2.8).
Figure 2.8 Actual and middle alternative projected numbers for total enrollment in degree-
granting institutions: Selected years, 1989-2014 (Hussar, 2005, p. 8)
Source: U.S. Dept. of Education, NCHE Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment Survey,” various years; and Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions
Model.
What is fueling this continued increase in both undergraduate and graduate/

professional students? Carnevale and Fry based their undergraduate
predictions on five key factors that would dictate growth through 2015.
• A rise in births between 1982 and 1996
• Immigration
• Pressures on older workers to add to their skills
• Better academic preparation among high school students
• Changing characteristics of families (p. 13)
The authors noted that undergraduate enrollments would increase by 2.6

million between 1995-2015 with approximately two-thirds of the growth
due to the high Generation Y (Millennial) births, a large number born
between 1982 and 1996 to baby-boomer parents accounting for 1.7 million
undergraduates students from 1995-2015.
Growth due to immigration “should be significant. Four of the five states
projected to have the largest increases in undergraduates by 2015—California,
Texas, and New York—also top the list of states with the most immigrants
since 1980” (Carnival & Fry, p.15). Howe and Strauss (2000), noted that “an
astounding 20 percent of this entire generation” (p.83) will have at least one
parent who is an immigrant.
Carnevale and Fry further speculated that older students would flock to
the campuses including primarily “baby-boomers on sabbatical and mature
workers returning to school for more mid-career education” (p.15) accounting
for 800,000 new undergraduates. The other two factors, better prepared high
school students and children of an increased number of college educated
parents, were not predictable, but the authors speculated that both would
contribute to enlarged undergraduate classes. Millennial students expect
to go to college and plan to obtain bachelor’s, graduate, and professional
degrees at higher rates than previous generations (Astin, Osequera, Sax, &
Korn, 2002; Pryor, Hurtado, Saenz, Lindholm, Korn, & Mahoney (2005)).
And, each year, the educational attainment of adults in the United States
reaches a higher level (Bauman & Graf, 2003).
Carnevale and Fry noted that another contributing factor would be the
“persistent enrollment of foreign students” (p. 8). Unfortunately, due to after
effects of September 11, 2001, international student enrollment leveled
off in 2002-03 and declined by 2.4% in 2003-04, which is the “first drop
in enrollments of students from abroad since the 1971-72 academic year”
(Bollag, 2004, p.1). Bollag further stated that a survey of major graduate
institutions, conducted by the Council of Graduate Schools, “found a 6
percent decline in new foreign enrollments this fall, the third year in a row
with substantial drop” (p. 1). It is unpredictable if this trend will continue in
the next 10 years.
In addition to the major factors addressed by Carnevale and Fry, other key
factors that will most likely contribute to a changing student profile and
continual growth (or perhaps decline in some aspects) in enrollments of
college students are listed:
• Race/Ethnic – changes and growth

• High School Graduates – percentage of minorities increasing resulting
in continual growth of traditional-age students
• Gender – Female students increasing and the potential reversal of
declining enrollment of males
• Age and Attendance Status – changes in age of students and in
attendance (full-time vs. part-time)
• Graduate/Professional Students – growth in traditional-aged students
continuing with enrollment in graduate/professional programs as well as
growth in adult students seeking advanced degrees
• Traditional students enrolled for longer periods of time to complete
degrees due to work, costs of education, and other reasons
• Expectations, by students and their parents, and demands of educational
credentials for jobs and careers
These factors will dramatically impact the location and type of institutions
in which these students enroll. That college enrollments will continue to
grow well beyond 2014 seems evident from the data. These factors and
predictions will be discussed in more detail.
Race/Ethnic Status
As the United States population continues to grow and experience shifts
in its demographic composition, higher education will also experience
new challenges in meeting the unique needs and concerns of the diverse
population of students attending college. The paradigms used for student
generations of the past may not be the best fit for the students who go to
college in 2050.
Race and ethnicity are probably the most intriguing demographics that
have changed and are projected to change during the next 10-40 years. As
discussed earlier, according to the U.S. Census projections, minorities as a
collective group will equal if not most likely surpass the number of White,
non-Hispanics in the United States by 2050. Historically, most colleges
and universities, with the exception of the few Historically Black Colleges
and Universities and Tribal Colleges, enrolled predominately White, non-
Hispanic students. However, since the early 1900s, and especially since
the 1940s, the number and the diversity of college students have changed
dramatically from primarily full-time, traditional-aged, privileged, male,
White, non-Hispanics to students representing diverse race/ethnicity,

gender, age, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
In 1976, NCES (2004d) reported 1,690,800 minority students enrolled
or 15.4% of the total student population. By 2002, this percentage had
nearly doubled to 29.4% and the actual number of minority students
enrolled had increased to 4,880,500, nearly tripling. During the same
time, White, non-Hispanics had increased by only about 2,000,000
students or 23% and dropped to 67.1% of the total population; whereas,
total enrollment increased 51%.
From 1976 to 2002, Black, non Hispanic students nearly doubled in
numbers, but grew only from 9.4% to 11.9% of the total population.
American Indian/Alaska Native students and Nonresident alien
(international) students increased their share of the total student
populations between 1976 and 2002 from 0.7% to 1.0% and 2.0% to
3.6%, respectively. Both more than doubled in actual numbers. The
most significant growth occurred with Hispanic students and Asian or
Pacific Islander students. Hispanic numbers grew from 383,800 students
to 1,661,700 and gained from 3.5% to 10.0% of the total population.
Asian or Pacific Islander students grew from 197,900 to 1,074,200
students and 1.8% to 6.5% of the total population (NCES, 2004d). In
addition to the changing numbers, Carnevale and Fry predicted that
“Minority undergraduates will outnumber White students on campus in
the District of Columbia and three states by 2015—California, Hawaii,
and New Mexico” (p.21) and that minority enrollment in Texas will
equal White enrollment by 2015.
How quickly the data has changed. Recognizing that Carnevale and
Fry predictions pertained to undergraduates, 2002 total minority
enrollment (undergraduates and graduates/professionals) in California,
New Mexico, and Hawaii represented the majority and in eight other
states minority enrollments had reached at least one-third or higher
including Texas and the District of Columbia passing 40%. Several
other states, including New York had surpassed 30% (NCES, 2004e).
Figure 2.9 illustrates these changes.

Figure 2.9 Proportion of College Students Who Are Minority-Group Members, Fall 2002 (The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005-06, p. 10)
What holds for the future? Carnevale and Fry stated that by 2015, “Minorities
as a group will increase their combined share of the undergraduate population
from 29.4 to 37.2 percent” (p. 21) of 16 million projected undergraduate
enrollment by 2015.
The authors noted that African Americans undergraduate growth will
be modest between 1995 and 2015, increasing from 12.8% to 13.2% of
the total undergraduate population, accounting for 2.1 million students;
whereas, Asians will grow from 5.4% to 8.4% and Hispanics will increase
from 10.6% to 15.4%, accounting for 1.3 and 2.5 million, respectively.
However, the authors warned that even with this projected growth and
percentage change, the number of African American and Hispanic youth
(18- to 24-year-olds) attending college will not be proportional when
compared to the number in the same age in the U.S. population. Carnevale
and Fry stated, “The playing field still will not be level in 2015. Among
minority groups, only Asian youth will be attending college in numbers at
or above their share of the 18- to 24-year-old U.S. population” (p.10).
The latest NCES data affirmed this concern about disproportionate numbers.
White, non-Hispanic college enrollment of 18- to 24-year-olds in 2003 is
41.6%; whereas, Black, non-Hispanic is 32.3 and Hispanic is 23.5%. Similar
spreads exist when college enrollment comparisons are made with all 18-
to 24-year-old high school completers—47.2; 41.4, and 35.8, respectively
(NCES, 2004f ); and, with recent high school completers—66.2, 57.5,
and 58.6 (NCES, 2004g). It is apparent that high school completion and
immediate college enrollment are critical factors in successfully closing this
gap for Hispanic students.

This completion is especially important for both black, non-Hispanic and
Hispanic students who have lagged behind White, non-Hispanic students
in the percentage of students enrolled in all levels of education (NCES,
2005a) and in the percentage of school completion of both high school
and college (NCES, 2005b). These two groups have had higher percentage
of drop outs (NCES, 2005c) and continue to have lower percentage of
enrollment in higher education (NCES, 2005d). All of the trends show a
pattern similar to the changes that have occurred with White, non-Hispanic
rates over the years. The college enrollment rates of White, non-Hispanic
18- to 24-year olds has basically stabilized between 38–42% since 1996;
whereas, Black, non-Hispanic rates have risen from 27.4% to 32.3% in 2003
and Hispanic rates have risen from 20.1 to 23.5% (NCES 2004f ). As noted
above, both Black, non-Hispanics and Hispanics are approaching similar
percentages of White, non-Hispanics in recent high school graduates
enrolling in college. Although it will most likely take 20 years or more
for the percentage of Hispanic and Black, non-Hispanic enrollees to
equal White, non-Hispanic enrollees (27.6% in 1976 and 39.5% in
1996), (NCES, 2004f ), such projections seems inevitable particularly
as greater numbers of first and second generation college graduates’
children reach college age. As pointed out by Carnevale and Fry (2000),
“A recent study (Ellwood & Kane, 1998) found that among high school
students with at least one college-educated parent, 84 percent were
likely to go to college, compared to only 69 percent of pupils whose
parents had never attended college” (p.18).
In other words, as both Black, non-Hispanics and Hispanics reach
nearly equal percentage of eligible college enrollees through higher
rates of high school graduation and larger numbers of parental college
experience, along with the predicted demographic changes for our
society in general, it seems clear that not only will minorities become
the majority in the United States, but also that minorities will dominate
college enrollments in the near future. Furthermore, Hispanics will be
the dominate minority/ethnic college population.
Gender
Historically, females were significantly fewer in number, but much has
changed in the past 60 years. In 1947, only 29% of college students were
female; whereas, 20 years later, 40% were female, and by 1978 females
were basically equal in number to males (NCES, 2004c). As of 2002,

females represented 56.6%, and by 2014, total female enrollment will
increase to 58.5% (NCES, 2004h) with undergraduates at 58.4% and
graduate/professional at 58.9% (Hussar, 2005). As noted in Figure 2.10,
female students will increase by 15.9% between 2005 and 2015 whereas
males will increase only 9.4%. Another interesting point regarding
female students is college enrollment rates. Of high school completers in
1960, 37.9% of the females had enrolled in college as compared to 54%
of the males. By 2002, the percentage of females had nearly doubled to
68.4% but males had increased to only 62.1% with little deviation since
the early 1990s (NCES, 2004).
Figure 2.10 Total undergraduate enrollment in degree-granting 2- and 4-year postsecondary

institutions, by sex, with projections: Fall 1970–2014 (NCES, 2006-071)
NOTE: Projections are based upon the middle alternative assumptions concerning the
economy. For more information, see NCES 2006–071. Data for 1999 were imputed using
alternative procedures. For more information, see NCES 2001–083, appendix E.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The
Condition of Education 2006 (NCES 2006-071).
Another gender factor is the increasing gap in numbers between males and
females enrolling in college across all racial/ethnic groups as illustrated in
Table 2.4. Furthermore, by 2014, males will comprise only 41.5% of the
total college enrollment (NCES, 2004h). What is causing the decline in
male participation in higher education in all race/ethnic categories? Why
are male students not valuing a college education today? The answers to
these questions may reverse this trend encouraging a significant number of
prospective male students representing all racial and ethnic groups to enroll
in colleges and universities across the country.

Table 2.4 Percentage of Total College Enrollment of Males by Racial and Ethnic Groups in Selected
Years – 1990, 2000, 2002 (The Chronicle of Higher Education, Almanac Issue 2005-6, p. 15)
White, non- American Black, non-

Years All Hispanics Indian Asian Hispanics Hispanic Foreign
Fall 1990 45.5 45.3 41.9 51.5 38.9 45.2 62.9
Fall 2000 43.7 44.2 40.2 47.2 36.3 42.6 56.1
Fall 2002 43.4 44.0 39.6 46.9 35.8 42.1 53.3
Age
In 1970, traditional-aged students (18-24) represented 69.2% of total
enrollment, but by 2002, this percentage had dropped to 59.4% and is
projected to remain at 59% through 2014 (NCES, 2004h). However, of
undergraduate students, 67.3% were 24-years-of-age or under in 2003
(NCES, 2005).
The 25–29-age group was consistent with 12.7% of the total enrollment from
1970 through 2002 but is projected to increase to 15% by 2014. Similarly,
the 30–34-age group increased from 5.7% in 1970 to 7.8% in 2002, but
will increase only to 8% by 2014. Perhaps the most interesting population
is the 35-years-and-over age group that represented only 9.6% of enrollees
in 1970, grew to 18.9% by 2002, but is predicted to decline to 16.9% by
2014 (NCES, 2004h). As noted in Figure 2.11, there is a relatively small
projected increase (5%) in college enrollment of the 35-years-and over-age
group from 2004 to 2014.
Figure 2.11 Actual and middle alternative projected numbers for enrollment in degree-granting
postsecondary institutions, by age group: Fall 1994, 2004, and 2014 (Hussar, 2005, p. 32)
Source: U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated
Postsecondary Data System, “Fall Enrollment Survey” (IPEDS-EF), 1994: Enrollment in Degree-
Granting Institutions Model, 1980-2002; and U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Current Population Reports, “Social and Economic Characteristics of Students,” various years.

The perception that colleges and universities must prepare to address
the growing number of adult-age students is somewhat misleading. As
projected by NCES traditional-age students will continue to grow at 16%
between 2002 and 2014. In regard to future projections Hussar stated, “The
most important factor is the expected increase in the traditional college-age
population of 18- to 24-year-olds” (p.8). As noted in Table 2.12, the largest
percentage growth from 2002 to 2014 will be those students who are 25-
29 years of age. Furthermore, Hussar reported that the largest percentage
growth by level of education between 2002–14 will be graduate students
(21%) and first-professional students (32%). Chances are most of the
growth in the 25-29 age will be a result of former traditional-aged students
continuing their education, not a growth in students who began college as
adult-age students.
It should be noted that predicting enrollment of traditional-aged students is
much easier than predicting future enrollment of adult-age students due to
many factors and issues. Also, NCES projections are based on enrollments
in only degree-granting institutions. And, as Hussar stated, “The enrollment
projections do not take into account such factors as the cost of education, and
the impact of distance learning due to technological changes” (p.8). These
factors, as well as many others such as globalization, outsourcing of jobs/
careers, economic factors, and world affairs, all may contribute to changes
in enrollment patterns and the student profile, particularly regarding age,
attendance patterns, and educational avenues.
Attendance and Completion Status

In 1959, full-time students comprised two-thirds of the students of total
enrollment when compared to part-time students. By the early 1990s, the
percentage had shifted to approximately 56% but by 2003, this percentage
had shifted back to 61% (62.4% undergraduate students), a minor change of
only 5% during 40+ years and by 2013 is projected to remain at 61% (NCES,
2004c, 2004h; NCES, 2005). As noted in Figure 2.12, full-time students
will likely increase by 20% and part-time by 14% from 2002 through 2014.
The spread becomes wider in the years to come.

Figure 2.12 Attendance Status (Hussar, 2005, p. 34)
Postsecondary Data System, “Fall Enrollment Survey” (IPEDS-EF: 89-99), and Spring 2001 through
Spring 2003; and Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions Model, 1980-2002.
In addition, current students are taking longer to complete their degrees as

compared to previous generations. Engle (2006) stated, “Among freshmen
who entered baccalaureate-granting colleges in Fall 1994, only 36.4 percent
were able to complete their bachelor’s degrees within four years (compared
to 39.9 percent a decade earlier and 46.7 percent in the late 1960s)” (¶ 1).
Enrollment by States or Regions

As previously noted, both WICHE (2003) and Hussar predicted major
shifts across the country in high school graduates. The largest number of
future college enrollees will be derived from recent high school graduates
who are predominately minority students. Since a very high percentage
(83.5%) of new college students begin their education in their home states
(NCES, 2004j), and due to the continued growth in college costs, the
enrollment growth or decline in colleges and universities is likely to follow
similar patterns of high school graduates. Carnevale and Fry predicted that
14 states will account for 75% of the undergraduate enrollment increase.
The authors further stated, “More than 50 percent of the overall increase
in undergraduates between 1995–2015 will be in five states—California,
Texas, Florida, New York, and Arizona” (p.25).
Types of Institutions
As mentioned earlier, 76.8% of the current college students are enrolled in
public institutions. Although this overall percentage is unlikely to change,
Hussar (2005) predicted a slightly larger percentage increase of students will
enroll in private colleges through 2014 (19% increase in private vs. 17% for
public) as Figure 2.13 illustrates.

Figure 2.13 Actual and middle alternative projected number for total enrollment in degree-
granting institutions, by control of institution: Selected years, 1989-2014 (Hussar, p. 10)
Source: U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics: Integrated
Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS), “Fall Enrollment Survey,”various years; and Enrollment in
Degree-Granting Institutions Model.
In 2002, 60.7% of all students were enrolled in four-year institutions.

According to Hussar, four-year institutions will increase at a slightly faster
pace in the coming years increasing to 62.0% by 2014. This is contrary to
what has occurred throughout the 1990s and the initial years of the 21st
century.
Figure 2.14 Actual and middle alternative projected numbers for enrollment in degree-granting
post-secondary institutions, by type of institution: Fall 1989 to fall 2014 (Hussar, 2005, p. 35)
Postsecondary Data System, “Fall Enrollment Survey” (IPEDS-EF: 89-99), and Spring 2001 through
Spring 2003; and Enrollment in Degree-Granting Institutions Model, 1980-2002.
It is also interesting to note that based on race and ethnicity, students

do not necessarily follow similar patterns of enrollment. In 2002, White,
non-Hispanics enrolled in four-year institutions at the rate of 63.3%;

Asians enrolled at 58.9%; Black, non-Hispanics enrolled at 56.6%; Native
Americans enrolled at 51.0%; but, Hispanics enrolled only at 42.3% (NCES
2004d). With these data in mind, these authors are somewhat surprised by
the predictions that four-year institutions will outpace two-year institutions
when one considers the increasing costs of education as well as the growth
of minority students, particularly Hispanic students, during the next several
years.
Socioeconomic Impact on Enrollment and Completion of Degree
Students who are financially disadvantaged are less likely to graduate from
high school, less likely to enroll in college, and once enrolled, less likely
to graduate. According to the NCES (2004k), those students who are not
disadvantaged and attend four-year institutions graduate in six years at
a rate of 66.1% as compared to those who are minimally disadvantaged
graduate at a rate of 50.8% and those moderately or highly disadvantaged
completed at a 39.6% rate. For students initially enrolling at a two-year
institution, those not disadvantaged complete a bachelor’s degree at a 20.4%
rate as compared to those who are minimally disadvantaged at 13.1% and
moderately or highly disadvantaged at 14.5%. Clearly, students who are
financially disadvantaged complete their bachelor’s degree at a much lower
rate as compared to other students.
Conclusions
From the data presented, enrollments at degree-granting colleges will
continue to grow through 2015, and in all likelihood, well beyond this period.
Enrollment is determined by many factors—birth rates, migration, available
youth, high school graduates, educational levels, race/ethnic groups, gender,
age, attendance status, undergraduate/graduate/professional enrollment,
economic and socioeconomic conditions, world affairs, and location.
It is also clear that the profile of college students will also be dramatically
different than what one might have experienced even in the latter years of
the 20th century. It is the belief of the authors that the following predictions
and/or changes will most likely occur during the next 10 to 20 years:
• College undergraduate enrollments will continue to increase in total
numbers through 2020 and probably beyond.
• College graduate and professional enrollments will likely increase at a
faster rate than undergraduates through 2020 and beyond.

• College enrollment growths will be concentrated primarily in the
West and South resulting in colleges in certain states or regions of the
country struggling to maintain enrollments.
• College students will be much more diverse as Hispanic students
become the largest minority. This change has already occurred in a
number of institutions and states and will continue as greater numbers
of Hispanics move throughout the country and aspire to higher career
opportunities.
• College undergraduate growth will continue to be that of traditional-age
students, and graduate/professional growth will result from traditional-
aged students continuing their education beyond the bachelor’s degree
or returning after a few years in their careers.
• Older students have the potential of growing significantly, but the
data do not support that during the next 10 to 15 years adult-aged
students will increase significantly when compared to traditional-
aged students. However, due to the large number of potential students
particularly in states that have declining high school graduates and
increasing percentages of older citizens, this may be a great opportunity
for increasing enrollments. And, the continual change in and usage
of technology may provide opportunities for older students to attend
college—not necessarily the traditional “classroom” environment.
• Students will in all likelihood continue to work more and carry fewer
hours each semester, resulting in the extension of time enrolled in higher
education, which will actually increase the total enrollment numbers.
•Students will continue to enroll in institutions primarily in their home
states in which both two-year and four-year institutions will share
somewhat equally in student numbers.
• Female students will continue to dominate enrollments in higher
education for the next 20 years and perhaps beyond. However, great
potential exists as does the need to engage a higher percentage of
traditional-age male students in higher education, both as new first-time
and nontraditional students, as well as former students who withdrew
prior to completion.
• Growth or decline in international students is very difficult to predict
due to the ongoing issues in international affairs and national security.

• Millennial students will be attending all levels of higher education at
higher rates when compared to previous generations.
• As more parents become better educated, achieve higher family income,
and reduce family size, their children are more likely to attend college.
In addition, as demand grows for more highly skilled careers, college
education will be expected. And, as lower economic families aspire to
improve their socioeconomic status, education will be viewed as the
opportunity to achieve such for themselves and/or for their children.

References
Astin, A.W., Osequera, L., Sax, L.J., & Korn, W.S. (2002). The American
freshman: Thirty-five year trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Bauman, K.J. & Graf, N.L. (2003). Educational Attainment: 2000, Census
2000 Brief. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/prod/
2003pubs/c2kbr-24.pdf.
Bernstein, R. (2005). Nevada edges out Arizona as the fastest-growing state.
Retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/
www/releases/archives/population/006142.html.
Bollag, B., (2004). Enrollment of foreign students drops in U.S. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 51(13), p. A1.
Buckner, S., & Lowe, S. (2005). New analysis offers first-ever state-by-state look
at links between marriage, fertility and other socioeconomic characteristics.
Retrieved May 15, 2006 from, http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/
www/releases/archives/american_community_survey_acs/005807.html.
Carnevale, A.P. & Fry, R.A. (2000). Crossing the great divide: Can we
achieve equity when generation Y goes to college? Leadership 2000
Series. Educational Testing.
Services, Princeton, N.J. Coomes, M.D. & DeBard, R. (2004). Serving the
millennial generation. New Directions for Student Services, (106), p. (73-
85).
Eagle, S. (2006). Degree obtainment rates at colleges and universities, Higher
Education Research Institute. Retrieved March 30, 2006 from http://
www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/darcu_pr.html.
Hobbs, F., & Stoops, N. (2002). Demographic Trends in the 20th Century
(U.S. Census. Bureau, Census 2000 Special Reports, Series CENSR-4).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Howe, N., and Strauss, W. Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generations.
New York: Vintage Books, 2000.
Hussar.W.J. (2005). Projection of Education Statistics to 2014 (NCES 2005-
074). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

National Center for Education Statistics (2004a). Digest of Education
Statistics, 2004: Table 3 [Data file]. Available from National Center for
Education Statistics Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/
tables/dt04_003.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics (2004b). Digest of Education
Statistics, 2004: Table 170 [Data file]. Available from National Center
for Education Statistics Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
d04/tables/dt04_170.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics (2004c). Digest of Education
National Center for Education Statistics (2004d). Digest of Education
National Center for Education Statistics (2004e). Digest of Education
National Center for Education Statistics (2004f ). Digest of Education
National Center for Education Statistics (2004g). Digest of Education
National Center for Education Statistics (2004h). Digest of Education
National Center for Education Statistics (2004i). Digest of Education

National Center for Education Statistics (2004j). Digest of Education
National Center for Education Statistics (2004k). Digest of Education
National Center for Education Statistics (2005). Digest of Education
National Center for Education Statistics (2005a). Youth Indicators, 2005:
Trends in the well-being of American youth. Retrieved February 22, 2006
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005050.pdf.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005b). Youth Indicators, 2005.
U.S. Department of Education. Indicator 20. Retrieved February 22,
2006 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/youthindicators/Indicators.
asp?PubPageNumber=20.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005c). Youth Indicators, 2005.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005d). Youth Indicators, 2005.
National Center for Health Statistics Health, United, States. (2005). With
Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans. Hyattsville, Maryland:
2005. Available from Center for Disease Control and Prevention Web
site, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf.
Perry, M.J., & Mackun, P.J. (2001). Population change and distribution 1990
to 2000.

Population Reference Bureau. (2006). Human population: Fundamentals of
growth effect of migration on population growth. Retrieved February
28, 2006 from http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/
Educators/Human_Population/Migration2/Migration1.htm.
Pryor, J.H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V.B., Lindholm, J.A., Korn, W.S., &
Mahoney, K.M. (2005). The American freshman: National norms for
fall 2005. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, Almanac Issue 2005-6. August 26,
2005, Vol. XLVIII, No. 1, Washington, DC.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Projected Population of the United States, by Race:
2000 to 2050. "U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
Origin." Retrieved March 31, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/ipc/
www/usinterimproj.
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.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). (2003).
Knocking at the College Door – 1988-2018. Boulder, CO: WICHE
Publications.
Media Release, The Class of 2008, and Beyond. Retrieved February 22,
2006 from http://www.wiche.edu/policy/knocking/press_release.pdf.

CHAPTER 3
Student-Athletes
Jennifer L. Greer and Jennifer D. Robinson
Although American culture generally adores the athlete icon, there is

a widespread opinion that college student-athletes are “overprivileged,
pampered, lazy and out-of-control, and whose primary motivation to attend
school is to participate in sports (Ferrante, Etzel, & Lantz, 1996, p. 4).
Student-athletes play multiple roles during their college experience, and
face several challenges as they try to balance their roles as both student and
athlete. Many face problems and issues related to development, retention, and
graduation rates. Athletes also have unique counseling and advising needs
due to rules and regulations placed on them by governing organizations.
Collegiate athletes are a unique part of the student body and have become
a significant, complex, and controversial student subpopulation in higher
education.
Athletes have been a part of the collegiate student body since crew was
introduced as a varsity sport in the mid-1800s, and by the late 1880s football
was the most popular college sport (Watt & Moore, 2001). Three major
governing organizations, the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), the National Junior College Athletics Association (NJCAA), and
the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA), set guidelines
for student-athletes participating in sports programs at member schools.
The NCAA, the largest and most well-known intercollegiate organization,
was established in part out of the need to reform the aggressive nature of
the game of football and also out of the need to develop structured rules and
regulations for the increasing participation of student-athletes in sports on
Student-Athletes 53
college campuses (Watt & Moore, 2001). In the early 1970s, the passing of
the educational equality amendments known as Title IX paved the way for
women in intercollegiate athletics.
More student-athletes participate at NCAA member institutions than any

other athletic organization, and NCAA Division I institutions consist of
the largest and most visible sub-category of student-athletes. Perhaps this
statistic explains why the majority of research available is specific to NCAA
Division I student-athletes. Because of this lack of published information
regarding student-athletes in other divisions/organizations, the majority
of the research cited in this chapter is written to reflect NCAA Division
I athletes. However, it is important to note that student-athletes across
organizations and divisions share many similarities.
NCAA statistics indicate a tremendous growth in collegiate sports

participation during the last two decades. In 1981, only 170,000 males
and 65,000 females participated in NCAA sponsored sports (National
Collegiate, n.d.). During the 2003-2004 academic year there were 217,309
male student-athletes and 162,752 female student-athletes participating in
intercollegiate sports (National Collegiate, n.d.). According to the Director
of Sports Information for the NAIA, student-athletes competing in NAIA
sponsored sports in 2002-2003 included 18,411 females and 27,835 males
(D. Harmon, personal communication, March 29, 2006); whereas, the
administrative assistant for the NJCAA reported that the organization
had 17,182 female student-athletes and 29,631 male student-athletes
participating in sponsored sports (W. Bodey, personal communication,
March 23, 2006).
Table 3.1 2003-2004 NCAA Student-Athlete Participation by Gender
Division I Division II Division III Overall
Female 69,768 31,725 61,259 162,752
Male 86,826 46,662 83,821 217,309
Total 156,594 73,387 145, 080 380,061
Note: Information is summarized from National Collegiate Athletic Association (n.d.) 1981-82
- 2003-04 NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Report NCAA [Data file]. Available from
NCAA Web site, http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/participation_rates/1982-2005/1982_
2005_participation_rates.pdf.

Table 3.2. 2003-2004 Average Number of Student-Athletes Per Institution
Female 213.4 112.5 142.5 156.6
Male 265.5 165.5 194.9 209.2
Total 478.9 278.0 337.4 365.8
Note: Information is summarized from National Collegiate Athletic Association (n.d.) 1981-82
- 2003-04 NCAA Sports Sponsorship and Participation Report NCAA [Data file]. Available from
NCAA Web site, http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/participation_rates/1982-2005/1982_
2005_participation_rates.pdf.
Table 3.3. 2002-2003 NAIA Student-Athlete Gender Participation (NAIA, 2006)
Female 18,411
Male 27,835
Total 46,246
Note. From D. Harmon, personal communication, March 29, 2006.
Table 3.4 2004-2005 NJCAA Student-Athlete Gender Participation (NJCAA, 2006)
Female 17,182
Male 29,631
Total 46,813
Note. From W. Bodey, personal communication, March 23, 2006.
Student-athletes are also an ethnically diverse group. Unfortunately, neither

the NAIA nor the NJCAA track the ethnic diversity of their student-athletes;
however, according to the 2003-2004 NCAA Student-Athlete Ethnicity Report,
in overall sports participation, 71.4% of male athletes were Caucasian, 18.1% were
African American, 3.5% were Hispanic, and 1.4% were Asian. In the same year,
78.2% of female athletes were Caucasian, 10.5% were African American, 3%
were Hispanic, and 1.9% were Asian (National Collegiate, n.d.). A large number
of international students also participate in intercollegiate athletics. During
the 1995-96 academic year, nearly 9,000 international students participated in
NCAA athletics programs (NCAA Study, 1996). Statistical trends suggested that
the number of student-athletes will continue to grow in the future, particularly
among female students and students of color (National Collegiate, n.d.).
Student-Athletes 55
Table 3.5. 2003-2004 NCAA Student-Athlete Ethnicity Percentages
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
American Indian/ 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3
Alaskan Native
Asian/ 1.6 2.1 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.4 1.4 2.0

Pacific Islander
Black/ 24.6 14.9 22.6 12.1 22.6 12.1 18.1 10.6

Non-Hispanic
Hispanic 3.6 3.3 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.6 3.5 3.2
Nonresident 4.4 5.0 3.1 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.7 2.9

Alien
Other 3.2 3.7 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 2.5 2.8
White/ 62.3 70.6 67.1 77.5 67.1 77.5 71.4 78.2

Non-Hispanic
Note: Information summarized from National Collegiate Athletic Association (n.d.) 1999-00
– 2003-04 NCAA Student-Athlete Ethnicity Report [Data file]. Available from NCAA Web site,
http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/ethnicity_report/2003-04/2003-04_ethnicity_report.pdf.
Distinct categories exist within the student-athlete population. Two

significant groups include female student-athletes and student-athletes of
color (Person, Benson-Quaziena, & Rogers, 2001). During the past three
decades female student-athlete participation has grown significantly. Since
1972, the participation of female student-athletes in intercollegiate sports
has increased from 32,000 to 160,650 in 2003 (National Collegiate, n.d.).
Both female student-athletes and student-athletes of color continue to

face issues in relation to their athletic and academic ability. Proportionally,
student-athletes of color make up the largest percentage of students on
college athletic scholarship, and “one out of every nine African American
students at predominantly white four-year institutions is an athlete” (Person
et al., 2001, p. 61). Stereotyping, which comes from both fellow students

and professors, can make college a difficult place for women and minority
student-athletes. While female athletes still struggle with the gender role
for women in sports, student-athletes of color fight against prejudicial
assumptions that they are only in college because of their athletic ability, not
their academic capability (Person et al.).
With the passing of Title IX, the participation of women in athletics soared.
Female student-athletes often experience unique problems. For example,
female student-athletes are more likely to develop eating disorders and
endure sexual harassment than male student-athletes (Person et al., 2001).
Women do not have the same scale of opportunities for post-collegiate
professional athletics as men. Therefore, female athletes are more likely
to focus on their education and non-athletic career path while in college.
Female student-athletes may also face greater role conflict than their male
counterparts (Lance, 2004). Women face many roadblocks such as the
traditional belief that those who play sports possess masculine traits, and
it can be very difficult for them to balance the roles of female, student, and
athlete successfully (Lance).
Along with the normal pressures of sport and school performance, minority
student-athletes also face racism and social integration (Person et al., 2001).
Performance in academics might be hindered for minority student-athletes
because many are the first member of their family to attend college (Hyatt,
2003). These students may not be adequately prepared for college and
often struggle to receive direction and encouragement from their families
regarding their college education or future careers (Hyatt).
As a whole, student-athletes share many characteristics of non-athlete

undergraduate students. Generally, both groups are equally engaged in
learning (Reality Check, 2003) and conscientious of scholastic achievements
(Carodine, Almond & Gratto, 2001). Both student-athletes and non-
athletes must meet developmental challenges, including determining a
career path, increasing self-esteem, and creating relationships (Carodine
et al.). Student-athletes are similar to employed students in that time
constraints affect academic accomplishments (Carodine et al.). Another
common characteristic of athletes and undergraduates is exposure to people
of diverse racial, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds (Howard-Hamilton &
Sina, 2001).
Though athletes share many characteristics with the general student body,
Student-Athletes 57
they also have unique concerns. Student-athletes face a large amount of
pressure placed on them by coaches, peers, the media, and the general
public. The success of athletic teams can have an impact on the reputation
of the university in the eye of the public and prospective students (Howard-
Hamilton & Sina, 2001). Student-athletes are put through rigorous
physical workouts mixed with far-reaching expectations and public scrutiny
(Carodine et al., 2001), forcing them to “constantly cope with balancing the
roles of student and athlete” (Watt & Moore, 2001, p. 7).
Time management is a common problem for student-athletes. They are

stretched between school, practice, competition, and social events and
many find it hard to manage their time. Higher education officials worry
that students in this sub-population often fall behind in their academics
because there just isn’t enough time. Murray Sperber, an English professor
at the University of Indiana, explained that student-athletes are similar to
vocational students because, “They work full time. The athletic scholarship
is their pay, they put in 30 to 40 hours per week on their sports, and it’s just
very hard to get an education when your putting in that amount of time”
(Clayton, 2001, p. 11).
Student-athletes also come from diverse economic backgrounds. While some

athletes are from upper- or middle-class families, many have disadvantaged
backgrounds. Those student-athletes from low-income families often
struggle financially, and subsequently academically, while in college. Because
governing organization regulations allow athletic scholarships to cover only
tuition, fees, room, board, and books, disadvantaged students often find it
hard to meet the daily cost of living (Dunnavant, 2003). For some, even
buying toothpaste can be a burden (Dunnavant).
Historically, the collegiate experience of student-athletes has been

misunderstood by faculty, student affairs professionals, and their non-athlete
peers. Student-athletes face many of the same developmental challenges as
non-athletes. Both athletes and non-athletes must endure age- and life-
stage-related developmental tasks. Unfortunately, for many student-athletes
movement through developmental stages can be particularly difficult.
With such a large and varied population, it is important for student affairs
professionals and administration to recognize and try to understand
the issues that student-athletes face in order to help them be successful
(Howard-Hamilton & Sina, 2001).

Although student-athletes struggle with the same developmental issues as
non-athlete students, they also face additional challenges and pressures that
affect their college experience. Because some institutions allow student-
athletes to be admitted with lower academic standards than non-athlete
students, they may require remedial and development services in order to
catch up to their peers (Clayton, 2001). Athletes are often given praise from
society for their athletic success while at the same time being resented for
privileges associated with being a student-athlete. Many see student-athletes
as “vessels for physical performance” and little else (Valentine & Taub, 1999,
p. 164). Because of this view, the developmental needs of student athletes are
frequently underserved (Valentine & Taub).
Because of their unique status, many student-athletes have concerns that are
unrelated to their academics.Some concerns include role and “identity conflict,
fear of success/failure, social isolation, poor athletic performance, academic
problems, drug/alcohol problems, career-related matters, interpersonal
relationships, athletic injuries,” and intense expectations (Broughton, 2001,
p. 5). John G. Blanchard, director of academic support for athletes at the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, explained the quandary that
many of these students encounter: “A lot of these athletes come in and all of
a sudden they’re facing greater academic challenges than ever before, while
at the same time they’re dealing with the heightened pressure of Division I
athletics” (Farrell, 2002, p. A43). Although non-athlete students face similar
issues, athletes may be less likely to seek out help due to embarrassment
because they are highly-visible individuals on campus, may not have time, or
do not know what resources are available to them (Broughton).
While many within the higher education community are in awe of the
athletic culture that student-athletes live in, and they publicly support
athletic team achievements, there is also a sense of resentment of the abilities
that student-athletes have as well as the opportunities they are afforded.
This often sends mixed messages to the student-athlete and can affect both
educational and personal relationships as well as their ability to develop a
healthy identity. Since most student-athletes’ identity is deeply affected by
their athletic ability, the role-conflicts they encounter may create difficulties
for them as they search for their identity on campus (Hill, Burch-Ragan,
& Yates, 2001). If student-athletes do not learn to balance their roles, and
instead base their identity only on their athletic talent, they may risk even
more difficulties after college (Hill et al., 2001).
Student-Athletes 59
When conflict arises between academics and athletics, often it is the role of
athlete that becomes most important. When this happens it can lead to a
state of “identity foreclosure” that may hinder development of the student-
athlete (Watt & Moore, 2001). For example, if student-athletes are required
to miss class for travel or a competition, “some institutions…do not have
policies to protect these students from being penalized for missing class,”
and the student may be vulnerable to the demands of faculty who have
negative feelings towards athletes (Fletcher, Benshoff, & Richburg, 2003,
p. 36). On the other hand, faculty members might treat student-athletes
favorably, which can imply that these students are held to a different
standard (Fletcher et al.). These situations can lead to both perpetuation of
negative stereotypes of student-athletes and confusion as to the proper role
the student-athlete should play in higher education (Fletcher et al.).
Student-athletes may also struggle with plans for their future when their
athletic careers have ended and may have trouble developing an identity
outside of their athletic identity (Valentine & Taub, 1999). Sexual orientation
may be another element of identity that student-athletes struggle with while
participating in college athletics. Since the culture of athletics generally does
not approve of open homosexuality, the idea of a “gay” athlete is typically not
accepted, and attitudes of traditional gender roles are not flexible (Valentine
& Taub). The degree to which a student-athlete would encounter prejudice
and harassment due to his or her sexual orientation depends on the type of
institution and the region of the country (Valentine & Taub).
The balancing act that student-athletes face may cause them to feel divided.
Research shows that these students struggle with connecting to their campus
community (Carodine et al., 2001). The high level of time commitment to their
sport may cause the student-athlete to feel disconnected from other elements of
college life (Carodine et al.). Despite the time limit of “no more than…twenty
hours a week in structured athletic activities (practice, competition, conditioning,
team meetings),” student-athletes may still feel isolated from peers in their
educational community and may not be motivated to participate in academic or
other extracurricular activities (Carodine et al., p.20). Because of time constraints,
athletes regularly share schedules with teammates and segregate themselves while
in class (Watt & Moore, 2001). Outside of the classroom, there is so little time left
for extracurricular activities that athletes often miss out on socializing (Howard-
Hamilton & Sina, 2001). This can pose a significant problem for colleges and
universities by negatively affecting retention (Carodine et al.).

In addition to adjusting to the academic aspects of college life, student-
athletes must adjust to the rigors of college-level practice and competition
schedules, as well as the intense pressure that coaches and peers place on them
to perform athletically. Often student-athletes struggle to break negative
stereotypes that might be placed on them. The “dumb jock” image remains a
common perception of student-athletes on most college campuses. This can
result in unequal expectations and treatment by faculty and administrators,
and social tension between student-athletes and non-athletes (Fletcher et al.,
2003). Student-athletes are often viewed as receiving preferential treatment
and exhibiting an insincere attitude toward their education (Baucom &
Lantz, 2001). While some studies (Baucom & Lantz) suggested that faculty
hold prejudices toward athletes, other articles (Winning Combination, n.d.)
portrayed a positive connection.
According to Baucom and Lantz (2001), “College student-athletes are

the victims of both negative stereotypes and prejudicial attitudes” (p.
266). Negative attitudes among faculty members often relate to perceived
recognition of special services for athletes. These services include academic
support that is separate from what is offered to the general student body
and priority registration for all athletes (Baucom & Lantz). Many professors
also think athletes are given preferential treatment in the admissions process,
allowing students who are unprepared for college coursework to be fully
admitted (Baucom & Lantz).
Retention and graduation rates of student-athletes have both been pressing

issues in higher education for more than a decade. With billions of dollars
spent every year on intercollegiate athletics, higher education institutions
feel the pressure to graduate student-athletes at rates equal to the general
student population. However, it is interesting to note that historically, the
schools that have a high level of athletic success tend to have lower student-
athlete graduation rates, and the sports that have the least financial support
from their institution, tend to have higher graduation rates (Goldsmith,
2002).
Universities are working to enhance retention and thus increase graduation

rates of student-athletes. There are many variables that contribute to
persistence, including cognitive variables such as grade point average,
standardized test scores, and course grades. However, a 2003 study suggested
that non-cognitive variables are stronger indicators when it comes to
predicting continued enrollment of African American students (Hyatt).
Student-Athletes 61
By providing services to athletes that develop non-cognitive skills such as
goal setting and commitment, retention can be increased. This is especially
important for athletes who entered college only to extend their athletic
careers (Hyatt).
According to the 2005 NCAA Six-Year Graduation Rates report, student-

athletes graduate at higher rates than the non-athlete student population.
This report includes student-athletes who were freshman during 1998-99,
and the rates are calculated on a six-year graduation time period. As shown
in Table 1.6, student-athletes graduate at an average rate of 61% compared
to 56% for non-athletes (Federal Graduation, 2005).
Table 3.6. 2005 Six-Year Graduation Rates (NCAA Schools) for the 1998-99 Freshman Cohort
Division I Division II Division III
Student Athletes 62% 54% 67%

All Students 60% 46% 62%
Note: Information is summarized from Federal Graduation Rates for NCAA Schools. (2005).
Retrieved March 21, 2006 from http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2005/d1_school_data.html.
Table 3.7. 2005 Six-Year Graduation Rates (NCAA Schools) by Gender and Ethnicity for the
1998-99 Freshman Cohort
Division I Division II Division III

Male Female Male Female Male Female
American Indian/
39 63 30 48 ** **
Alaskan Native
Asian/
56 74 33 63 ** **
Pacific Islander
Black/
48 63 38 47 52 33
Non-Hispanic
Hispanic
52 66 44 51 80 50
Nonresident
59 65 60 56 95 75
Alien
Other 48 66 45 56 ** **
White/
59 73 51 63 70 64
Non-Hispanic
Total 55 71 47 60 71 62
Note: Information is summarized from Note from Federal Graduation Rates for NCAA Schools.
(2005). Retrieved March 21, 2006 from http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2005/d1_school_data.
html.
**Information Not Available

Some experts believe that the overall graduation rate of athletes is higher
than the general student population because of factors such as a lesser
amount of financial pressure and abundant academic resources provided to
them as athletes (Welch, 2002). Considering the time commitment that
athletes make in order to compete at the college level, some would argue
that student-athletes face just as many stresses as the non-athlete.
When it comes to serving this student population, the development and use
of specialized services for student-athletes is a growing trend. Traditionally,
athletic departments have provided resources for their student-athletes;
however, institutional student services are playing a more active role in
the lives of athletes. Student services personnel have begun to recognize
the need athletes have for their services, “including reducing the need for
external interventions by helping student-athletes learn to take individual
responsibility for their actions” (Hill et al., 2001, p.67).
Orientation is one program utilized by all students, including student-athletes

(Carodine et al., 2001). Orientation programs are an excellent opportunity
for incoming athletes to interact with incoming non-athletes. Career and
life skills development is another area universities have been expanding
to provide services for student-athletes (Carodine et al.). The University
of Florida has implemented a course that introduces athletes to career
planning, resume writing, obtaining internships, and exploring interests. An
NCAA implemented program (CHAMPS/Life Skills Development) helps
student-athletes develop the skills necessary to succeed in life after sports
(Broughton & Neyer, 2001).
Advising and counseling for student-athletes is also a growing field. Because

of the unique challenges of college life, students and student-athletes often
need the support of counselors. This need can be even greater for athletes
who face six major challenges:
Balancing athletic and academic endeavors, balancing social

activities with the isolation of athletic pursuits, balancing athletic
success or lack of success with maintenance of mental equilibrium,
balancing physical health and injuries with the need to keep playing,
balancing the demands of various relationships…and dealing with
the termination of an athletic career. (Broughton & Neyer, 2001,
p. 47)
Student-Athletes 63
Advisors can help student-athletes cope with these challenges by teaching
them to approach their schoolwork, social life, and personal life with the
same skills they use to succeed in athletics.
The National Association of Advisors for Athletes was created in an effort

to meet the advising and counseling needs of student-athletes. “Academic
advising, life skills development, clinical counseling, and performance
enhancement” are the four major areas in which athletes require assistance
(Broughton & Neyer, 2001, p. 48). Advisors and counselors must realize that
athletes have pressures and demands that require additional knowledge on
the part of the professional. Compliance with NCAA, NJCAA, or NAIA
regulations can also affect the ways in which advisors perform their duties
(Broughton & Neyer).
Student-athletes share many of the benefits experienced by the general student

body including exposure to diversity and the opportunity to earn a degree.
Those who earn a college degree have a greater lifetime earning potential
than individuals who do not achieve a college degree (McKenzie & Lee,
1998). Student-athletes also receive benefits from their college experience
that other students do not. For example, most athletic departments provide
academic support services, including academic counselors, tutors, study
skills specialists, learning specialists, and study hall, which assist athletes
in completing their degree. Athletic scholarships provide opportunities
for student-athletes who might not otherwise be able to afford a college
education; this is particularly true for Division I, II, and NAIA student-
athletes. Female student-athletes report that “their athletic status provides
them with a greater opportunity to learn social skills, gain opportunities, and
be more assertive” (Sellers, Kuperminc, & Damas, Jr., 1997, p. 715). Female
student-athletes also benefit from their athletic participation by developing
higher self-esteem and a higher level of identity development than their
non-athlete peers (Young & Bursik, 2000).
Student-athletes are not only a commodity in their sport arena, but they
can also be valuable assets to the campus community. They enhance school
spirit, promote student and alumni involvement, bring national recognition
to an institution, participate in community service, and appeal to prospective
students (Broughton, 2001). Student-athletes are a diverse subpopulation
of undergraduate students. Though they share many characteristics of the
general student body, athletes face unique challenges and pressures. In the
world of colleges and universities, for student-athletes, it is the balance

between academia and athletics that leads to success. The presence and
participation of student-athletes in the American higher education system
is a positive asset as they are an important element of educational diversity.
In the future it will be important for student services personnel to continue
to reach out to student-athletes. Strong advising and counseling programs
along with integration into the general student body will help facilitate
student-athletes’ developmental processes while creating academic, career,
and social success.
Student-Athletes 65
References
Baucom, C. & Lantz, C. D. (2001). Faculty attitudes toward male division II

student-athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(3), 265-276.
Broughton, E (2001). Counseling and Support Services for College Student

Athletes. Boston, MA: American College Personnel Association. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 449460).
Broughton, E. & Neyer, M. (2001). Advising and counseling student athletes.

New Directions for Student Services, 93, 47-52.
Carodine, K., Almond, K. E & Gratto, K. K. (2001). College student athlete

success both in and out of the classroom. New Directions for Student
Services, 93, 19-33.
Clayton, M. (2001). Welcome to College, Mr. Jones. Christian Science

Monitor, 93(50), 11-12.
Dunnavant, K. (2003, October 16). Where athletic scholarships fall short.

Business Week Online, N.PAG. Retrieved October 25, 2004 from
EBSCOHOST Research Database.
Farrell, E.F. (2002). Charges of Academic Wrongdoing Roll Another Sports

Powerhouse. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(36), A43-45.
Federal Graduation Rates for NCAA Schools. (2005). Retrieved March 21, 2006
from http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2005/d1_school_data.html.
Ferrante, A.P., Etzel, E., & Lantz, C. (1996). Counseling College Student-
Athletes: The Problem, the Need. In E. Etzel, A. Ferrante, & J. Pinkney,
Counseling college student-athletes: Issues and interventions (2nd ed., pp.
3-26). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Fletcher, T.B., Benshoff, J.M. & Richburg, M.J. (2003). A Systems Approach
to Understanding and Counseling College Student-Athletes. Journal of
College Counseling, 6(1), 35-46.
Goldsmith, S. (2002). Graduation blues; Sheepskin totals obscure major

failures in big money sports like football and men’s basketball. U.S. News
& World Report, 132(8), 69.

Hill, K., Burch-Ragan, K. M., & Yates, D.Y. (2001). Current and future
issues and trends facing student athletes and athletic programs. New
Directions for Student Services, 93, 65-80.
Howard-Hamilton, M.F. & Sina, J. A. (2001). How college affects student

athletes. New Directions for Student Services, 93, 35-45.
Hyatt, R. (2003). Barriers to persistence among African American

intercollegiate athletes: A literature review of non-cognitive variables.
College Student Journal, 37(2), 260-276.
Lance, L. (2004). Gender differences in perceived role conflict among

university student-athletes. College Student Journal, 38(2), 179-190.
McKenzie, R. B., & Lee, D. R. (1998, November/December). Getting rich

in America. Society, 20-25.
NCAA Study of International Student-Athletes. (1996) Retrieved February

15, 2006 from http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/international_s-
a/1996_international_s-a.pdf.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (n.d.) 1981-82 - 2003-04 NCAA

Sports Sponsorship and Participation Report NCAA [Data file]. Available
from http://www.ncaa.org/library/research/participation_rates/1982-
2005/1982_2005_participation_rates.pdf.
National Collegiate Athletic Association (n.d.) 1999-00 – 2003-04 NCAA

Student-Athlete Ethnicity Report [Data file]. Available from http://
www.ncaa.org/library/research/ethnicity_report/2003-04/2003-04_
ethnicity_report.pdf.
Person, D., Benson-Quaziena, M., & Rogers, A. (2001). Female student

athletes and student athletes of color. New Directions for Student Services,
93, 55-64.
Reality Check: Survey gives schools news they can use. (2003, December).
University Business, 6, 9.
Sellers, R. M., Kuperminc, G. P. & Damas, Jr., A. (1997). The college life
experience of African American women athletes. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 25, 699-720.
Student-Athletes 67
Watt, S. K. & Moore, III, J. L. (2001). Who are student athletes? New
Directions for Student Services, 93, 7-18.
Winning combination. (n.d.) Retrieved April 13, 2004 from http://www.

lagrange.edu/primary.cfm?linkid=905.
Young, J. & Bursik, K. (2000). Identity development and life plan maturity: a
comparison of women athletes and nonathletes. Sex Roles, 43, 241-254.
Valentine, J.J. & Taub, D.J. (1999). Responding to the developmental needs
of student athletes. Journal of College Counseling, 2,164-179.

CHAPTER 4
African American Students

Andrew J. Mauk and Willis A. Jones
African American college students are among the most researched

populations in higher education today. The ongoing interest in African
American student development appears to have paralleled the increasing
number of African American students enrolling in college. As more
institutions look to increase the number of African Americans on their
campuses, administrators should understand the unique characteristics,
issues, and concerns facing these students. African American students are
not a monolithic group. They have a wide range of backgrounds, beliefs, and
aspirations. In general, however, there are several distinctive qualities about
the cultural, personal, and social contexts of African American students
that make them unique to the higher education community. By researching
African American student development, college administrators and faculty
can glean valuable insight on how to adequately prepare for future changes in
enrollment demographics while recognizing the challenges faced by current
student cohorts. Allen, Jayakumar, Griffin, Korn and Hurtado (2005) found
that dramatic changes have occurred among African American populations
on college and university campuses; however, many of the archaic, racial
disparities still exist.
The authors aim to present a thorough review of the historical and current
literature on the major issues facing African American students. This chapter
combines demographic data and student development theory in an effort
to address key developmental issues faced by African American students
on college campuses. Additionally, this chapter will address both retention
African-American Students 69
and attrition challenges faced by college administrators and faculty as they
relate to African American students. By examining the perceived benefits
of obtaining a college education, the authors will offer recommendations on
how to address future generations of African American college students.
Demographics and Trends
For the past three decades, the number of African Americans enrolling
in institutions of higher education has increased (Fleming, 1984; U.S.
Department of Education, 2002; Allen et al., 2005). In the fall semester of
2002, 1,978,700 African Americans were enrolled in college, a 58.7% increase
since 1990. This shift compares to a 20.2% increase for the entire general
student population (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Because of this
dramatic rise in enrollment, institutions have become much more attuned
to issues facing African American students. However, critics maintain that
access to higher education has not effectively kept pace with population
growth, as African American students make up 11.9% of the total college
enrollment, compared to the 12.8% that comprise the general population
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 2002). While
more African Americans are going to college than ever before, colleges and
universities must continue to strive for better access for members of this
group.
In terms of gender, African American women are significantly outpacing

their male counterparts by increasing margins. According to recent data
from the U.S. Department of Education (2002), women comprise 56.6% of
all college students across all racial groups. In fall 2002, 1,270,200 African
American women (64.2%) were enrolled in institutions of higher education,
compared to just 708,000 Black males (35.8%). This widening gender gap,
while similar to other racial sub-groups, could mark a significant concern
for leaders in the African American community, particularly since this gap
is larger for African Americans than all other ethnic groups by a significant
margin.
Although American Indian students have a similar gender gap (60.4%

women to 39.6% men), this group is much smaller than African Americans,
with just 165,900 enrolled American Indians, less than one-tenth the size
of the African American student population. International students are the
only sub-group that enrolls more men than women in college. An additional

concern for student affairs professionals is that projections indicate female
enrollment will expand by 21% during the next decade, compared to just
12% for men (Hussar, 2005). If this trend holds, African American women
will outnumber Black men in colleges and universities by an almost 2-to-1
ratio.
African American students received 237,615 college degrees in the 2002-

2003 academic year (Knapp et al., 2005). Of that total, 117,774 were
baccalaureate degrees, which accounted for 8.7% of the total number of
bachelors degrees awarded during that academic year. Comparatively,
African Americans “are still less likely to complete college than Whites, but
more likely to complete college than Hispanics” (Hoffman & Llagas, 2003,
p. 106).
The majority of baccalaureate degrees earned by African Americans

are in the business and social science disciplines. Most notably, African
Americans earn degrees in these fields at rates higher than the national
average (Hoffman & Llagas, 2003). Of the total number of degrees awarded
to African Americans, women received 67.3% compared to 32.7% for men
(Knapp et al., 2005). It is expected that women will continue to earn more
collegiate degrees over the next decade, across all racial and ethnic sub-
groups (Hussar, 2005).
One should note that African Americans earn the highest number of doctoral
degrees among all racial minority groups, with the highest number of these
degrees earned in the areas of education, business, professional fields and
social sciences (Hoffer et al., 2005). Black students received 1,869 doctoral
degrees in 2004, more than any other racial minority group. This number
represents a 96% increase in degrees awarded since 1984. However, this
increase lagged behind the massive growth of Asians and Hispanic students
in that same time period (Hoffer et al., 2005). Asian students accounted
for 1,449 doctoral degrees in 2004, an increase of 183% during the 20-year
period, while Hispanics graduated 1,177 students with doctoral degrees, a
120% growth during that same time period (Hoffer et al., 2005).
Differences and Similarities
Research suggested that African American students are not as academically

prepared for college as their White or Asian counterparts (Hu & St. John,
2001; Nettles, 1990). This achievement gap begins at a relatively young age.
Before children complete elementary school, academic performance gaps
between races exist in the areas of reading, math, and English composition
(Allen et al., 2005; Choy, 2001; Johnston, 2000). By the time students
enter high school, these gaps grow considerably. African American 12th
graders score at roughly the same levels in reading and math as White 8th
graders ( Johnston, 2000). When looking at traditional indicators of college
success, African Americans on average score 4.9 points less on the ACT
than White students and 5.1 points less than Asian students (ACT, 2005).
In fact, African Americans on average are reported to receive the lowest
composite ACT score among all of the ethnic and racial minority groups
(ACT, 2005). The average SAT score of Black students is 855 compared to a
score of 1059 for White students (College Board, 2005). In 2004, only 28%
of African American college freshmen reported high school GPAs of ‘A’ or
better compared to 48% of the general freshmen population (Allen et al.,
2005).
Many African American students are also first-generation students (Choy,

2001; Nuñez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). First-generation students are
defined as students from families in which neither parent attended college
(Choy, 2001). Of the 43% of new freshmen who are first-generation students,
9% are African American (Nuñez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). These students
face significant disadvantages in gaining access to post-secondary education
including limited access to information about the college experience (Thayer,
2000), lack of specific types of college knowledge (Vargas, 2004), and lack of
family support (Thayer, 2000).
Additionally, African American students exhibit a set of characteristics and

values unique to their culture once they arrive on college campuses. Many
African American students aspire to obtain the highest levels of education
possible. As demonstrated earlier, African American students are pursuing
terminal degrees at higher rates. Twenty-four percent of African American
students intended to obtain PhDs, as compared to just 17% of the general
population of students (Allen et al., 2005). African American students are
more likely to desire medical and Juris Doctorate degrees than the general
student population (Allen et al., 2005). However, when compared to this high
percentage intending to pursue advanced degrees, it should be noted that
many African American students are not achieving their initial educational

goals, as Blacks account for only 7.2% of the total number of total doctoral
degrees awarded to those with a known race (Hoffer et al., 2005).
In terms of political affiliations, African American students are more

likely to identify themselves as “far left or liberal” than the general student
population (Allen et al., 2005, p. 21). This trend is very consistent with the
general population of African Americans, as evidenced by the fact that 88%
of African Americans who voted cast their ballot for Democrat John Kerry
in the 2004 U.S. presidential election (Election Results, 2004). However,
African American students are increasingly more conservative than their
collegiate predecessors. Allen et al. found that 50% of Black freshmen in
1971 were liberal politically, but “by 2004, that percentage had decreased to
36%” (2005, p. 21). Allen et al. stated that current African American students
held conservative viewpoints in terms of abortion choice and homosexual
relationship laws.
Consistent with these conservative viewpoints, African Americans are also

the most religious student population in terms of racial groups. In a study
conducted by UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute, Black students
led Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian and Hawaiian students
in 7 out of 12 spiritual categories, including church attendance, charitable
involvement, and spirituality (Duin, 2005). Overall, nearly one-third of
Black students stated spiritual growth and following religious teachings
were important, compared with less than 20% of White and Asian students
(Duin, 2005).
Much like their unique affinity to religion and spirituality that African
American populations exhibit, so too are their sources for motivation unique.
African American students are motivated differently than the general college
population. Astin (1998) found that most college students value personal and
materialistic success. Seventy-five percent of all college students said that they
attended college in hopes of earning better salaries in the workforce (Astin,
1998). While it is reasonable to assume that African American students are
also attending college for future financial gain, Thornton (2004) found that
African American students place more value on familial relationships and
community involvement than on material wealth.
Several other values and characteristics distinguish Black students from

the general college student population. Research shows African American
students to be twice as likely as Caucasian students to report that they
are open to involvement in an interracial relationship (Knox, Zusman,
Buffington & Hemphill, 2000), are less likely to abuse alcohol and other
substances (Infofacts, 2001), and are less accepting of homosexuality (Nagy
& Eiseman, 2005). However, the African American student population
is experiencing an upsurge in AIDS and other STDs as compared to
other student populations due to risky sexual encounters with other men,
even though many African American men do not classify themselves as
homosexual (Associated Press, 2004).
Despite these vast differences in spirituality, sexual behavior, and political

affiliations, Black college students have many similarities with all other
student populations on campus. As the Millennial Generation enters higher
education, research has shown them to be technologically savvy, sheltered,
and very confident (DeBard, 2004). Millennial students study less, work
off campus more, and commit less to working on important issues such as
the environment than ever before (DeBard, 2004). Many African American
students fall into one if not all of these categories.
College Student Development
Although African Americans have been a focal point among researchers for
many years, serious attempts to explain African American college student
development did not begin in earnest until the 1970s. During this period,
researchers began to delve into racial identity theories. During the past
30 years, these theories have weathered significant scrutiny and have been
modified to explain the development of an ever-changing populace. William
Cross was among the first researchers to theorize that African Americans
develop an identity of self in a manner much different than previous theorists
had proposed. Cross (1971, 1991) suggested that African Americans develop
through stages of recognition of their place in a predominantly White society.
He referred to this development as the Psychology of Nigresence.
The theory of Nigrescence, refined during the course of several decades of

research, suggested that African Americans develop their personal identity as
a result of significant experiences that force them to re-evaluate their worth
in American society. Cross (1971, 1991) defined five stages of development:
Pre-Encounter, Encounter, Immersion-Emersion, Internalization, and
Internalization-Commitment. In short, Cross determined that “Nigresence
is a resocializing experience; it seeks to transform a preexisting identity

(a non-Afrocentric identity) into one that is Afrocentric” (1991, p. 190).
Through a series of occurrences that force African Americans to examine
their self-worth, Cross argued that the development continues during several
years, if not decades.
Many African American college students enter college while in the

Immersion-Emersion stage. This stage is often marked by an in-depth
examination of their African heritage. Becoming Afrocentric is significant
to these students, and often, trust of White faculty and staff is difficult
(Cross, 1991). Administrators should be cognizant of the behaviors of
students who are in this developmental stage and provide an environment
that not only allows for immersion into Africanism, but also encourages
development and acceptance of one’s heritage. Moreover, administrators also
should be prepared for potential detrimental consequences within identity
development. Howard-Hamilton (1997) found that African American men
that display high levels of Afrocentric identity have lower academic success
than other men.
While Cross’s Psychology of Nigresence is one of the most cited theories

for African American student development, it is not the only theory that
attempts to explain the issues faced by Black students on college campuses.
Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, and Smith (1997) attempted to “reconcile
the inconsistencies in the research on racial identity” (p. 805). They argued
that previous attempts to define African American racial identity did not
adequately conceptualize what it means to be African American.They created
the Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity (MMRI) as a method for
measuring and defining racial identity. As opposed to Cross’s theory, the
MMRI does not “suppose particular sets of behavior or thoughts associated
with specific stages of racial identity development” (Ervin, 2001). This new
model provided depth to the previous stage development theories, allowing
researchers to fully capture the breadth of a student’s development.
The MMRI measures the self-esteem of African American college students

and utilizes four dimensions: salience, how important being African
American is to the overall self-concept of an individual; centrality, the extent
to which African Americans use their race to define themselves; ideology,
the individual’s personal beliefs regarding what behaviors are appropriate
for African Americans; and regard, the relative evaluation of one’s own race
in positive and negative views (Sellers et al., 1997). Upon understanding
that self-esteem is a significant contribution to African American racial
identity, college faculty and administrators should be encouraged to create
meaningful opportunities that allow these students to integrate cultural
heritage with self-affirming experiences.
In terms of social and cognitive development, McEwen, Roper, Bryant

and Langa (1990) argued that many of the previous models of student
development were created utilizing a Eurocentric model–or those based
on students of traditional Western European descent. The authors stated
that student affairs professionals should continue to address the issues
faced by African American college students by creating workable models
forged from the experiences of these students. Johnson (2003) created
one such model by recommending that programs designed to stimulate
the psychosocial development of African American college students be
based on the Nguzo Saba, or the seven principles, of Kwanzaa. By allowing
students to delve into their cultural heritage, Johnson argued that the lives
of Black students on college campuses can be incorporated with the ideas
of unity, self-determination, collective work and responsibility, cooperative
economics, purpose, creativity, and faith ( Johnson, 2001). Hardiman
and Jackson (1992) recommended that faculty and staff strive to educate
themselves about African American racial identity development and create
environments that allow students to progress through their development.
By doing so, they believe that student affairs administrators can help correct
social injustices of the past and that African American college students will
have more opportunities for success.
College Student Retention
Due to the increased emphasis on accountability on college campuses,

retention has become an important topic. The factors associated with college
student persistence have been examined from numerous angles: Astin’s
Theory of Involvement (1993) and Tinto’s Theory of Departure (1987) are
two of the most cited frameworks. Recent attempts to explain the retention
and attrition rates of African Americans are commonly found to exist in the
literature. Researchers have discovered that background characteristics such
as standardized test scores, high school GPA and socioeconomic background
are typically positive predictors of student persistence (Stoecker, Pascarella,
& Wolfe, 1988; Tinto, 1987), although there is a continuing debate about
the reliability of standardized test scores and high school performance in
predicting African American students’ persistence (Astin, Tsui, & Avalos,

1996; Hollingsworth, Walker, & Anderson, 1997; Oseguera, 2005). As a
counterpoint to this argument, the most recent research suggested that
the rigor of one’s college preparation is the strongest predictor of college
academic success, regardless of race or ethnicity (Adelman, 2006; Oseguera,
2005).
While the evidence defining retention predictors based on pre-

college academic preparation and performance is strong, many colleges and
universities are simply unable to recruit only academically prepared African
American students due to the intense level of competition among colleges. So,
in turn, administrators and faculty have created new methods for increasing
retention by implementing strong support networks, academic assistance
programs, and social environments that are conducive to academic success
(Flowers, 2004; Good, Halpin, & Halpin; Schwartz & Washington, 1999).
Academic support programs have resulted in significant retention increases.
Yet, the researchers cautioned that African Americans that are involved
in too many programs may have lower overall GPAs, which limit their
academic success (Good, Halpin, & Halpin, 2002). This paradoxical result
of increasing retention while lowering academic performance should be a
source of concern for administrators. Colleges must be cautious in blindly
increasing retention efforts without developing a strategy for increasing and
enhancing academic performance.
Administrators must be intentional in encouraging African American

students to balance their involvement on campus, as research has indicated
that increased social networks have positive effects on self-esteem (Rowley,
Sellers, Chavous, & Smith, 1998) and academic performance (Peltier, Laden,
& Matranga, 1999). Faculty and administrators should also encourage
African American students to identify an academic major early in their
academic career, as this has a positive effect on retention by focusing student’s
aspirations on a potential degree and profession (Hagedorn, Maxwell, &
Hampton, 2001).
Related to these findings, many institutions have implemented peer-to- peer

and faculty-to-student mentoring programs as retention initiatives. LaVant,
Anderson, and Tiggs (1997) found that African American males benefited
more positively than African American females in formalized support
systems that promote achievement. Programs such as the Student African
American Brotherhood (S.A.A.B.) will be discussed in further detail later
in this chapter. The researchers recommended that continued resources and
executive administration involvement can assist institutions in increasing
the retention and graduation rates of African American males.
Schwartz and Washington (1999) found that African American females

persisted at increased rates in both positive academic and social environments.
Interestingly, while racial support was helpful, these women achieved
academic success regardless of racial interactions socially. Trippi and Baker
(1989) indicated that African American females who had roommates
with comparable academic ability performed at higher levels than did
African American females with roommates with much lower academic
ability, regardless of the race of the roommate. Administrators should be
intentional about providing positive academic environments, especially in
single-sex residence halls and living groups, because the evidence suggested
that academic performance for Black women is influenced more by peer
ability than by social interactions regarding race. In other words, having
a roommate of similar race has an adverse effect on performance if that
roommate is a weak student. For Black women, persistence is correlated to
finding a strong support person and having the ability to adjust socially in
all racial settings (Schwartz & Washington, 1999).
Research has indicated that this intense focus on persistence and graduation
may not be resulting in significant results. Horn and Berger (2004) studied
two cohorts of students across the nation: one that began in 1989 and one
that began in 1995. For the overall groups, the members of the 1989 cohort
completed a collegiate degree (certificate, Associate’s or Bachelor’s) or were
still enrolled (persistence) after five years at a rate of 63% compared to the
1996 cohort’s 65%. For African American students, the results indicated
that the 1989 cohort had a completion or a five-year persistence rate of
55.3% compared to the 1995 cohort’s 54.9%. Horn and Berger did not
attribute this overall decrease to any particular factor, nor did they find the
difference significant.
The completion rate of Black students decreased over time, indicating that
more students are taking longer to graduate than before, and thus persisting
at institutions for longer periods of time with the intention of eventually
graduating. Horn and Berger (2004) indicated that this persistence could be
due to numerous external factors, such as decreases in federal aid, increases in
student debt, and a greater number of African American students who work
through their undergraduate career. In turn, Oseguera (2005) recommended
that institutions be more mindful of student-faculty interactions for African

American students, as improved relations have a direct effect on graduation
rates. Increased non-loan financial aid also enhances degree completion for
African American students (Oseguera, 2005). Student affairs administrators
should be aware of these issues and strive to assist African American college
students complete their college careers.
College Degree Benefits
The number of African American students entering college and obtaining

a degree has consistently increased since the 1960s (National Center
for Educational Statistics, 1999). The increase in the number of African
American college graduates is beneficial for both the individual student and
the African American community as a whole. For the individual student,
a college degree results in a substantial increase in earning potential. An
individual holding a college degree typically earns approximately twice the
annual income of an individual who does not complete college (College
Board, n.d.). This statistic holds true for African Americans as well. An
African American woman with a college degree earns 84% more annually
than an African American woman with no college experience ($39,765 vs.
$21,572.). For African American men, a college degree pays off in a 72%
increase ($48,831 vs. $28,434) in earnings annually (U.S. Census Bureau,
2005).
Although education pays off in higher earnings, the inequities in the annual

earnings of comparably educated African Americans and Caucasians
remain substantial. Overall, African American college graduates earned 79
cents for every dollar earned by comparable Whites (U.S. Census Bureau,
2005). This inadequacy is not as evident when comparing similarly educated
women. African American and Caucasian women with a college degree
earn virtually the same amount ($40,532 for White women vs. $39,765 for
Black women). African American women with a college degree, however,
earn about $18,000 per year less than White men with the same level of
education (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005).
In addition to higher earnings, African American students reap benefits

beyond a college degree itself. They are half as likely to be unemployed
compared to all people with only a high school education, have less than
one-third the overall poverty rate of high school graduates, and are much
less likely to be incarcerated (Wiles, 2004). Studies also reveal that African
American college graduates are healthier, more likely to volunteer their
time, vote, and donate blood at rates higher than African American non-
college graduates (Wiles, 2004). In addition, a college degree aids African
Americans by increasing their overall knowledge and skills, increasing their
ability to express thoughts clearly in speech and in writing, and increasing
their ability to grasp abstract concepts and theories (College Board, n.d.).
A college degree has an even greater effect on the overall African American
community when compared to the White community. As noted earlier,
there is a documented achievement gap between African American and
Caucasian children. This gap begins to develop as early as the preschool and
kindergarten levels. One possible means of beginning to close this gap is to
provide more resources for African Americans to attend and subsequently
graduate from college. Wiles (2004) found that preschool children whose
parents have a college degree are more proficient with letters and numbers
than their counterparts. Other factors influencing the African American/
Caucasian achievement gap are socioeconomic status and school conditions
(Lee, 2002). As more African American students earn college diplomas,
these variables are also expected to improve during the next 30 years. This
will result in the further narrowing of the achievement gap between African
Americans and Whites.
Model Programs
With more African American students on campus, many university

administrators are initiating programs to help ensure their success. Many of
these programs can serve as models for other colleges and universities and
were selected because of their innovation and performance outcomes.
Peer Mentoring at the University of Virginia
As African Americans enter college, they face many challenges including, but
not limited to, ignorance about Black culture (Allen, 1992), and a curricula,
teaching style, student services, and campus environment generally tailored
to White students (Taylor, 1989). In an effort to make Black students feel
more comfortable on campus, in 1984 the University of Virginia created the
Peer Advisor Program. The program pairs new African American students
with upperclassmen. The upperclassmen served as advisors for five to eight
new students with similar interests, advising them on their schoolwork as

well as supplying a friendly face to socialize with and answer questions about
university life. Mentors frequently made phone calls and sent frequent e-
mails to students checking on their adjustment to campus. The program also
had group activities that provided everything from tutoring and help with
study skills to career exploration and social opportunities (Swensen, 2001).
Virginia’s year-long Peer Advisor Program has yielded remarkable results.

According to a study of African American student graduation rates published
by the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Virginia’s six-year graduation
rate for Black students was 87%, ranking it ninth in the country among
all institutions and first among public institutions (Swensen, 2001). While
many other schools have attempted to create similar mentoring programs
for African American students, most are not as detailed as The University
of Virginia, where the administration is also very supportive of the program.
Mentors are chosen after a lengthy selection process, including a written
application, essays, and interviews. They are expected to be very involved
in the lives of their students and to serve as role models for all minority
students.
Student African American Brotherhood
In 1990, Dr. Tyrone Bledsoe founded the Student African American

Brotherhood (SAAB) at Georgia Southwestern State University. As
reported by Bledsoe and Rowe (2006) in African American Men in College,
the organization has grown to include chapters at more than 84 colleges
and universities throughout the United States with 41 initiative chapters
seeking permanent status at other institutions since its inception.
The rapid growth of the organization is due in part to its dedication in

responding to the issue of African American men entering college but
failing to earn a bachelor’s degree. The goal of the SAAB is to assist African
American men to excel academically, socially, culturally, personally, and
professionally. The organization gives African American male college
students the opportunity to congregate and discuss the issues they face as
students and men on campus. SAAB also provides African American male
freshmen the opportunity to have mentors (both faculty and upperclassmen)
throughout their critical early stages of college.
Many students have expressed satisfaction with SAAB’s ability to aid in

their adjustment to college, their ability to connect and bond with other
male students, and the positive effects the mentors have on their academic
abilities. As the organization continues to evolve, SAAB has demonstrated
its ability to adjust to many types of campuses. SAAB chapters can currently
be found at large state institutions, (e.g., The University of Texas at Austin),
small historically Black colleges (e.g., North Carolina Central University),
and some community colleges (e.g., Foothill College).
For institutions needing to increase the retention of African American men

on campus, the establishment of SAAB chapters could be a first step in
the process. More information on the SAAB can be found online (http://
www.2cusaab.org/).
Black Men-Only Living-Learning Communities
One of the most controversial plans to increase minority success in college

was undertaken by the University of West Georgia. Living-learning
communities have become a popular way to help ensure that more first-year
students become second-year students. Participants in these communities
live in the same residence hall or on the same floor of a specific hall and take
many of the same courses together. The idea is to integrate students’ academic
and non-academic lives and to create an environment where students will
help one another succeed ( Jaschik, 2005).
Students selected for these living-learning communities on most campuses

are typically separated by class or major. The University of West Georgia,
however, created a community specifically for African American males. The
goal of this community is to help “Black male students improve academically
while challenging the negative images of Black men that pervade society”
( Jaschik, 2005, ¶ 2). The program began in the fall of 2005 with 25 new
freshmen living in the same dormitory and attending the same five classes.
It is hoped that this program results in a higher GPA and retention rate for
the students involved. If successful, more colleges and universities may look
at this model as a way of increasing African American academic success at
predominately White institutions.
Conclusion
While African Americans are still underrepresented in institutions of higher

education, dramatic changes during the past 30 years have yielded some
promising results (Cuyjet, 1997). Yet, African American college students

still lag in achievement behind their Caucasian and Asian counterparts, and
are now competing for attention on campuses with an increasing Hispanic
population. For decades, educational researchers have delved into the social,
psychological, and cognitive development of African American students,
with many surprising results. Student affairs administrators have utilized the
massive amount of literature to create more intentional programs that assist
African American college students in developing positive self-esteem and
an increased sense of personal identity. These programs have also enriched
the lives of African American students, helping them to achieve higher
levels of educational success than any previous generation.
Ultimately, though, institutions of higher education must continue to rework

the traditional models, realizing that the ever-changing demographics of
African American students will continue to alter the landscape of higher
education and American society. By implementing programs that can create
a strong racial identity, such as brotherhood and sisterhood mentoring
programs and single-race residence halls, colleges may be able to create
significant gains in enrollment, retention, and ultimately, graduation. If
institutions can realize some of these goals, African Americans can continue
to make positive contributions to society both during and after college.
References
ACT. (2005). ACT Newsroom: National and state scores. Retrieved January 26,
2006, from http://www.act.org/news/data/05/pdf/t1-2.pdf
Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From

High School Through College. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
Allen, W. R. (1992). The color of success: African American college student

outcomes at predominantly White and historically Black public college
and universities. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1), 26-44.
Allen, W. R., Jayakumar, U. M., Griffin, K. A., Korn, W., & Hurtado, S.
(2005). Black undergraduates from Bakke to Grutter: Freshmen status,
trends and prospects, 1971–2004. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education
Research Institute.
Associated Press (2004). AIDS hitting young Black males in college. Retrieved
January 14, 2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4240372
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisted. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1998). The Changing American College Student: Twenty-Year

Trend, 1966-1996. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 115-135.
Astin, A. W., Tsui, L., & Avalos, J. (1996). Degree attainment rates at
American colleges and universities: Effects of race, gender, and institutional
types (Report No. HE 029589). Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education
Research Institute (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
400749).
Bledsoe, T., & Rome, K. D. (2006). Student African American brotherhood.
In M. J. Cuyjet (Ed.). African American Men in College. (pp. 257-264).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Choy, S. P. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary

access, persistence, and attainment. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf.

College Board. (n.d.). Why get a college degree. Retrieved January 14, 2006,
from http://www.collegeboard.com/student/plan/starting-points/156.
html
College Board. (2005). 2005 College-bound seniors: Total group profile

report. Retrieved January 26, 2006, from http://www.collegeboard.com/
prod_downloads/about/news_info/cbsenior/yr2005/2005-college-
bound-seniors.pdf
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1971). Negro-to-Black conversion experience. BlackWorld,

2, 13-27.
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African American identity.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Cuyjet, M. J. (1997). African American men on college campuses: Their

needs and their perceptions. New Directions for Student Services, 80, 5-
16.
DeBard, R. (2004). Millennials go to college. New Directions for Student

Services, 106, 33-45.
Duin, J. (2005). Black students are more religious. The Washington Times.
Retrieved January 26 2006, from http://www.washtimes.com/
national/20051006-121718-5513r.htm
Election Results. (2004). Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.cnn.

com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Ervin, K. S. (2001). Multiculturalism, diversity, and African American

college students: Receptive, yet skeptical? Journal of Black Studies, 31(6),
764-776.
Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college: A comparative study of students’ success in
Black and in White institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Flowers, L. A. (2004). Retaining African American students in higher

education: An integrative review. Journal of College Student Retention,
6(1), 23-35.
Good, J., Halpin, G, & Halpin, G. (2002). Retaining Black students in

engineering: Do minority programs have a longitudinal impact? Journal
of College Student Retention, 3(4), 351-364.
Hagedorn, L. S., Maxwell, W., & Hampton, P. (2001). Correlates of retention
for African American males in community colleges. Journal of College
Student Retention, 3(3), 243-263.
Hardiman, R. & Jackson, B. W. (1992). Racial identity development:

Understanding racial dynamics in college classrooms and on campus.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 52, 21-37.
Hoffer, T. B., Welch, Jr., V., Williams, K., Hess, M., Webber, K., Lisek, B.,
et al. (2005). Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary
report 2004. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center. Retrieved
March 29, 2006, from http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/sed-2004.
pdf
Hoffman, K., & Llagas, C. (2003). Status and trends in the education of Blacks,
(NCES 2003-034). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Retrieved April 8, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003034.
pdf
Hollingsworth, K., Walker, R., & Anderson, T. (1997). Using the DEA in
the examination of the retention of African American males. Challenge:
A Journal of Research of African American Men, 8(1), 17-25.
Horn, L., & Berger, R. (2004). College persistence on the rise? Changes in 5-
year degree completion and postsecondary persistence rates between 1994
and 2000 (NCES 2005-156). U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office. Retrieved April 7, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2005/2005156.pdf
Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (1997).Theory to practice: Applying developmental

theories relevant to African American men. New Directions for Student
Hu, S., & St. John, E. P. (2001). Student persistence in a public higher
education system: Understanding racial and ethnic differences. The
Journal of Higher Education, 72(3), 265-285.
Hussar, W. J. (2005). Projections of education statistics to 2014 (NCES 2005-

074). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education

Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved
March 31, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005074_1.pdf
Infofacts (2001). Racial and ethnic differences in alcohol and other drug.
Campus Blues. Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://www.campusblues.
com/drugs9.asp
Jaschik, S. (2005). For Black men only. Inside Higher Education.

Retrieved January 21, 2006, from http://www.insidehighered.com/
news/2005/08/24/westga
Johnson, V. D. (2001). The Nguzo Saba as a foundation for African American

college student development theory. Journal of Black Studies, 31(4), 406-
422.
Johnson, V. D. (2003). A comparison of European and African-based

psychologies and their implications for African American college
student development. Journal of Black Studies, 33(6), 817-829.
Johnston, R. C. (2000). Unmet promise: Rising minority achievement.

Education Week, 19(27), 1-5.
Knapp, L. G., Kelly-Reid, J. E., Whitmore, R. W., Wu, S., Gallego, L., Cong,
J., et al. (2005). Postsecondary Institutions in the United States: Fall 2003
and Degrees and Other Awards Conferred: 2002-03 (NCES 2005-154).
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics. Retrieved April 8, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2005/2005154.pdf
Knox, D., Zusman, M. E., Buffington, C., & Hemphill, G. (2000). Interracial
dating attitudes among college students. College Student Journal, 34,
193-200.
LaVant, B. D., Anderson, J. L., & Tiggs, J. W. (1997). Retaining African
American men through mentoring initiatives. New Directions for Student
Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the
progress toward equality? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 2-12.
McEwen, M. K., Roper, L. D., Bryant, D. R., & Langa, M. J. (1990).

Incorporating the development of African American students into
psychosocial theories of student development. Journal of College Student
Development, 31, 429-436.
Nagy, C., & Eiseman, R. (2005). A comparison of African American and

White college students' affective and attitudinal reactions to lesbian, gay,
and bisexual individuals: An exploratory study. Journal of Sex Research,
42(4), 291-299.
National Center for Educational Statistics (1999). College enrollment rates

of high school graduates, by race/ethnicity: 1960 to 1998. Retrieved
April 1, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d99/d99t186.
asp
Nettles, M. T. (1990). Editor’s notes. In The effects of assessment on minority

student participation. New Directions for Institutional Research, 65, 1-6.
Nuñez, A. M., and Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students:

Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education
(NCES 98–082). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Retrieved March 29, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98082.pdf
Oseguera, L. (2005). Four and six-year baccalaureate degree completion by

institutional characteristics and racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College
Student Retention, 7(1-2), 19-59.
Peltier, G. L., Laden, R., & Matranga, M. (1999). Student persistence in

collage: A review of research. Journal of College Student Retention, 1(4),
357-375.
Rowley, S. J., Sellers, R. M., Chavous, T. M., & Smith, M. A. (1998).

The relationship between racial identity and self-esteem in African
American college and high school students. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74(3), 715-724.
Schwartz, R. A., & Washington, C. M. (1999). Predicting academic success

and retention for African American women in college. Journal of College
Student Retention, 1(2), 177-191.
Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M.
A. (1997). Multidimensional inventory of Black identity: A preliminary

investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73(4), 805-815.
Stoecker, J., Pascarella, E. T., & Wolfe, L. M. (1988). Persistence in higher

education: A 9-year test of a theoretical model. Journal of College Student
Swensen, E. (2001). Peer advisers help ease transition at UVa. Retrieved

January 23, 2006, from http://www.virginia.edu/oaaa/paprogram/Peer
%20Advisors%20Ease%20Transition.doc
Taylor, C. A. (1989). Effective ways to recruit and retain minority students.

Madison, WI: Praxis Publications, Inc.
Thayer, P. B. (2000). Retention of Students from First Generation and Low

Income Backgrounds. Opportunity Outlook. 2-8.
Thornton, C. H. (2004). Value orientations: A study of Black college students.

College Student Journal, 38(1), 103-111.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College. Chicago: The University of Chicago

Press.
Trippi, J. F., & Baker, S. B. (1989). Student and residential correlates of Black
student grade performance and persistence at a predominately White
university campus. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 135-143.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Demographics: Racial and ethnic distribution.

The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac, 52(1), 4.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Table PINC-03: Educational attainment--people

25 years old and over, by total money earnings in 2004, work experience in
2004, age, race, Hispanic origin and sex. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from
http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032005/perinc/new03_000.htm.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). College enrollment by racial and

ethnic group, selected years. The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac,
52(1), 15.
Vargas, J. H. (2004). College Knowledge: Addressing Information Barriers to

College. Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.teri.org/pdf/
research-studies/CollegeKnowledge.pdf
Wiles, R. (2004). College degree pays off big - not just in income,
study concludes. The Arizona Republic. Retrieved January 20, 2006,
f rom http://www.azcentral.com/families/education/articles/-
1019collegebenefits19-ON.html.

CHAPTER 5
Honors Students
Billy H. Satterfield
Higher Education is engaged in a fierce competition for students. In the

midst of this battle, honors students or high-ability students are held as a
top prize. Due to the high demand for honors students, that is, those that
bring prestige and recognition to the institution, honors colleges have ap-
peared and proliferated on college campuses for many years. These special
enclaves within the larger institution offer high-ability students many ben-
efits in an effort to attract them to the institution. All types of institutions,
both public and private, two-year and four-year, have created honors pro-
grams and colleges to both attract these students and to help them better
reach their potential. These students are highly sought after, helping institu-
tions garner better ratings and demonstrating other measures of apparent
quality (Long, 2002).
Due to the different determinations of what constitutes high ability, defin-

ing an honors student is almost impossible. Each institution defines differ-
ent criteria for labeling a student or prospective student as honors for ad-
mission to the institution’s honors program or honors college. Determining
what criteria to use in selecting students for honors programs has plagued
institutions for some time. In 1960, Angell wrote, “The selection of partici-
pants is one of the most difficult problems faced by those directing honors
programs” (p. 82). Many programs require a combination of high standard-
ized test scores and high secondary grade point averages; however, some
institutions do not require standardized test scores (Long, 2002). Austin
(1986) suggested that students who score within the top 5 % to 8 % of scores
Honors Students 95
on standardized tests should be invited to participate, but the author did
caution that students who might not perform well on the test still should
be considered candidates for the program. Day (1989) argued that honors
students typically were good high school students, fell within the top 10
% of their high school class, and obtained high standardized test scores.
Regardless of the criteria used, the National Collegiate Honors Council
declared that fully developed honors programs must “identify the targeted
student population by some clearly articulated set of criteria (e.g., GPA,
SAT score, a written essay)” (National Collegiate Honors Council, 2005, ¶
2). Due to the difficulty and multiple variations in defining honors students,
the general definition for honors students used for this chapter will be stu-
dents deemed as high-ability on some measurable criterion. In addition, the
terms high-ability students and honors students will be used interchange-
ably throughout the chapter. For the purposes of this chapter, it should be
noted that an honors student does not necessarily mean that the student is
involved in an honors program or honors college. Many high-ability stu-
dents never participate in honors programs.
It is important that college administrators, student personnel staff, and stu-

dents of higher education understand this subpopulation of students due to
the highly recruited nature of these students. These students expect a greater
level of attention and support, and expect to be challenged intellectually.
The purpose of this chapter is to help college administrators and students
of higher education better understand honors students. The hope is to take
the relatively small amount of literature available on the subject and make
it useable. First, some general demographics on honors students will be pre-
sented; followed by an overview of the unique qualities, similarities, and
needs of honors students in relation to the general population of students.
From this, a brief discussion of the development issues and needs of honors
students will be discussed. Retention and graduation issues of honors stu-
dents will be reviewed, campus successes in regard to honors students will
be identified, and finally, the author will discuss the benefits that honors
students bring to the institutions they attend and society. The chapter is not
intended to focus on honors programs or colleges; however, references will
be made to these colleges and programs when looking at honors students
as a group.
Demographics
In this section, an outline of some of the possible demographics on the

population will be provided; although due to difficulty in defining honors
students, pinpointing accurate data for this group of students is difficult.
One of the most frequently utilized indicators that many colleges use for
entrance into honors programs are standardized test scores. Typically, stu-
dents must score at the top of their incoming freshman class to be admit-
ted into honors programs. On the ACT, only 10% of the test takers scored
between a 28-36 on the test in both the 1997 and 2005 graduating classes
(ACT, 1997, 2005).
Due to the number of college-aged students taking entrance exams, the

number of students being labeled as honors might be growing. Even though
the percentage scoring in this high range did not change, 226,950 more
students took the ACT in 2005 than 1997. The increase in the number of
students taking the test attributed to 26,000 more students scoring in the
highest range of 28-36 composite scores (ACT, 1997, 2005), and the same
was true on the SAT. The percentage of students scoring 750-800 on both
the math and verbal tests stayed approximately 2%, but the number of test
takers increased by almost 400,000 students from 1996-2005. This result
drastically increased the number of students scoring in the high range (Col-
lege Board, 1996, 2005). If standardized test scores are used to determine
high ability, the population of high-ability students would be increasing.
The other major predictor that institutions use to determine admissions to

honors programs is high school GPA. On self-reported data from SAT test
takers, the number of students reporting an “A+” high school average has
increased from 60,219 to 78,189 students from 1996 to 2005, an increase
of 17,970 students. In 1996, 22% of the test takers indicated ranking in the
top tenth of their class compared with 30% who indicated being in the top
tenth in 2005 (College Board, 1996, 2005). If high school GPA were used
solely to determine high ability and students correctly reported their high
school GPA on the tests, it would appear more high-ability students are
taking admissions tests than in previous years.
A few other demographics can be gathered from standardized test infor-

mation. Students scoring highest on standardized tests tend to be White
or Asian, while other minority groups have tended to score lower (ACT,
2005; College Board, 2005). Males appeared to perform slightly better on
the ACT than females, as in 2005, 11% of the male test takers scored a com-
posite score of 28-36 compared to 10% of the female test takers (ACT). On
Honors Students 97
the SAT in 2005, 2% of both males and females scored 750-800 on the SAT
verbal. On the SAT math section, however, 3% of the males scored 750-
800 compared to 1% of the females. SAT data has shown that the higher
level of education a parent had received, the higher the SAT score a student
would obtain. Students whose parents had a high school diploma averaged
an SAT verbal score of 471 and a math score of 479 compared to a score of
561 and a score of 570, respectively, for students whose parents had earned
a graduate degree (College Board, 2005). Gerrity, Lawrence, and Sedlacek
(1993) found that honors students reported having college-educated par-
ents more than non-honors students. According to information from the
College Board, students with the top average scores intended to major in
mathematics, physical sciences, or engineering. Test scores also indicated
that the greater the family income, the greater the test score. On the SAT,
students with a family income of $10,000 to $20,000 scored an average of
443 on the verbal section and 463 on the math section compared to 529 and
534 respectively for students in the $80,000 to $100,000 bracket (College
Board). Similarly, students with a family income less than $18,000 scored
a composite ACT score of 17.9 compared to a 22.5 composite score for a
student whose family earned $80,000 to $100,000 (ACT). This information
sheds some light on honors students when standardized test scores are a
major criterion for admissions with honors status.
Care should be taken when generalizing the demographic information pre-

sented. Most of the data from the SAT and ACT were self-reported data;
students may accidentally report incorrect data or intentionally report data
incorrectly (Gonyea, 2005). In addition, grade inflation may be an issue as
this could give the appearance that more students are earning higher GPAs
than in the past (Ziomek & Svec, 1995).
Unique Qualities and Similarities

Honors students and non-honors students have certain similarities, but
honors students also have unique characteristics that are specific to them
as a subpopulation. Being able to understand the unique qualities and simi-
larities will help higher education professionals assist them both education-
ally and developmentally. The small volume of literature available on honors
students reveals issues that are similar and different from the majority of
students.
Similarities

There are many similarities that honors students have with the majority of
the students on college campuses, many of which are subtle, while others
might not be so. Understanding these similarities can help remove some of
the stereotypical notions that many have about honors students.
The first similarity is that the number of both honors and non-honors stu-
dents planning to attend college is increasing. From the demographic infor-
mation on the number of test takers, one can see that both the number of
students planning to attend higher education has increased along with the
number of students scoring high on standardized tests (ACT 2005; College
Board 2005). In effect, both honors and non-honors students are increasing
their participation in testing for college.
Research showed that honors students, like all students, have specific needs
that must be addressed. Even though honors students might have different
needs than the majority of students, these needs are as important as main-
stream students’ needs (Day, 1989; Gerrity et al., 1993). These special needs
will be addressed later in the chapter.
Honors students and the majority of college students tend to have the same
educational objectives. In the study by Gerrity et al. (1993), the authors
found that honors students and non-honors students were both very career
oriented and wanted to “learn skills directly applicable to career goals” (p.
47), learn about several different fields, learn independent thinking, and de-
termine career goals. It is important to note that some researchers believed
that honors students are not very firm on career choice and experience ca-
reer indecision (Myers & Pace, 1986; Schroer & Dorn, 1986).
Gerrity et al. (1993) found several other similar characteristics that hon-
ors students have with the general student body. First, honors students and
regular college students both felt like social life, friendships, and job experi-
ence were factors in their development in their senior year of high school.
Second, parents seemed to be influential in the students’ choice to attend
a particular college. Finally, extracurricular activities were found to be very
important to both honors and non-honors students. Even though participa-
tion differences will be indicated later, both groups of students rated extra-
curricular activities as important (Gerrity et al., 1993).
Honors Students 99
Unique Qualities
It has already been noted that honors students are unique from non-honors
students because they demonstrate higher abilities in the form of higher
standardized test scores or GPA’s. Perhaps due to this higher ability, honors
students are more actively recruited than non-honors students. Colleges and
universities are scrambling to enroll these students to fill honors colleges
and programs (Long 2002). In addition, as a recruitment strategy to entice
students to attend the institution, honors students are increasingly receiving
more monetary support for college. In the 1992–93 school year, 30.4% of
students with a 3.5 college GPA or higher in four-year institutions received
an average of $5,000 in merit-based financial aid. The amount increased in
the 1999–2000 academic year to $5,700 and 39.3% of students with a 3.5
college GPA or higher received merit-based awards (Wirt et al., 2004).
Honors students are thought to be better students than non-honors stu-

dents. High-ability students seemed to be more motivated and geared to-
ward academic pursuits than the majority of students (Mathiasen, 1985). As
an example, Gerrity et al. (1993) found that honors students were less likely
to be absent in high school than non-honors students. Low absenteeism
shows that honors students are more inclined academically or at least better
understand the importance of school. Furthermore, some honors students
did not worry about personal issues such as marriage and family life; instead,
they chose to focus on academic matters (Sanders, 1996). In addition, hon-
ors students possessed good study habits (Day, 1989). Noland and Sedlacek
(1998) found that female honors students tend to study more than male
honors students. However, it is important to note that not all researchers
agreed that honors students have good study habits (Gerrity et al.).
Not only were honors students found to be better students, they also tended
to be more active learners and more creative than non-honors students. As
active learners, honors students think better for themselves than non-hon-
ors students. The creativity that many possess allowed them to think with
imagination and see ideas other students might not (Friedman & Jenkins-
Friedman, 1986).
Honors students tended to have a unique and diverse set of motivations for
attending higher education than non-honors students. In a study of 231
honors students and 709 non-honors students at the University of Mary-
land, College Park, Gerrity et al. (1993) found that honors students’ top

reason to attend college was to “prepare for graduate school (34%), learn
more (19%), get a better job (18%), and gain a general education (14%)”
while non-honors students indicated their motivation for going to college
“to get a better job (34%), gain a general education (16%), prepare for gradu-
ate school (16%), learn more (13%), and make more money (10%)” (p. 45).
Furthermore, from this study that honors students appeared to have a desire
to attend graduate school more than non-honors students.
Honors students tended to need relationships or friendships. These friend-

ships should be not only from fellow students but also faculty (Day, 1989).
While the need for having friendships is not different for all students, the
need for faculty relationships was a great need for honors students. In ad-
dition, honors students many times have a chance to develop these rela-
tionships with faculty while non-honors students might not have the same
opportunity (Fischer, 1996).
Many researchers found that honors students tend to be very involved in ex-
tracurricular activities. Mathiasen (1985) stated that the more high achiev-
ing a student is the more the student is involved in extracurricular activities.
Not only did these students participate, many times they held leadership
positions within the organizations (Mathiasen). German (1995) found, in a
study of honors students’ co-curricular involvement at Bowling Green State
University, that honors students had high participation rates in community
service projects. This participation was in addition to academic and depart-
mental organizations (German). Gerrity et al. (1993) found that honors stu-
dents were likely to do volunteer work, but found the same with non-honors
students. In a study by Noldon and Sedlacek (1998), the authors discovered
that female honors students expected to do volunteer work more than male
honors student did; conversely, 73% of male honors students felt that par-
ticipation in intramural activities was more important than volunteer work.
Honors students deal with some problems unique to their subpopulation.
A few of these problems found were perfectionism, over-achievement, and
fear of success (Ford, Webb, & Sandidge, 1994). More of these problems
will be discussed later.
It is important to note that some of these unique qualities and similarities

may have limited generalization. Most of the studies used in this section
were conducted at one institution per study, and the institution under study
might have different characteristics than the majority of institutions. In ad-
Honors Students 101

dition, honors students might be part of other subpopulations that yield
different unique qualities. For example, African American honors students
bring their own differences and similarities (Ford, et al., 1994).
Development and Needs
College can be a particularly difficult time for students. Many researchers

found that individuals develop cognitively, emotionally, morally, and behav-
iorally as they age (e.g., Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Perry, 1968; Gilligan,
1993). College students often go through many stages or phases of develop-
ment while in college. In addition to development, college students experi-
ence many different needs. If students belong to a particular subpopulation,
they may have specific development issues and needs common to that sub-
population. The limited amount of research available indicated that honors
students develop in college. The development of these students brings up
specific needs of these students.
Development
The Seven Vectors of Student Development are widely used in student af-
fairs to help understand students as they develop identity through college.
Arthur Chickering researched college students to understand them as they
mature and develop in college. The seven vectors identified that help form a
student’s psychosocial development are: developing competence, managing
emotions, moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing
mature interpersonal relationships, establishing identity, developing pur-
pose, and developing integrity (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Evans, Forney,
& Guido-DiBrito, 1998). The author will show how honors students move
through these vectors by using evidence from the literature.
Developing competence. Chickering and Reisser (1993) pictured competence

as a three-tined pitchfork. The tines symbolize intellectual competence,
physical and manual skills, and interpersonal competence. The handle of
the pitchfork symbolized “a sense of competence” that stems from the con-
fidence that one can cope with what comes and achieve goals successfully
(Chickering & Reisser, p.53). Intellectual competence is acquiring knowl-
edge of a subject, developing “intellectual, cultural, and aesthetic sophistica-
tion” (Reisser, 1995, p. 506), and increased ability of critical thinking and
reasoning. “Physical competence comes through athletic and recreational
activities, attention to wellness, and involvement in artistic and manual ac-

tivities. Interpersonal competence includes skills in communication, leader-
ship, and working effectively with others” (Evans et al., 1998, p.38).
Honors students do move through this vector with evidence from the lit-
erature. Despite Mathiasen’s (1985) observation that honors students have a
more academic mindset, these students do struggle with academic and intel-
lectual competence. Gerrity et al. (1993) found that many honors students
feel they have poor study habits and 72% claimed they crammed before
tests. In addition, many times honors students struggled with being gifted
academically or had a hard time dealing with their academic abilities (Ford
et al., 1994). The literature also pointed to references of students developing
physical and manual competence. In the study by Gerrity et al., the authors
discovered that both honors and non-honors students expressed a strong in-
terest in recreational activities. Developing interpersonal competence can be
seen in references to the many extracurricular activities honors students take
part in (German, 1995). In addition, Day (1989) found that 85% of honors
students held leadership positions in one or more organizations. It appears
that possibly offering a variety of activities to these students to challenge
them both physically and mentally, in addition to helping hone volunteer-
ism, might help them develop in this area.
Managing emotions. Students develop emotionally in this vector. They “de-

velop the ability to recognize and accept emotions, as well as to appropri-
ately express and control them” (Evans, et al., 1998, p. 38). Furthermore,
in this vector, students learn to “act on feelings in a responsible manner”
(Evans, et al., p. 38).
Honors students do struggle with emotional issues in college. Ford et al.

(1994) stated that honors students might have issues with depression and
suicide. Willings (1985) found that out of 24 honors students surveyed, 16
had thought about committing suicide. The extreme pressure to succeed
might be a contributing factor to these emotional issues. Ford et al. rec-
ommended that college counselors be trained to deal with the issues that
honors students experience.
Moving through autonomy toward interdependence. Chickering and Reisser

(1993) described this vector as containing three parts: increased emotional
independence, instrumental independence, and students “recognizing and
accepting the importance of interdependence” (Evans et al., 1998, p. 39). In-
creased emotional independence refers to the “freedom from continual and
Honors Students 103

pressing needs for reassurance, affection, or approval from others” (Chicker-
ing and Reisser, p.117). Instrumental independence “includes self-direction,
problem-solving ability, and mobility” (Evans et al., p.39). The importance
of interdependence is students’ “awareness of their interconnectedness with
others” (Evans et al., p.39).
From the research on honors students, instances of honors students moving

through autonomy toward interdependence can be seen. For example, Sand-
ers (1996) told the story of Betty, a high-ability student attending a public
university in the Southeast. The focus of the interview was on her academic
and community influences. Betty can be seen developing increased emo-
tional dependence when she chooses to go against her conservative father’s
viewpoints and votes for a liberal candidate. She also finds herself develop-
ing instrumental independence by determining to be her own person and
defining herself as a feminist. In addition, Betty is aware of her intercon-
nectedness with family and friends in her home community. The student
realized how people within her school and community were responsible for
her success (Sanders). Faculty and staff dealing with honors students should
realize that many times these students, like Betty, are attempting to find
themselves. Giving them support during this time can aid in their develop-
ment during this vector.
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships. According to Evans et al.

(1998), Chickering and Reisser (1993) associated in this vector the tasks
of developing “intercultural and interpersonal tolerance…appreciation of
differences,” and a “capacity for healthy and lasting intimate relationships
with partners and friends” (p. 39). Instances of honors students progressing
through this vector can also be found in the literature. Noldon and Sed-
lacek (1998) found that many honors students suggested that a course on
race relations should be added to the existing curriculum. In addition, more
women were found to support this idea than men (Noldon & Sedlacek).
Also, Day (1989) pointed out that honors students needed relationships
with other students and faculty. Many honors colleges and programs offer
honors students possibilities to develop these close relationships in specific
honors residence halls and special classes.
Establishing identity. To Chickering, identity included many different areas.

Evans et al. (1998) explained these areas as follows:
Comfort with the body and appearance, comfort with gen-

der and sexual orientation, a sense of one’s social and cultural
heritage, a clear self-concept and comfort with one’s roles
and lifestyle, a secure sense of self in light of feedback from
significant others, self-acceptance and self-esteem, and per-
sonal stability and integration (pp. 39-40).
There are instances of honors students progressing through this vector. In

the story of Betty, she identified herself as a feminist. This reference to her
views of self makes it apparent that she is comfortable with herself and has a
clear self-concept (Sanders, 1996). Many times this vector becomes a prob-
lem for honors students. Honors students sometimes struggle with their
roles as honors students, which affects their integration. These students wor-
ry about the stigma attached to being labeled gifted and have mixed feelings
about being gifted (Kerr, Colangelo, & Gaeth, 1988). College faculty and
staff can help these students understand that being labeled as honors is not
a bad thing.
Developing purpose. In this vector, students develop career goals, make

“meaningful commitments to specific personal interests and activities, and
establish strong interpersonal commitments” (Evans et al, 1998, p. 40). Stu-
dents make decisions and stay with the decision even when the decision is
unpopular. Evans et al. also stated that “lifestyle and family influences af-
fect the decision-making and goal setting processes involved in developing
purpose” (p. 40).
The topic of career decision-making and indecision appeared in the literature

on honors students, which shows evidence of students developing purpose.
The research on career decision-making is mixed. Several authors found
that gifted students have career indecision (Myers & Pace, 1986; Schroer &
Dorn, 1986). However, Gerrity et al. (1993) did not find the same career in-
decision in honors students. Regardless, encouraging students to spend time
studying career options might make their development in this vector easier.
Developing integrity. “Three sequential but overlapping stages” are involved

in this vector (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 51). In stage one, “students
progress from rigid, moralistic thinking to the development of a more hu-
manized value system in which the interests of others are balanced with
one’s own interests” (Evans et al., 1998, p.40). In stage two, students develop
personal values, abide by their values, and respect the beliefs of others. Stage
three involves students developing congruence. “In developing congruence,
Honors Students 105

values and actions become congruent and authentic as self-interest is bal-
anced by a sense of social responsibility” (Evans et al., p. 40).
By looking at the story of Betty from Sanders (1996), this vector can be ob-
served. When she developed into her own self, Betty left behind her father’s
conservative viewpoints and became a voting liberal even though she knew
her father would not have approved. Betty advocated her belief system to
fight racism and promote social justice. Betty felt that she had a social re-
sponsibility to fight these injustices (Sanders). By offering students a venue
for expressing viewpoints, colleges and universities might help students like
Betty pass through this vector of student development.
Needs
Special needs do arise that are perhaps unique to this group of students.
First, gifted students tend to suffer from a range of psychosocial issues from
perfectionism to fear of success or failure to overachievement. Sometimes
the psychosocial issues cause students to regret being bright or attempt sui-
cide. To combat these issues, institutions should make certain that counsel-
ors are trained to treat and understand honors students special needs (Ford
et al., 1994).
Second, honors students need interpersonal relationships from people. These

students strive to find friends, both student and faculty, who understand the
goals and aspirations these students set. Faculty and staff from all levels of
the higher learning organization can help students find and develop inter-
personal relationships (Day, 1989). Finally, these students tend to put great
pressure on themselves because they feel it is expected of them (Blackburn
& Erickson, 1986). College and university personnel can emphasize to stu-
dents that grades are important but that making a less-than-perfect grade
is not the end of the world. Academic advisors might be a good resource to
help honors students understand the value of grades.
Retention and Graduation
Honors students or high-ability students generally graduate from institu-

tions of higher education at a greater rate than other students. Astin and
Oseguera (2005) found that 58.2% of students with an “A” or “A+” high
school grade point average graduated college after four years compared to
35.4% of students with a “B+” GPA. They found that 62.3% of students

with an SAT score 1300 or greater graduated from college after four years
compared to 48.0% that scored in the 1100-1199 range.
With the development issues and special needs that honors students expe-
rience, it should be noted that retention and graduation of these students
could be problematic. One study found that at least 50% of students labeled
gifted were underachieving (National Commission on Excellence in Educa-
tion, 1983). By underachieving, many honors students might possibly find
themselves in situations that require them to leave the college or university.
In addition, McNairy (1985) found that 22% of freshman students at one
particular institution with GPAs higher than 3.0 left the institution.
The reasons for the retention and graduation problems could be numerous.
The development issues these students face could be a major contributing
factor, and other issues such as fear of success and psychological problems
can cause students to stop attending an institution (Day, 1989; Gerrity et
al., 1993). Still, some students might be bored with the education they are
receiving and decide to quit. In the 1970s, female students were found to
be at a greater risk of dropping out, as they encountered the social label of
‘smart.’ For women, the stigma associated with being smart resulted in a loss
of friends, which in turn affected the student’s retention (Hoffman, 1974).
Campus Successes
Due to the growing number of honors students, the special characteristics of

this group, the development issues, and retention issues, colleges and univer-
sities must find ways to be successful with this population of students. How
can colleges serve these students better? How can college administrators
and faculty ensure the success of these highly recruited students? In this sec-
tion, a brief discussion of the ways some institutions have been successful, as
well as recommendations from the literature will be discussed.
The most frequently discussed success story cited in the literature was the
development of honors programs or honors colleges. These programs all ca-
ter to honors students, but the makeup of these programs differed from
institution to institution. The programs generally offer special housing ar-
rangements, smaller classes, mentorship opportunities, special curricula,
internship opportunities, and special extracurricular programs (Day, 1989;
Fischer, 1996; Long, 2002). The programs offer honors students a close-knit
community and an engaged learning environment (Fischer). By offering
Honors Students 107

these programs to honors students, many developmental issues of honors
students can be addressed by the personal attention and special learning
stimulation opportunities that occur.
Honors students often receive a substantial amount of merit-based financial

aid (Fischer, 1996). Due to the amount of financial aid offered, many honors
students may not worry about working or money as many of their non-hon-
ors peers do. Not having to work might give honors students more time to
devote to the other important issues in their lives.
Offering honors students a wide variety of extracurricular activities pos-

sibly can make them more successful and ease some development issues.
Extracurricular activities are important to this group of students. Several
authors found that honors students were very involved in extracurricular ac-
tivities (Day, 1989; German, 1995; Gerrity et al., 1993). Community service
or volunteer work was also found to be high (German; Noldon & Sedlacek,
1998). By offering honors students a variety of extracurricular activities, col-
leges and universities might help honors students find purpose and an outlet
for non-academic pursuits.
Another highly recommended suggestion to help honors students be suc-

cessful was to train counselors and advisors on this population of students.
When honors students had a difficult time in college and sought assistance,
many times they did not get help from a counselor trained in issues honors
students’ experience (Ford et al, 1994). In addition, academic advisors need
to understand the academic issues and needs honors students bring with
them. Issues such as tutoring and preparation for graduate school are often
needed by this group of students (Gerrity et al., 1993; Noldon & Sedlacek,
1998).
Career counseling is important for this group of students. Many honors

students request career counseling (Gerrity et al., 1993). However, research-
ers differed on the amount of career indecision these students face. Some
researchers claimed that career indecision hampered these students (Myers
& Pace, 1986; Schroer & Dorn, 1986) while others did not find this inde-
cision (Gerrity et al.) Nevertheless, career counseling could help alleviate
many career indecisions these student might have.
A few possible ways to assist honors students have been discussed. It is im-
portant to note that initiatives for success can vary from student to student.

Each student is different and should be treated as an individual instead of a
member of a group. In addition, other student subpopulations are encom-
passed within the honors student group. These subpopulations bring their
own unique needs.
Benefits
There are benefits of honors students attending and graduating from colleg-
es and universities. Even though these students still have the same general
benefits that all students obtain from attending postsecondary education,
such as higher salaries, two differences do come to mind.
First, these students are very highly sought after, and they benefit the col-
lege campus with their attendance. The more students a school attracts, the
better a school appears in ratings. This appearance can result in increased
rankings for an institution. Today, rankings have become very important for
institutions. Many institutions are struggling to increase these rankings to
enhance their prestige (Long, 2002). It is possible that these students can
bring a diversity of ideas to make the campus a more scholarly and invit-
ing environment. In addition, the potential accomplishments these students
might attain after graduation make these students a benefit to the institu-
tion.
Second, these students increasingly go beyond a baccalaureate degree. Most

honors student wish to take part in further graduate or professional educa-
tion. In the study by Gerrity et al. (1993), the researchers found that twice
as many honors students as compared to non-honors students planned to
obtain a doctorate degree. As these bright students increasingly graduate
and earn higher degrees, it is assumed they will benefit society by providing
higher educated professionals to influence and serve society.
Conclusion
With the increased pressures associated with college rankings, colleges and
universities are placing more importance on the recruitment of high-abil-
ity students. These students are needed to fill existing or newly organized
honors colleges and programs, and these students have special development
issues that must be addressed. As colleges and universities place a high value
on the recruitment of high-ability students, student affairs professionals can
help these students become successful members of their college communi-
ties by understanding the special needs these students require and building
Honors Students 109

programs that enhance their social support networks. Colleges have created
honors colleges and large amounts of merit-based aid to help these students
develop and graduate; however, to help these students become successful,
colleges should ensure that individuals who come into contact with this
group are trained to help them with college life. In addition, researchers
should continue to study this unique population of students to both en-
hance their chances of success and to better understand the isolation and
stigmas surrounding high-achieving students.

References
ACT. (1997). The 1997 ACT high school profile report. Iowa City, IA: Author.
ACT. (2005). The 2005 ACT high school profile report. Iowa City, IA: Author.
Angell, R.C. (1960). The honors program at the University of Michigan.

Astin, A.W., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Degree attainment rates at American

colleges and universities. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Insti-
tute.
Austin, C.G. (1986). Orientation to honors education. New Directions for

Teaching and Learning, 25, 5-16.
Blackburn, A.C. & Erickson, D.B. (1986). Predictable crises of the gifted
student. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64(9), 552-555.
Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.).
College Board (1996). 1996 college-bound seniors. Washington, DC: Au-

thor.
College Board (2005). 2005 college-bound seniors. Washington, DC: Author.
Day, A.L. (1989). Honors students. In M.L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner, & Asso-
ciates (Eds.), The freshman year experience (pp.352-362). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development

Fischer, D. (1996, September 16). The new honors programs. U.S. News &
World Report, p. 108.
Ford, D.Y., Webb, K.S., & Sandidge, R.F. (1994). When gifted kids grow
up: Counseling gifted college students requires an understanding of
their special needs. Gifted Child Today, 17(3), 34-36, 40-42.
Friedman, P.G., & Jenkins-Friedman, R.C. (Eds.). (1986). Fostering aca-

demic excellence through honors programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Honors Students 111

German, R.E. (1995). Co-curricular involvement characteristics of Bowling
Green State University honors students. (ERIC Document Reproduc-
tion Service No. ED386138)
Gerrity, D.A., Lawrence, J.F., & Sedlacek, W.E. (1993). Honors and non-
honors freshman: Demographics, attitudes, interests, and behaviors.
NACADA Journal, 13(1), 43-51.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s de-

velopment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gonyea, R.M. (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review

and recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 127, 73-
89.
Hoffman, L.W. (1974). Fear of success in males and females: 1965 and 1971.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 353-358.
Kerr, B., Colangelo, N., & Gaeth, J. (1988). Gifted adolescents’ attitudes
toward their giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(2), 245-247.
Long, B.T. (2002). Attracting the best: The use of honors programs to
compete for students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED465355)
Mathiasen, R.E. (1985). Characteristics of the college honors students.

Journal of College Student Development, 26, 171-173.
McNairy, F. (1985). Holding power. Clarion, PA: Clarion University of

Pennsylvania.
Myers, R.S., & Pace, T.M. (1986). Counseling gifted and talented students:
Historical perspectives and cotemporary issues. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 64(9), 548-551.
National Collegiate Honors Council. (2005). Basic Characteristics. Retrieved

March 19, 2006, from http://www.nchchonors.org/basic.htm
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk:

The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: United States
Department of Education.

Noland, D., & Sedlacek, W.E. (1998). Gender differences in attitudes, skills,
and behaviors among academically talented university freshman. Roeper
Review, 21(2), 106-109.
Perry, W.G. (1968). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college
years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting the seven vectors. Journal of College Student

Sanders, M. (1996). Betty’s story. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 8(2),

87-95
Schroer, A.C.P., & Dorn, F.J. (1986). Enhancing the career and personal
development of gifted college students. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 64(9), 567-571.
Willings, D.R. (1985). Career Search for the gifted and talented. (ERIC Docu-
ment Reproduction Service No. ED262507)
Wirt, J., Choy, S., Rooney, P., Provasnik, S., Sen, A., and Tobin, R. (2004).
The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004-077). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statis-
tics.
Ziomek, R.L., & Svec, J.C. (1995). High school grades and achievement: Evi-
dence of grade inflation. Research Report Series, 95(3). Iowa City, IA:
ACT.
Honors Students 113

CHAPTER 6
First-Generation College Students

Jennifer A. Hottinger and Caleb P. Rose
A college campus is everything but homogenous. With diversity comes in-

creased enrollment, and with increased enrollment comes the tendency and
desire to group students into various student populations. All college at-
tendees fall into at least one specific student population, but many students
belong to several. For example, an African-American student who moves
into her residence hall at the beginning of her college career can already
be identified as both a minority student and a residence hall student. This
student also could easily identify as a student-athlete, an honors student,
or first-generation student. These student subpopulations, especially first-
generation college students, have been the topic of much research in recent
years (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004).
Every fall semester, high school graduates begin their college careers, ven-
turing out on an unfamiliar path that has many obstacles and turns. Many
of these students have the tools necessary for taking the path to success:
high GPAs, outstanding study skills, direction, motivation from self and
family, and confidence. However, there are thousands of students who have
no idea in which direction to go or which turn to take. A large percentage
of these students who are looking for the tools and knowledge to take the
correct path are first-generation college students. This chapter will take a
closer look into the demographics, unique characteristics, issues, and prob-
lems surrounding first-generation college students.
First-Generation Students 115

Demographics
Before we begin describing the many demographic characteristics of this

student population, a definition of “first-generation college student” is war-
ranted. The majority of the literature researched defined a first-generation
college student as one whose parents have earned a high school diploma or
less (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998, Choy, 2001; Warburton et al., 2001;
Chen, 2005). In some cases, such as defining eligibility for the U.S. Depart-
ment of Education’s TRIO programs, first-generation students are defined
as students whose parents have never earned a bachelor’s degree but may
have some postsecondary experience (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998).
Most of the data used in this chapter are derived from three nationally
representative longitudinal studies conducted by the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES). The first of these studies is the National Edu-
cation Longitudinal Study (NELS) (as cited in Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin,
1998; Warburton et al., 2001; and Chen, 2005), which studied a cohort of
8th-graders every two years from 1988 until 1994, two years after most of
them finished high school, and then again in 2000. The second study is the
Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) (as cited in
Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Warburton et al., 2001; and Chen, 2005),
which included students (of all ages) who enrolled in postsecondary educa-
tion for the first time in either 1989–90 or 1995–96. The first group was
surveyed again in 1992 and 1994 and the second group in 1998. The final
study that we reference is the NCES Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitu-
dinal Study (B&B) (as cited in Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Warbur-
ton et al., 2001; and Chen, 2005), which conducted follow-ups on 1992–93
bachelor's degree recipients in 1994 and 1997. The data set from these lon-
gitudinal studies has been analyzed and used in a number of NCES reports
that will be referenced throughout the chapter. It is important to note that
the NCES has adopted a different definition than that of the TRIO pro-
grams and for the sake of clarity and consistency of data presented in this
chapter, we will adopt and adhere to the definition utilized by Nunez &
Cuccaro-Alamin, (1998) Choy (2001), Warburton et al. (2001), and Chen
(2005), which stated that a first-generation college student is one whose
parents earned a high school diploma or less.
One might find it quite surprising to learn exactly how many first-genera-
tion college students are on every campus. According to the 1989-90 BPS
data “almost half (about 43%) of first-time beginning students in 1989–90

were identified as first-generation” college students (Nunez & Cuccaro-Al-
amin, p. 7). Ethnically, Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin (1998) found that first-
generation students who entered postsecondary education between 1992
and 2000 were less likely to be White than their counterparts. In addition,
students in this demographic set “were also more likely to be female (57%
versus 51%)” (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, p. 7).
Among the first-generation college students who entered college between

1992 and 2000, 49.4% were 18 years and younger and 29.2% of students
fell between the ages of 19 and 24. Nearly 9% were between the ages of
25 and 29, and 12.6% were above 30 years old. Slightly more than 20%
of first-generation college students were classified as non-traditional, in-
dependent students (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). “First-generation
students were more likely than those whose parents had a bachelor’s degree
to have attended a high school located in a small town (15% versus 10%) or
rural area (18% versus 10%)” (Warburton et al., 2001, p. 9).
Upon graduation from high school, Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin (1998)

found that, compared with non-first-generation college students, “first-gen-
eration college students were more likely than other students to attend pub-
lic two-year institutions (51% versus 37%); private, for-profit institutions
(15% versus 6%); and other less-than-four-year institutions (5% versus 3%)”
(p. 13). Furthermore, “first-generation college students composed more of
the student body at public two-year institutions than either public four-year
or private not-for-profit four-year institutions (51% versus 30% and 25%,
respectively)” (p. 14). Research examining students’ preparedness for college
suggested that first-generation college students were more likely to require
remediation. Fifty-five percent of first-generation college students took re-
medial courses during their college years, compared with 27% of their coun-
terparts. Additionally, 40% of first-generation college students took one or
more remedial mathematics course(s), and 13% took one or more remedial
reading course(s) while enrolled, compared with 16% and 6%, respectively,
of their non-first-generation counterparts (Chen, 2005).
The varying levels of achievement on standardized tests (ACT, SAT) pro-

vided further evidence of how first-generation college students’ academic
achievement differs from that of their counterparts whose parents attended
college. First-generation college students’ average score on the SAT col-
lege entrance examination was 858 points, compared with 1011 points for
students whose parents had completed college (Warburton et al., 2001).

Regarding academic performance in postsecondary education, Chen (2005),
found that first-generation college students had an average GPA of 2.6,
compared with an average GPA of 2.9 for their non-first-generation coun-
terparts. The lower performance of first-generation college students was also
evident in mathematics, science, computer science, foreign language, and
history. According to Chen (2005), “first-generation college students ma-
joring in mathematics and science on average earned GPAs of 2.6 in math-
ematics and 2.5 in science, compared with 3.1 and 2.9, respectively, for their
counterparts whose parents completed college” (p. 37).
First-generation college students were less likely to live on campus (16%

versus 40%), and more likely to live off campus (39% versus 19%), than their
non-first-generation counterparts. Additionally, 45% of first-generation
students live with parents or relatives (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998).
Pryor, Hurtado, Saenz, Lindholm, Korn, and Mahoney, (2005) recently ex-
amined the demographic characteristics of first-time, full-time, first-gener-
ation college students who entered four-year colleges and universities. They
found in the annual Higher Education Research Institute survey of incom-
ing freshmen that 15.9% (16.9% female and 14.7% males) of the total stu-
dents surveyed were first-generation college students. Somewhat consistent
with the NCES findings, Pryor et al. reported that first-generation college
students are more likely to attend a public school as opposed to a private
school when compared to their non-first-generation counterparts (17.5%
versus 12.8%), and that they were more likely to choose four-year college
over a university (18.5% versus 11.5%).
The school’s proximity to home was also an important factor in first-genera-

tion college students’ enrollment decisions, with nearly half (49.9%) choos-
ing to attend a college within 50 miles of their homes. First-generation
college students appear to place more importance on family, role models,
and educators when deciding on college attendance than their counterparts.
Nearly half (47%) of the first-generation college students surveyed respond-
ed that “parents wanted me to go” was a very important factor in their deci-
sion to attend college. Forty-one percent of first-generation college students
said that advice from a teacher or counselor was also important in choosing
their college (Pryor et al.).
Cost of attending college, the availability of financial assistance, and person-

al income reportedly appeared to be important to first-generation college

students. Almost one quarter (22.7%) had a major concern about financing
their college education compared with 11.4% of their counterparts. Nearly
39% stated that the cost of a particular institution was influential in their
decision to apply compared with 31.2% of non-first-generation college stu-
dents. In addition, 41.4% reported that the offering of financial aid was a
very important factor in their decision to attend a particular institution ver-
sus 31.3% of their counterparts. In addition to financial aid, more than half
of the first-generation college students surveyed (55.1%) stated that they
would seek a job to help pay for expenses, while 36.1% planned to work full
time while in college (Pryor et al.). Although Pryor et al. (2005) surveyed
only four-year colleges and universities, whereas NCES data included both
two-year and four-year degree-granting institutions, both studies reflect
the significant number of first-generation students entering and enrolled in
higher education.
Uniqueness/Differences/Similarities/Issues
First-generation college students are anything but mirror images of their

peers. Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin’s (1998) provided extensive informa-
tion regarding the differences between first-generation college students and
non-first-generation college students. We can summarize what this report
found by stating that, in comparison with non-first-generation college stu-
dent peers, first-generation college students:
• Were more likely to be older
• Were more likely to be low-income students
• Were more likely to be married and have dependents
• Were more likely to enroll in college as part-time students

• Were more likely to enroll in public two-year institutions, private
for-profit institutions, and other institutions that required less than
four years before earning a degree/certificate
• Rated obtaining needed financial aid, expediting the completion

of coursework, being able to live at home, and being able to work
while attending school as important influences in their decision to
enroll at a particular institution

• Earned comparable salaries and were employed in similar occupa-
tions (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin)
Inmann and Mayes (1999) explained how first-generation college students

were unique by stating that these students “usually come from poorer fami-
lies, have minority status, have dependents, and are often geographically
constrained because they want a college close to home” (p. 3).
The experience and outcome of first-generation college students may be

better understood through cultural and social capital lenses (Bills, 2003).
To explain further, cultural capital refers to how familiar an individual is
with the dominant culture in society, the degree of ease he/she has with
that culture, and whether he/she is a member or not (Bills). This perspective
suggested that students with highly educated parents may have a certain
advantage within society when compared to a first-generation college stu-
dent, especially with regard to the culture of higher education (Pascarella
et al.). For example, first-generation college students are more likely to be
disadvantaged in understanding and interpreting information and attitudes
relevant to making important decisions regarding the benefits of attend-
ing college, as well as making appropriate choices with regard to college.
Overall, this could result in a less fulfilling collegiate experience for first-
generation college students, and perhaps lower levels of cognitive and psy-
chosocial maturity upon completion or termination of their intended degree
(Pascarella et al.).
Moreover, first-generation college students are generally not prepared aca-

demically for college. Given a more diverse sample of first-generation college
students compared to past research, Brown and Burkhardt (1999) found a
significant relationship between first-generation status and first-term GPA.
According to Inmann and Mayes (1999), “Often they [first-generation stu-
dents] are less well-prepared academically for college. They typically have
lower high school GPAs, lower SAT’s, and have not been part of honors
programs” (p.3).
Besides not being well-prepared academically, first-generation college stu-

dents are also less well-prepared psychologically for college. “First-genera-
tion students [frequently] have a lower sense of self-efficacy and lower self-
esteem than students whose parents attended college” (First-generation,
2001, p.5). For many students, this low self-esteem may be compounded by
moving from an area of high competence (home and/or high school) to an

area of low competence (higher education). All of the characteristics that
make first-generation college students unique also tend to create several is-
sues and problems for these students.
One challenge many first-generation college students face is finding the

motivation to pursue higher education. According to Lee, Sax, Kim, and
Hagedorn (2004), “Parents who have not attended college tend to have less
direct knowledge of the economic and social benefits of a post-secondary
education. Thus, some of these parents prefer that their children work rather
than attend college” (p. 3). Many first-generation students are motivated
by the thought of social mobility. “First-generation students express more
interest in improving their financial and professional status than do non-
first-generation students” (Lee et al., 2004, p. 17).
Lee et al. also stated that “students’ degree aspirations are significantly re-
lated to whether their parents have a bachelor’s degree” (p. 6). Statistics
indicated that first-generation college students do not aspire to reach the
same educational goals as their non-first-generation peers. Of first-genera-
tion college students, only 36% aspire to obtain a bachelor’s degree or higher.
This is much lower than the 78% of non-first-generation college students
who aspire to receive a bachelor’s degree or higher (Lee et al., 2004).
If first-generation college students do pursue higher education, the fact that

their parents did not attend a college or university can still be a hindrance.
The parents of these individuals often do not know how to prepare their
children for college; how to help their children actually get into a college;
how to pay for college; or how to be successful in college. Johnson (2004)
stated that “parental involvement increases the likelihood of a potential stu-
dent’s meeting the minimal qualifications for college admission by eighteen
percent” (p. B.11). Trotter (2001) agreed with Johnson that “students with
college-educated parents have an edge in finding the motivation to go to
college, completing the needed academic preparation and testing, and actu-
ally applying to postsecondary institutions” (p. 29).
Parents of first-generation college students often fail to understand or sup-

port their children's decision to pursue higher education. According to
Hsiao (2000), “one of the greatest challenges facing first-generation college
students in pursuit of a college education is their position on the margin of
two cultures—that of their friends and family and that of their college com-
munity” (p. 31). It appears that parents, siblings, and friends who have no

experience with college often tend to be non-supportive. This is particularly
a problem for traditional-aged students who may still live at home or close
to home, which is about 50% of them (Pryor et al.). Hsiao stated that these
students “may not have or be able to create a designated place or time to
study at home, and may be criticized for devoting time to school rather than
family responsibilities” (p. 31).
The fact that more first-generation college students come from low-income
families than do their non-first-generation peers (Nunez & Cuccaro-Ala-
min, 1998) creates even more difficulties for this student population. Ac-
cording to Inmann and Mayes (1999), “first-generation students [as op-
posed to non-first-generation students] are more likely to work full-time
while attending school part-time” (p.20). Having a full-time job provides
the financial stability that a member of a low-income household must have
in order to pursue higher education. Consequently, having to work full-time
and go to school as well tends to create more problems than solutions for
first-generation college students. The hectic schedule often develops prob-
lems such as time conflicts, child-care needs, time-management issues, lim-
ited class selection, and increased stress levels.
Coming from a low-income family also makes it harder for students to pay
for college. Most low-income families are unable to provide funding for
their children’s education. Because of this, it is usually entirely up to the stu-
dents to pay for their educational costs. Although there are many grants and
loans available to low-income students, these students often find themselves
either unable to fund their education or incurring large amounts of debt.
Overall, each and every first-generation college student is unique. While the
research points to specific characteristics that tell about the majority, many
first-generation college students do not fall into simple generalizations. The
one common thread that connects each and every one of these students is
simple: the groundwork for a college degree has not been laid out for them.
Whether it has to do with finding the money for college, finding the process
for applying to college, or finding the aspiration and determination to pur-
sue and complete their education, these students are in a new territory and
need assistance finding the right direction.

Development
There is little research on the college experience and the identity develop-
ment of this student subpopulation. The status of a first-generation college
student creates obstacles for identity development. For these students, the
struggle to develop their identity both at college and at home can be con-
tradictory. While some first-generation students receive positive feedback
from their families, others may face resentment because of their achieve-
ment. Orbe (2004) reported the experience of one first-generation college
student by stating that upon returning home, the “college student” status is
not important, rather the student is seen as just another member of the fam-
ily. In sum, these students may feel torn between realizing a dream of going
to college and remaining a connected member of their family.
In addition to dealing with the mixed support from family members, these
students may also be challenged by any stigma attached to being a first-gen-
eration college student. For example, this demographic may harbor some
resentment at their status and be more reluctant to reveal that they are a
first-generation college student. This resentment may lead to poor develop-
ment in their confidence and reasoning for attending an institution of high-
er education, as well as in their ability to be successful at such an institution.
These challenges may confuse first-generation college students and inhibit
the discovery of their true identity. Additionally, first-generation students
may also be unsure of the importance of earning a college degree. This may
cause the student to question whether or not college is worth the effort and
sacrifice (Orbe, 2004).
Retention
The attrition of students has been a serious issue at many institutions, and
improved retention is often the focus of many university initiatives (Belch,
2004). Vincent Tinto is a seminal authority in the area of college student
retention; therefore, the majority of the discussion regarding college student
retention in this chapter will come from his theories and publications. In
general, several conditions are known to promote persistence and retention
of college students: expectations, advice, support, involvement, and learn-
ing (Tinto, 1993; Tinto, 1997; Tinto, 2000a; Tinto 2000b). According to
Tinto:

• Students have a better chance at success if their surroundings ex-
pect them to succeed. If institutions and administrators would con-
sistently set higher standards for their students, it is likely that the
students would not only meet those standards, but also exceed them
(Tinto, 2000b).
• It is imperative that students understand the path to successfully

complete coursework. Since many students change majors through-
out their college career, it is important to know what is required by
various programs to graduate (Tinto, 2000b).
• Students’ academic persistence and retention are greater at institu-

tions that provide support services to students. These support ser-
vices need to be accessible, available, and connected to the students’
college experience (Tinto, 2000b).
• Students will be retained at greater rates if they are valued. Inter-

action with staff, professors, and other students can lead to greater
success (Tinto, 1993).
• Lastly, and of most importance, students are more likely to stay

in school if that school fosters learning (Tinto, 2000a). Institutions
that are successful in educating students are likely to retain their stu-
dents. Students who learn are more likely to return (Tinto, 1997).
All of the previously mentioned issues and problems surrounding first-gen-

eration college students create huge obstacles that this demographic, in par-
ticular, must overcome in order to be retained in college. The first semester
of school is especially critical for first-generation college students. Inmann
and Mayes’s (1999) study showed that “first-generation students were more
likely to drop out after their first semester, 10 percent for first-generation
and 6.7 percent for others” (p. 4). A study conducted by Nunez and Cuc-
caro-Alamin (1998) found that of students enrolling in postsecondary edu-
cation in either 1989 or 1990:
About 44% of first-generation students had attained a postsecondary degree

or certificate by the spring of 1994, compared with 56% of their non-first-
generation counterparts; 11% of first-generation students were still enrolled
at the time of follow-up, compared with 16% of non-first-generation stu-
dents. Almost half (45%) of first-generation students had attained no degree

and were no longer enrolled by follow-up, compared to less than one-third
(29%) of other students. (p. 36)
As Tinto (1993; 1997; 2000a; 2000b) suggested, the implementation of sup-

port services is one effective idea to help increase persistence and retention
at colleges and universities. For example, The Higher Education Act of 1965
initiated the beginning of what would become the federally-funded TRIO
programs. TRIO was implemented to provide support services to first-gen-
eration and low-income students at the secondary and postsecondary levels.
TRIO programs have been structured to help high school students who
are transitioning into college (e.g., Upward Bound, Talent Search), students
who are currently enrolled in postsecondary education institutions (e.g.,
Student Support Services, Ronald E. McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achieve-
ment Program), as well as members of a community who need support be-
fore re-committing to their educational pursuits (e.g., Educational Oppor-
tunity Centers). Each program is grant-funded through the United States
Department of Education. Since 1965, it is estimated that approximately 2
million students have graduated from college with the assistance of TRIO
programs (What is TRIO, 2006).
While such programs aid in retention, parents’ familiarity with the college
atmosphere is another success factor. According to Nunez and Cuccaro-
Alamin’s (1998) study,
As parental education levels rose, so did the likelihood of persistence from

55% for first-generation students to 65% for students whose parents had
some college, and to 76% for those whose parents had a bachelor’s degree
or higher (p. 36).
If parents are aware of the purpose of higher education, the route to higher
education, and the benefits of higher education, they may be more willing
to encourage, help, and prepare their children for college. This could possibly
eliminate problems and issues surrounding students who are not prepared
academically for college and students who need the extra help and encour-
agement with the application process ( Johnson, 2004).
Helping first-generation college students monetarily will also help them to

be retained. Paying for college was once seen as a parental responsibility, usu-
ally met to some extent by a combination of income, savings, and borrowing
(Choy & Berker, 2003). Tuition at American colleges and universities has

been continuously increasing for several years, creating obstacles for many
students but especially for first-generation college students. Though recent
legislature has increased the maximum amount of Pell Grants awarded to
collegians, the maximum amount still does not account for a decent per-
centage of a student’s rising expenses, nor does it seem to adequately assist
in paying the cost of attendance at many colleges and universities. In addi-
tion, the cost of living in the United States also continues to rise, making it
even more difficult for these students to make ends meet financially.
The availability of grants, loans, and/or scholarships is very important to

first-generation college students. A student may possess the desire, support,
and motivation to succeed in higher education, but without the funds to
attend, all may be lost. Currently, there are several scholarships, grants, and
programs available to first-generation college students. However, the need
is greater than the availability.
Campus Successes
Many campus efforts are being made to couple retention strategies with
programming that can help first-generation college students; however,
much more can be done to help increase the retention of these students.
Thayer (2000) reported on the advantages of Student Support Services
(SSS) based on living-learning communities that have been implemented
at Colorado State University, Drexel University, Skagit Valley College, and
Michigan State University. These communities are created by coupling a
living environment with a learning community. For example, an institution
may choose to house all of its honors students within the same residence
hall. Computer labs, study groups, and study halls are then made available
within that residence hall for each student living there. Overall, programs
such as SSS in conjunction with living-learning communities offer exciting
possibilities for enhancing the quality of learning while increasing student
persistence and retention (Thayer).
For those first-generation college students who are lacking in academic

preparedness, a study by Koehler and Burke (1996) found that initiating
a “Transition Course” for students before they enter college is beneficial
because it provides adequate time for academic, emotional, and social sup-
port before they matriculate fully into the institution. Such courses are quite
similar to summer bridge programs utilized by support service departments
at various institutions.

Besides TRIO programs, colleges and universities are developing and imple-
menting an abundance of other programs and initiatives to help first-gen-
eration college students get to college and be successful once there. For ex-
ample, Smith College has a month-long program in July for those entering
freshmen whom it defines as being disadvantaged. First-generation college
students are included in this definition. The program pays for the students’
travel and other expenses and allows them to take a lighter course load for a
term. The students are also assigned a faculty adviser who gets to know them
during the July program so that they have a familiar institutional contact
(Merullo, 2002).
Santa Clara University hosts annually a First-Generation College Students

Orientation Program. According to the university’s Leadership Excellence
and Academic Development (L.E.A.D.) (2005) Web site:
In order to support first-generation college students, it is important to

also introduce their families to the college experience. Our orientation is
a chance for you and your family to learn about what SCU life is like from
current students, professors, and staff who are or were the first in their fami-
lies to attend college. (p. 1)
The orientation program includes a reception and meetings with the Of-
fice of Financial Aid and Student Accounts. The program is also offered in
English, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese, as many first-generation college
students come from diverse ethnic backgrounds (L.E.A.D., 2005).
Keith Caudle, a first-generation college student attending the University of

Arkansas, (personal communication, March 2, 2005) stated that:
Coming from a poor family that doesn’t value education,

I didn’t really think that I would have the opportunity to
come to college. My dad owns his own construction busi-
ness, so he always figured I would just follow in his foot-
steps and begin working with him as soon as I finished
high school. It wasn’t until I joined the Upward Bound
TRIO program at the University of Arkansas that I real-
ized I could come to college and be successful. Now that I’m
here, I appreciate every moment because I didn’t think I’d
make it.

Mr. Caudle is a good example of what first-generation college students must
go through in order to pursue higher education. He demonstrates that with
the correct education, encouragement, motivation, and knowledge, first-
generation college students can and do succeed.
Benefits
Although first-generation college students have many obstacles to overcome

in order to obtain their degree, many of them persist and eventually accom-
plish their goals. For these students, the benefits that come along with their
degree could be enough to change their lives and the lives of their families
forever. Some of the perks, such as improved salaries and greater career op-
portunities, may be obvious, but others are more obscure. Relating to the
benefits of graduation, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) reported that:
. . . first-generation students derived greater benefits in

learning (as measured by reading comprehension) and gen-
eral cognitive development (as measured by critical think-
ing skills) from full-time enrollment and the extent of their
study effort than other students. First generation students
also appear to derive greater benefits than other students in
internal locus of attribution for academic success from sev-
eral college experiences over the first three years or college,
including coursework in various areas, academic effort, and
extracurricular involvement. (p. 625)
The economic benefits gained through the attainment of a college degree

should be enough to motivate many first-generation college students. For
example, according to Ferguson (n.d.), “over a lifetime, a male with a BA
will make nearly $1 million more than one with only a high school diploma”
(p. 2). According to former president, W.J. Clinton (2000), “Young men
with a bachelor’s degree earn 150 percent the salary of their peers with no
more than a high school diploma - and young women with a college degree
earn twice as much as high school graduates” (p. 2). When the economic
benefits are evaluated, they appear to be the same for any college graduate,
regardless of whether they are of first-generation status or not; however, the
degree to which it affects first-generation students is substantially greater as
they generally come from low-income households.

According to the projections listed in the Occupational Employment sec-
tion of Occupational Outlook Quarterly (2002), workers between 25 and 34
years old holding college degrees rose from 26% to 33% between 1992 and
2000. In fact, more individuals have college degrees now than ever before.
Having a degree gives college graduates the benefit of being more desir-
able and employable than their non-graduate peers. Earning a degree will
become even more important in the future, as occupations requiring at least
a bachelor’s degree are expected to increase.
As far as personal and social benefits are concerned, the National Resources
Information Center (as cited in Northwest Education Loan Association’s
website, n.d.) documents that when compared to high school graduates, col-
lege graduates:
• Are more likely to have meaningful work
• Are more likely to have the freedom to make decisions in their

career
• Tend to be more satisfied in their careers
• Rate themselves as happier and more satisfied with life
• Have higher self-esteem and more self-direction
• Enjoy better health
• Are more efficient in their savings and investment behavior
• Are more effective speakers
• Have stronger verbal and quantitative skills
• Are more likely to be tolerant of other people and their views

• Are more politically active
• Are twice as likely to be involved with volunteerism and commu-

nity groups
All of the benefits mentioned above can be gained by any college graduate;
however, the economic, career, and personal benefits combine to offer first-
generation college students the best benefit of all: upward social mobility.
Many first-generation students improve their social status by attending col-

lege; in doing so, they help ensure that their children will not have to face
all of the educational obstacles that they had to overcome. This accomplish-
ment is difficult, remarkable, and highly admirable.
Conclusion
First-generation college students make up a population of students who

must overcome social, academic, and/or financial obstacles in order to pur-
sue a post-secondary education. Once they are enrolled, it takes great ef-
fort to retain them and to keep them persisting toward their goal: a college
degree. As students, they begin their path toward a degree with little or no
guidance. These students are forced not only to gain the tools and knowl-
edge needed for success, but to also master these tools within a short period
of time. They must also venture on their path alongside many non-first-
generation students, who have parents pointing them in the right direction
all along the way.
Given the increasing enrollments of first-generation students at higher ed-

ucation institutions, it is critical that administrative officials, faculty, and
frontline staff recognize the challenges these students face and develop in-
novative support programs and mechanisms that will help them attain edu-
cational opportunities equitable to those of their peers. As research dem-
onstrates, first-generation college students who complete their degrees do
achieve success in the workforce equal to the success of their counterparts;
therefore, they will contribute equally to society. If given the opportunities,
access, support, and motivation, first-generation college students can and
will continue to bridge educational and socio-economic gaps.

References
Belch, H. (2004). Retention and students with disabilities. Journal of Col-

lege Student Retention, 6, 3-22.
Bills, D. (2003). Credentials, signals, and screens: Explaining the relation-

ship between schooling and job assignment. Review of Educational Re-
search, 73, 441-470.
Brown, H. E., & Burkhardt, R. L. (1999, June). Predicting student success:

The impact of ethnicity, income and parental education. Paper presented
at the 39th annual forum for the Association of Institutional Research,
Seattle.
Chen, X. (2005). First Generation Students in Postsecondary Education: A

Look at Their College Transcripts (NCES 2005–171). U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Choy, S.P. (2001). Findings from the Condition of Education 2001: Students
Whose Parents Did Not Go to College: Postsecondary Access, Persistence,
and Attainment (NCES2001-126). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
Choy, S.P., & Berker, A.M. (2003). How Families of Low- and Middle-In-
come Undergraduates Pay for College: Full-Time Dependent Students in
1999-2000 (NCES 2003-162). U.S. Department of Education, Na-
tional Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office.
Clinton, W.J. (2000). Opening the doors to college and economic opportunity
for all Americans. Retrieved February 4, 2006, from http://clinton3.
nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000612_2.html
Ferguson, R.L. (n.d.). Helping the first-generation college students. Retrieved

February 4, 2006, from http://www.hartdistrict.org/placerita/1st.htm
First-generation college students continue to lag behind peers. (2001).

Student Aid News, 28(17), 5. Retrieved February 23, 2005, from EB-
SCOhost database.

Hsiao, K.P. (2000). First-generation college students: on the margin of
two cultures. New Directions for Community Colleges, 80(1), 29-44.
Inmann, W.E., & Mayes, L. (1999). The importance of being first: unique
characteristics of first-generation community college students. Com-
munity College Review, 26(4), 3-23. Retrieved March 5, 2005, from
ProQuest database.
Johnson, H.E. (2004, January 9). Educating parents about college life. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B.11. Retrieved March 1, 2005, from
EBSCO Academic Search Premier.
Koehler, G., & Burke, A. (1996). Transforming the treadmill into a staircase:
Preparing non traditional, first-generation college attenders for success.
(Report No. JC 960 590). Champaign, Illinois: ERIC report. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED414 959)
Leadership Excellence and Academic Development Programs. Retrieved

March 2, 2005, from http://www.scu.edu/advisin/lead/programs/first-
generation/index.cfm
Lee, J.J., Sax, L.J., Kim. K.A., & Hagedorn, L.S. (2004). Understanding
students’ parental education beyond first-generation status. Commu-
nity College Review, 32(1), 1-22.
Merullo, R. (2002, June 14). The challenge of first-generation college stu-

dents. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B.10. Retrieved March 5,
2005, from ProQuest database.
Northwest Arkansas Loan Association. (n.d.). Benefits of college. Retrieved

February 8, 2006, from https://www.nela.net/planningforcollege/col-
legecareers/benefitsofcollege.asp?nav_section=2.
Nunez, A., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-Generation Students: Un-
dergraduates Whose Parents Never Enrolled in Postsecondary Education
(NCES 1998-082). U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Occupational employment. Occupational Outlook Quarterly Online, 49(4),

1-22.

Orbe, M. P. (2004). Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames:
An analysis of first-generation college students. Communication Edu-
cation, 53, 131-149.
Pascarella, E., Pierson C., Wolniak, G., & Terenzini, P. (2004). First-gen-
eration students. Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students vol.
2: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pryor, J.H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V.B., Lindholm, J.A., Korn. W.S., Mahoney,
K.M. (2005). The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2005.
Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Thayer, P. (2000). Retention of students from first-generation and low in-

come backgrounds. Opportunity Outlook the Journal for the Council for
Opportunity in Education, 3-9.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. (2nd Ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational

character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-
623.
Tinto, V. (2000a). Linking learning and leaving: Exploring the role of the
college classroom in student departure. In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking
the student departure puzzle. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Tinto, V. (2000b). Taking student retention seriously: Rethinking the first

year of college. NACADA Journal, 19, 5-10.
Trotter, A. (2001, June 6). Report highlights progress, inequity, and first-
generation college students. Education Week, 29. Retrieved March 2,
2005, from EBSCO Academic Search Premier.
Warburton, E.C., Bugarin, R., & Nunez, A. (2001). Bridging the Gap: Aca-
demic Preparation and Postsecondary Success of First-Generation Students
(NCES 2001-153). U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.

What is TRIO. (n.d.) Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://www.triopro-
grams.org/whatisTRIO_talkingpoints.html.

CHAPTER 7
Students with Disabilities

Lynn T. Meade
My disability is one piece of the picture — NOT the most

important piece. I am a student, a sister, an aunt, a daughter, a
Christian, and a country music fan. My disability is way down
on the list of what is important about me. I don’t want people to
refer to me as ‘that girl in the chair’ or ‘the person with the spinal
injury,’ but rather a person who is so interested in languages that
she won’t stop learning.
Krista (personal communication, March 17, 2006)
It all began with one student. I was teaching speech at a small community
college in the southern United States. It was the fall of the year and a
new group of students walked into the classroom. One 18-year-old came
equipped with shiny new notebooks, a handful of pens, a textbook, and one
other item that would challenge my skills as a teacher and as a person: he
brought an American Sign Language interpreter.
As a veteran teacher, I have had all types of students, but this one posed
challenges I had never imagined. Each day he attended my class with his
sign language interpreter. When it came time for his speech, I had to learn
a new way of thinking about how to grade. I had to learn that grading the
quality of his speeches meant judging how well he communicated with his
interpreter. I had to learn to grade his vocal inflection on speeches by how
exuberant he made his signs, and I had to learn to focus my eye contact
Students with Disabilities 135

with him even though the interpreter was the one speaking. That experience
taught me a great deal. Most of all it taught me about how understanding
others can be a powerful tool to meaningful communication. Many years
have passed since that first challenge, and I have had the pleasure of working
with numerous students with disabilities as a faculty member, as a coworker,
as a business professional, and as a student. I have used my experience
as a lens to review the research and to share with the reader compelling
information on students with disabilities.
Throughout this chapter, I have inserted quotations from interviews that

I have conducted and excerpts from focus group participants; I have done
this intentionally to let the students themselves have a voice. I have also
used a nontraditional format to guide the reader through multiple levels
of understanding about this group of students. By combining stories,
interviews, statistics, and research, it is my aim to provide a snapshot of this
subpopulation of students, their demographics, the benefits they gain from
college, their unique barriers and issues that contribute to their success.
Defining Disability
The term students with disabilities may include those with learning disabilities,
permanent health conditions, mental health conditions, as well as those
with visual, auditory, and mobility disabilities. According to the Americas
with Disabilities Act of 1990, the presence of a disability necessitates, “1) a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the
major life activities of such an individual; 2) a record of such an impairment;
or 3) being regarded as having such an impairment” (ADA 1990, Section
3).
Several laws dictate access for students with disabilities in higher education.
According to Paul Grossman (2001):
Several federal laws protect students with disabilities from

discrimination by institutions of postsecondary education;
the primary ones are Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (Section 504), which applies to all colleges that
receive federal financial assistance, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which applies to three
primary groups: employers; government entities, such as state
universities; and private entities that serve the public. (p. 41)

There are many myths, however, about the meaning of these laws and how
they affect students and institutions.
Myth number one: There is a universal standard of what is considered a disability.

The answers to the questions “What is a disability?” and “Who is considered
disabled?” depend on who is being asked. One of the major misconceptions
is that there is a predetermined list of conditions that qualify an individual as
having a disability (Belch, 2004). While the definition provided by the ADA
seems to be a concrete definition, a closer look at the diverse application
reveals that ambiguity arises in the interpretation. In an interview with A.
Jannarone (personal communication, February 15, 2006), director of the
Center for Students with Disabilities at the University of Arkansas, she
related that discrepancies often arise because each institution determines
how it will interpret the phrase “substantially limits one or more major life
activities.” Parenthetically, one institution may regard generalized anxiety
disorders as “substantially limiting one or more major life activities” and
another institution may not. Each institution must clarify how to apply
the guidelines and decide who should be included to receive institutional
services.
Myth Number Two: Someone who qualified for special education services in high
school automatically qualifies in college. Just because a person received services
in high school does not mean he or she will automatically receive those
same services in college. The Individuals with Disabilities Act states that
for K-12 special education services are required, yet “in stark contrast, no
similar special education system exists at the postsecondary level. Rather,
at the postsecondary level, disability services are provided” (Madaus, 2005,
p. 32). Many secondary schools fail to explain to their students that “the
documentation they used to establish eligibility for services from elementary
and secondary schools may be insufficient to establish a disability with a
postsecondary institution” (Grossman, 2001, p. 46). In addition, students
are responsible for the costs to obtain the necessary documentation, as they
must seek private diagnosticians to verify their disability and subsequent
accommodation needs.
Myth Number Three: Colleges must assure the academic success of students with
disabilities. Another source of confusion ensues when people misunderstand
the various disability acts and assume that they require success instead of
access. It is important to note that “Section 504 and ADA are civil rights
mandates designed to ensure access; they are not special education laws”

(Maudus, 2005, p. 33). In fact, students’ accommodation requests may
be denied for several reasons (Grossman, 2001). If the request requires a
fundamental alteration in the nature of an academic program (p. 43) or
if it represents an “undue or economic or administrative burden” then the
institution may deny the request. Grossman noted, however, “most students
who document their disability and need for an accommodation will receive
one without conflict or dispute” (p. 44).
Myth Number Four: Colleges must admit all students with disabilities without
considering academic credentials. When students are in K-12, the Individuals
with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 1997) mandates a “free appropriate public
education” that offers special education at public expense for all students
regardless of severity of impairment and impact on educational functioning.
IDEA only covers a person with disabilities until the child graduates from
high school or turns 21 years old and does not cover students once they are in
college. Once in college, students fall under the Americans with Disabilities
Act. These statutes only guarantee that students are not denied employment
or access because of their disability; it does not guarantee admittance into
an institution (Madaus, 2005). In order to be admitted, these students must
apply to the college and meet the same criteria as all other students. “In fact,
students with disabilities are required to meet the ‘essential,’ ‘academic’ and
‘technical’ standards of the college or university, with or without reasonable
accommodation” (Grossman, 2001). On some college applications, there
may be an opportunity for students to explain the reasons for discrepancies
between ACT scores and GPA, but these explanations are not guarantees
of admittance. A student with a disability must participate in the standard
academic process and must have the credentials equivalent to those of other
students without disabilities in order to be accepted into an institution. Not
only do institutions not have to modify admissions standards, but they also
do not have to alter course content or programs of study for a student with
a disability once that student has been admitted (Madaus, 2005).
Defining the Population: Statistics
In 2000, 78% of adults with disabilities completed high school compared to

only 61% in 1986 (Stodden, 2003). The amendments to the Individuals with
Disabilities Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
serve as catalysts for the improvement of services in high schools and the
subsequent expanding college enrollment among students with disabilities
(Horn & Berktold, 1999; Stage & Milne, 1996). The increase in the number

of diagnoses of learning disorders and mental health disorders combined
with improvements in access resulted in the percentage of entering college
freshman to more than triple since 1978 (National Center on Disability,
2003). Of the 16.5 million students enrolled in all U.S. postsecondary
education institutions in 1999-2000, 9% self -reported having a long-lasting
condition that limits one or more of the basic physical activities; however,
only 4% of all students said “yes” to the question, "Do you consider yourself
to have a disability?” (Horn, Peter, Tooney, 2002, p. v).
According to Henderson (2001), the majority of freshman students with

disabilities who enrolled in four-year institutions were 18 to 19 years old
when they entered college and were more likely to be male (52% versus 45%)
than students without disabilities. When undergraduates at postsecondary
schools in general were examined, students with disabilities were more likely
to be female (59% versus 41%) with a high percentage (41%) 30 years of age
or older (NCES, 2004) (see Table 7.1 for selected student characteristics and
disability status). Students with disabilities were more likely than their non-
disabled peers to be enrolled part-time (66.5% compared to 59%) which
may be related to the fact that they were more likely to be married with
children (34.8% versus 26.6%). Freshman students with disabilities had a
median family income of $66,794, which is slightly higher than the $64,500
for other student’s families. Variations exist with sex and disability; men
reported higher incidences of attention deficit disorder while women were
more likely to report having mental illness or depression (NCES, 2000).
Table 7.1 Selected student characteristics and disability status in postsecondary institutions
1999-2000
Any Disability
(by percentage) None Reported
Sex
Male 41 43.9
Female 59 56.1
Age
Age 15-23 42.4 58.6
Age 24-20 16.3 17.0
Age 30 or older 41.4 24.4

Table 7.1 Continued
Any Disability None Reported
Race/ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic 71.8 67
Black, non-Hispanic 11 12.1
Hispanic 10.3 12.2
Asian/Pacific Islander 3.3 6
American Indian/Native Alaskan 2.1 .8
Other 1.6 1.8
Attendance
Full-time or full year 33.5 41
Part-time or part-year 66.5 59
Dependency Status
Dependent 36.7 52.1
Independent, unmarried 19.9 14.6
Independent, married 8.7 6.7
Independent, with dependents 34.8 26.6
Source: National Center for Education Statistics (2004) based on the National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study.
Survey results showed more similarities than differences between freshmen

college students with disabilities and those without regarding personal
characteristics, family demographics, and political attitudes (Henderson,
2001). Differences, however, occurred regarding academic preparation.
Students with disabilities who enrolled at four-year schools earned fewer
grades of “A” in high school and a larger percent had “C” and “D” averages
than their non-disabled peers. In addition, they had lower high school
GPAs and lower average SAT entrance exams. They were less likely to
have taken advanced placement courses and more likely to have taken
remedial mathematics and English in high school than their non-disabled
counterparts (NCES, 1994). Overall, these students were less prepared
to undertake college-level courses, which may explain why the majority
enrolled in two-year colleges (Horn & Berktold, 1999; NCES, 2000).

Students with disabilities are less likely than other students to be enrolled
in public, four-year colleges and universities and are more likely to attend
for-profit vocational institutions or public, two-year colleges (NCES, 2000).
Of those attending four-year institutions, slightly more than half attended
public institutions while 42% attended independent colleges and universities
(Henderson, 2001). Freshmen students with disabilities choose institutions
of higher education on the same basis as their non-disabled counterparts,
with the exception that students with disabilities put more emphasis on
support systems and special programs available. These students’ rationale for
enrolling in a four-year institution were to “learn more about things that
interest me,” “to get a better job,” and “to make more money” (Henderson,
2001, p.12).
Many life objectives were similar but there were a few notable differences.
Two reasons stood out as being more important to freshman with disabilities
compared to their non-disabled counterparts: “the desire to improve
reading and study skills” (45% versus 41%) and “the encouragement of a
role model or mentor” (18% versus 13%) (p. 12). Like their peers, they have
life objectives of raising a family and being well-off financially; however,
freshman students with disabilities demonstrated slightly higher interest
in community and artistic outcomes while students without disabilities
demonstrated a higher interest in being successful in one’s own business
(see Table 7.2 of Henderson, 2001 for complete data).
Table 7.2 Life Objectives of Full-Time College Freshmen Attending Four-Year Institutions,
by Disability Status: 2000
Any Disability None Reported
Life Objective (by percentage) (by percentage)
Raise a family 71 73
Be very well-off financially 70 74
Help others in difficulty 64 62
Be successful in one’s own business 40 49
Influence social values 40 37
Promote racial understanding 35 30
Participate in community action 26 22
Be involved in clean-up efforts 21 17
Create artistic works/write original works 20 14
Source: HEATH Resource Center, American Council on Education. (Based on unpub-

lished data from the 2000 Cooperative Institutional Research Program). UCLA, 2001.

The term “disability” most often calls to mind persons with mobility
impairments who use wheelchairs; however, people report a wide range of
physical disabilities and numerous invisible disabilities (Ryan & McCarthy,
1994). More students reported orthopedic and mobility issues more than
any other disability (See Table 7.3 for a breakdown of disability types among
undergraduates at all institutions). Invisible disabilities, which include mental
illness, attention deficit disorder, and learning disabilities, comprise more
than 28% of the total disabilities. This percentage increases to 48% when
health and visual problems are added into the mix, making this category the
largest category of disability type. This means that things may not be as they
appear. When looking at the student body, one may easily miss the fact that
nearly one in ten students experience a disability.
Table 7.3 Disability Type Among 1999-2000 undergraduates—Total 9% of the

student population
50
45
40
29.4 35
30
25
17
15.1 14.9 20
15
6.7 6.4 5.2 5 10
0.2
5
0
Hea
Hea
Vis
O rt
Me
AD
Le a
Spe
All
nta
ion
D
hop
Oth
l th
rin g
ech
nin
l ill
Pro
e rs
ed i
gd
ne s
c/M
ble
isa
s
ms
obi
bili
l ity
ty
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1999-2000
National Postsecondary Aid Study (NPSAS: 2000).
It is the invisible disabilities that are on the rise. Both data from the National
Postsecondary Aid Study on undergraduates at all institution types and the
HEATH data (Henderson, 2001) that looked at only freshman at four-
year institutions demonstrated the growing numbers in this category that
included ADD, learning disabilities, hearing disabilities and mental illness.

The HEATH report breaks down the categories slightly different and cites
that for incoming freshman at four-year colleges two in five (40%) students
with a disability reported having a learning disability compared to only
16% in 1988 (Henderson, 2001). Of those, 45% were women and 19% were
students of color. High percentages (45%) of those with learning disabilities
were 19 or older and 42% were from families whose family income exceeded
$100,000. Psychological disabilities are also on the rise. The number of
people reporting psychological disabilities is on the rise with 95% of college
counseling directors reported seeing more students on psychiatric medication
than in previous years (Stringari, 2003; Young, 2003).
Table 7.4 Range of disabilities that may qualify a student for college student disability service
Physical Learning Psychological Chronic Health
Mobility Attention Deficit Disorder Depression Diabetes

Auditory Dyslexia (mixed up letters) General Anxiety Disorder Multiple Sclerosis
Visual Dysgraphia (writing prob- Bipolar AIDS
Speech lems) Delusional Chronic Fatigue Syn-
Dyscalculia (math prob- Eating Disorder drome
lems) Obsessive Compulsive Lupus
Dyspraxia (language Posttraumatic stress Epilepsy
problems) Schizophrenia Cancer
Reading through a summary of the major reported disabilities (see Table

7.4) serves to help visualize the broad range of disabling conditions that are
lumped into this group (Belch, 2004). Students may have systemic disorders
such as multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, cancer, diabetes, cystic
fibrosis, lupus, or epilepsy. Each disorder poses its own challenges with
episodic illnesses often creating situations that are difficult to predict and
to manage, according to Jannarone (personal communication, February 15,
2006). Psychiatric and behavioral conditions vary greatly and each diagnosis
may result in different services needed (Duffy, 1994). The spectrum of
physical disabilities varies and may range from mobility issues to visual
and auditory impairments. At four-year institutions, 16% of freshman with
disabilities reported being partially sighted or blind and 9% reported having
hearing impairments (Henderson, 2001). The proportion of freshman
with health-related disabilities remains fairly stable at 15–18% since 1988.
Of college freshmen at four-year institutions, 15% self-described their
disabilities as health related (Henderson, 2001). Currently, the continual
growth of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) on campus is creating a

growing set of disabilities from cancers and neurological disease to wasting
and recurrent infections (Keeling, 1994).
Table 7.5 Services Provided to Students with Disabilities. Percent of two-year and four-year
postsecondary education institutions enrolling students with disabilities that provided various
services or accommodations to students with disabilities during 1997-98 by
institutional characteristics.
Alterna- Adaptive Readers, Tutors to

Institu- Oral inter- Course Sign
tive exam equip- classroom Textbooks assist with
tional preters Substitu- language
formats or ment & note tak- On ongoing
Charac- Transla- tion interpret-
additional technol- ers or tape course-
teristic tors Or waiver ers
time ogy Scribes work
Public,
94 66 81 82 66 48 66 87
two-year
Private,
55 10 30 18 11 15 10 51
two-year
Public,
100 68 80 93 85 69 68 82
four-year
Private,
90 29 39 66 49 35 29 75
four-year
All Institu-
88 45 58 69 55 42 45 77
tions
Source: Postsecondary Students with Disabilities: Enrollment, Services, and Persistence, (NCES,
2000).
While many students with disabilities utilize the services available, others
choose not to use them. In some instances, the services are needed but are not
available. Twenty-six percent of students with disabilities enrolled in college
utilized disability services (Horn & Berktold, 1998). Students were most
likely to receive service at public, four-year institutions. The most common
accommodation provided by institutions is alternative exam formats or
additional time (88%) with tutors coming in second (77%) (NCES, 2000).
Table 7.5 shows the breakdown of many types of services provided and the
types of institutions that provide those services.

Student Development Issues—Guiding Framework
Student development theories provide student affairs practitioners with

information about the cognitive, affective, and behavioral domains of college
students (Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). Unfortunately, with
regard to students with disabilities, there is a gap in the literature. “There are
no published articles that have a model of student development specifically
for students with disabilities,” according to an e-mail correspondence
from Dr. Rebecca Cory, member of the ACPA Standing Committee for
Disabilities and Research and consultant for the University of Washington’s
Do It Program (personal communication, February 12, 2006). Some people,
according to Cory, apply minority and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual
theories to this group. Serebrini, Gordon, and Mann (1994) attempted
to make comparisons among existing student development theories and
students with disabilities and reported some basic assumptions about
intellectual, psychosocial, and career development. They argued against
the broad application of theory concluding that in absence of a student
development theory, existing student theories can be used to at least provide
some guiding principle.
Jones (1996) bypassed and argued against standard developmental theories

and discussed guiding frameworks that could be used to understand
students with disabilities. “A new framework for understanding disability
is needed to challenge assumptions upon which prevailing definitions exist
and to broaden our perspectives of those with disabilities” (p. 348). Jones
(1996) advocated viewing disability as socially constructed as opposed to
the dominant frameworks of functional limitations and the minority group
paradigm. From the functional limitations framework, each person is seen
as having a biologically disabling condition that influences the sense of
self. This framework implies that the student needs to change to fit the
environment. When viewing a disability in this manner, the solution is to
rehabilitate the individual so that he/she can overcome the challenges of the
disability.
Jones (1996) argued against looking at a disability through the minority

group paradigm, because its focuses on “alienation, marginalization,
discrimination, and oppression” (p. 349). This framework suggested that
there are commonalities among all members of a minority group and
that there are consequences for students with disabilities functioning
in a disabling environment (Hahn, 1991). The remedy under this view is

advocacy and political action. The great variety of disabilities, from physical
to psychological to learning, may “act against the development of minority
group consciousness” ( Jones, 1996, p. 350). Understanding disability as
socially constructed is to “celebrate the uniqueness of individual difference
while directing attention to social change and transformation of oppressive
structures” (p. 351). Furthermore, focusing on the minority status accentuates
the disability and further sets those with disabilities apart from others.
Many students who are deaf, according to Chernry (1999), embrace their
distinction as part of a minority group:
The Deaf are very aware of their status as members of a

minority culture, and they have shaped an identity around
this status. They do not identify themselves as disabled, but
rather as members of a linguistic minority. To the Deaf, the
primary thing that distinguishes the hearing from the Deaf
is the language they prefer to use. (p. 27)
The social constructivist position assumes that one’s understanding of

the world exists within a context (Gergen, 1985). “It is the attitudes and
institutions of the non-disabled, even more than the biological characteristics
of the disabled that turn characteristics into handicaps,” (Ash & Fine, 1988, p.
7). Jones (1996) also endorsed this third framework of social constructivism,
“Much of what is believed about disability results from meanings attached
by those who are not disabled and challenges the assumptions upon which
those meanings rest” (p. 350).
Framing the situation in terms of what the student can do and celebrating
those differences can lead to innovative approaches to support students in
their college experience. Creating structures and implementing programs
that work for all students as well as creating programs with high quality
interactions may be some of the greatest challenges for student services
personnel.
Benefits of College
According to the Institute for Higher Education Policy (2005; 1998),

students benefit from college by receiving higher salaries and benefits,
maintaining higher savings levels, experiencing improved working
conditions, enjoying an improved quality of life, and engaging in more
hobbies and leisure activities. In addition, college graduates use less public

assistance, participate in more volunteerism, and are more likely to vote. It is
reasonable to assume that students with disabilities will experience generally
the same positive outcomes as others, with a few notable exceptions. Studies
by the National Center for Education Statistics report that students with
disabilities who have completed a four-year degree have similar annual full-
time salaries as those with the equivalent education (Horn & Berktold,
1999). In 2003, individuals with a disability and a college degree from a
four-year college earned 62% more than a worker with only a high school
diploma (Collegeboard, 2005). Employment rates for those with disabilities
are more closely tied to education level than for the general population, so
college education becomes even more important to financial independence
(National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports
[NCSPES], 2001). Despite the legislative efforts to increase employment,
students with disabilities who have a college degree are more likely to be
unemployed than their non-disabled counterparts (11% vs. 4%).
Student Retention
Understanding college student retention is a complex issue and the

multifaceted nature of this population makes understanding the retention
rates all the more difficult. Only half of enrolled student with disabilities
earned a degree, compared to two-thirds of their non-disabled peers (Lewis
& Westat, 1999). While more than half of students with disabilities will
persist with a degree or credential, it takes twice as long for them to complete
their degree (Stodden, 2003). Students with disabilities are more likely to
have delayed enrolment into college. They are often older and are more likely
to have dependents other than a spouse (25% versus 13%). Students with
disabilities who are financially dependant on their parents are less likely
to receive financial aid (48% compared to 59%) possibly due to the fact
that they receive income such as Supplemental Security Income and Social
Security Disability Insurance.
Barriers to Students with Disabilities’ Success
The “powerful impact of negative attitudes and low expectations of people

with disabilities” and the fact that they “still must struggle to get the very
basic accommodations from postsecondary institutions and faculty even
when the need is apparent” were the most commonly reported barriers in a
report sponsored by the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults

with Disabilities (NCSPES, 2001, p. 12). Stage and Milne (1996) offered a
student’s quote about an experience with a faculty member:
I told the professor that I was dyslexic and she said, “Well we
can’t really do anything about that. You’re going to have to
take the test just like everybody else.” I explained that I was
asking for more time and she said, “Well I don’t know if we
can give you more time….” (p. 434, 437)
Students communicated frustration because of the misperceptions about

them and their disability. “Teachers and other students think I’m getting
away with something when I’m given accommodations” reported a student
during a focus group (NCSPES, 2001, p. 13). Students feel that faculty
members were skeptical about their disabilities and were therefore hesitant
to make special accommodations (Stage & Milne, 1996). Many faculty
members resent being told how they had to accommodate a student and they
especially struggled with how to manage those with “invisible disabilities”
(Bagnato, 2004). The Institute for Higher Education Policy blamed the
culture of academia for not properly training faculty members to deal with
the special needs of students with disabilities.
The most obvious solution is to provide on-going faculty and staff training.
Faculty and staff are often called upon to interact with students whose
disabilities they do not understand. Of those surveyed, most all institutions
have at least one kind of educational activity for faculty and staff who work
with students with disabilities. One-on-one discussions were the most
common educational activity; however, only 63% of colleges studied reported
conducting workshops on the topic (Horn & Berktold, 1998). Words reflect
attitudes, and belittling words make others feel insignificant. Pam (personal
communication, 2006) revealed her frustration in a personal interview:
I heard one girl making a scene because she had forgotten to
do some homework. As she pounded on her head she said
to those around the class, “I must have ADD or something.”
I hear comments like that all the time. I try not to take it
personally but it still hurts. I don’t usually let people know
that I have ADD—it’s the big secret.

Designations such as “‘the blind,’ ‘the retarded,’ or ‘the disabled’ do not
reflect the individuality, equality, or dignity of people with disabilities”
(U.S. Department of Labor, 2002, p. 1). When addressing a person with
a disability, it is advised that the speaker uses words that put the person
before the disability (ACPA, 2006). Say “a student who is blind” rather than
a “blind student” and similarly say “a student who is disabled” rather than
the “disabled student.” By contrast, do not refer to those without disabilities
as “normal”; this gives the sense that those with disabilities are abnormal
(Snow, 1996). Only speak of a person’s disability when that disability is
relevant. Most of the time, it is not relevant; focus instead on what the
student needs. Instead of saying, “I have a crippled student or a student
who is wheelchair bound,” say “I have a student who needs transit services”
(ACPA, 2006; Snow, 1996).
The financial aid system often works as another barrier for students with
disabilities. They typically receive 5% less college-based grants than do their
non-disabled peers and are less likely to be offered financial incentives to
enroll (Henderson, 2001). Because of numerous extra challenges related to
mobility issues, health issues, or learning issues, students with disabilities
sometimes enroll as part-time students. These students are essentially full-
time students “because they require a great deal of time to care for themselves,
to get to and from school and to complete academic assignments” (Bagnato,
2004, p. 2). For these students, college requires “full-time effort,” yet they still
receive “part-time status” and thus are only eligible for “part-time financial
aid” (p. 2).
College demands more mental and/or physical energy from students with
disabilities. For those with learning disabilities, it may mean spending
considerably more time on homework; for those with medical disabilities,
it may mean managing medical appointments and handling the side effects
of medications; for those with mobility disabilities, it may mean extended
physical effort to perform basic tasks. For many, the fatigue factor may play
a major part in the college experience.
For students with disabilities, the day- to-day hassles

can get so huge. They may spend an inordinate amount
of energy just to get to class. After a while, it is just not
worth it. The fatigue factor may also come from reasons not
readily apparent like medications. So much energy is spent

doing basic things. It’s easy to give up after a while. (Krista,
personal correspondence, 2006)
Even when there are special services available such as note takers and tutors,
it takes extra time and energy to make arrangements and to attend study
sessions. “It takes me about forty-five minutes to get to my class,” says a
student with mobility impairment (Krista, personal correspondence, 2006).
Students with learning disabilities typically take considerably more time on
homework than their non-disabled peers by spending more than 30 hours
per week on schoolwork (Trainin & Swanson, 2005). The fatigue factor and
the extra time to do work may explain why 10% of freshman with disabilities
reported they would need extra time to complete their degree requirements,
compared to 6% of the non-disabled students (Henderson, 2001).
What Works: Helping Students with Disabilities Succeed
Transition into college has been targeted as a critical period for new students
(Wagner & Blackorby, 1986). This issue becomes even more critical
for students with special needs (Hartman, 1993). In precollege, public
education, IDEA mandates special services for students with disabilities.
In college, however, the responsibility transfers to the student to provide
documentation and secure letters of accommodation. Just because a student
is qualified in high school does not necessarily mean that he or she will
qualify for services in college. Most institutions have an office for students
with physical and learning disabilities. To access these services, students must
provide documentation of their impairment that substantiates its impact
on major life functions and the need for accommodation. In some cases,
institutions may charge additional fees for services that are beyond what is
minimally required by law, for example, students must go to an independent
source to pay for testing that verifies their disability (Madaus, 2005).
If this group of students is to be successful, institutions need to

intentionally design transition programs and provide a support network
to meet the unique needs of this group. For students with learning
disabilities, this critical transition time should be used to encourage them
to examine and assess their strengths associated with success in college
settings. Skills such as studying, time management, and organization are
critical to all students, but particularly students with a learning disability
(Milsom & Harley, 2005).

High School Counselors play an important role. They can best prepare
their students with disabilities for postsecondary education by ensuring
that students possess a thorough knowledge of the following: 1) the impact
of their disability on learning; 2) the role and function of postsecondary
support services; 3) the differences in legislation at the postsecondary level;
and 4) the ability to self-advocate (Milsom & Hartley, 2005). The College
of San Mateo decreased the attrition rate for students with psychological
disabilities from 90-95% to 17-20% by a Transition to College program
(Stringari, 2003). This program included a partnership with the mental
health and rehabilitation community, which provides service staff, case
managers, peer counselors and co-instructors for special career classes. Not
only were the educational outcomes increased, but students also reported a
greater level of satisfaction with their quality of life.
The student, not the parent or counselor, needs to take the initiative in
the process of admissions and documentation. Students should be able to
represent themselves and describe their disabilities and the accommodations
they need. Self-advocacy is an important part of being able to function
independently ( Janipa & Costnebader, 2002). It is to the student’s
advantage to learn to communicate personal strengths to others (Stage &
Milne, 1996). Particularly for persons with a pessimistic cognitive style,
appropriate interventions such as self-disputation skills training can be
particularly important (Martinez & Sewell, 2000). When college disability
services counselors were asked about characteristics important for the
success of students with learning disabilities, motivation, preparation, and
self-advocacy were highly rated (Milsom & Hartley, 2005). In other studies,
help-seeking and social skills were determined crucial to academic success
(Trainin & Swanson, 2005). Student services workers should assist students
with disabilities to self advocate and provide resources when necessary.
Finding the right balance may be difficult; students want support but then
report feeling “micromanaged” by support systems. They expressed a desire
to be treated as individuals and not according to their disability. “I really
don’t want anybody to pacify me: I’m normal, there’s nothing wrong with
me, it’s just that I have a disability” (NCSPES, 2001, p. 13).
Instilling a sense of belonging helps all students, but particularly disabled

students whose disability make them feel even more of an outsider. Key
elements for success in higher education are a sense of belonging and
developing a sense of purpose (Belch, 2005). Support groups supply

opportunities for students with disabilities to share information, to develop
coping strategies, and to furnish a network of social support (Stage & Milne,
1996). Peers serve as a resource for information about services and support
available and provide guidance by example (NCSPES, 2001). Many students
with disabilities reported that having a disability made it more difficult to
meet people and to make friends. Peer socialization was an important part
of helping them become integrated into campus.
One of the most important campus contributions made by institutions is

the implementation of a universal design strategy—both programmatically
and architecturally. “In universal design, environments and activities are
designed in such a way that they are accessible to anyone, regardless of a
person’s functional limitations” (Aune, 2000, p. 57). Universal design on
college and university campuses involves creating buildings and curriculum
that are accessible to all.
Currently, of the institutions that have an institution-wide formal planning

process and enroll students with disabilities, 55% explicitly considered the
needs of students with disabilities. Of those, 59% requested input from the
disability support services office or coordinator (Horn & Berktold, 1998).
Many campuses are striving to find the best balance possible to provide
access to all students, but finding solutions that work for everyone is not
always easy:
I know there are not cookie cutter solutions. This became

very apparent to me when I moved from walking with canes
to using a wheelchair. When I used canes, I was always glad
that there was a trashcan in front of the elevator door button
so I could balance myself when I pushed the button. Now that
I am in a wheelchair, the trashcan is a barrier that keeps me
from reaching the button. (Krista, personal correspondence,
2006)
Universal design focuses on making changes to curriculum design because

it helps all students—not just those with a disability. Faculty can employ
universal design strategies in their curriculum that will benefit all students.
Students with disabilities represent one part of a continuum of learners—
not just a separate group of learners—and, therefore, curricular flexibility
helps a variety of students (Orkwins, 1999). By using a mixture of media
such as text, image, and video, students are given choices with how to

demonstrate knowledge. This would benefit a wide range of students, not
just those who are disabled; it would also eradicate a need for a special or
separate curriculum for those with special needs (Belch, 2004). Strategies
may include using videotapes, role-play, debates, and oral tests instead of
traditional lectures, textbooks, and written tests (Orkwins, 1999). Universal
design strategies promote self-reliance and increase self-confidence; they
are a means to “expand the definition of diverse learners in class rather
than treating students with disabilities as a distinct category” (Belch, 2004,
p. 13).
Conclusion
The number of students with disabilities is projected to continue to increase.

Students with learning disabilities and students with psychiatric conditions
will likely continue to be the fastest growing part of this population. For
student services workers and faculty, providing an environment of belonging
and using people-first language that puts the person before the disability
can be the first important step toward helping this student group succeed.
Creating and implementing programs on multiple levels that facilitate
successful transitions can be crucial. Advocating for universal design
strategies in both academic and architectural planning can make campuses
more favorable for students with disabilities.
This diverse group has much to offer institutions of higher education,

and, likewise, institutions have much to offer them. When students with
disabilities are educated everyone wins. The student gains an education,
the prospect for a better career, and strong connections; society gains an
educated and contributing member; and student affairs professionals gain
the satisfaction of a job well done.

References
ACPA Standing Committee on Disability (2006). The language of

disabilities. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from http://www.myacpa.org/
sc/scd/Disability%20Info/tipscover.html
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (1990).

Retrieved April 20, 2006, from http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/adatext.html
Ashe, A., & Fine, M. (1988). Introduction Beyond pedestals, In M. Fine &
A. Asch (eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and
politics, (pp. 1-37). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Aune, E. (2000). Career and academic advising. In H.A. Belch (Ed.), Serving
students with disabilities (pp 55-68). New directions for student services,
No. 91. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bagnato, K. (2004). Report: Disabled students must self-advocate.

Community College Week, 16(26), 2. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from
http://www.ccweek.com/articlePage.asp?i=43
Belch, H. A. (2005). Retention and students with disabilities. Journal of

College Student Retention, 6(1), 3-22.
Cherney, J.L. (1999). Deaf culture and cochlear implant debate: Cyborg
politics and the identity of people with disabilities. Argumentation and
Advocacy, 36(1), 22-35.
CollegeBoard, Washington. (2005). Education pays update: A supplement

to Education Pays 2004: the Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals
and Society. Trends in higher education series. Retrieved April 1, 2006,
from http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/press/cost05/
education_pays_05.pdf
Duffy, J.T. (1994). Psychological disability. In Ryan, D. & McCarthy, M.

(Eds.). The Student Affairs Guide to the ADA and Disability Issues. (pp.
88-97) Washington: NASPA.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guiso-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in

college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gergen, K. (1985).The social constructivist movement in modern psychology.

American Psychologist, 40, 266-275.

Grossman, P.D. (2001). Making accommodations: The legal world of
students with disabilities. Academe: Bulletin of the American Association
of University Professors, 87, 41-16. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://
www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2001/01nd/01ndgro.htm
Hahn, H. (1991). Theories and values: Ethics and contrasting perspectives

on disability. In R.P. Marineeli & A.E. Dell Orto (Eds.), The psychological
and social impact of disability (3rd ed.) (pp. 18-22). New York: Springer.
Hartman, R.C. (1993). Transition to higher education. New Directions for

Student Services, 64, 31-43.
Henderson, C. (2001). College Freshman with Disabilities: A Biennial Statistical

Profile. Heath Resource Center. American Council on Education. Retrieved
April 1, 2006, from http://www.heath.gwu.edu/PDFs/collegefreshmen.
pdf
Horn, L. & Berktold, J. (1999). Students with disabilities in postsecondary

education: A profile of preparation, participation, and outcomes.
Education Statistics Quarterly. National Center for Education Statistics,
1(3). Retrieved April 3, 2006, from National Center for Education
Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999187
Horn, L. & Berktold, J. (1998). Postsecondary education quick information

system, survey on students with disabilities at postsecondary education
institutions. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from the National Center
for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.
asp?pubid=1999046
Horn, L. Peter, K., Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of undergraduates in U.S.

Postsecondary intuitions: 1999-2000. Retrieved April 1, 2006 from the
National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2002168
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. H.R.5. (1997). Retrieved April

1, 2006 from http://eee.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/idea.pdf
Institute for Higher Education Policy (2005). The investment payoff: A

20-state analysis of the public and private benefits of higher education.
Washington D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Institute for Higher Education Policy (1998). Reaping the benefits:
Defining the public and private value of going to college. Washington
D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Janipa, S.J. & Costenbader, V. (2002). The transitions from high school to
postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities: A survey
of college service coordinators.
Jones, S.R. (1996). Toward inclusive theory: Disability as social construction.

NASPA Journal, 33, 347-354.
Keeling, R.P. (1994). Disabilities caused by human immunodeficiency virus

disease. In Ryan, D. & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). The Student Affairs Guide
to the ADA and Disability Issues. (pp. 51-68). Washington: NASPA.
Lewis, L. & Westat, E.F. (1999). An institutional perspective on students

with disabilities in postsecondary education. Retrieved April 1, 2006,
from National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/
pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999046.
Madaus, J. W. (2005). Navigating the college transition maze: A guide for

students with learning disabilities. Teaching for Exceptional Children,
37(3), 32-37.
Martinez, R., & Sewell, K.W., (2000). Explanatory style in college students
gender differences and disability status. College Student Journal, 34(1),
1-8.
Milsom, A. & Harley, M. (2005). Assisting students with learning

disabilities transitioning to college: What school counselors should
know. Professional School Counseling 8(5), 1-12.
National Center for Education Statistics (2004). Digest of education

statistics, 2004: Chapter 3 Postsecondary education. Retrieved April 20,
2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d04/tables/dt04_211.
asp.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Postsecondary students

with disabilities: Enrollment, services, and persistence. Retrieved April 1,
2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000092.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). National education
longitudinal study of 1988. Third follow-up survey. Retrieved April 1,
2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nels88/.
National Center for the Study of Postsecondary Educational Supports

(2001). Postsecondary education and employment for students with
disabilities: Focus group discussion on supports and barriers in lifelong
learning. University of Hawaii: National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://www.
rrtc.hawaii.edu/documents/products/phase2/pdf/023c(1)-H02.pdf.
Orwkins, R. (1999). Curriculum access and universal design for learning.

ERIC Digest #E586. (Eric Document Reproduction Service
ED437767). Retrieved January 15, 2003 from http://ericec.org/digests/
e586.html.
Ryan, D. & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (1994). The Student Affairs Guide to the
ADA and Disability Issues. Washington: NASPA.
Serebrini, R.R., Gordon, S.E. & Mann, B. (1994). Student development

theories as related to students with disabilities. In Ryan, D. & McCarthy,
M. (Eds.). The Student Affairs Guide to the ADA and Disability Issues.
(pp. 15-32). Washington: NASPA.
Snow, K. (n.d.). To ensure inclusion, freedom and respect or all, we must

use people first language. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://www.
disabilityisnatural.com/peoplefirstlanguage.htm.
Stage, F.K. & Milne, N.V. (1996). Invisible Scholars: Students with learning
disabilities. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(4), 426-445.
Stringari, T. (2003). Community partnerships and outcomes for students

with psychological disabilities. College of San Matco. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. JC030467).
Stodden, R. (2003). People with disabilities and postsecondary education:

Position paper. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from National Council
on Disability http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/
education.htm.

Trainin, G., & Swanson, H.L. (2005). Cognition, metacognition, and
achievement of college student with learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Quarterly, 28(4), 261-272.
Troiano, P.F. (2003). College students and learning disability: Elements of

self-style. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 404-419.
U.S. Department of Labor (2002, August). Communicating with and about

people with disabilities. Retrieved April 1, 2006, from http://www.dol.
gov/odep/pubs/fact/comucate.htm,
Wagner, M.M. & Blackorby, J. (1996). Transition from high school to work
or college: How special education students fare. Special Education for
Students with Disabilites, 6(1), 103-120.
Young, J.R. (2003). Prozac campus: More students seek counseling and take
psychiatric medication. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(23), A
37.

CHAPTER 8
Native American Students

Jacob G. Murdock and Billy H. Satterfield
The many influences on Native American students and the history of Native
Americans in the United States significantly impact their individual experi-
ences as college students. The attitudes of Native Americans about higher
education also appear to be somewhat mixed. As Boyer (1997) pointed out,
characteristically many Native Americans are “isolated by distance and cul-
ture, many have come to accept that they cannot complete school. College
seems to many Native Americans an impossible dream” (p. 4). To best un-
derstand Native Americans in higher education, we must first determine
what defines a Native American.
According to the United States Code Vol. 6, Title 25, Chapter 14, Subchap-
ter 479, Page 4, 879, Native American means:
All persons of Native American descendents who are mem-

bers of any recognized tribe now under federal jurisdiction,
and all persons who are descendents of such members who
were on June 1, 1934, residing within the present bound-
aries of any Native American reservation, and shall further
include all persons one-half or more Native American blood.
For the purposes of this Act, Eskimos, and other aboriginal
peoples of Alaska shall be considered Indians. (U.S. Depart-
ment of Interior, 2006)
Depending on the institution of higher education, the definition of Native

American may differ. The authors of this chapter will use the terms “Native
Native American Students 159

American” and “American Indian” interchangeably with the express under-
standing that there are disagreements about the usage of these two words.
It is important for those in higher education to determine the definition
of Native American or American Indian students at their institution. The
authors subscribe to the United States Code definition of Native Americans
for the purpose of this chapter because the scope of the chapter is deal-
ing specifically with students at institutions of higher education within the
United States.
In this chapter the authors will examine Native American students as a sub-
population in higher education. This will include discussing the demograph-
ics of Native American students; the differences and similarities of Native
American students with other ethnic groups; the identity development of
Native American students; the retention of Native American students; the
campus successes of Native American students; and the benefits obtained
by successful Native American students. Native American students make
up one of the smallest ethnic groups in American higher education. They
maintain an identity that is unique among all other ethnic minorities in the
United States and are themselves diverse in their cultures and tribes.
The history of Native American education is a long and somewhat disturb-

ing story. As Wooocock and Alawiye (2001) described, the history of Native
Americans in education has been tumultuous:
Indian education is a microcosm of the American Indian

world. The problems that plague the Indian world are not
only manifested but also accentuated in education. Though
commonalities may be found with other ‘protected’ classes or
groups, certain characteristics make American Indians and
Indian education quite different. These characteristics have
roots well grounded in history and context. (¶ 1)
These characteristics will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter, but
included among these are traits of individual Native American cultures or
tribes that affect the retention of Native Americans who participate in high-
er education (Benjamin, Chambers, & Reiterman, 1993; Cole & Denzine,
2002). As found in the 1969 report “Indian Education: A National Tragedy
– A National Challenge,” previous policies influencing Native Americans
had very negative impacts on the population as a whole (Wooocock & Ala-
wiye, 2001). Some of these results included, “the destruction and disorgani-

zation of Indian communities and individuals; prejudice, racial intolerance
and discrimination towards Indians far more widespread and serious than
generally recognized; and schools which fail to understand or adapt to, and
in fact often denigrate, cultural differences” (Wooocock & Alawiye, ¶ 22).
According to Astone and Nunez-Wormack (1996) more than twice as many
Native Americans lived below the poverty rate as Americans in general.
Native Americans also have a median income that is comparable to that
of African Americans and Hispanics (Astone & Nunez-Wormack, 1996).
To further understand Native American college students, demographics of
these students must be addressed.
Demographics
Obtaining demographic information on the Native American population

can be difficult. The difficulty is mostly attributed to the relatively small
number of Native Americans living in the United States. These low num-
bers give rise to sampling, data availability, and high standard error issues.
In addition, on most data obtained the respondents self-reported race and
ethnic information. Respondents may not be truthful or have an under-
standing of their race and ethnicity when reporting this information (Pavel,
Skinner, Cahalan, Tippeconnic, & Stein, 1998). Even with these difficulties,
it is possible to obtain an understanding of the demographics of the Na-
tive American population and, more specifically, Native American students.
However, with these negative characteristics, care should be taken when
making generalizations from the data.
Data from the U.S. Census Bureau highlighted the small number of Na-
tive American and Alaska Native population. According to estimated data
from the 2004 American Community Survey, Native Americans comprised
only 0.8% of the U.S. population. The state with the largest population of
Native Americans was Alaska (12.9%), followed by New Mexico (9.3%),
Oklahoma (7.8%), and Montana (6.5%). In addition, 11% of the population
was between the ages of 18 and 24 years old — the age of traditional college
students (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). The population of Native Americans
has increased from 1,959,234 in 1990 to an estimated 2,151,322 in 2004;
however, the population has remained at the same percentage of the to-
tal population (U.S. Census Bureau, 1992, 2004). According to the United
States Bureau of Indian Affairs, there are currently 561 federally recognized
tribal governments. In essence, this means that there are 561 different Na-

tive American cultures represented in the United States and in American
higher education (U.S. Department of Interior, 2006).
In relation to the majority, Native American students tend to come from

poorer families. The unemployment rate of Native Americans was estimated
in 2004 to be 14% compared to a 7.2% unemployment rate in the total pop-
ulation. The median income for Native American households was estimated
in 2004 to be $31,605 compared to $44,684 for the overall United States
population. The poverty rate for married Native American couples with
children under 18 years old was estimated to be 15.6% compared to 6.9% of
the total population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). In the future, the Native
American population will continue to grow. In 2004, this group comprised
an estimated 2,151,322 members, a slight increase from 1,959,000 in 1990
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1992, 2004). In addition, the United States Census
Bureau predicts that the Native American population will reach 4.6 million
by 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1993).
The educational attainment of the Native American population was found

to be different from the total population. The estimate of Native Americans
25 years and older that have a high school diploma or higher was 76.6%
compared with 83.9% of the total population. The percentage of Native
Americans with a bachelor’s degree or higher was estimated at 14.2% com-
pared with 27.0% of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). In
1992, only 9.3% of the Native American population had a bachelor’s degree
(U.S. Census Bureau, 1992). It is not evident that there has been much of a
rise in the number of Native Americans attaining a bachelor’s degree.
In respect to higher education, the population of Native American students

is unique. In the fall of 2002, Native American students comprised 1.0% of
undergraduate enrollments or 165,900 students. This figure is up from 0.7%
and 76,100 students in 1976. However, it should be noted that the total
number of students attending college on the undergraduate level has been
increasing slightly during the past 25 years (U.S. Department of Education,
2004).
On average, Native American students score lower on standardized tests

than the average for all students. For the 2005 class of all incoming students,
the average SAT verbal score for all test takers was 508 and an average SAT
math score of 520. However, for Native American students the average SAT
verbal score was 489 and the average SAT math score was 493. These scores

respectively were 19 and 27 points lower than the average score (College
Board, 2005).
The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded increased in the 10 years lead-

ing up to 2002, but the major fields of study have not. In the 1993-1994
school year 6,189 bachelor’s degrees were awarded to Native American stu-
dents compared to 10,020 degrees awarded in the 2003-2004 school year.
The number of Native Americans participating in higher education has
increased, partly because the enrollment at tribal colleges and universities
has grown. Tribal colleges and universities represent approximately 14% of
the Native American students in higher education (Ortiz & HeavyRun-
ner, 2002). However, compared to all other racial groups, Native Americans
make up the smallest group of degrees conferred (U.S. Department of Edu-
cation, 2004). Larimore and McClellan (2005) argued, in regard to degree
attainment for these students, that “the severe under representation of Na-
tive Americans among those earning degrees reflects both extremely low
enrollment or participation rates and generally poor retention rates for Na-
tive American college students” (p. 18). The most popular field of study for
all graduates in both time periods was business and management. Business
and management was the most conferred degree for the total population as
well (U.S. Department of Education).
Native American students tend to enroll in public, two-year institutions.

In 2002, 77,200 Native American students were attending public, two-year
institutions while 62,700 were attending public, four-year institutions. Only
21,900 Native American students attended private, four-year institutions.
Furthermore, the population of Native American students attending private,
two-year institutions in 2002 was 4,100. The number of Native American
students attending both four-year and two-year institutions has increased.
In 1976, 35,000 Native American students attended four-year institutions
and 41,200 attended two-year institutions compared to 84,600 and 81,300,
respectively, in 2004 (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Many Native
Americans attended one of the 33 Tribal Colleges and Universities in the
United States and Canada; “these colleges, which were founded as part of
the American Indian self-determination movement that began in the 1960’s,
seek to provide affordable and culturally relevant postsecondary education,
especially for geographically isolated reservation communities” (Creating
Role Models for Change, 2000). Tribal Colleges do play a significant role in

Native American education; however, most Native American students are
enrolled in non-tribal institutions.
As the Native American population grows, the need for higher education
to embrace this group becomes more critical. Two-year institutions could
be affected the most by this growth, if the trend of increased enrollment at
these institutions continues. In order to serve the Native American popula-
tion, institutions of higher learning must be aware of the demographics of
the population. In addition, institutions must be cognizant of the potential
effects the demographics have on the students and the institutions these
students attend. Furthermore, other demographics including states of ori-
gin, poverty characteristics, and standardized test scores must be recognized
to understand the future implications.
Differences and Similarities
As mentioned previously, Native American students are different than many

other minority group peers. These differences range from cultural to tribal
to spiritual. Ortiz and HeavyRunner discussed one of these differences,
“the proportions [of those] who participate in higher education are slightly
higher than their representation in the nation’s population, thus indicating
parity. Of the more than 14.2 million students in our nation’s colleges and
universities, only 145,300 are American Indian” (p.216). This is significant
because, as of fall 2002, according to the 2005 Almanac Edition of The
Chronicle for Higher Education there were 1,074,200 Asian students and
1,661,700 Hispanic students enrolled in institutions of higher education
(The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005). These are the two most under-
represented groups in higher education following Native Americans.
Some of the differences between Native American students and other mi-
nority student subpopulations include mental health and alcohol-related
problems that are prevalent throughout the Native American ethnic group.
“The suicide rate for American Indians is more than twice that of other
racial/ethnic minority groups, the death rate from alcohol-related causes is
very high, and the already large number of single-parent households con-
tinues to increase” (Ortiz & HeavyRunner, p. 219). While Native American
students may not be as prone to this behavior as their non-student coun-
terparts, these issues still play a role in their lives because these issues can
affect family members. Family issues and obligations also distinguish Na-
tive American students from their White and non-White peers. Ortiz and

HeavyRunner noted that “family obligations make it difficult for Native
students to succeed…when Native students attend predominately white
universities; these family concerns are often dramatically different from
those of their White [sic] peers” (p. 223).
Other researchers, however, have found specific themes that Native Ameri-
can students identify as important factors for their success. Jackson, Smith
and Hill in their 2003 study “Academic Persistence Among Native American
College Students” identified two types of themes found in the experiences
of successful Native American students, “surface themes” and “deep themes”
(p. 553). The surface themes included: 1) Family support, “in many cases the
encouragement was almost an imperative to be academically successful”; 2)
structured social support, “students talked about the positive effects of Native
American clubs, multicultural offices and other groups organized to provide
social support to Native American students”; 3) faculty/staff warmth; 4)
exposure to college experiences and possible vocations, “in many cases these
were structured experiences such as those available through Upward Bound
and similar programs”; 5) developed independence and assertiveness; and 6)
reliance on spiritual resources, “though the participants’ level of traditional
spirituality varied considerably, for some students it was a significant source
of strength in completing academic work” (pp. 553-555).
The “deep themes” identified included: Dealing with racism, “active racism
was typically experienced in classes or other discussions about historic or
cultural issues”; a nonlinear path, “none of the students reported a linear path
to academic success”; and paradoxical cultural pressure, “students discussed
conflicting pressures to (a) be successful in college and (b) maintain their
identity as a member of their reservation community” (p. 557-58). Jackson
et al. also mentioned that “Native Americans raised on a reservation often
face the difficulty of leaving a place of spiritual and cultural significance” (p.
560).
These issues are very different than many of the issues faced by other college
students and they are important for individuals working in higher education
to keep in mind. Beyond the uniqueness of Native American students, it is
also important to examine the development of these students in the higher
education setting.

Development of Native American College Students
Identifying the development of Native Americans in higher education can

be quite difficult. As mentioned previously, the age of Native Americans
participating in higher education is generally higher than other subpopula-
tions. Additionally, most development theories are based on the study of
White students, and the development theories based on other subpopula-
tions do not take into account the many differences of Native Americans.
For this reason, this section will examine briefly some of the work done in
regard to Native American student development.
Horse in his 2005 article “Native American Identity” argued that, “identity
as an American Indian is highly personal” (p. 65). Horse further argued
that:
…existing theories and models of racial identity have limi-

tations and strengths. Those who work with Native Ameri-
can students need to keep in mind that American Indian
or tribal identity is a personalized process that is influenced
by legal and political considerations, psychological factors,
proximity or access to a given culture, socialization, and one’s
own sensibility. (p. 67)
Bryant and Baker (2003) stated that “racial identity development focuses on
the process that racially or culturally diverse groups of people go through in
developing a healthy, well-adjusted racial or cultural identity” (p. 2). The two
authors attempted to apply Helm’s People of Color Racial Identity Attitude
Scale (PRIAS). The authors of this study admitted that their study is lim-
ited, but that Helm’s model should be further researched and tested to see if
it applies to Native Americans and other minority groups. Bryant and Baker
also noted that because Native Americans have suffered more oppression by
Whites than any other minority group, that “these experiences with oppres-
sion have helped form the racial identity of this group of people” (p. 3).
Additionally the issue of spirituality must be included in discussions about

Native American student development. As HeavyRunner and Marshall
(2003) discussed:
Indian people believe spirituality has been the cornerstone

of their survival through generations of adversity and op-
pression. Spirituality includes our interconnectedness with

each other, the sacredness of our inner spirit, our efforts to
nurture and renew ourselves daily, balance and harmony, and
our responsibility to be lifelong learners. (p. 16)
It appears that spirituality and racial identity are significant factors in the
development of Native American students, but at this time there has not
been enough research on the subject to be able to define a specific model of
or to track Native American student development.
Retention of Native American Students
The study of retention and attrition rates is not necessarily new to higher
education, but many of the ways of looking at retention have developed in
the last 20 years. The rather new methods of viewing retention can be at-
tributed to Vincent Tinto and his work Leaving College: Rethinking the
Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (1987). This work presented specific
ideas for looking at retention and attrition rates. Tinto also questioned much
of the research that had previously been done on the topic of retention:
Though student departures amount to a very sizable propor-

tion of any entering cohort, it should be observed that re-
searchers and policy analysts have generally overestimated
the extent of student departure from higher education and
thereby also underestimated the degree to which individu-
als enter and eventually complete their educational degree
programs. (p. 22)
Tinto noted that there are many reasons why students depart from their
institutions and that institutional rates of departure are specific to each indi-
vidual institution. Despite some commonalities between individual institu-
tions, there is not a direct link between the departure rates of students and
different institutions. Another interesting point that Tinto made is that,
seemingly, ability has more to do with dropout rates than social status. This
point is specifically interesting when examining the retention rates of Na-
tive American students. As will be discussed later, Native American students
tend to leave for reasons not related to ability.
It is important to understand Tinto’s (1987) point that reasons for depar-

ture rates and various institutions are not necessarily linked to one another.
However, noting the specific distinctions of Native American students as
compared to the rest of the student population in higher education, the au-

thors believe that it is a fair assumption that all institutions can use similar
tactics to increase Native American student retention. According to Cole
and Denzine (2002), “in 1995 the six year graduation rate of American In-
dians at NCAA Division I universities was 36%, as compared to 56% for all
students in Division I schools” (2002, p. 20). In 1993 Benjamin, Chambers
and Reiterman (1993) concluded their study of 166 Native American stu-
dents at a mid-size state university in the American southwest and found
that after six years only 16% of the original 166 students graduated. Using
data from 262 institutions and 56,818 students, Astin and Osegura (2005),
found that only 21.4% of American Indian students graduated college after
four years. The American Indian group graduated the second lowest per-
centage of students, next to Mexican American students at 21.3%. These
rates are of great concern. The question that now arises is why are these rates
so low?
Numerous studies have been performed that have attempted to identify the
reasons for such high Native American departure rates (Benjamin et al.,
1993; Cole & Denzine, 2002; Dodd, Garcia, Meccage & Nelson, 1995).
Overwhelmingly these studies have found that reasons for Native Ameri-
can departures are somewhat consistent among institutions and that these
reasons typically have little to do with academic ability (Cole & Denzine,
2002). As quoted in Cole and Denzine, Carney offered one explanation for
the low rates and identifies some of these key issues:
Much of the difficulty experienced by American Indian

college students seems to be traceable to cultural causes of
two types. The first is the generally unsupportive situation
in which students find themselves. They tend to come from
high schools that are poorly funded, lacking special programs
and support services. Once at college, almost all American
Indian students tend to feel isolated…the second cultural
basis for American Indian college difficulties is much more
deeply engrained. It seems not from the lack of collegiate
experience in the American Indian community, but from the
American Indian cultural heritage itself. It goes directly to
the differences between the White and Native cultures. (pp.
20-21)
Other reasons given in previous research have included alienation by the

dominant culture, cultural isolation, and the lack of examples used relat-

ing to Native Americans in teaching with which Native Americans can
identify (Cole & Denzine, 2002). In interviews performed by Dodd et al.
(1995), Native American students were asked why they thought some Na-
tive American students were more successful than others. The responses re-
ceived by the interviewers received indicated that “… some see education
as a way to set and reach a future goal. They cited maturity, determination,
ability to cope with racial and cultural differences, family encouragement,
ability to adjust to new situations, parents’ educational background and sup-
port services” (Dodd et al., 1995, p. 75).
When these same students were asked what had influenced their own suc-
cess very similar answers were given, but others included support from
teachers, friends and personal religious faith (Dodd et al., 1995). Clearly
there are culturally specific reasons for why some Native American students
fail and others succeed. Benjamin et al. (1993) also attributed some of the
reasons for low retention rates to other factors:
Perhaps the abysmal attrition of American Indians from col-

lege is somehow tied to higher education’s often unconscious
insistence that they be pushed in the direction of an inap-
propriate notion of conforming to dominant culture persis-
tence-enhancing behaviors. More accurately, it may be that
higher education is not sufficiently informed and sensitive
enough to recognize or to value this culture’s multi-faceted
manifestation of persistence behaviors. (¶ 3)
Interestingly, many of these reasons given for low retention rates for Na-
tive Americans have also been given for first-generation college students.
Hsiao (1993) commented that “one of the greatest challenges facing first-
generation students in pursuit of a college education is their position on the
margin of two cultures – that of their friends and family and that of their
college community” (¶ 3). However, if first-generation students faced the
same problems as Native American students, similar methods to increase re-
tention could be applied. This is not the case due to the difference in culture
and the reported cultural isolation and racism.
Successes
Colleges and universities struggle to find ways to attract, retain, and gradu-
ate Native American students. In addition, institutions look for innovative

models to assist in the development of this population of students. The lit-
erature reviewed suggested several initiatives colleges and universities could
use to aid in the recruitment, retention, development, and graduation of
Native American students.
Colleges and universities must do a better job to attract Native American

students to institutions of higher learning. While the number of Native
American students attending colleges and universities has increased, more
progress is needed. Institutions should strive to open a pipeline between
higher education and high schools. Institutions should develop relationships
with high schools to help students make a successful transition from high
school to college. Swisher and Tippeconnic (1999) claimed these relation-
ships can “include activities such as mentoring, advanced placement courses,
and applied research” (p. 303). In addition, pre-college programs, such as
Upward Bound, can help expose students to the college environment. The
exposure to college life that these programs provide is an essential part in
preparing students for college ( Jackson et al., 2003; Jenkins, 1999).
One of the most frequently cited resources of success for Native American
students was the use of student support services. Student support services
are almost critical for the success of Native American students (Dodd et al.,
1995). In an article by Braithwaite (1997), students attending tribal colleges
expressed a concern about non-tribal colleges not being able to provide the
necessary support services for their success. A very important service that
should occur is orientation to the university. Native American students are
often unfamiliar with the university structure and many times have difficulty
navigating the offices, programs, and services offered (Lowe, 2005). A good
orientation program can alleviate some of the stress caused by unfamiliarity
with institutional organization.
Another important service that is critical to Native American students is
career development. Native American students need to be able to have a
chance to explore possible vocations in order to help them make a career
choice and develop career goals. The exposure to careers will motivate and
reduce the frustration of Native Americans trying to determine where to go
in life (Canabal, 1995).
Student programs that focus on developing independence and assertiveness

are important for Native American students. Many times, Native American
students are intertwined with home communities and have a problem be-

coming independent and outgoing ( Jackson et al., 2003). Furthermore, Na-
tive American students struggle with assertiveness and speaking in public.
Many times they would rather not speak up during an important conver-
sation (Brayboy, 2004; Jackson et al.). Offering programs that develop the
skills of independence and assertiveness can help Native American students
overcome these issues.
Beyond general student support services offered to the student body at large,
some researchers suggested creating student support services specifically for
Native American students. Cultural counseling centers, Native American
student organizations, peer mentoring programs, and faculty and staff men-
tor programs are a few of the specific services mentioned that can cater to
Native American students (Fox, 2005; Jackson et al., 2003; Jenkins, 1999).
Institutions can also assist Native American students by identifying local
services for students to utilize. The services can range from Indian Health
Service clinics to programs that assist with childcare or transportation
(Lowe, 2005). It is important to note that before any support service will
work, barriers must be removed. Too often, administrative offices fail to con-
nect with each other to help serve students. These barriers must be removed
to help assist Native American students (Larimore & McClellan, 2005).
A recommendation to help Native American students that appears in the

literature is offering more financial aid to these students. Dodd et al. (1995)
discovered in interviews with 24 Native American students that a third of
the respondents indicated financial problems were a factor in Native Ameri-
can students leaving college. Financial aid should not only be for school
but should also help with personal and transportation expenses (Canabal,
1995).
Colleges and universities should strive to integrate and to understand the

role of family in Native American students’ lives. The family unit is very
strong for Native Americans; therefore, family encouragement is a major
contributing factor for Native American student’s success in college (Dodd
et al., 1995; Jackson et al., 2003). Colleges and universities should strive to
make sure families understand that higher education will not pull the stu-
dent away from Native American traditions and culture (Canabal, 1995).
Helping students obtain familial support for college could bolster their suc-
cess.

In order to better serve Native American students, staff, faculty, and admin-
istrators must be aware of the role that culture plays in Native American
students’ lives. Institutions can make Native Americans more comfortable
by embracing the cultural identity of Native American students by institut-
ing programs that celebrate the culture and traditions of Native Americans
(Canabal, 1995). Institutions should recognize and respect Native American
students’ spirituality in order to help them succeed. Tribal influences and
cultural pressures are issues many Native American students deal with ev-
eryday. Many are pressured by culture to succeed in college, but on the other
hand, these same students have problems being accepted by the tribe and
family because they are a college student ( Jackson et al., 2003).
Racism and stereotypes are two major issues affecting the success of Na-
tive American students. Colleges and universities can help Native American
students achieve success by not tolerating such racism and stereotypes. Even
though many students find ways to cope with prejudice, college adminis-
trators can find ways to combat the problem. Native American students
experience racism both outside and inside the classroom. Outside the class-
room students find people stereotyping them as alcoholics, poverty-stricken
people, or medicine men (Braithwaite, 1997). Sometimes students are sim-
ply avoided because of the color of their skin (Brayboy, 2004; Jackson et al.,
2003). In class students are made uncomfortable by the racist or stereotypical
images depicted of Native American culture. Administrators can institute
programs to dismiss these stereotypes and quell the racism. In addition, fac-
ulty should go to great lengths to determine that information to be taught
about Native Americans is factual before teaching it, and not reduce all of
the many tribes down to a few generalizations of Native American people
(Fox, 2005; Jackson et al.; Swisher & Tippeconnic, 1999; Writer, 2001).
To ensure the success of Native American students, colleges should treat

each student as an individual. They each have different experiences and up-
bringings (Brayboy, 2004; Lowe, 2005). In addition, there are a multitude of
different tribes and groups that make it impossible to treat each student in
the same manner (McClellan et al., 2005).
Finally, institutions of higher education can help Native American students

succeed by attempting to maintain Native American staff and faculty. Hir-
ing and promoting Native Americans in the university or college will help
attract students to the institution. Students are more willing to attend a
college that has people that look like them. Native American faculty and

staff can create strong bonds with students after they arrive on campus. In
addition, the presence of Native American faculty and staff on campus al-
lows the students, tribes, and families to see a campus that is open to Native
Americans (Canabal, 1995; Fox, 2005; McClellan et al., 2005).
Benefits
The benefits of college for this subpopulation of students are perhaps end-
less. These benefits are both economic and non-economic. Due to the lim-
ited number of people that comprise this population, the benefits might
be hard to identify but are nevertheless evident. If more students from this
population graduate from college, the benefits will be not only to the in-
dividual student but also to the community from which this population
resides and the country.
The economic benefits will greatly help this group of students. This is es-
pecially evident by the large number of Native Americans living in poverty
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). Students that graduate with a college degree
tend to earn more money than those who do not graduate college (Institute
for Higher Education Policy [IHEP], 1998). On average, high school grad-
uates earn more than non-graduates, and college graduates earn more than
high school graduates (Porter, 2002). If more Native Americans graduate
college, the poverty rate for this population might decrease. Also, students
with college degrees tend to stay employed at higher rates (IHEP). This is
important to Native Americans due to the large number of Native Ameri-
cans unemployed (U.S. Census Bureau).
While not unique to Native American students, the non-economic benefits

of a college education can be very important for Native Americans. First,
people who have attended college tend to exercise and pay more attention
to health and well-being. The greater focus on health gives college-educated
people a greater life expectancy and improved health. Second, college par-
ticipants tend to wait later in life to have children after they can create a sol-
id financial foundation. Next, college participants tend to make better con-
sumer decisions. College graduates are able to use the critical thinking skills
gained in college to make better-informed decisions (IHEP, 1998; Porter,
2002). Fourth, college education has many social benefits to a person. These
benefits include a student becoming “more open-minded, more cultured,
more rational, more consistent and less authoritarian” (Porter, ¶ 1) along
with the individual decreasing prejudice and having a broader knowledge

of worldly affairs. Finally, Boesel and Fredland (1999) found that children
from parents who went to college tend to have larger college participation
rates than those whose parents did not attend college.
The benefits that Native Americans receive from attending college are also
carried over as benefits to the community and country. First, if college stu-
dents earn more, they will be responsible for paying more taxes. The greater
tax revenues can help local and state communities monetarily (Henderson,
1996). Second, Native American communities are dependent on the U.S.
government for many monetary and non-monetary benefits. If more Native
American students graduate from college and find good employment, less
government support will be needed by this group. Third, Native American
graduates return to their home communities and serve them. Many Native
Americans cited a reason for attending college as to better help their com-
munities (Brayboy, 2004). Finally, tribal leaders are more willing to promote
college when they see members of their tribe graduating. The more students
that graduate, the more benefit to the community, and the more that tribal
leaders will see the benefits. This will result in more support for college at-
tendance by tribal leaders (Lowe, 2005).
The students who attended tribal colleges also receive many benefits be-
cause of their education. According to the 2000 report from the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium, “Tribal College [sic] graduates seem
to be employed at higher rates than might have been expected had they not
achieved their degrees or certificates” (Creating Role Models for Change,
2000). The same study also indicated that these students are also encour-
aged to continue in their education. However, it should be noted that these
findings are reported by alumni of the tribal colleges, and as the report from
the American Indian Higher Education Consortium pointed out, “it is pos-
sible that the culturally supportive environment of the Tribal Colleges [sic]
has contributed toward these high satisfaction levels, in contrast with many
American Indian students’ failure to become integrated into mainstream
college communities in the past” (p. 22). This is very important to note,
especially for professionals working with Native American students at pre-
dominately White institutions.
Conclusion
Native American students face many unique challenges during their time in
college. Many of these challenges are unique to their population, and cur-

rently few of these challenges are being addressed by institutions of higher
education. The research on Native American students is far from extensive.
Significant research must be done on Native American students in order to
determine how predominately White institutions can better assist Native
American students in their pursuit of higher education.

References
American Indian Higher Education Consortium (2000, May). Creating

role models for change: A survey of tribal college graduates (Report No.
ED456947). Alexandria, VA: Office of Educational Research and Im-
provement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED456947)
Astin, A.W., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Degree attainment rates at American

colleges and universities. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research In-
stitute.
Astone, B., & Nunez-Wormack, E. (1996). Population trends, socioeco-

nomic status, and geographic distribution. In F. K. Stage, G. L. Anaya,
J. P. Bean, D. Hossler, & G. D. Kuh (Eds.), College students: The evolving
nature of research (pp. 4-17). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Benjamin, D. P., Chambers, S., & Reiterman, G. (2003). A focus on Ameri-

can Indian persistence. Journal of American Indian Education, 32(2), 24-
40.
Boesel, D. & Fredland, E. (1999). College for all: Is there too much emphasis
on getting a 4-year college degree? Washington, DC: National Library of
Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Ed-

ucation.
Boyer, P. (1997). Native American colleges: Progress and prospects. Princeton,

NJ: The Carnegie Foundation.
Braithwaite, C.A. (1997). Helping students from tribal colleges succeed.

About Campus, 2(5), 19-23.
Brayboy, B.M.J. (2004). Hiding in the ivy: American Indian students and
visibility in elite educational settings. Harvard Educational Review,
74(2), 125-152.
Bryant, A. Jr. & Baker, S.B. (2003). The feasibility of constructing profiles of
Native Americans from the people of color racial identity attitude scale:
A brief report. Measurement and Evaluation In Counseling and Develop-
ment, 36, 2-8.

Canabal, M.E. (1995). Native Americans in higher education. College Stu-
dent Journal, 29(4), 455-457.
Cole, J. S., & Denzine, G. M. (2002). Comparing the academic engagement

of American Indian and white college students. Journal of American In-
dian Education, 41(1), 19-34.
College Board (2005). 2005 college bound seniors. Washington, DC: Author.
Dodd, J.M., Garcia, F.M., Meccage, C., & Nelson, J.R. (1995). American
Indian student retention. NASPA Journal, 33(1), 72-78.
Fox, M.J.T. (2005). Voices from within: Native American faculty and staff
on campus. New Directions for Student Services, 109, 49-59.
HeavyRunner, I. & Marshall, K. (2003). Miracle survivors. Tribal College,

14(4), 14-18.
Henderson, C. (1996, March). Student charges: The impact on students, fami-

lies, and public institutions. Washington, DC: National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. (ERIC Document Repro-
duction Service No. 393347)
Horse, P.G. (2005). Native American identity. New Directions for Student
Services, 109, 61-68.
Hsiao, K. P. (1992). First-generation college students (Report No. EDO-JC-

00-04). Los Angeles, CA: Office of Educational Research and Improve-
ment. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED351079).
Institute for Higher Education Policy (1998, March). Reaping the benefits:
Defining the public and private value of going to college. Boston, MA: Au-
thor. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED420256).
Jackson, A.P., Smith, S.A., Hill, C.L. (2003). Academic persistence among
Native American college students. Journal of College Student Develop-
ment, 44(4), 548-565.
Jenkins, M. (1999). Factors which influence the success or failure of Ameri-

can Indian/Native American college students. Research and Teaching in
Developmental Education, 15(2), 49-54.

Larimore, J.A., & McClellan, G.S. (2005). Native American student reten-
tion in U.S. postsecondary education. New Directions for Student Ser-
vices, 109, 17-32.
Lowe, S.C. (2005). This is who I am: Experiences of Native American stu-
dents. New Directions for Student Services, 109, 33-40.
McClellan, G.S., Fox, M.J.T., & Lowe, S.C. (2005). From discussion to ac-
tion. New Directions for Student Services, 109, 95-98.
Ortiz, A.M. & HeavyRunner, I. (2002). Student access, retention, and suc-
cess: Models of inclusion and support. In Ah Nee-Benham, M.K.P. &
Stein, W.J. (Eds.), The renaissance of American Indian higher education:
Capturing the dream (pp. 216-230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Pavel, D.M., Skinner, R.R., Cahalan, M., Tippeconnic, J., & Stein, W.
(1998). American Indians and Alaska Natives in postsecondary education.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education National Center for
Education Statistics.
Porter, K. (2002, July). The value of a college degree. ERIC-HE Digest Series.
Retrieved April 2, 2003, from http://eriche.org/digests/2002-06.html.
Swisher, K.G., & Tippeconnic, J.W. (1999). Research to support improved

practice in Indian education. Charleston, WV: Office of Educational Re-
search and Improvement (ED). (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-
vice No. ED427915).
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student at-
trition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1992). 1990 general population characteristics. Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1993). We the …first Americans. Washington, DC: Au-
thor.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). 2004 American community survey: Selected popu-
lation profile. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education (2004). Higher education general information
survey and integrated postsecondary education data system. Washington,
DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Interior. (March 31, 2006). Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Retrieved April 10, 2006 from http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-af-
fairs.html.
Wooocock, D. B., & Alawiye, O. (2001). The antecedents of failure and

emerging hope: American Indians and public higher education. Educa-
tion, 121(4), 810-820.
Writer, J.H. (2001). Identifying the identified: The need for critical explora-
tion of Native American identity within educational contexts. Action in
Teacher Education, 22(4), 40-47.

CHAPTER 9
Nontraditional Students
Jeremy D. Dickerson and Theres W. Stiefer
Nontraditional students are slowly becoming traditional. What once shaped

the collective image of a college student—a recent high school graduate, still
dependent on his or her parents, who works only part time if at all (Choy,
2002)—is considerably different from the actual student population. Most
simply, a nontraditional student is one who does not follow the typical path
to or through higher education; however, many definitions exist. Defining
precisely who is nontraditional can prove difficult by virtue of the numerous
differences that permeate the nontraditional population. Some work. Some
have a GED. Some have children. Some have attended college in the past.
Some are even younger than 25 years of age. In fact, many nontraditional
students may even begin as traditional students and become nontraditional
at some point in their education as they absorb nontraditional characteristics
into their lives. Despite nontraditional students’ differences with those
students who begin college right after high school, American higher
education institutions place both groups on the same path. This chapter
explores these nontraditional students: who they are, what developmental
theories are instrumental in informing good practice, what challenges they
face in persisting, and what campuses can do to help facilitate their goals.
Demographics, Development, and Retention
Choy (2002) utilized perhaps the most common definition. It identifies

nontraditional students by their identification with one or more of seven
traits: delayed enrollment in college; part-time attendance; works full time
(35 hours or more per week); financially independent (eligibility for financial
Nontraditional Students 181

aid purposes); dependents other than spouse; single parent; or GED, high
school completion certificate, or no high school diploma (Choy, 2002).
Despite prevailing assumptions about nontraditional students, age is not a
consideration under the predominate definition of nontraditional students.
Using the definition outlined above, Choy estimated that some 73% of all
undergraduate students were in some way nontraditional (identifying with
at least one nontraditional trait) in the 1999-2000 academic year. Horn and
Carroll (1996), used the number of the identifying characteristics a student
possesses to assign nontraditional students as minimally nontraditional
(identifying with one characteristic), moderately nontraditional (two or
three characteristics), or highly nontraditional (four or more characteristics).
According to Choy (2002), patterns of attendance with respect to institutional
type emerge according to whether a student is minimally, moderately,
or highly nontraditional. As Table 9.1 illustrates, highly nontraditional
students are more likely to attend two-year institutions than any other type
while minimally nontraditional students are more likely to attend four-year
institutions.
Table 9.1 Percentage distribution of undergraduates according to the type of institution

attended, by student status: 1999–2000
Private not-
Public Private not- Private
Public Public for-profit
Student Status less-than- for-profit for-
2-year 4-year less-than
2-year 4-year profit
4-year
Total 0.7 44.9 33.4 0.8 14.9 5.2
Traditional 0.2 17.3 52.1 1.0 27.3 2.2
Minimally
0.5 39.3 41.0 0.9 13.5 4.7
nontraditional
Moderately
0.9 55.5 27.2 0.6 8.6 7.1
nontraditional
Highly
1.2 64.2 17.2 0.8 10.1 6.6
nontraditional
Source: U.S. Department of Education. NCES. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study.
Reprinted in Choy, S. (2002).
Despite the evidence presented above that nontraditional students represent

the majority of students in American higher education institutions, such
a conclusion warrants an important caveat. The data presented above deal
with all students enrolled in higher education. But it is not the case that

the majority of students beginning postsecondary education each year are
nontraditional. Instead, overall, they are traditional, and, overwhelmingly
traditional at four-year institutions. According to Kojaku and Malizio
(1998) whose study presents a descriptive analysis of students beginning
postsecondary education in 1995–96, traditional students still represent the
majority of entering students at four-year institutions: 69.6% of students
entering public, four-year institutions and 75.4% entering private, four-year
institutions. At public, two-year institutions, however, traditional students
only represent 25.7% of entering students. Thus, while it may be true that
nontraditional students represent a majority of enrolled students, these
students become nontraditional during the course of their college careers
after a life transition that leads the student to absorb a nontraditional factor
into his or her life.
What happens during college that causes so many traditional students to

become nontraditional? Evelyn (2002) identifies the three most common
nontraditional characteristics as financial independence, part-time
studies, and delayed enrollment. Likely, traditional students who become
nontraditional are experiencing events that necessitate studying part-time in
order to accommodate employment; however, data on this point are sorely
lacking.
Despite the fact that traditional students are likely becoming nontraditional
during college attendance, the literature overwhelmingly ignores this
phenomenon and assumes nontraditional students to be those who are
over the age of 24 and entering higher education for the first time. This
phenomenon occurs because nontraditional students are more likely to be
moderately nontraditional than they are to be minimally and highly (Horn
& Carroll). Of those students identified as moderately nontraditional
(identifying with at least three nontraditional traits), Horn’s (1997) data
suggests an average age of 24 years. This may, in part, account for the
frequency with which educators and professionals assume age is the sole
determinant of nontraditional status. The literature on nontraditional
students focuses primarily on students older than 24 years of age, who are
assumed independent, for whom studies are not the first priority, and who
have not been in an educational environment for a number of years.
For these students, everything that has been familiar to the nontraditional
student is complicated when they enter a new culture, and such issues
can lead to feelings of isolation. They may feel like strangers and can

experience emotions that are counterproductive to academic success such as
incompetence and inadequacy. These students often lack confidence in their
ability to study and to learn (Steltenpohol & Shipton, 1986). Nontraditional
students bring experience and expectations that are different from those
of more traditional college freshmen (Murray, Tanner, & Graves, 1990).
Before they enroll in an institution of higher education, they have to think
about whether they will gain the necessary skills that they need to complete
a desired degree or to gain personal enrichment through the process (Choy,
2002).
A theory appropriate for the discussion of nontraditional students is

Schlossberg’s (1984) transition theory. In 1995, Schlossberg, Waters, and
Goodman revised this theory, originally developed in 1981. The transition
theory was devised to provide understanding for professionals working with
adults facing transitional events in their lives. Schlossberg defines a transition
as “any event or non-event that results in changed relationships, routines,
assumptions, and roles” (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 111).
There are events in life that are anticipated such as attaining employment or
earning a GED. There are also unanticipated events that students face such
as caring for dependents, not being able to afford college immediately after
high school, or stopping out for a semester or more during college. When a
person is denied admission to medical school or fails a required course that
is needed to graduate, these events can be labeled as non-events because
they were expected events that did not occur. Schlossberg suggested that
the significance and insignificance of events or transitions that occur in the
nontraditional students’ lives relate to the extent of the transition they are
facing. How an individual reacts to the event ultimately impacts how his
or her life will be altered by the transition. The readiness for this change or
transition depends on four factors, which Schlossberg et al. (1995), labeled
as the “4 S’s” that enable a student to cope with this transition.: self, situation,
support, and strategies. According to Weisenberg (2001), the “process of
moving into, through, and out of a formal program of study represents a
strain that requires not only a variety of transition coping skills, but also the
ability to use them in a flexible/appropriate manner” (p. 38).
When the roles of nontraditional students are challenged, this determines

whether the transitions will overshadow their lives and work boundaries.
Schlossberg (1984) noted that “any role change—whether primarily
positive or negative in affect—involves some degree of stress” (p. 74). The

nontraditional student’s relationship with his or her family will most likely
change when he or she becomes a student and when there is an emphasis
placed on how he or she views the transitions that he or she is going
through. Weisenberg (2001) found that students will sometimes experience
less support from their family and friends than originally expected. The
nontraditional student may experience a role change, which itself creates self-
concept changes (Walters, 2000). During this time, students will experience
anxiety with the transition until they eventually incorporate the transition
into their daily routine. Schlossberg (1984) also identified this as moving
in, moving through, and moving out. For example, a nontraditional student
may be applying to college for the first time, and this could add stress as the
student moves into the transition of a higher education setting, requiring
an admission process, applying for financial assistance, extra assessment,
orientation, and a possible career change. As the student moves through this
transition, he or she may find comfort completing each of the tasks required
for entering college or could experience even more stress if not successful
with each task. Once the student has progressed through the transition
of becoming a college student, he or she will move out of this transition
phase and will be able to put together a daily routine. The disturbing reality
about this is that nontraditional students are likely to leave college without a
degree if something goes wrong during this phase (Choy, 2002). Of students
who had begun any type of higher education with a stated goal to complete
a bachelor degree, 50% of highly nontraditional students were no longer
enrolled at an institution or had not completed the degree after three years
compared to 42% of moderately nontraditional students, 23% of minimally
nontraditional students, and 12% of the traditional students (Choy, 2002).
Nontraditional students may not be able to cope with the stress of negotiating
their nontraditional characteristics with the demands of school.
Coping with stress, change, and transition has always been a key issue for the
survival and evolution of humans. The 4 S’s enable nontraditional students
to cope with transition. A student’s ability to deal with transition depends
on his or her individual characteristics such as gender, age, health, ethnicity,
and psychological resources such as ego development, commitment, and
values. A situation is evaluated by how the transition occurred and how it is
viewed. Available support structures such as intimate relationships, family,
friends, and institutions can help facilitate the ease of transition by providing
necessary feedback and affirmation. Finally, a student may use strategies to

deal with the transition so as to modify the problem, control the meaning of
the problem, or develop strategies to manage stress (Evans et al., 1998).
What makes this theory so practical is that it is much like an assessment

tool. Schlossberg (1984) asserted that a professional could easily create
a document with categories for each of the 4 S’s, listing the important
aspects that emerge during a discussion with a student. Higher education
professionals can use this theory and assessment tool when they are guiding
or assisting students through transition.
The need for assistance through this transition is clear. According to Choy
(2002), who used a five-year model of nontraditional students who had
asserted a goal of attaining a bachelor’s degree, only 31% of all nontraditional
students had completed a degree whereas 54% of traditional students who
had asserted the same goal had completed the degree. Popular retention
models seem unable to account for the variance. Tinto’s (1987) model,
inspired by a model of suicidal tendencies, posited that a student’s departure
decision is derived from personal feelings of congruence with the academic
community. In Tinto’s model, this congruence is created by academic and
social involvement; therefore, one would expect to find a positive correlation
between the degree to which a student has inserted himself or herself into
her environment and persistence. But students with their diverse background
characteristics and differing levels of involvement may also exhibit different
correlates of persistence. Tinto (2003) admitted several limitations to his
theory: “not the least of these pertain to its failure to take explicit account
of either the formal organizational or external forces which impact upon
student participation in college” (p. 138).
A growing number of researchers (Bradley & Graham, 2000; Graham

& Gisi, 2000; Tucker, 1999) added validity to the impact of educational
ethos in student persistence. Kuh (1993) defined the ethos of an institution
as “a belief system widely shared by faculty, students, administrators, and
others” (p. 22). Central to this belief system is a shared commitment to the
academic mission of the institution and sense of congruence shared among
faculty, staff, and students. Bradley and Graham (2002) argued that “a strong
educational ethos is one where the campus contributes positively to personal

growth and learning: the belief that students on [such] campuses . . . learn
and grow more effectively” (p. 488).
In their study, Graham and Gisi researched responses by more than 19,000
undergraduate adults to the ACT College Outcomes Survey. Their findings
supported the conclusion that adults performed as well, if not better, than
traditionally aged students with respect to at least four different learning
outcomes, suggesting that ethos may more consistently predict outcomes
than involvement. As they noted, “it is likely that involvement is only one
indicator of the students’ overall perception of college ethos” (p. 115). They
suggested that a closed, reciprocal relationship may exist between ethos
and involvement. As one increases, so too does the other, recursively. So
significant is the hypothesized import of ethos that Bradley and Graham
reasoned “the students’ perception of their experience would have more
influence on outcomes than the number of hours a student is involved with
the campus” (p. 499).
Practitioners of student services can use transition theory to affect results in

nontraditional student attrition. Through the support variable of transition
theory, student support specialists can facilitate successful transitions by
engendering a positive and supportive campus ethos. In order to create this
ethos, administrators need to understand when nontraditional students
leave and why. As with traditional students, nontraditional students are
more likely to withdraw early in a collegiate career than later (McGivney,
1996). Patterns emerge as to the reasons for dropping out, with the causes
depending on when in the educational process withdrawal occurs. For those
students dropping out, McGivney suggested that the top contributors to
exiting related most significantly to lack of preparedness and support. For
those for whom withdrawal comes later, frequently cited reasons included
achievement of goals, changes in motivation, and changes in personal
circumstances. With this knowledge, student support specialists can design
programs and interventions that address needs appropriate to the student’s
place in his or her transition.
Designing programs and institutionalizing support structures may be as

simple as providing students a cup of coffee. Kilgore (2003) discussed one
institution that had welcomed nontraditional students for 20 years but had
not yet addressed their needs. One annoyed professor said, “We’ve been
doing this for twenty years but you can’t even get a cup of coffee around
here at night” (p. 81). The professor’s concerns signal more than an argument

for convenience. At heart, his concern is that students do not sense that they
matter to the institution. This “mattering” serves an essential role to ethos.
Engendering a Sense of Importance
Nontraditional students are, by virtue of their enrollment, experiencing

major transitions that can manifest “identity confusion, feelings of decreased
self-confidence or self-worth, and stress” (Horn, 1997, p. 49). Personal
communications with nontraditional students revealed a conspicuous level
of anxiety related to the distance of their previous academic engagement.
These students are returning for any one of a number of reasons: to gain job-
related skills, to immerse in a liberal education, to act as a rejoinder for life
transition. Regardless of their motivations, students feel “rusty.” According
to Ross-Gordon (2003), most every study of nontraditional students in
transition “provides data pointing to an initial lack of confidence…that
is rooted in perceptions that they may not be as well prepared as fellow
students who have not left the formal learning environment” (p. 48).
Such self-esteem issues can shut students down completely. According to

Fisher (1997), “Some adults are so overcome by fear that they never face new
academic challenges” (p. 27). Boylan, Bonham, and White (2003) suggested
the use of developmental and remedial education for nontraditional students
that helps them to “cope with managing adult roles and responsibilities
while adjusting to college-level academic expectations” (p. 89). Per their
research, successful completion of such developmental courses has resulted
in higher grades and increased persistence. Such experiences also contribute
to an overall sense of accomplishment and institutionalized support. Ross-
Gordon suggested that these types of experiences mitigate the initial fear of
returning to the academy.
Nontraditional students have diverse agendas, responsibilities, and

expectations and this in turn can limit their involvement in campus
activities. Because of the multiplicity of their schedules, their integration
into college life and their commitment to the institution suffers. According
to Murray et al. (1990), the combination of unrealistic expectations, complex
schedules, and lack of involvement can contribute to high attrition among
the nontraditional students. To counterbalance this, colleges and universities
need to integrate nontraditional students into all aspects of college life
(Murray et al.). It should be pointed out that when college professionals are
trying to integrate nontraditional students they must be mindful of when

they schedule and plan educational activities. Flexible scheduling, distance
learning, and self-paced instruction should be utilized to effectively increase
accessibility to nontraditional students (Valentine & Darkenwald, 1990).
There are many strategies that are useful in the retention of nontraditional
students. It is important that professionals who are working with this
population of students are familiar with typical transitions. Nontraditional
students need nontraditional services to assist them in adapting to a new
reality. The transition theory can help to articulate the impact that higher
education professionals will have on nontraditional students and the
developmental practices that are used.
The first step in the process of assisting nontraditional students through

transition involves admissions offices on campuses. It is important for
students to choose institutions that will meet their individual needs, and
student affairs professionals can assist students by providing them with
information that may not be of interest to traditional students. Marketing
financial aid programs to support students in gaining financial assistance
through grants, on campus employment, personal money management
programs, and if necessary, student loans is important when admitting
nontraditional students. These services should be well publicized to them
so they can see the alternatives for financial support (Noel, Levitz, & Saluri,
1985). Hart (2003) recommended keeping students out of the financial office
and in the classroom: it “may sound harsh, but the idea is actually to allow
students to experience a financial aid process that is as simple as possible”
(p. 103). By simplifying the process and looking for nontraditional types of
funding, institutions would reduce dramatically the level of stress perceived
by students. King (2003) suggested forging stronger partnerships between
financial aid and academic affairs, thus enhancing the coherence between
the students’ external and academic lives while also helping students to
better cope with their finances.
Academic advising should also be reconsidered in light of the growing

nontraditional student group because institutions that have a well-trained
advising staff who are alert to the special needs of nontraditional students can
have an impact on the students’ commitment to staying in school. Services
established to meet the nontraditional student’s needs should include one-
stop enrollment, enhanced advising and registration opportunities, career

counseling, and a variety of communication opportunities (Miller-Brown,
2001).
The orientation program continues the process of integrating students

into college life. As one looks at programs offered or required for entering
freshman at traditional four-year research and residential campuses, it is
obvious that these are designed to address the needs of traditional students.
These types of programs recognize that freshmen students undergo
specific types of transitions and offer targeted support to assist in coping
with these transitions. Similar types of programs designed specifically for
entering nontraditional students would help empower them to find their
direction, to establish a support network, and to provide an emotionally
safe environment. According to Kulik, Kulik, and Schwalb (1983), students
who are at risk and enroll in specialized programs designed for their specific
needs have greater persistence and earn better grades than students who do
not have access or do not utilize programs of this nature. While this may
seem an obvious point, it is curious that first-year-experience programs do
not exist in large scale for nontraditional students. And it should be more
than just a program that transitions them from life into college. Rather, an
orientation program should follow them throughout their college years. It
should allow them to manage the transitions of college and to seek assistance
when they are frustrated, confused, or anxious (Miller-Brown, 2001). A key
component should be offering learning skills workshops throughout the
college career including time management, study skills, and other learning
resources. Programs that focus on college as a career-planning guide are said
to improve persistence for nontraditional students to stay in college (Noel
et al., 1985).
Skillful and empathetic professors are indispensable and essential in

the motivation and encouragement of realistic academic expectations
of nontraditional students. Courses that are informative, have a variety
of delivery methods, meet students’ personal schedules, and are practical
and realistic are necessary to keep nontraditional students connected and
interested in the institution (Gleazer, 1980).
Conclusion
Not all nontraditional students will succeed in their pursuit of a degree

because they do not have the internal and external support or because that
was not their original intention. In order to accommodate their needs, it is

important for colleges to provide them necessary feedback on their progress,
to direct campus activities to their aspirations, to encourage self-motivated
learning, to validate their cultural differences, to build on their experiences,
to recognize their different learning styles and uniqueness, and to create a
relaxed and safe environment. If colleges and universities are committed
to building those relationships, then the persistence of a very complex
demographic will keep pace with its growth.
Within this chapter, the attentive reader will have noticed confusion between
how nontraditional students are described by statisticians and how the
student affairs literature describes them. Unfortunately, coherence is lacking.
On the one hand, there is evidence that suggests that a large portion of
the nontraditional students on campuses have begun as traditional students
coming directly from high school. On the other hand, there is a dissonant
image of nontraditional students that reifies the notion that these students
are adults with well-defined lives coping with the stress of blending those
lives with new educational identities. In the meantime, there lacks a body
of research from which to draw interventions for traditional students who
will transition to nontraditional. Luckily, these students likely share a great
deal with the students who have been the subject of numerous studies. In
order to ensure that we are best serving the myriad profiles of nontraditional
students, new lines of research are necessary in order to assess whether what
we think we know about adult nontraditional students also rings true for
traditionally aged nontraditional students.

References
Boylan, H. R., Bonham, B. S., & White, S. R. (1999). Development and

remedial education in postsecondary education. New Directions for
Higher Education, 121, 87-101.
Bradley, J. S., & Graham, S. W. (2000). The effects of educational ethos and
campus involvement on self-reported college outcomes for traditional and
nontraditional undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development,
41, 488-502.
Choy, S. P. (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates: Findings from the condition

of education 2002. Washington, DC.: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development

in college: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Evelyn, J. (2002). Nontraditional students dominate undergraduate

enrollments, study finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
November 15, 2004, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i40/
40a030401.htm.
Fisher, C. A. (1997). Identity and self-awareness for adult learners. College

Student Affairs Journal, 16, 21-30.
Gleazer, E. J. (1980). The community college: Values, vision and vitality.

Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior
Colleges.
Graham, S. W., & Gisi, S. L. (2000). Adult undergraduate students: What

role does college involvement play? NASPA Journal, 38, 99-121.
Hart, N. K. (2003). Best practices in providing nontraditional students

with both academic and financial support. New Directions for Higher
Education, 121, 99-106.
Horn, L. J., & Carroll, C. D. (1996). Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends

in enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and persistence and attainment among
1989–90 beginning postsecondary students. National Center for Education
Statistics: Washington, D. C.

Horn, M. M. (1997). Meeting older student needs and the CLAIRE model.
College Student Affairs Journal, 16, 47-55.
Kilgore, D. (2003). Planning programs for adults. New Directions for Student
Services, 102, 81-88.
King, J. E. (2003). Nontraditional attendance and persistence: The cost of

students’ choices. New Directions for Higher Education, 121, 69-83.
Kojaku, L. K., & Malizio, A. G. (1998). Descriptive summary of 1995–96

beginning postsecondary students: With profiles of students entering 2- and 4-
year institutions. National Center for Education Statistics: Washington,
D. C.
Kuh, G. D. (1993). Ethos: Its influence on student learning. Liberal Education,

79 (4), 22-31.
Kulik, C., Kulik, J., & Shwalb, B. (1983). College programs for high-risk
and disadvantaged students: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of
Educational Research, 53 (3), 397-414.
McGivney, V. (1996). Staying or leaving the course: Non-completion and

retention. Adults Learning, 7 (6), 133-135.
Miller-Brown, S. (2001). Seven strategies to help adults persist in higher

education. Retention Review, 1 (1), 1-4.
Murray, J., Tanner, S., & Graves, K. (1990). Reality versus expectations: Do the
expectations of new students correspond with their actual experiences? Paper
presented at the 30th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional
Research, Louisville, KY.
Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (1985). Increasing student retention. San
Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2003). Adult learners in the classroom. New Directions

for Student Services, 102, 43-52.
Sargent, A. G., & Schlossberg, N. K. (1988). Managing adult transitions.

Training and Development Journal, 42 (12), 58-60.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice

with theory. New York: Springer.

Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults
in transition (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Steltenpohl, E., & Shipton, J. (1986). Facilitating a successful transition to

college for adults. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 637-658.
Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal

of Higher Education, 53, 687-700.
attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2003). Theories of student departure revisited. In F. K. Stage,

D. F. Carter, D. Hossler, & E. P. St. John (Eds.), ASHE Reader Series:
Theoretical Perspectives on College Students (133-150). Boston: Pearson
Custom Publishing.
Tucker, J. E. (1999). Tinto’s model and successful college transitions. Journal

of College Student Retention, 1, 163-175.
Valentine, T., & Darkenwald, G. (1990). Deterrents to participation in adult

education: Profiles of potential learners. Adult Education Quarterly, 41
(1), 29-42.
Walters, M. (2000). The mature students’ three Rs. British Journal of Guidance
& Counseling, 28, 267-278,
Weisenberg, F. P. (2001). The roller coaster life of the online learner. Canadian
Journal of University Continuing Education, 27(2), 33-59.

CHAPTER 10
Working Students
Ginger R. Albin and Trevor T. Francis
Pam works two part-time jobs. She spends her mornings at a local
trucking company answering the phone and processing bills; in the
afternoons, she delivers lost luggage for the area’s international
airport. Pam, who is 43 years old and a single mother of two, is
doing her best to make ends meet.
Chris 18, spends 30 hours a week waiting tables at a Tex-Mex

restaurant. Although he’s worked this job during high-school, he
plans to continue to wait tables following graduation. His mom
is an elementary school teacher and his dad owns an auto-body
repair shop.
Darla works on the weekends and during the summer at a retail

shop in the local mall. She’s been saving her earnings so that she
can participate in rush and join a sorority at the State University.
She has little concern about balancing her course schedule, extra-
curricular activities, and work; after all, she was able to balance
the three her junior and senior years in high school without any
problem.
Pam, Chris and Darla will all be college freshman in August.
Pam will leave her job at the trucking company and increase her
evening hours with the airport, so she can take morning classes. She
also plans to take out a Perkins Loan to subsidize her education at
the local community college. Chris’s parents plan to help him pay
Working Students 195

for college, but they also think he should help out. If he decides to
live on-campus, instead of at home, he’ll have to take out loans
to pay for the cost of campus housing. Darla plans to continue
working at the mall so that she can afford a lifestyle at college that
will allow her extra spending money during the semester and for
such things as spring break in Cancun, Mexico.
Pam, Chris and Darla represent a growing trend in higher education: more
students are attending college while working. Despite various reasons for
working, more students are working and many are working extensive hours.
Gone are the days of the traditional college student who simply lives on
campus and attends classes.
In 2000, around 80% of all undergraduates worked while enrolled in college

compared with 40% in 1960 (Tuttle, McKinney, & Rago, 2005). In past
decades, adult students (25 years of age and older) returning to campus have
been considered the primary working students and a few traditional-aged
students working a limited number of hours each week to help with college
expenses. Adult students continue to work extensively while enrolled in
college. Horn and Nevill (2006) reported that the average hours worked per
week for working undergraduates aged 24 to 29 was 33 hours a week; 30 to
39 was 36 hours a week; and 40 years old and older was 37 hours a week,
and the median hours worked per week for students falling into these age
categories was 39 hours a week. But, today, traditional-aged students are
also working extensively. Students aged 19 to 23 worked an average of 25
hours a week, and students aged 18 years or younger averaged 23 hours a
week (Horn & Nevill). As noted by Fox, Connolly, and Snyder (2005), full-
time, traditional-aged college students attending both two-year and four-
year institutions have joined the adult population as working students with
significant increases since 1970.

Figure 11.1 Percentage of 16- to 24-year-old full-time college students who were employed,
by hours by hours worked per week: October 1970 to October 2003 (Fox, Connolly, & Snyder,
2005)
Note: College includes both 2- and 4-year institutions. Percent of students employed includes
those with a job but not at work during the survey week.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, October,
various years, unpublished data.
Fox, Connolly, and Synder explained the trend in today’s traditional-aged

working college students further:
The percentage of full-time college students employed
increased from 34 percent in 1970 to 40 percent in 1980 to
46 percent in 1990, with some apparent fluctuations, but no
measurable change since 1990. In 2003, full-time students
were also working longer hours than their counterparts in the
early 1970s; 30 percent worked 20 or more hours per week in
2003 compared to 14 percent working the same number of
hours in 1970. In addition, the percentage of full-time college
students working 35 or more hours per week increased from
4 percent in 1970 to 9 percent in 2003. The percentage of
part-time college students employed fluctuated between
1970 and 2000. Between 2000 and 2003, the percentage of
part-time students who were employed declined from 85
percent to 79 percent. (p. 71)

According to the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)
2004 undergraduate dataset, 81.6% of students surveyed agreed that they
could not have afforded to attend college without working, and 46.3%
reported that they worked during all the weeks they were enrolled (National
Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2004). As more students work
while attending college, and with many students working longer hours,
it is important to consider the work and college experience relationship,
working student characteristics, the effects of working on college students,
and strategies for assisting these students.
Working While in College
So why are so many students working while attending college? Students

work while attending college to pay bills and college costs, but they also
work to fund an expensive lifestyle (Marlowe, Koonce, Lee & Cai, 2002).
For first-time beginning students enrolled in 1995-96, Kojaku and Nunez
(1998) found:
Among 1995-96 first-time beginning students who worked

while enrolled in postsecondary education to meet their
educational expenses, half reported working between 16 and
34 hours per week; 28 percent reported working between 1
and 15 hours per week; and 22 percent said they worked 35
or more hours per week. (p. 74)
Many students attending college for the first time come to campus knowing
they will work to offset rising tuition and costs. Astin, Oseguera, Sax and
Korn (2002) surveyed full-time entering freshmen students attending four-
year institutions students between 1976 through 2000 as to the likelihood
they would get a job to help pay for college expenses, and the percentage
was consistently in the high 30% or low 40% range. In 2001, the percent
increased to 44.8%, and in 2004, the percentage jumped to 47.2%. The
percentage of entering students expecting to work either part-time or full-
time has increased over time, and even more striking is the fact that once
they are enrolled, the percentage that end up working nearly doubles (80%)
as reported by Tuttle et al.
The general public supports the idea of student responsibility to work, if only
part-time, while attending college. According to Immerwahr and Foleno
(2000):

Despite the concern about the escalating price of higher
education, most people believe that if a student is really
motivated to get an education there are ways to make it
happen. Such a student may have to make compromises,
such as going to a less expensive school or working part-
time, but if the motivation is sufficient, education is within
reach. (p.8)
As the costs of higher education continue to rise, the number of students

working more hours will also continue to climb, if not because of the belief
that students should assist with the financial responsibility of college, but
because they do not have any other option but to work.
Characteristics of Working Students
Working college students are not a new phenomenon for higher education.
The idea has always reflected overcoming financial barriers to gain a degree.
This is the story of social mobility in the United States. What is significant
today is the number of students who do work and the number of hours they
work while attending college. Working students are not just nontraditional,
adult students, returning to college after a break in their formal education.
Working students can be recent high school graduates living on-campus, at
home with parents, or in Greek housing. With ultimately 80% (Tuttle et al.)
of college students working, it is evident that any student attending college
may also balance some type of employment and academics.
Although reports vary in regard to the exact percentage of working students,

the research is clear that students who attend two-year institutions are
more likely to work. Horn and Nevill (2006) reported, “About one-fifth
(21 percent) of community college students did not work while enrolled,
compared with nearly one-third (30 percent) of 4-year college students” (p.
13). Thus, 79% percent of community colleges work while enrolled compared
to 70% of working students at four-year institutions. Students attending
public, two-year institutions are more likely to work full-time than students
who attend public and private, four-year institutions (54% compared to
26%) and are most likely to be attending part-time; thus, a large number of
working students attend community colleges. However, working students
can also be found attending four-year institutions and enrolled full-time. Of
all undergraduate students who reported working, they averaged 32 hours
per week. In addition, of those enrolled full-time, they averaged 26 hours

per week (Horn, Peter & Rooney, 2002). Although, a high percentage of
working students are typically non-traditional in age or may be classified
as nontraditional students for other reasons, it is most evident that working
students of today also include traditional students. Students who work in
college can be from any income level; however, the burden of paying for
college falls heavily on low-income students, sometimes forcing them to
balance more than one job as well as college coursework.
Degree-seeking, working undergraduate students attend different types of

institutions of higher education, which further fragments this subpopulation
into unique categories. For example, some students working extensive
hours attend two-year, community colleges; in addition, some working
students attend four-year, public institutions in either urban or rural
areas. Furthermore, most for-profit, degree-granting institutions, such as
the University of Phoenix, market their degree programs to the “working
student.” Working students are present on virtually every college campus;
nevertheless, according to Burd (2003) more full-time students working
extensive hours do attend community colleges as compared to four-year
institutions, as illustrated in Table 11.1. Fewer full-time, working students
who attend private institutions of higher education work extensive hours as
compared to full-time, working students attending public institutions.
Table 11.1: Percentage of Full-Time, Working Students Attending Post-
secondary Education (Burd, 2003)
Type of Institution Proportion of full-time students

working 35 hours a week or more
Community College 29%
Public four-year,
17%
nondoctorate granting
Public four-year,
18%
doctorate granting
Private four-year,
11%
nondoctorate granting
Private four-year,
9%
doctorate granting
Source: U.S. Department of Education, 1999-2000 data.
As Table 11.1 illustrates, students working more than part-time while

attending college are represented in all institutions of higher education;

therefore, higher education professionals working in all types of institutions
of higher education will have contact with this subpopulation.
Typically working undergraduates are thought of as nontraditional students,

of whom many working students are categorized. As defined by Choy in her
2002 study, nontraditional students are defined as students who meet at least
one of the following characteristics: delayed enrollment in college; part-
time attendance; works full time (35 hours or more per week); financially
independent (eligibility for financial aid purposes); dependents other than
spouse; single parent; or GED, high school completion certificate, or no high
school diploma (Choy, 2002). The traditional student is described as having
a high school diploma, enrolling in college full-time immediately after high
school, financially dependent on parents, and working part-time or not
at all (Choy, 2002). With this delineation in mind (nontraditional versus
traditional college students), working students have been further described
as: “employees who study” and “students who work” (Horn & Berktold, 1998).
What differentiates these two categories of working students is the primary
focus of the individual student. If the primary focus is work first, college
second, these working students are considered “employees who study.” If
the primary focus is college first, work second, these working students are
considered “students who work.”
Students who consider themselves “employees who study” are typically

older than 24. They are employed full-time while enrolled in two-year
colleges part-time and, on average, work 39 hours a week. Thus, this group
of students is mostly nontraditional. About two-thirds of older working
students characterized themselves as primarily “employees who studied”
as opposed to “students who worked to meet their educational expenses”
(Berker & Horn, 2003).
Students who consider themselves “students who work” are typically

younger than 24 years old, financially dependent on parents, enrolled in
four-year colleges or universities full-time, and average working 25 hours
a week (Horn & Berktold, 1998). Thus, this group of working students is
mostly traditional, yet increasingly they combine their formal education
with practical work experience. Baker and Pomerantz (2001) argued that
even 18- to 20-year-old students attending colleges in metropolitan areas
are not typical traditional students in one major characteristic: the amount
of time they work while attending college. Higher education for traditional-
aged students is no longer a lock step program of four years of high school

followed by four or five years of college, then followed by a formal transition
into the working world. “We are rapidly moving away from the rigid
sequencing and separation of schooling and jobs toward a new pattern in
which higher education spreads out over about a 12-year period and is more
closely integrated with work” (Yankelovich, 2005, p. B6).
In brief, more students are working while attending college and the students
who make up this subpopulation are diverse. Working students vary in the
type of institution attended, enrollment status (full-time vs. part-time), age,
number of hours worked, and focus (employment first or college first). The
reasons why students choose to work extensive hours during college varies,
complicating the profile of working students.
The Effects of Working While Attending College
The trend of undergraduate students working brings with it many challenges

for students of all ages and income levels such as persistence (Ewers, 2002),
juggling work and academic responsibilities (Furr & Elling,2000; King &
Bannon, 2002), and involvement in campus activities (Lundberg, 2004).
Lower levels of degree completion and retention are often attributed to such
background characteristics as full-time employment (Hudson & Hurst, 2002;
Berker & Horn, 2003). Using data from a longitudinal cohort of all students
beginning college in 1995-96, who were last surveyed in 2001, Berker and
Horn found that 62% of employees who study and 39% of students who
worked left their postsecondary program with no credential. Thus, students
who consider themselves employees first and students second were less likely
to persist in school without having earned a degree or certificate and twice
as likely as other students to have left postsecondary education without a
degree or certificate (Hudson & Hurst). The first year of study is particularly
important because 41% of students with intentions to obtain a credential
left and did not return within the six-year period (Berker & Horn). Ewers
(2002) reported results from a U.S. Department of Education survey that:
Students who work more than 15 hours a week during the

school year are less likely to complete their degrees than
those who work up to 15 hours a week. Undergrads who
work up to 15 hours a week also tend to have higher grade-
point averages than those who work longer hours. (p. 44)

Consequently, students who consider themselves employees first are at
greater risk for not completing their degree program than those students
who consider themselves students first and employees second. “Nearly two-
thirds of employees who study (62 percent) had not completed a credential
and were no longer enrolled six years after they first began their postsecondary
studies” (Berker & Horn, 2003, p. 45).
Another challenge of working while enrolled in college is the impact on

academics (Furr & Elling, 2000). King and Bannon (2002) reported that
“nearly half of all full-time working students are working enough hours to
hurt their academic achievement and the overall quality of their education”
(p. 3). The more hours that students work, the more likely they are to report
negative effects of employment on their grades and overall college education.
“Students who work 25 or more hours per week are more than twice as
likely to indicate working has a negative impact on various aspects of their
academic experience” (King & Bannon, p. 5).
Job stress and a lack of commitment can also influence students’ thoughts of
stopping out (in which the student temporarily leaves college but returns)
or dropping out (in which the student leaves college and does not return)
(Woosley, 2004). In fact, “one of the primary reasons students leave college
before graduation is that they work too much while attending college” (Lee
& Gladieux, 2003, p. 17). Students who work while enrolled in college, must
hone their time and stress management skills. When students pack their days
with work, school and family commitments, it leaves little time to reflect
and to rest. Stress can be a good motivator, but if the scale tips toward too
much stress, the result can be detrimental to the student’s health, well-being
and academic progress. These students can easily become overwhelmed with
numerous responsibilities and the pressure to do well in school. Bray, Braxton,
and Sullivan (1999) stated that “how students deal with stress impacts their
level of social integration, institutional commitment, and intent to reenroll”
(p. 645). Teaching students to manage stress effectively is vital to enhancing
their persistence and personal success.
Although students who work extensive hours face many challenges, working
fewer hours while enrolled in college can offer students some benefits.
According to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), “Earlier evidence suggested
that the shift occurred somewhere around 20 hours a week, but the more
recent research puts that critical point closer to 15 hours” (p. 618). A positive
impact of working while attending college is that students can acquire much

needed experience and preparation for a career. After they graduate, this
experience may help them find full-time employment in their desired career.
According to Pascarella and Terenzini “work or internship experiences
during college appear to have a positive net impact on the development of
career-related skills and the likelihood of being employed immediately after
college, particularly when the work experience is related to the major field
of study” (p. 617).
However, for older students, their employment may positively impact

academic endeavors because of developed work habits and goal-orientation
(Marlowe et al., 2002). Marlowe et al. found that students in two introductory
consumer economics classes were not substituting their study time with
work. Rather, students were substituting their leisure time for study and
work. According to Lundberg (2004):
Although much of the research pointed out the negative

side of balancing work and college, a few studies have found
that working doesn’t necessarily impact learning negatively.
The unique finding of this study was that working hindered
involvement, but did not have a negative effect on learning.
This is contrary to Astin’s involvement theory (1984) and it
is worthy of further investigation. It appears that working
students are able to compensate for less engagement with
peers and faculty in a way that does not impede their learning.
(p. 209)
In response to findings that working students’ learning is not affected by work,

Lundberg stated, “Perhaps working students gain support for their learning
through relationships with colleagues and supervisors in the workplace.
Likewise, working students may have a greater opportunity to apply their
learning in the work setting” (p.209). However, this benefit of working while
attending college may depend on job quality, work environment, employer
support, and flexibility of work hours around exams.
There are benefits of working a few hours while attending college (Gellen,
2003), such as reducing debt burden and developing transferable work
experience for future employment (Neill, Mulholland, Ross, & Leckey,
2004 ). Choy (2002) reported that students working while attending college
said that employment helped them with career preparation. Astin (1993)
reported that working a few hours a week on campus had a positive impact

on retention. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) reported, “The few studies that
examined the net effects of employment on psychosocial and attitudinal
outcomes indicate that part-time work on campus promotes positive
academic self-concepts and increased social liberalism” (p. 617). If students
work too many hours, they may take longer to graduate and may in fact
lessen their prospects to graduate. They tend to be less involved in campus
activities, focus secondary on their studies, and earn too much money to
qualify for federal grants. Working long hours while attending college can
also have a negative impact on grades (Hawkins, Smith, Hawkins, & Grant,
2005; King & Bannon, 2002).
There are both positive and negative effects to working while in college. In
general, working part-time can influence students positively, while working
extensive hours can have negative implications for many students. Thus, it is
important for those who work in higher education to understand this issue
and the unique challenges that working students face.
Student Development Theory: Involving Working Students
How can higher education professionals enhance the success of students

who work? Sanford’s (1966) principle is a great foundation for assisting this
student subpopulation: “The amount of challenge a person can tolerate is a
function of the amount of support available” (as cited in Evans et al., 1999,
p. 26). If working students are to persist and succeed, despite their many
unique challenges, they must do so in environments that encourage their
involvement and enhance their potential.
Understanding student involvement is helpful to assisting students who

work. Astin (1999) researched factors that influenced college success
or failure with more than 200,000 students. According to his findings,
student success was connected to factors that encouraged involvement.
He discovered that student involvement in campus experiences directly
influenced their chances for collegiate success. Astin also found that the
type and extent of involvement in employment can influence a student’s
chances of graduating from college (Hutto, 2002). Students holding off-
campus jobs were more likely to drop out of school if the job was not related
to career goals. Working off-campus can also negatively impact grade point
average, college satisfaction, and willingness to re-enroll in classes (Hutto).
On a positive note, if students can find employment on-campus, they are
more likely to finish their degree. On-campus employment helps students

to stay connected to the campus community, and on-campus employment
would be more flexible to the student’s schedule.
The major premise of Astin’s theory is that the more students are involved
with the campus experience, the more they feel connected to the institution.
As a result, the more likely they are to successfully perform while in
attendance. Clearly, student involvement can pose a problem for students
who work extensive hours since their involvement in the college experience
can be diminished due to time spent in a work environment away from
campus. Since involvement is closely aligned to student success, higher
education professionals must implement programs to ensure involvement
in the collegiate experience for students who work extensive hours. One
exceptional model for involving students who work can be found on the
University of Maine at Farmington campus.
Campus Success Story
The University of Maine at Farmington is a model of success when it

comes to assisting working students. In the fall of 1998, the Student Work
Initiative Program was created to promote student-faculty and student-staff
interaction and to enhance student connection to the campus. According
to Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates (2005), “UMF’s Student Work
Initiative created jobs for more than half of its students (1,000) on campus,
emphasizing two of the universities priorities: maximizing limited resources
and connecting students to campus in meaningful ways” (p. 47).
The school utilized a student-centered approach for assisting students

who work. “UMF made a conscious decision to emphasize the dignity of
work and increase persistence rates by encouraging student employment
on campus” (p. 48). As an institution, UMF recognized the need to assist
these students and successfully created a program that encouraged their
involvement. Student jobs are “funded by federal work-study, departmental
budgets and the Student Work Initiative program” (Kuh et al., 2005, p. 48).
The campus-based positions are open to all incoming students and returning
students must have a 2.75 GPA to take part in the program (Student Work
Initiative, 2002).
UMF has tailored its work program to encourage student development. By

moving beyond merely providing job opportunities, the school goes to great

lengths to make sure its students are encouraged to grow. According to the
Student Work Initiative:
Many of the positions are integrated with academic majors

and student life, allowing students to engage in research and
special projects relating to personal interests and/or fields
of study.… Employment opportunities may be in any area
of campus, ranging from research, service projects and lab
assistants, to learning how to repair and rebuild lap top
computers. (¶1)
UMF’s work program takes students to a heightened level of involvement.

Kuh et al. stated that “[t]hese experiences provide students opportunities
to apply what they are learning to practical, real-life situations; introduce
students to the world of professional work; and prepare them for what they
can expect as they seek employment after graduation” (p. 48). The University
of Maine at Farmington program is a positive example of how we can assist
our students who work during college. After recognizing that many of the
students worked to pay for college, the school responded by creating and
funding an on-campus earn-and-learn program. This program encompasses
necessary elements of student success: student-faculty and student-staff
interaction, on-campus involvement, and the integration of work and
learning.
Conclusion
To support working students, higher education professionals should find

ways to involve them. There are many models for student success, and
principles that encourage student success, such as involvement, should be
adapted and utilized to assist working students. As illustrated with the
University of Maine at Farmington, funding employment opportunities on
campus can help institutions retain working students by eliminating the need
for students to seek employment off campus. As Astin’s research illustrated,
students who work on campus have a better chance of graduating; whereas,
students who work off campus are more inclined to dropout.
As illustrated by the data, there is a growing trend in higher education that

more students are attending college while working. Despite various reasons
for working, more students are working and many are working extensive
hours. Gone are the days of the traditional college student who simply lives

on campus and attends classes. To ensure the success of these students, it is
important for institutions to take action in creating strategies of support.
Institutions as a whole (units such as admissions, orientation, financial aid,

advising, learning communities, faculty, extra and co-curricular programs,
first-year experience programs, capstone experiences, and career guidance)
should recognize and respond to this changing characteristic of today’s
undergraduate students. Programs and services should be evaluated and
enhanced to better serve working students. In some cases, assisting these
students may simply require that employees communicate with working
students about their unique experiences. For instance, financial aid advisors
can help students explore the option of working less and taking out loans, and
academic advisors can discuss with students the effects of working extensive
hours and strategies for balancing work and school. For others, assisting
these students may entail providing better access to campus resources and
services, since working students may have difficulty getting to campus during
regular working hours (Hadfield, 2003).
The classroom environment is central for involving working students,

given that much of their time on campus is spent in the classroom. Matus-
Grossman and Gooden (2002) found that working students viewed
individual faculty members as the “front line” of their college experience,
and working students expressed the sentiment that teachers’ attitudes were
critical to their persistence in college (Nwakeze & Seiler, 1993). Astin (1999)
affirmed that “[f ]requent interaction with faculty is more strongly related to
satisfaction with college than any other type of involvement or, indeed, any
other student or institutional characteristic” (p. 525).
Balunas (1986) contended that professors should incorporate active

learning into their classrooms since many students have limited exposure
to other aspects of the college experience. Strategies that promote active
learning are described as instructional strategies that involve students in
activities and thinking about what they are doing and learning, as opposed
to passively listening to a lecture. Such learning activities have a powerful
impact on student learning. Classroom involvement should be characterized
in such a way that:
1. Students are involved in more than passive listening.
2. Students are engaged in activities (e.g., reading, discussing,
writing).

3. There is less emphasis placed on information transmission
and greater emphasis placed on developing student skills.
4. There is greater emphasis placed on the exploration of
attitudes and values.
5. Student motivation is increased (especially for adult
learners).
6. Students can receive immediate feedback from instructor.
7. Students are involved in higher order thinking (e.g.,
analysis, synthesis, evaluation). (Bonwell 1991, p. 2)
In addition to institutional cooperation to assist working students, higher
education professionals must collaborate with those beyond the physical
boundaries of the campus. “Since most students today work as well as
take classes, collaborative relationships are needed between business, the
community, and institutions of higher education that will maximize the
development potential of work and volunteer experiences” (Evans et al.,
1998, p. 41). Finally, a need exists for continued research concerning the
persistence of working students. Many of the studies that form the base of our
knowledge about retention in higher education have assumed a traditional
view of students instead of the reality of today’s student population who
combine more work and more activities in a finite amount of time.

References
Astin, A.W., Oseguera, L., Sax, L.J., Korn, W.S. (2002). The American
Freshman: Thirty-Five Year Trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for

higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-
529.
Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited.
Baker, S., & Pomerantz, N. (2001). Impact of learning communities

on retention at a metropolitan university. Journal of College Student
Retention, 2(2), 115-126.
Balunas, L. (1986). A study of the effects of student employment on grade point

average and retention at Broome Community College (Working paper
series No. 3-86). Binghamton, NY: Broome Community Colleges
Institute for Community College Research. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 277 446).
Berker, A., and Horn, L. (2003). Work First, Study Second: Adult
Undergraduates Who Combine Employment and Postsecondary
Enrollment. Retrieved April 12, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2003/2003167.pdf.
Bonwell, C.C. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom.

Retrieved April 12, 2006, from http://faculty.shc.edu/facdev/Files%
5CIssuesTeach%20Links%5CActiveLearningintheClassroom.pdf.
Bray, N. J., Braxton, J. M. & Sullivan, A. S. (1999). The influence of stress-
related coping strategies on college student departure decisions.
Journal of College Student Development, 40(6), 645-657.
Burd, S. (2003). Too much work. Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(48),

A18.
Choy, S. P. (2002). Nontraditional undergraduates: Findings from the

condition of education 2002. Retrieved April 12, 2006, from http://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002012.pdf.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student
development in college: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Ewers, J. (2002, April 29). Get to work. U.S. News & World Report,
132(14), 44-46.
Farrell, E.F. (2005). More students plan to work to help pay for college.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(22), A1.
Fox, M.A., Connolly, B.A., & Snyder, T.D. (2005). Youth Indicators 2005:
Trends in the Well-Being of American Youth. Retrieved June 20, 2006,
from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005050.pdf.
Furr, S. R. & Elling, T. W. (2000). The influence of work on college

student development. NASPA Journal, 37(2), 454-470.
Gellen A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on

critical thinking: A meta-analysis of literature 1991-2000. Journal of
College Student Development, 44(6), 746-762.
Hadfield, J. (2003). Recruiting and retaining adult students. New

Directions for Student Services, (102), 17-25.
Hawkins, C.A., Smith, M.L., Hawkins, R.A., & Grant, D. (2005). The
relationship among hours employed, perceived work interference, and
grades as reported by undergraduate social work students. Journal of
Social Work Education, 41(1), 13-27.
Horn, J.B., & Berktold, J. (1998). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S.

Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1995-1996. Retrieved April 12,
2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98084.pdf.
Horn, L., & Nevill, S. (2006). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S.
Postsecondary Education Institutions: 2003–04: With a Special Analysis
of Community College Students. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006184.pdf.
Horn, L., Peter, K., Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of undergraduates in U.S.

postsecondary institutions: 1999-2000. Retrieved April 13, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002168.PDF.

Hudson, L., & Hurst, D. (2002). The persistence of employees who pursue
postsecondary study: Stats in brief (Report No. NCES-2002-118).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Services No. ED462899).
Hutto, C.P. (2002). A critical review of the literature on student services

and retention. Atlanta, GA: Morehouse College. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Services No. ED468373).
Immerwahr, J., & Foleno, T. (2000). Great expectations: How the

public and parents—white, African American and Hispanic—
view higher education. Retrieved June 21, 2006 from http://www.
highereducation.org/reports/expectations/expectations.shtml.
King, T., & Bannon, E. (2002). At what cost? The price that working
students pay for a college education. Washington, DC: United States
Public Interest Research Group. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Services No. ED470026).
Kojaku, L.W., & Nunez, A.M. (1998). Descriptive summary of 1995-96

beginning postsecondary students, with profiles of students entering 2-
and4-year institutions. Retrieved April 23, 2006, from http://nces.
ed.gov/pubs99/1999030.pdf.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (2005).
Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Lee, J.B., & Gladieux, L.E. (2003). Student persistence in college: More
than counting caps and gowns. Retrieved April 12, 2006 from http://
www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/student_persistence.pdf.
Lundberg, C. A. (2004). Working and learning: The role of involvement
for employed students. NASPA Journal, 41(2), 201-215.
Marlowe, J., Koonce, J., Lee J., & Cai, Y. (2002). An examination of the
impact of student’s work time on academic performance. Consumer
Interest Annual, 48, 1-9.
Matus-Grossman, L., & Gooden, S. (2002). Opening doors: Students’

perspectives on juggling work, family and college. New York, NY:

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED471815).
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS): All postsecondary students (student
financial aid), 2004 Undergraduate [Data file]. Available from the
Data Analysis System (DAS) Web site http://nces.ed.gov/dasol/
tables/.
Neill, N., Mulholland, G., Ross, V., & Leckey, J. (2004). The influence of
part-time work on student placement. Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 28(2), 123-137.
Nwakeze, P.C. & Seiler, L.H. (1993). Adult literacy programs: What
students say. Adult learning, 5(1), 17-24.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students vol.
2: A third decade of research. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Sanford, N. (1966). Self and society. New York: Atherton Press.
Student work initiative. (2002). Retrieved April 12, 2006 from http://
financialaid.umf.maine.edu/swi.html.
Tuttle, T., McKinney, J., & Rago, M. (2005). College students working: The
choice nexus. Indiana Project on Academic Success. Retrieved April 12,
2006, from http://www.indiana.edu/~ipas1/workingstudentbrief.
pdf.
Woosley, S. (2004). Stop-out or drop-out? An examination of college

withdrawals and reenrollments. Journal of College Student Retention,
5(3), 293-303.
Yankelovich. D. (2005). Ferment and change: Higher education in 2015.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(14), B6.

CHAPTER 11
Students Living in Residence Halls

Sandra Y. Vasquez and Bradley A. Rohrer
Excitement. Anxiety. Nervousness. Uncertainty. Fear. Pressure. Stress.

These are just some of the feelings that may be rushing through first-time
freshmen as they prepare to move into their rooms in their new home: their
residence hall. For some students, moving away from home to attend college
is a milestone. Freshmen students are dealing with critical issues such as
developing identity, being financially independent, making independent
decisions, living with a roommate, being accountable for actions, trying to
fit into a new environment, being exposed to diversity, adjusting to academic
rigor, managing emotions, establishing relationships, deciding whether or
not to have sex, and dealing with family problems on top of everything else
(Grayson & Meilman, 1999; Stone & Tippett, 2004).
These stresses can have a significant effect on the student’s well being, and
his/her success and retention in college. Residence halls play a crucial role
in the transition of students to the college life because “the typical full-
time residential undergraduate spends approximately 15 hours per week in
a classroom. The remaining 153 hours of the week in one form or another
constitute residential life (and undergraduates do not sleep a lot)” (Levine,
1994, p. 94). According to Levine, “the principle teachers of students are
students” (1994, p. 101). Students living on campus are able to naturally
receive an even more extensive orientation about the expectations of them
and about navigating through the college experience from their peers
(Levine, 1994). Students living in residence halls are able to share common
educational goals because they are pursuing a degree. Residents are also able
Students Living in Residence Halls 215

to understand and support each other through their transitions, development,
and experiences in college. They build friendships while establishing a sense
of community within their hall. To understand today’s residence hall student,
it is imperative to understand the historical context of this subpopulation,
its evolution over time in an ever-changing society, current demographics,
benefits, retention, issues, successes, and the future of the subpopulation.
By definition, students in the subpopulation “residence hall students” are

students who live in a residence hall at a college or university. “Residence hall
students” is a broad term that is all-inclusive of the different subpopulations.
Attempting to distinguish all of the student subpopulations comprising
residence hall students is nearly impossible. As residence hall students
develop through their experiences in college, they may identify with and/or
choose to shift in and/or out of some of the subpopulations such as honors
students, student athletes, Greek students, and working students. Similar
to students being able to go through different vectors at the same time in
Chickering’s theory of identity development, (Evans, Forney, & Guido-
DiBrito, 1998), residence hall students can identify simultaneously with
more than one subpopulation.
Residence hall students can be categorized not only by subpopulations

but also by the diversity of experience in the living environment. Living
arrangements can have a significant impact, whether positive or negative,
on the resident’s understanding of the subliminal messages that they receive
about the institution’s expectations of them and on their college experience
(Pascarella, Terenzini, & Blimling, 1994). Students living in residence halls
come from a diverse socioeconomic background (Pascarella and Terenzini,
1991). As a result, the floor- or theme-based residence hall where students
live can have an impact on the living experience of students. Some of
these disparities are evidenced by the differentiation in the amenities or
resources that are accessible to residents in their respective residence hall
(i.e., residence halls for honors students would be more prone to have study
rooms, computer labs, and a tutoring center in the residence hall as opposed
to other halls). Students also can have a different experience when they

room with a student who is of a different class standing, has a different
major, or has a different level of involvement on campus.
History
Dormitories at institutions of higher education were not permissive in the

early 20th century. Curfews were used to curtail the kind of behavior that
allowed students to be out late, and visitation was often limited to public
social areas. After World War II and the passage of the GI Bill, soldiers
became students and, as such, chafed against the restrictions of the traditional
dormitory (Horowitz, 1987).
The late 1960s and 1970s saw an explosion in the movement away from in loco
parentis as society became more litigious. Colleges could not afford to take
on the role of the parent to students who were becoming increasingly more
difficult to supervise. This, along with the passage of the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, caused institutions to take themselves
out of the arena of supervision (In loco parentis, 2005). The students who
attended college during this time were quick to take advantage of the new-
found freedom, experimenting with the limits of their individuality through
alcohol and drug use (and often, alcohol and drug abuse). While today’s
students are not immune to substance experimentation, the number of
students ages 18 to 25 admitting to drug use was down from 69.0% in
1979 to 55.6% in 2002—though 1996 showed the low-water mark of 48.0%
(Drug use trends, 2002).
A middle ground between the students of in loco parentis of the early 20th
century and the students housed under the laissez-faire approach of the
1970s can be found in the modern residence hall. Students who live in the
modern residence hall are governed chiefly by the contracts they sign upon
moving into their residence halls. Students in today’s modern residence
halls are confronted by many issues, and, as such, receive more information
about college issues than before. Some of these issues include alcohol use
and abuse, safety and security on campus, and dealing with issues related to
multiculturalism.
Demographics
To better understand the future of residence hall students, it is imperative

to first understand the current demographic trends of residence life. The
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) defined Residence Hall

Capacity as “the maximum number of students that the institution can
provide residential facilities for, whether on or off campus” (Residence Hall
Capacity, 2004). NCES provided access to its Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS) to compute unpublished data. If all of the
Title IV postsecondary institutions of higher education in the United States
that have living units (on or off campus) were to be filled to capacity, then
there would be approximately 2.6 million college students (undergraduate
and graduate) living in residence halls (Residence Hall Capacity, 2004).
Table 11.1 Residence Hall Capacity in Title IV postsecondary institutions in the

United States
Number of Institutions Total dormitory capacity (sum)
Estimates
Total 2,129 2,598,006
Control of Institution
Public 755 1,414,965
Private not-for-profit 1,278 1,161,653
Private for-profit 96 20,388
Source: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), 2004 (Residence Hall
Capacity, 2004)
Despite the continued development of new residence halls (The Chronicle

of Higher Education, 2006), according to Levine and Cureton (1998),
there has been an increase in students living off campus, and the student
population living on campus has decreased. Some of these trends can be
attributed to the limited spaces available in residence halls and the increase
in nontraditional undergraduate students. NCES reported that in 2003
only 13.8%, as compared to 15.7% in 1999-2000, of the total undergraduate
student population lived on campus; 55.2% lived off campus; 23.5% lived
with their parents, and 7.5% had other living arrangements (Undergraduate
Students, 2005). Although these percentages are estimates based on surveys
of undergraduate students, this data would suggest that approximately
2 million of the 14.5 million (NCES, 2005a) undergraduates lived
on campus.
However, it is interesting to note that at four-year institutions where most

residence halls exist, during the past 30 years between 70 and 80% of entering
freshmen students, both male and female, have consistently indicated that
they planned to live in college dormitories or other on-campus student

housing (Astin, Osequera, Sax, Korn, 2002). Furthermore, in the most recent
Cooperative Institutional Research Program survey of entering freshmen
at four-year institutions, 81.4% indicated plans to live in campus housing
and at both private universities and private Black colleges over 90% of new
freshmen reported such (Pryor, Hurtado, Saenz, Lindholm, Korn, Mahoney,
2005). Table 11.2 provides more details by type of institutions.
Table 11.2 Entering Freshmen Living Plans at Four-Year Institutions for Fall 2005
College Other Campus

Where do you plan to live
Residence Student Total (%)
during the fall term?
Hall (%) Housing (%)
Type of Institution
All baccalaureate institutions 79.3 2.1 81.4

All four-year colleges 76.0 1.8 77.8
All Universities 84.5 2.5 87.0
All Black Colleges 85.2 2.8 88.0
Four Year Colleges
Public 69.2 2.1 71.3
All Private 85.1 1.4 86.5
Nonsectarian 83.7 1.8 85.5
Catholic 79.4 1.1 80.5
Other Religion 90.2 1.1 91.3
Universities
Public 82.7 2.6 85.3
Private 90.8 1.9 92.7
Black Colleges
Public 82.8 3.3 86.1
Private 89.6 1.7 91.3
Source: The American Freshman National Norms for Fall 2005 (Pryor, et al., 2005)
From the above data, residence hall living is by far the most preferred or
required life style of entering freshmen students at four-year institutions. In
2004, 1,487,000 new freshmen enrolled in four-year institutions (NCES,
2005b) with approximately 1.3 million full-time (Pryor, Hurtado, Saenz,
Lindholm, Korn, & Mahoney, 2005).With 81.4 percent of full-time freshmen
living in campus housing, then approximately, 50–55 percent or 1 to 1.1
million of the 2 million college (Undergraduate Students, 2005) students
who lived on campus at four-year institutions were entering freshmen.

The breakdown of the gender, ethnicity, and age of undergraduate students
living on campus versus off-campus during 2004 is displayed in Table 11.3.
Table 11.3 Local residence by demographic variables and type of institution:

Housing Estimates
Living with
parents,
On campus (%) Off campus (%)
relatives, or
other (%)
Total 13.8 55.2 31.0
Gender
Male 15.6 52.1 32.4
Female 12.5 57.6 30.0
Race-ethnicity (with multiple)

White
15.9 54.8 29.3
Black or African American
11.4 61.6 27.1
Hispanic or Latino
6.8 53.2 39.9
Asian
14.0 48.5 37.5
American Indian or Alaska Native
8.9 64.6 26.5
Native Hawaiian/other Pacific
8.9 47.5 43.6
Islander
10.5 51.9 37.7
Other
14.7 56.5 28.8
More than one race
Age groups as of 12/31/03

15-23 23.2 34.2 42.7
24-29 2.7 75.6 21.6
30 or above 0.8 87.7 11.6
Source: NCES, NPSAS: 2004 Undergraduate Students 09/06/2005 (Undergraduate Students,

2005)
As made evident by the data in Table 11.3, males are more likely to live on
campus than females. According to Table 11.3, White students are more
likely to live on campus than any other race or ethnic group and Hispanics

being the least likely to live on campus. Once undergraduate students reach
24 years of age, only 3.5% choose to no longer live in on campus housing
(Undergraduate Students, 2005). Even though a higher percentage of
males live in on-campus housing than females, since female undergraduates
significantly outnumber male undergraduates (approximately 56% vs. 44%),
more females live on campus than males. According to the characteristics of
students from 2003, it is safe to assume that the average residence hall student
will continue to be of traditional age (18 to 24) (Percent Distribution, 2003),
White (Shin, 2005), female (Percent Distribution, 2003), and employed
(Shin, 2005; Youth Indicators, 2005). However, the future residence hall
student demographics are dependent upon the evolving demographics and
needs of future student populations.
The student experience with diversity in residence halls will continue to

flourish. In the near future, as evidenced by Table 11.4, departments of
residence life, as well as residential students, will potentially see a slight
increase in residents who are minorities. Departments of residence life and
institutions must train their staff members and work closely with departments
across campus to better understand and support the increasing minority
resident population. While the total population of youth in the United
States (ages 18 to 24), White (non-Hispanic), and Black subpopulations is
projected to slightly decrease during the next 15 years, there appears to be
a steady increase in the projected population for Hispanics, Asian/Pacific
Islanders, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and individuals of multiple
race/ethnicities (Youth Indicators, 2005). NCES, in Youth Indicators, 2005,
projected the total population of youth between the ages of 18–24 in the

United States as noted in Table 11.4. It is evident that greater numbers of
minority students will likely live in residence halls during the next 15 years.
Table 11.4 Projected Population (AGES 18–24)
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
*Total1 27.3 29.2 30.5 30.0 29.3
White,
16.9 18.0 18.1 17.0 16.0
Non-Hispanic/Latino/a
Black 4.0 4.3 4.8 4.7 4.4
Hispanic/Latino/a2 4.8 5.0 5.6 6.2 6.6
Asian/Pacific Islander 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Other3 .8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.4
Source: National Center for Education Statistics

1
Includes other race/ethnicity categories not separately shown
2
Hispanics/Latino/a may be of any race, except where indicated otherwise
3
Includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, and those of multiple race/ethnicities
*Population figures are in millions.
Retention
Students who live in a residence hall on campus are more likely to “persist,
and graduate” (Pascarella, Terenzini, & Blimling, 1994, p. 27). According to
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) “living on or near campus while attending
colleges is consistently one of the most important determinants of a student’s
level of integration or involvement in the social system of an institution” (p.
399). Pascarella and Terenzini found that “when the formal and informal
group norms of a residence unit function to reinforce a serious and focused
study environment, academic achievement is positively influenced” (p. 389).
This can be reinforced through the implementation of intentional living

arrangements, programs, and community expectations of student conduct
and institutional values. Pascarella, Terenzini, and Blimbling (1994)
found that living-learning centers, on-campus residential facilities that
are intentionally designed to serve as a classroom outside of the classroom
through strong academic linkages, have a more positive impact on the
persistence and retention of residents when compared to those that are
not intentionally centered on academics, education, and student growth.
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) indicated that residence hall students are
more likely to “participate in extracurricular activities, engage in more frequent
interactions with peers and faculty members, and report positive perceptions
of the campus social climate, satisfaction with their college experience, and
greater personal growth and development” (p. 604). Residence hall students
are more likely to have greater access to and utilize the resources provided
on campus and develop relationships with faculty and peers.
Living in a residence hall is a unique experience for residents because the

environment allows for students to live in a unit that is comprised solely of
students and staffed with individuals who are trained to understand, meet
and respond to their needs. Pascarella and Terenzini claimed that, “The
facilitation of social involvement during college is one of the most powerful
ways in which the residential institution enhances student persistence and
degree completion” (1991, p. 414). Consequently, Pascarella and Terenzini
(1991) believed that first-year students are more prone to persist and
attain their degree if they live on campus. Residence halls create a sense
of community that brings together students who identify themselves with
different subpopulations and walks of life. This living arrangement allows for
residence hall students to have a mutual common ground that connects them
through their identification with their residence hall community and/or floor.
Although the residency of some residence hall students is predetermined
(i.e., first-year experience hall, etc.) and other students take advantage of
the opportunity to choose to live in a living-learning or theme-based floor,
residence hall students do not have control over who lives in their hall or
their floor. Pascarella, Terenzini, and Blimling (1994) acknowledged the
importance of the development of intentional living-learning communities,
but they also recognized that “purposeful interventions that homogeneously
assign students to residence halls will tend to increase or accentuate the trait
on which students are assigned” (p. 41). Although they contended that these
arrangements can prove to be beneficial and in-line with “advancing the
educational mission,” Pascarella, Terenzini, and Blimling (1994) also argued

that residents living in communities that target specific groups of students
“lose something of the experience of diversity gained from others in less
specialized environments” and it “deprives students living in conventional
residence halls of exposure to these students as role models” (p. 41). Beyond
the simple e-mail announcements about involvement opportunities and
programs, residence hall students are fairly easy to market to since posters
and flyers can be distributed in the residence halls and hall staff members
can inform students about opportunities. At the end of the day, living in
a residence hall provides residents with a connection to someone and to
something that allows them to understand that they are not alone in their
experience. They know that their peers, no matter what the differences are
between them, are also going through some of the same experiences. At the
very least, residence hall students know that they have at least one contact
person that they can turn to, a staff member in their hall, who they know
will understand the challenges of being a student. Residents know that this
person can relate to them and what they are experiencing and help guide
them. They can feel like they belong in their community and that someone at
the institution cares about them as an individual, a student, and community
member in their residence hall.
Issues
As students deal with the overall adjustment to campus life, many students
may also encounter issues of diversity for the first time, such as those relating
to the Latino community, which is growing rapidly in the United States
(Rolon, 2005). Encountering racial diversity in close quarters may be a new
experience for some students, although many cite diversity as a core element
of a successful residence hall experience (Light, 2001). When it is simply
the classroom that is diverse, students who aren’t comfortable with diversity
issues can simply leave when the class is finished; in a residence hall, these
students are forced to overcome their stereotypes and prejudices in order to
form a more healthy community.
In addition to the racial and ethnic diversity residence hall student’s face,
they must also deal with socioeconomic diversity. For the student with the
flat-screen TV, attending college may be easy, but a student down the hall
may be paying all the expenses for college and barely scraping by. The gap

between the haves and have-nots may be more pronounced in the residence
halls than in the so-called “real world.”
Another issue that is becoming increasingly problematic on college

campuses is the use of technology. As millennial students have a higher
demand for technology (Coomes, 2004), there is a greater reliance on
technology in the residence hall than ever before. While in-room high-
speed Internet is common, some colleges are finding the need to upgrade
to wireless connections troubling. “Hotspots” are becoming more important
in establishing community rooms in the halls. The only certainty about
technology is that it will continue to advance and to require upgrades, and
schools will spend more money trying to stay current with technological
advances (Pattillo, 2004).
Because modern residence hall students are concerned with maintaining

their technological needs, today they bring a variety of appliances to school:
televisions, computers, printers, stereos, microwaves, cell phones, mp3
players, DVD players, video game systems, and digital cameras, to name
a few. Many residence halls — particularly those built more than 10 years
ago — may not have the capacity to handle the electrical load students are
placing on them. With all the uproar over fee increases, electric bills do not
appear to be decreasing in the near future.
Development
Fundamental to understanding residence hall students’ development is the

recognition that residence hall students are extremely diverse individuals
who may simultaneously identify with other subpopulations and who may
be at different levels in their individual development. All students bring with
them unique experiences. Residence hall students may be made up of, but
not limited to: students who engage themselves in leadership opportunities
and hall communities; students who take advantage of the resources
available to them in the residence halls and on-campus; and students who
are dedicated to their studies. There are also those students who choose
to explore newfound freedom in negative ways that may lead them to get
attention from hall staff and community members (i.e., violating university
policies, etc.).
Residence hall students explore the freedom and the pressure (Levine &
Cureton, 1998; DeBard, 2004) to succeed that comes with living on their

own for the first time in an environment that consists of peers who are most
likely going through the same experiences. For her book My Freshman Year,
Rebekah Nathan, an anthropologist, chose to enroll as a freshman and to
live in a residence hall at “AnyU” university to better understand college
students and what residents do with their time (Nathan, 2005). Granted that
students are likely to explore these new experiences during their transition
to college life, Nathan found that “students were first and foremost working
jobs, both inside and outside the university” (p. 33) and “about half of
those in my sample were involved in professional clubs and in volunteer
work” (p. 34) leaving them with little time to party. Today’s college student
is more likely to work and go to school (Levine & Cureton, 1998; Shin,
2005). Nathan went on to say that some students are so busy that having
time to eat or sleep can sometimes become somewhat of a luxury (2005).
Nathan, like DeBard (2004), discussed the pressures that students face to
succeed academically in a highly competitive environment. From their first
day at orientation, Nathan contended that students are bombarded with
involvement opportunities (2005). Nathan explained that:
The proliferation of event choices, together with the consistent

message to “get involved,” and the ever available option of
dropping out, creates a self-contradictory system. Students
are confronted with an endless slate of activities vying for
their time. Every decision not to join but to keep one’s time
for oneself is interpreted as “student apathy” or “program
irrelevance,” and ever more activities are designed to remedy
them. Each decision to join something new pulls at another
commitment, fragmenting the whole even further. Not only
people but also community are spread thin. (p. 45)
On the other hand, Nathan contended that although students say that
they learn more from their experiences outside of the classroom, that the
out-of-the-classroom experiences are not connected with the experiences
in the classroom. However, institutions like the University of Maryland
and the University of Michigan have developed intentional living-learning
communities in residence halls that serve to enhance what is learned in the
classroom and student development, and to have a positive impact on the
retention and success of students.
The move toward integrating the living and learning experience prompted
the development of intentional living-learning communities in residence

halls. The living environment that students choose to live in also has a
significant impact on the residence hall experience. Although historically,
the origin of on-campus housing was to simply provide a place to sleep for
students (Blimling, 1998), many institutions today have moved to providing
students with an intentional and strategically planned living-learning
experience (Laufgraben, Shapiro, & Associates, 2004). Pascarella and
Terenzini (2005) contended that living “in an on-campus living-learning
center bolstered the positive influence on persistence” (p. 603). Students
living in residence halls have access to “a twenty-four-hour-a-day setting
for intellectual development” (Schoem, 2004, p. 132). Some institutions
have a mixture of different types of environments that students can live
in such as living-learning floors or communities. Some examples include
architecture/engineering floors or business floors, where cohorts of students
can not only live together but also take classes together. Theme-based halls
or floors such as honors, students with disabilities, Greek, international, and
special interests, allow for students with specific needs and/or interests to
live together. On some campuses, students can opt to live in a single room or
to live with a roommate. Additionally, there are campuses that have all male,
all female, and/or co-ed buildings. More recently, with the increase in non-
traditional enrollment, some institutions also provide housing for students
and their families and for graduate students. According to the Association
of College and University Housing Officers International, “the types of
housing that are getting most attention are: international communities,
language immersion houses, and substance-free halls” (C. Barnett, personal
communication, June 13, 2006).
Many institutions require first-time freshmen to live on campus because

research (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Pascarella et al., 1994) contended
that it will aid in their retention and ultimate success. Other institutions
choose not to have on-campus residency requirements. Despite the
development of more modern living environments that have suite-style
housing, some students prefer to live in the traditional-style housing (this
style of housing requires students to share a common floor restroom where
the door to the room is the only entrance to their room) because living in a
close community is important to them. Some of the modern-style housing
may have the benefits of having better furniture and more privacy (this style
of housing allows for students to have their own restroom and own room
where the main entrance to the suite is not the door to the student’s room)
at the cost of the loss of community that the traditional-style floor naturally

encourages. Recently, many institutions have found it easier to provide
privatized housing (Gose, 2005) to ensure that the facility operation needs
of the evolving residence hall student population are maintained.
However, for all the differences between the various groups of students
occupying the residence halls, they maintain some common issues and
concerns. These issues are comprised of student needs, and can best be
explored through the use of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
The bottom level of Maslow’s pyramid consists of basic needs – food and
shelter, for example (Weinberg, 2005). It should be obvious that these
are needs filled by residence halls and campus living. While students are
often free to enjoy dining off-campus, most campuses provide some kind
of on-campus dining option. While this is traditionally represented by the
ubiquitous cafeterias and dining center, the end of the twentieth century saw
fast food franchises and other eateries appear on campus as an option for
the student unwilling to brave the cafeteria. Current residence hall students
are more focused on eating healthy than in generations past, and campus
dining options have shifted to reflect that (Bernstein, 2003). Many colleges
and universities offer some sort of “campus cash” plan in conjunction with
traditional meal plans, in which a given amount can be spent at these on-
campus options. One thing said about millennial students is that they are
sheltered (Debard, 2004). These sheltered students enjoy the option of
familiar food to ease the transition into living away from home.
Shelter is another basic need that residence halls provide, according to

Maslow. Shelter, in this case, refers chiefly to the physical structure of the
building keeping the student from the elements. However, the safety and
security provided by the residence hall is another level of Maslow’s pyramid
(Weinberg, 2005). In order to develop, people (in this case, students) have to
feel like they are not in danger. Residence halls have a variety of methods to
restrict access only to residents, including simple keys, key card access, and
even biometrics (customarily a hand scanner) to ensure only the residents
of the building are allowed in. While these measures may go unnoticed
or unappreciated by many students, high levels of safety and security are
important for students in a world often fraught with danger. In addition,
the dangers associated with a potential fire in a residence hall need to be
addressed before students can develop properly (Kennedy, 2005). While
these systems are certainly not foolproof, they provide some peace of mind

for the concerned college student (and, to an extent, the concerned college
parent).
Another level of Maslow’s hierarchy that can be satisfied through residence

halls is the need for a sense of belonging (Weinberg, 2005). Efforts made
by a residence hall’s staff can fulfill the needs of students.This can be
accomplished through programmatic efforts on the part of resident assistants
or interaction with other students in the common areas. These programs can
include developing academic skills, facilitating social interaction, or even
focusing on career development. A floor or building intramural team can
create unity among residents and encourage dialogues that lead to further
development. Roles in hall government vary from campus to campus, but a
good hall government can make all students living in a given hall feel like
part of something greater than themselves, which certainly fills the need for
a sense of belonging.
Chickering and Reisser’s general theory of student development can

be applied to residence hall students because their development is more
amenable to institutional guidelines than off-campus students’ development.
According to Chickering, living in a residence hall can naturally lend itself to
the development of “meaningful friendships and diverse student communities
in which shared interests exist and significant interactions occur encourage
development along all seven vectors” (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito,
1998, p. 41). The first two vectors described in the theory are developing
competence and managing emotions (Evans et al., 1998). Competence for
residential students can be developed under closer supervision than off-
campus students who arrive on campus for class and then go back to their
own lives. There may not be a significant difference between on- and off-
campus students in terms of managing emotions, but on-campus students
have an advantage in that counseling centers are often closer and easier to
access for residence hall students.
Moving through autonomy toward interdependence, the third vector varies

for residence hall students (Evans et al., 1998). On-campus students may
have a lesser degree of autonomy, as they must comply with a stricter set of
rules for on-campus living (these rules may include visitation hours, quiet
hours, pet policies, or appliance policies). However, on-campus students
would have an advantage when it comes to developing interdependence,
as there are so many other students around from whom they can learn. The
sheer number of relationships that can be formed with other students, staff,

and faculty is what gives residential students this advantage in this stage of
their development. In addition, on-campus students have the opportunity to
more easily develop mature relationships (Chickering and Reisser’s fourth
vector) as there are simply more opportunities to form relationships (Evans
et al., 1998). A residence hall student who has a problem with his or her
roommate or hall mate can get help from institutional staff; whereas, an off-
campus student does not have the same options when it comes to resolving
personal disputes. An on-campus student only shares living space with other
students; as such, the similarities these students share allow for a different
kind of connection with other community members.
The fifth vector, identity development, can occur regardless of where the
student lives (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998). Susan R. Komives
(1994), found that:
The most essential perspective for residents to develop as they

assume their responsibilities in the residential environment
is to see the multiple realities of their commitments to self
and others. Individual residents therefore must continually
ask themselves three questions:
• How am I like no one else here?
• How am I like some others here?
• How am I like everyone here? (p. 219)
On-campus students have access to a greater number of programs that

explore many of the questions that come with developing identity. While
cultural centers on campus explore many of the issues students face, there
is the additional factor of directed residence hall programming. Students
in residence halls have access to a greater number of programs that may
encourage their identity development.
The sixth and seventh vectors, developing purpose and developing integrity,
do not seem to be affected by on-campus living (Evans et al., 1998).
However, it is important to note that because students are living in such close
proximity to each other, they are bound to adopt some areas of other students’
purposes—with that many students going through similar situations during
the same time frame, conversations about purpose and integrity come up.

These conversations may serve as a kind of “trial by fire” to refine a student’s
sense of purpose and integrity.
Benefits
Ultimately, living in residence halls has a positive impact on the student.

Residents are allowed the opportunity to engage in learning communities
and take on leadership roles in which they can use their critical thinking,
reasoning, and decision-making skills to make knowledgeable decisions.
They can also be challenged to listen to and to have intellectual conversations
with residents with opposing beliefs, values, and opinions (Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). The residence hall experience can allow for residents to
be exposed to higher levels of diversity beyond the limited experience that
the classroom provides. Living with roommates teaches residents about
respecting others, understanding and finding value in differences among
individuals, being able to disagree with others on social issues while still
maintaining good relationships with them, developing their communication
and conflict-resolution skills. According to Komives (1994):
...residence halls provide a unique experience for the people

who live there to learn and practice the challenges of shared
leadership. This shared leadership must be built on the
foundation of each resident’s responsibility as a citizen of
that environment to influence the character of the living
experience. (p. 218)
Residence hall students as a whole, including students living in a single

room (without a roommate), are able to cultivate the understanding of what
it means to be a citizen or community member in the residence hall through
the upholding of the hall’s and, more specifically, the floor’s community
standards. Komives (1994) implied that residents have the ability to make an
impact on their residence hall community and the community can also have
a significant impact on the resident. Most halls also provide a supportive
and engaging structure that allows for students to aid in the improvement
of the quality of life for everyone residing in the hall.
Residence halls have the potential to naturally and intentionally become

the classroom outside of the classroom. The residential hall experience can
teach residents a greater understanding and respect for other individuals
and their entitlement to their own beliefs, practices of religion, culture,

and values. Pascarella, Terenzini, and Blimbling contended that “residential
living can be a powerful force in shaping both the essential character and
the developmental impact of an individual’s college experience” (1994, p.
39). As such, when staff members in residence halls enforce university and
housing policies, along with the ingrained standards of the university and
the expectations of the community, we see the culmination of the kind of
student that the institution aspires to develop. Typically, this is a student of
integrity, strong character, and values. According to Pascarella and Terenzini
(2005), the following are some of the benefits of living on campus:
Increases in aesthetic, cultural, and intellectual values;

liberalization of social, political, and religious values and
attitudes; development of more positive self-concepts;
intellectual orientation, autonomy, and independence;
tolerance, empathy, and ability to relate to others; and the
use of principles reasoning to judge moral issues. (p. 603)
Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development discussed the

transition of students in their beliefs and decision-making to develop
from being that of black and white to being decisions that are supported
by qualitative supporting evidence (Evans et al., 1998). Experiences like
these help students living in residence halls be more open to looking at
situations beyond black and white (Evans et al.). The fact that they live in a
residence hall on a floor with other students that are more than likely going
through some of the same experiences increases the probability that they
will enhance, and at some point, establish for themselves a social support
network of peers that can extend itself beyond the residence hall, ultimately
enhancing the “home away from home” experience (Light, 2001).
Conclusion
Unlike some of the other student subpopulations, being a residence hall

student is a temporary experience that can have a life-long impact on the
student. For some, living in a residence hall is a choice, and for others, it is
mandatory. Historically, it has been contended that the college experience
was not complete without the experience of living in a residence hall (Cohen,
1998). If residence halls have prevailed since the first notions of their existence
(Lucas, 1994), then their expansion and continued development throughout
the centuries proves that residence halls are providing college students with
a “special experience” (Cohen, 1998) that is an integral component of the

full college life experience. The residence hall environment, while evolving,
still offers students a chance for developing their interpersonal skills—if
only students take that chance, whether consciously or unconsciously.
Generalizing the population of residence hall students is impossible. With

such a wide variety of options available for on-campus living, all students can
potentially find their needs fulfilled by residential living. However, on-campus
life satisfies much of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, n.d.)—obviously
on the lower levels of the pyramid but also all the way up through self-
actualization—and as such, allows students the freedom to pursue academic
goals. This leads to greater retention and academic success for students who
live in residence halls. While there are a multitude of challenges facing on-
campus students, the adaptability of student affairs programs bodes well for
the future of residential living because student affairs professionals are now,
more than ever, honing in on the importance of assessment and research to
meet the needs of the evolving residence hall student, and to intentionally,
in collaboration with both academic and non-academic entities on campus,
develop realistic expectations for today’s millennial student.

References
Astin, A.W., Oseguera, L., Sax, L.J., Korn, W.S. (2002). The American
Freshman Thirty-Five Year Trenes, 1966-2001. Higher Education
Research Institute. Graduate School of Education & Information
Studies. University of California, Los Angeles.
Bernstein, Elizabeth. (2003). The dining hallo diet. Wall Street Journal -
Eastern Edition, 242(92). Retrieved January 30, 2006, from Proquest
Direct.
Blimling, G. (1998). The Resident Assistant: Applications and Strategies

for Working with College Students in Residence Halls. (5th). Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/Hunt.
Cohen, A. (1998). The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence

and Growth of the Contemporary System. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Coomes, M.D. (2004). Understanding the Historical and Cultural

Influences That Shape Generations. In Coomes, M.D. & DeBard, R.
(Eds), Serving the millennial generation (pp. 17-31). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
DeBard, R. (2004). Millennials coming to college. In Coomes, M.D. &

DeBard, R. (Eds), Serving the millennial generation (pp. 33-45). San
Drug use trends – Factsheet – Drug facts. (2002). Retrieved June 26, 2006,
from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/
druguse/.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student

Development in College. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Gose, B. (2005). One-stop shopping for campus housing. The Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved on January 18, 2006 from http://chronicle.
com/weekly/v51/i21/21b00401.htm.
Grayson, P.A. & Meilman, P.W. (1999). Beating the College Blues (2nd).
New York: Facts on File.
Horowitz, H.L. (1987). Campus life. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

In loco parentis goes loco. (2005). Wall Street Journal, 246(60). Retrieved
June 26, 2006, from Proquest Direct.
Kennedy, Mike. (2005). This new school. American School & University,
77(12). Retrieved February 4, 2006, from EBSCO Academic Search
Premier
Komives, S.R. (1994). Increasing student involvement through civic

leadership education. Realizing the Educational Potential of Residence
Halls. Schroeder, C.C., Mable, P. & Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Laufgraben, J.L, Shapiro, N.S., & Associates. (2004). Sustaining and

Improving Learning Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, A. (1994). Guerilla education in residential life. Realizing the

Educational Potential of Residence Halls. Schroeder, C.C., Mable, P. &
Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, A. & Cureton, J.S. (1998). When Hope and Fear Collide: A
Portrait of Today’s College Student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Light, R.J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their
minds. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Lucas, C.J. (1994). American higher education: A history. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Maslow. (n.d.). Abraham Maslow Biography: Hierarchy of Needs.

Retrieved online on September 4, 2006 from http://www.
valuebasedmanagement.net/leaders_maslow_hierarchy.html.
Nathan, R. (2005). My Freshman Year: What a Professor Learned by

Becoming a Student. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005a). Digest of Education


National Center for Education Statistics (2005b). Digest of Education
Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How Collage Affects Students:
Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How College Affects Students. 2nd
Ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T., & Blimling, G.S. (1994). The impact of
residence life on students. In Schroeder, C.C., Mable, P., & Associates
(Eds), Realizing the Educational Potential of Residence Halls. San
Pattillo, G. (2004). Campus technology increases. College & Research

Libraries News, 65(9). Retrieved February 4, 2006, from EBSCO
Academic Search Premier.
Percent distribution of undergraduate enrollment in Title IV degree-

granting institutions by attendance, status, gender, control of
institution, and age of student: United States, fall 2003. (2003).
National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on February 15, 2006
from http://nces.ed.gov/dasol.
Pryor, J.H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V.B., Lindholm, J.A., Korn, W.S.,
Mahoney, K.M. (2005). The American Freshman National Norms.
Higher Education Research Institute. Graduate School of Education &
Information Studies. University of California, Los Angeles.
Residence hall capacity. (2004). National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved on February 15, 2006 from http://nces.ed.gov/dasol/ipeds/
showPrintTable.asp.
Rolon, C.A. (2005). Helping Latino students learn. Education Digest,

71(4). Retrieved February 4, 2006, from EBSCO Academic Search
Premier.
Schoem, D. (2004). Sustaining living-learning programs. Sustaining &

Improving Learning Communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shin, H.B. (2005). School enrollment—social and economic characteristics
of students: October 2003. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved on January
18, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p20-554.pdf.
Stone, D. & Tippett, E. (2004). Real College: The Essential Guide to Student
Life. New York: Penguin.
The Chronicle of Higher Education. (2006). Campus Architecture. Retrieved

on January 18, 2006 from http://chronicle.com/stats/architecture/
architecture_table.php?type=Residential.
Undergraduate Students. (2005). Local Residence by type of institution

and attendance status by age group. National Center for Education
Statistics.
Weinberg, Harry. (2005). The effective “time binder” and Maslow’s “self-
actualizing person.” ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 62(3).
Retrieved January 30, 2006, from EBSCO Academic Search Premier
Youth Indicators. (2005). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved

on January 17, 2006 from http://nces.ed.gov/dasol.

CHAPTER 12
Students in Greek-letter Organizations

Andrew J. Mauk
Fraternities and sororities have been symbols of American institutions of

higher education for decades, due in large part to their social standings on
campuses, raucous parties, extensive media coverage, loyal alumni bases, and
their iconic images in movies such as Animal House. So, is it any wonder that
these controversial organizations evoke paradoxical emotions for student
affairs administrators? Greek-letter organizations have a 200-year-old
history on college campuses, and they have evolved from literary societies to
the current social constructs that we often think of today. Phi Beta Kappa
was created as the first Greek-letter organization in 1776 at the College of
William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia (Boschini & Thompson, 1998).
However, since this inception, the organizations that are modeled after the
ancient Greek Empire societies with Masonic tendencies have splintered
into two distinct groups: “honor or recognition societies and the so-called
Greeks or social fraternities” (De Los Reyes & Rich, 2003, p. 120). These
social fraternities are much different in character, mission, and practice than
their early predecessors, although all boast, if not display, a related academic
purpose.
More recently, Greek-letter organizations have struggled to maintain their

existences. Interest in joining these organizations has declined steadily over
the past four decades (Astin, Oseguera, Sax & Korn, 2002). Media coverage
of hazing injuries and deaths, substance abuse, and culturally demeaning
incidents has become all too commonplace. Further, much of the research
on Greek-letter students has questioned the “value of fraternities,” as the
Students in Greek-letter Organizations 239

aforementioned “incidents tarnish the image of fraternities as a locus
of brotherhood (Kuh, Pascarella & Wechsler, 1996, p. A68). However,
proponents of Greek-letter membership often cite anecdotal evidence that
suggests members perform better academically than their independent peers
(Kuh, Pascarella & Wechsler) and that the Greek-letter members are “the key
to maintaining campus traditions and hold many of the student leadership
roles” (Whipple & Murphy, 2004, p. 313). Astin’s Theory of Involvement is
often cited as the major defense of Greek-letter organizations, as he stated in
the landmark study What Matters in College, “The student’s peer group is the
single most potent source of influence on growth and development in the
undergraduate years” (1993, p. 398). Regardless, research has demonstrated
that “the Greek system appears to provide a ‘safe harbor’ for those who seek
conformity, family dependence, social apathy, and extensive involvement in
extracurricular activities” (Baier & Whipple as cited in Whipple & Murphy,
2004, p. 314). Whipple and Sullivan (1998) argued that “fraternities and
sororities have faced significant challenges from agencies outside the Greek
system, including university administrators, non-Greek students, faculty
members, and the general public” (p. 8). However, membership has ebbed
and flowed over the years, and Greek systems have persevered, evolving to
meet new constituencies and times.
With all the controversy surrounding the purposes and actions of fraternities
and sororities on college campuses, student affairs administrators often
question the benefits that the Greek system provides its individual members.
Indeed, Kuh, Pascarella, and Wechsler (1996) stated that “some individuals
are unaffected by the anti-intellectual influences common to many chapters.
And in some fraternities, alcohol abuse is not the norm, and high levels of
intellectual and academic achievements are common” (p. A68). Therefore,
this chapter will examine the key differences and similarities of Greek-
letter members to non-Greek students. As the vast majority of Greek
members are traditionally-aged, examining the developmental issues can be
a challenge. Thus, this chapter will review the cognitive, moral, and identity
development that results due to membership in a Greek-letter organization.
Finally, this chapter will address several programmatic models that have been
implemented at various institutions that should provide current student

affairs administrators new ideas on how to work with their current Greek
systems.
For the purposes of this chapter, the terms Greek-letter and Greek
are interchangeable, both referring to members of Greek-letter social
organizations, and not students from the country of Greece, nor members
of honor societies. Also, much of the research referenced refers to both
fraternity and sorority members. Therefore, the use of the term Greek
students in the generic refers to both genders. When research is gender
specific, the appropriate term is used.
Greek Student Governance and Demographics
For the unfamiliar, Greek organizational structure may often be confusing and
slightly imposing. On large, traditional campuses, Greek systems are often
comprised of individual chapters that are members of national governing
bodies. Each chapter most likely is a national or international organization,
with chapters on several to several hundred campuses in North America.
At smaller, regional colleges and universities, the organizations may or may
not be affiliated with any national organization or governing body. For the
purpose of this section, the major governing bodies and traditional fraternity
and sorority systems will be compared, as it may be next to impossible to
accurately portray the demographics of the non-affiliated Greek-letter
organizations.
For men, the national body that organizes social fraternities is the North-
American Interfraternity Conference (NIC). Founded in 1909 with 26
fraternal organizations, the NIC changed from the National Interfraternity
Conference to the North-American Interfraternity Conference as homage
to the Canadian chapters that have been established over the years. Currently
64 fraternities belong to the NIC, with 5,500 chapters in North America
on 800 different campuses. According to the NIC Web site, there are
approximately 350,000 undergraduate members. The purpose of the NIC
is to provide consistent operational, academic, and achievement standards
for all of the chapters, as well as advocating the needs of the members. Each
of the 64 organizations has agreed to basic expectations that each member
will follow. It should be noted that NIC stated that it does not govern nor

regulate the activities or programs for neither the 64 fraternal members nor
the 5,500 chapters (NIC Web site, n.d.).
Female Greek-letter organizations are organized under the National

Panhellenic Conference (NPC). Founded in 1902 as an umbrella
organization for 26 sororities, the NPC “exists to promote the values of and
to serve as an advocate for its member groups in collaboration with those
members, campuses and communities” (NPC Web site, n.d.). According to
statistics listed on the NPC Web site, the organization counts 3,777,156
initiated collegiate and alumnae members, spread among 2,908 individual
chapters on more than 620 campuses. Further research indicated that for
the 2005 fall semester, 240,269 women were affiliated with NPC chapters as
undergraduates (personal communication, August 11, 2006). For the 2004-
05 academic year, NPC reported a total of 79,735 newly initiated women
(NPC Web site, n.d.).
The National Pan-Hellenic Conference, Inc. (NPHC) is the governing body

for the traditional Black Greek-letter organizations. Formed in 1930 on
the campus of Howard University in Washington, D.C., the NPHC stated
its purpose was “unanimity of thought and action as far as possible in the
conduct of Greek letter collegiate fraternities and sororities, and to consider
problems of mutual interest to its member organizations” (NPHC Web site,
n.d.). Representing nine Greek-letter organizations, the NPHC stated:
It is the endeavor of NPHC, Inc. to foster a more stable

environment on campuses for local NPHC councils,
provide a forum for dialogue, and provide training for and
management of it’s respective councils. Having such an entity
in place to serve as an umbrella organization centralizes and
provides a clearinghouse for information sanctioned by the
NPHC Council of Presidents, whether on the university/
college campus and/or in civic, social, and political arenas.
It is essential to have such a voice to advocate concerns of
local councils and assert the position of the national body,

particularly in decisions or rulings that may have a negative
impact. (NPHC Web site, n.d., About the NPHC)
NPHC represents five fraternities and four sororities, consisting of

approximately 1.5 million alumni and collegiate members with more than
400 undergraduate chapters.
Over the past decade, thanks in part to the ever-increasing diversity of

college campuses, two other national umbrella organizations were formed
to address the needs of multicultural Greek-letter organizations. In 1998,
the National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations (NALFO) was
formed. Consisting of 24 member organizations and one associate member
organization on over 800 college campuses, NALFO stated “The purpose
of NALFO is to promote and foster positive interfraternal relations,
communication, and development of all Latino Fraternal organizations
through mutual respect, leadership, honesty, professionalism and education”
(NALFO Web site, n.d., Mission Statement). According to Peralta (2006,
January), there are approximately 20,000 members affiliated with NALFO
organizations around the country. Also in 1998, the National Multicultural
Greek Council, Inc. (NMGC) was formed to unite multicultural Greek-
letter fraternities and sororities under one national entity. Consisting of
13 member organizations, the NMGC stated that it “serves in an advisory
capacity to its member organizations. Each member organization is
autonomous as a Greek-letter society” (NMGC Web site, n.d., About Us
¶ 4).
The Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) at the Higher

Education Research Institute (HERI) measures the normative value of a
wide-variety of issues facing incoming freshmen at four-year institutions
every year. For the past 35 years, research indicated that the percentage
of entering students indicating a very good chance of joining Greek
organizations has steadily declined from a high of 34.7% in 1967 to a current

rate of 10.4% (Astin, Oseguera, Sax & Korn, 2002; Pryor, Hurtado, Saenz,
Lindholm, Korn & Mahoney, 2005).
Table 12.1 Freshmen Interest in Joining a Fraternity or Sorority at all

baccalaureate institutions
Year All Freshmen Percentage
1967 34.7
1972 16.1
1977 20.8
1982 20.3
1987 22.5
1992 20.2
1997 18.9
2005 10.4
Source: (Astin et al., 2002; Pryor et al., 2005)
Pryor et al. estimated that 10.4% of freshmen enrolling in the fall of 2005
expressed that there was a very good chance that they would join a fraternity
or a sorority. The HERI group also estimated that there were 1,298,093 new
freshmen in that fall semester. Therefore, approximately 135,000 freshmen
enrolling in four-year baccalaureate colleges and universities expressed a
strong interest in joining a Greek-letter organization. Of entering females,
12.5% indicated a strong interest in joining a sorority, while 7.8% of
men indicated an interest. At historically Black colleges and universities
(HBCUs), 33.5% of entering freshmen indicated a strong likelihood of
joining a fraternity or sorority, which represents an increase of 9.4% since
2001 (Sax, Lindholm, Astin, Korn, & Mahoney, 2001; Pryor et al., 2005).
Differences and Similarities of Greek Students
Often, student affairs administrators question the actions and behaviors

of members of Greek-letter organizations. As Hayek, Carini, O’Day, and
Kuh (2002) stated, college staffers and faculty “know all too well that Greek
letter organizations occasionally display wild swings in temperament and

the starkly contrasting personas that reveal the best and worst of human
endeavor depicted in Greek mythology” (p. 643). But, are Greek members
all that different from independent students? One would assume that
similarities exist. Further, the popularity of Greek-letter organizations
on many campuses surely suggests that there are some clear benefits to
membership. However, faculty and administrators often cite three issues
that seemingly affect Greek students in higher percentages: alcohol abuse,
poor academic performance, and risky sexual activities. Examining each
issue in more details reveals that the stereotypes sometimes reflect reality,
but often do not.
Alcohol Use by Greek Students
Alcohol use is common on college campuses, and as Danielson, Taylor, and

Hartford (2001) traced in their literature review of Greek membership and
alcohol abuse, “The perceptions of many within and outside academia place
Greeks at the center of alcohol problems, especially binge drinking” (p. 451).
The research on Greek alcohol abuse has been rather clear. Greeks drink
more often, in larger quantities, and suffer more negative consequences than
their independent peers (Wechsler, Kuh & Davenport, 1996; Alva, 1998;
Pace & McGrath, 2002; Eberhardt, Rice & Smith, 2003). Further research
indicated a much more disturbing issue regarding alcohol use. Cashin,
Presley, and Meilman (1998) found that members with leadership positions
engaged in heavy drinking just as much as their non-leader peers. Riordan
and Dana (1998) stated that this leadership issue was significant, as “these
are the students who should be most concerned about problems related to
alcohol abuse and the serious consequences this abuse has for Greek letter
organizations, members, and institutions” (p. 50).
To further illustrate this issue, Wechsler, Kuh, and Davenport (1996) studied
college student drinking patterns across the nation. They found that “86% of
fraternity house residents engaged in binge drinking, compared with about
71% of the non-resident fraternity members, and 45% of the non-fraternity
men” (p. 266). They also found that the majority of Greek members were
frequent binge drinkers (defined by the authors as “having consumed five or
more drinks in a row for men and four or more drinks in a row for women” p.
264). To make matters worse, the authors found that Greek members drive
intoxicated or ride with an inebriated driver more often than their non-

Greek peers. Clearly, the evidence regarding Greek alcohol abuse suggests
changes should be made.
Recent research suggested, though, that the drinking epidemic among Greek
members may be overblown slightly. Pace and McGrath (2002) compared
the drinking patterns of Greek members to those that volunteer in service
organizations and found that, while Greeks drink more often, the negative
affects of drinking are less harsh than for those in the service organizations.
They suggested that “heavier drinking may be associated with students
who get involved in organizations, even if the organizations are service- or
volunteer-based” (p. 228). They recommend that risk management become
“an issue that all student organizations should take more seriously, given
the potential vulnerability to problematic behaviors resulting from binge
drinking” (p. 229). Greek organizations have utilized risk management
techniques, although these attempts may have only recently become
systematic. Administrators should continue to impress upon Greek members
the dangers of alcohol and encourage responsible behaviors among all
students, as alcohol is clearly not just a Greek-member issue.
Academic Achievement by Greek Students
Studies over the past two decades regarding academic achievement have
produced mixed results. Early research indicated that Greek membership
had a positive effect on new members, although the differences between
Greeks and non-Greeks were non-significant (Gardner; Dickstein, as cited
by DeBard, Lake, & Binder, 2006). Dickstein’s study also found that Greek
women performed much better than their Greek male counterparts, while
non-Greek men outperformed non-Greek women. This may suggest that
high achieving women may be interested in joining a sorority, while high
achieving men may not display the same interest.
DeBard, Lake, and Binder (2006) took on the task of re-evaluating the
effect that membership has on new members of Greek organizations. They
stated that “it was necessary to compare predicted academic performance
of incoming first-year students to actual performance during the first and
second semesters” (p. 58). They found that “Greeks who joined during their
first semester of college underperformed, while the Greeks who joined in
their second semester overperformed as compared to their predicted GPA” (p.
59). However, they found that Greek members are retained by an institution
by a large margin over their independent classmates. Greek women had a

10% retention rate margin, with an 84% first-year retention rate—defined
as the percentage returning for their second year of college—compared to
just 74% of independent women. Greek men had a 12% retention rate in
their favor, with 83% returning for their second year versus a rate of 71% for
non-Greek men.
DeBard, Lake, and Binder recommended that institutions examine deferred

membership, as academic performance was clearly improved for those that
joined later. However, Greek members still had slightly lower performances
during the semester they joined as compared to the other semester of their
first year, regardless of when new membership status was gained. To combat
this issue, they suggested that first-semester membership be allowed, but
restricted to those incoming members with strong academic backgrounds
and performances (e.g., a specific GPA). It seems that Greek membership
has some deleterious effect on academic performance, but Pascarella and
Terenzini (2005) found that “the post-1990 research is notably silent on the
net impact of fraternity or sorority membership on educational attainment”
(p. 617). More research must be performed to fully understand the impacts
Greek membership has on academic development.
Sexual Behavior of Greek Students
Risky sexual activity is another common issue facing Greek students. Because
of the social nature of Greek-letter organizations, fraternity and sorority
members may be more often put into situations that can test the boundaries
of sexual behavior. However, research indicated that Greek members may
be more responsible than “popular stereotypes” suggest (Lynch, Mowrey,
Nesbitt & O’Neill, 2004, p. 32). The authors of a study which measured
the perceived actions and actual behavior of 7,000 students at a mid-sized
institution found that Greek members used safe-sex practices at higher levels
than their independent classmates. Lynch, Mowrey, Nesbitt and O’Neill
stated that the “majority of sexually active Greeks report[ed] ‘always’ using
a condom,” compared to “less than 1/3 of the non-Greek students” (p. 32).
Further, they found that 82% of Greek members reported either abstaining
from sex or always using a condom, with just 9% claiming they never used
a condom. Comparatively, 63% of independent students claimed abstaining

from sex or always using a condom, with 23% stating they never used a
condom.
One may draw the conclusion that Greek students are more aware of risky
sexual behaviors than their non-Greek peers, and the researchers attributed
this idea to the required health education programs that Greeks undertake
as part of their membership. Mathias and Turrentine (2003) found that
there was no statistically significant difference in the use or non-use of
contraceptive devices when under the effects of alcohol for Greek members
compared to non-Greek students. Add this to the fact that Greek men had
the “highest reported rate of safer sexual practices (Lynch, et al., 2004, p.
32), and it becomes apparent that Greek-letter organizations have done a
significant job in educating their members on safe sex. However, the research
also suggested that the perception that the sexual behavior of one’s peers is
actually much higher than actual occurring sexual encounters (Lynch, et
al., 2004). Students—both Greek and non-Greek—perceived their peers as
having more sexual interactions than they were actually claiming. Because
all of these studies included self-reported responses, practitioners should
continue to stress safe sexual behaviors.
Benefits and Effects of Greek Membership
With the vast amount of negative perceptions of Greek-letter organizations,

the research presented indicated that Greeks may not be all that different
from their independent classmates. While their drinking behavior is
alarming, Greek members seem to be similar in academic performance
and sexual behavior. So, this begs the question: Why do students join
Greek-letter organizations? Byer (1997) determined that pre-collegiate
backgrounds may provide the best predictor of Greek-letter membership.
He found that Greek members had socio-economic backgrounds that were
much different than their independent peers. Greek members had families
with larger incomes, higher parental educational achievements, and higher
memberships in local social clubs. Furthermore, O’Connor, Cooper, and
Thiel (1996) found that high school students who reported high alcohol
use were more likely to join fraternities. Their researched suggested that
“the relationship between fraternity membership and drinking is not
solely a result of belonging to the fraternity” (p. 674). The majority of
Greek members appear to have different backgrounds than independent
students, and college administrators should be cognizant of student
characteristics to determine proper educational efforts. If new members to

Greek organizations are predisposed to drinking more alcohol and come
from specific socioeconomic backgrounds, the negative aspects of Greek
membership may not be attributable to the Greek-letter organizations, as
they may be larger, societal issues. Administrators should practice caution if
negative stereotypes surround their Greek-letter organizations, as the issue
may be deeper than the organizations themselves.
Obviously, Greek members are both similar and different, but the popularity
of Greek-letter organizations among a segment of college-going youth
remains. One would assume that there is some benefit to membership. Over
the years, researchers have concluded that there is some positive benefit:
Fraternities and sororities provide their members with numerous

opportunities for leadership development and volunteerism (Astin, 1993,
Kuh 1982). Being Greek also is positively correlated with persistence (Astin,
1977, 1984) as well as with higher levels of alumni giving (Nelson, 1984).
(Hayek, Carini, O’Day, & Kuh, 2002, p. 643)
The research, however, also suggested that membership had disturbing effects.
Pike (2002) stated that Greek members are exposed to various cultures and
ideas less often than non-Greeks, while Boschini and Thompson (1998)
argued that “if Greek letter organizations are to survive and flourish within
the modern college and university, it is imperative that they understand the
importance of diversity” (p. 19). McCabe and Bowers (1996) found more
academic dishonesty among Greek members. Table 12.2 lists the major
research on the effect that Greek membership has on student engagement.

Table 12.2 Major Findings from Selected Studies on the Impact of Greek Membership on
Student Engagement
Negative/Neutral
Author Type of Study Positive Greek Effect
Greek Effect
Astin (1977, 1984) Longitudinal study More likely to persist
of college dropouts
Blimling (1989) Meta-analysis of Slight negative

past research effect on academic
achievement
compared to living
in residence hall
Pike & Askew (1990) Single institution More interaction Negative or neutral
study of 6000+ with peers and effect of fraternity
seniors function in groups membership
more effectively on academic
achievement
Astin (1993) Longitudinal study Self-reported gains No effects on

of college dropouts in leadership ability student satisfaction
and negative with
GPA
Pascarella et al. National sample of Modest positive Negative on

(1996) first-year students effect on cognitive cognitive outcomes
development for for first-year students
men of color and negative effect
on openness to
cultural diversity
after first year
McCabe & Bowers 9 institutions, Significant

(1996) sophomores, juniors relationship
and seniors between Greek
membership
and academic
dishonesty
Pike (2000) Single institution Higher levels of Negatively related

general gains to integration of
in cognitive diverse college
development experiences
Pascarella, Flowers, 18 institutions, Positive cognitive Negative to neutral

& Whitt (2001) sophomores and growth for sororities cognitive skills for
juniors men and women,
negative cognitive
growth for men
Source: Hayek, Carini, O’Day, & Kuh, 2002.

For members of the NPHC, Inc. organizations, studies have shown that
there are significant benefits to membership in a Greek-letter organization.
Sutton and Kimbrough (2001) found that NPHC members enrolled at
predominantly White campuses had higher grade point averages compared
to the Black non-Greek students. Also, members of historically Black
Greek-letter organizations were found to be more open to diversity than
their White Greek peers (Pascarella, Edison, Whitt, Nora, Hagedorn, &
Terenzini, 1996). Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) found that research
suggested that “membership in Black fraternities and sororities may have a
positive influence on leadership development” (p. 248), although they stated
that these studies may not necessarily represent accurate development, as
pre-membership controls were not in place.
Hayek, Carini, O’Day and Kuh (2002) found promising results in the more
recent research. “Greek members appeared to be equally and sometimes more
engaged in academically challenging tasks, active learning, student faculty
interaction, community service, diversity, satisfaction, and on learning and
personal development gains” (p. 643). They suggested that the research of
the past and the “various programs and activities being implemented at local
chapters by national organizations and campus-based personnel to enhance
the quality of Greek life are having the desired impact” (p. 658). Pascarella
and Terenzini (2005) found that Greek membership had a positive effect on
the development of career-related skills, as well as small, positive effects on
interpersonal skills, community orientation, and civic engagement. Updated
research on the current generation of college students may be needed to
fully understand the ever-changing landscape of Greek-letter membership.
Greek Student Development
Greek students can be categorized in many different developmental

categories, especially considering that the vast majority of Greek students
are traditionally-aged. The developmental theories used by student affairs
practitioners and college educators are based on research performed on
traditional-aged college students. Therefore, it would be reasonable to
assume that Greek students develop along similar lines as the majority of
other college students. However, this has yet to be determined as “very little
research has been conducted on the effects of Greek affiliation on learning
and cognitive development” (Pascarella, et al., 1996, p. 244). Only recently
have researchers taken on the task of determining how Greek members
develop inside and outside of the classroom. While Greek organizations

have been deemed antithetical to the educational component of collegiate
campuses, examining the cognitive development of Greek members may
provide student affairs practitioners valuable evidence on how to proceed in
the near future.
Perry’s Theory of Intellectual and Ethical Development is one of the most

common developmental theories used to describe cognitive development.
Evans, Forney, and Guido-DeBrito (1998) summarized how students make
meaning of information over a period of time. They described how Perry
defined nine positions that students go through in their developmental
process. Evans et al. examined these nine positions, and found that they were
broken into three major categories: dualism, multiplicity, and relativism. They
explained Perry’s dualism as representing “a mode of meaning making that
tends to view the world dichotomously: good-bad, right-wrong, black-white”
(p. 131). Multiplicity was defined “as honoring diverse views when the right
answers are not known” (p. 131). In other words, all viewpoints are valid, but
students shift from the dualistic viewpoint to a more independent thought
process. Relativism is defined by “the recognition of the need to support
opinions” (p. 132). For students in the relativistic position, suddenly, there
are subtle differences between opinions, and students begin to understand
that not all ideas are valid. Disagreement on subjects is acceptable for the
relativistic student. Randall and Grady (1998) argued that “undergraduate
experiences contribute to critical thinking skills” (p. 31). Critical thinking
skills are one of the most important components of cognitive development,
and as students progress through Perry’s theory, critical thinking “develops
as a result of various college experiences (Randall & Grady, p. 31).
Pascarella et al. (1996) investigated how Greek members develop through

Perry’s Theory as a result of their involvement with Greek-letter organizations.
They provided “a longitudinal and multi-institutional investigation of the
cognitive effects of Greek affiliation during the first year of college” (p. 244).
More specifically, they sought to determine if Greek membership affected
reading comprehension, mathematics skills, critical thinking, and whether
any impacts were different for Greek students compared to non-Greek
students based on a variety of characteristics.
The research indicated that Greek membership has a profound impact on

cognitive development. Controlling for pre-collegiate factors, the researchers
found that “Greek men had significantly lower end-of-first-year scores on
standardized measures of reading comprehension, mathematics, critical

thinking, and composite achievement than their non-Greek counterparts”
(1996, p. 253). Greek women had similar, but not statistically significant
results. Females had lower cognitive development than non-Greek
women, but only the “differences in reading comprehension and composite
achievement were statistically significant” (p. 253). Most significant was
that “fraternity membership had its strongest negative influence on first year
critical thinking” (p. 254). One significant factor that should be mentioned
is that Pascarella et al. found that for African American men, there was a
positive effect on all four cognitive outcomes. The authors suggested that
Black men may “form a subculture within fraternities that is more supportive
of the intellectual mission of the institution than the dominant peer culture
of White fraternity men” (p. 255).
To further understand the cognitive development of Greek members,

Pascarella, Flowers, and Whitt (2001) published a follow-up study
investigating the longitudinal effects of membership across a collegiate
career. Over time, there were some developmental changes among Greek
members. For the second year of membership, Greek men continued to
lag behind in all cognitive outcomes, although the differences were not
statistically significant. For sorority members, there were “very small and
non-significant negative effects on writing skills and science reasoning” (p.
291). However, females displayed a slight positive effect on understanding
science and gains in writing and thinking skills.
Further, in the third year of membership, Greek men still displayed

significantly lower reading comprehension levels compared to the non-
Greek counterparts, and exhibited far smaller growth in understanding of
the arts and the humanities. For female Greek students, there continued to
be a very slight negative, but not statistically significant, effect on reading
comprehension and critical thinking skills. However, Greek women
displayed “significantly greater growth in understanding science after 3 years
of college” (Pascarella et al., 2001, p. 293). The researchers also discovered
that the cognitive development differences between Black and White men
after the first year of Greek membership did not continue into the second
and third years. The researchers concluded that over time, Greek affiliation
had a net negative effect on men, but a positive effect on women. They also
concluded, based on this study and the previous first-year research, that the
“negative learning consequences of Greek affiliation occur primarily when
students pledge a fraternity or sorority in the first year of college. After

the initial year of college, however, any negative consequences of fraternity
or sorority membership may tend to diminish, if not totally disappear” (p.
297).
Randall and Grady (1998) offered explanations on why Greek membership

inhibited critical thinking development. They determined that “Greek
organizations do not share the institution’s educational values and do
not understand (or care about) its educational mission and priorities” (p.
33). Further, they explained that the time constraints involved in Greek
membership simply detract from cognitive development. They recommended
that fraternities and sororities implement activities that encourage critical
thinking skills and cognitive development, such as faculty literary discussions
and philanthropy events that include individual reflection. The researchers
argued that “if students begin to develop critical-thinking skills that allow
them to make connections among all life experiences, they will become
better scholars and stronger members of the fraternity or sorority chapter,
and thus valuable contributors to the institutional learning community” (p.
36).
Another aspect of Greek member cognitive development that recently has

been addressed by researchers is moral development. Based on Kohlberg’s
work in the area of “how people make moral judgments” (Evans et al.,
1998, p. 173), moral development is how students determine what is right
and wrong in a situation. Kohlberg felt that the major principle for this
development was one of justice:
Kohlberg identified six stages of moral reasoning grouped

into three major levels. Each development level represented
a fundamental shift in the social-moral perspective of the
individual. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development is based
on a justice perspective, that (a) focuses on individual rights:
(b) stresses separation, detachment, and autonomy: and (c)

emphasizes impartial analysis using rules and principles of
fairness. ( Jones & Watt, 1999, p. 126)
Evans et al. claimed that “Kohlberg’s theory is a helpful framework for

understanding how moral development takes place and provides direction
for fostering the development of moral judgment” (p. 185).
Early (1998) examined how Greek students and Greek-letter organizations

influence ethical and moral development. She argued that “Greek letter
organizations can be ideal settings for examining the moral implications of
behavior” (p. 40). Research on the academically ethical behavior of Greek
students has been rather remarkable, as McCabe and Bowers (1996) found
that fraternity and sorority members admitted to cheating on tests more
than non-Greek students by a large margin. Of the Greek males surveyed,
86% admitted to cheating, compared to 67% of independent men. The
researchers also found that 82% of sorority members admitted to academic
dishonesty, compared to 67% of non-affiliated females. Early argued that
the implementation of service projects for Greek members had a positive
effect on their moral development, as Greek students stated they learned
to appreciate how their actions affect others. With incidents of hazing and
community displeasure, Greek letter organizations must react to their moral
dilemma, and Greek students should gain experience in discussing ethical
and moral behavior, as Early argued that “students must understand how to
behave in ways consistent with principles of truth, justice, honor, respect,
integrity, and community” (p. 44), all cornerstones of Greek letter creeds
and mottos.
Recent research into the development of Greek members focused on the

issues facing gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) Greeks. Case, Hesp, and
Eberly (2005) found that “virtually no formal research” existed about
homosexual members of Greek-letter organizations prior to their study (p.
15). They attributed this void to the fact that “most GLB fraternity and
sorority members keep their sexual orientation hidden from their fellow
members” (p. 15). The authors declared that “GLB or questioning students
may feel alienated from fraternities/sororities and fraternity/sorority
members” because of the strong likelihood of homophobic reactions from
Greek members (p. 16). As part of their research into the sexual identity
development of Greek members, the authors found that Greeks reported
approximately 5–6% of fraternity membership and 3–4% of sorority
membership to be homosexual. Most of the students involved in this

particular research project were members of traditional fraternities and
sororities, and when they disclosed their homosexuality to their respective
organizations, the researchers determined that many were supportive. While
chapters were reluctant to offer membership to homosexual students, GLB
Greek members reported that they had positive Greek experiences.
Understanding Cass’s Model of Homosexual Identity Formation may assist

student affairs practitioners in their work with GLB students, especially
GLB Greek members. According to Evans et al. (1998), GLB students
progress through six stages of identity development. Stage 1 is Identity
Confusion, where students are confused by their sexuality. Stage 2 is Identity
Comparison, as students learn to cope with the social alienation that stems
from homosexuality in current society. Stage 3 is Identity Tolerance, where
students confirm to themselves that they are indeed homosexual, and seek
out other like-minded individuals. Stage 4 is Identity Acceptance, where
students positively identity themselves as homosexual, even if they still
portray a heterosexual lifestyle to the outside world. The students in this
stage have norms and values that are influenced by their homosexuality.
Stage 5 is Identity Pride, where students focus on gay and lesbian issues and
activities. Students in this stage typically lead public GLB lifestyles. Stage 6
is Identity Synthesis, where students blend the homosexual and heterosexual
worlds and “the students are judged on the basis of their personal qualities
rather than solely on the basis of their sexual identity” (p. 94). Case et al.
(2005) concluded that Greek membership had a strong effect on the sexual
identity development of members who identified as GLB, mainly due to
the discrimination and fear that GLB students endure on a regular basis.
However, GLB Greeks did gain social and interpersonal skills, long-term
friendships, and leadership skills as a result of their membership in a Greek-
letter organization.
Greek Letter Organizations’ Model Programs
While understanding the theoretical underpinnings of Greek student

development may prove useful to college administrators, examining various
examples of innovative and successful programs from different institutions
may assist practitioners with addressing the issues brought forth in this
chapter. Student affairs practitioners have implemented several initiatives
over the past few years that could be used by other campuses to address issues
facing Greek members. This section will focus on three particular programs:
a living-learning community for Greek members and non-Greeks that may

be an example for institutions that must address significant issues regarding
the misuse of alcohol among Greek members; a rape prevention program
targeted toward fraternity members that may stem the stereotypical risky
sexual behavior perception facing Greek men; and a development program
for Greek housing that may benefit financial donors to universities. These
programs represent various issues and themes and may be beneficial to a
wide variety of institution types.
Greek and Non-Greek Living-Learning Community
De Los Reyes and Rich (2003) encouraged institutions to implement

residential systems and include “something of the fellowship and ritual
that has made the Greek system so formidable” (p. 123). Union College in
Schenectady, New York, implemented a controversial program that makes
the Greek system a social experiment where members of the organizations
have created a living-learning community known as Minerva (Farrell,
2006). In February of 2000, the institution revamped its housing system,
converting former Greek houses into living-learning communities, complete
with an annual budget monitored by the students for activities. The plan
was controversial because it involved three prominent fraternities giving
up their rights to their long-occupied houses at the end of their 99-year
leases. According to Farrell, Union College witnessed a dramatic drop in
alumni giving as a result of the conversion, and the donations have only
recently begun to trend upward. However, campus officials cite the increase
in academically focused activities that many of the Greek organizations
were forced to implement to maintain competitive with the new Minerva
communities by hosting events like Faculty Teas and guest lecturers.
Members of the displaced fraternities and sororities were given prime

locations in residence halls, complete with renovated common rooms for
social activities. Over the past several years, the Greek-letter organizations
have begun collaborating with the Minerva communities, planning wide-
scale social events and activities. Further, campus officials noted that the
quality of the “applicant pool has also improved remarkably” (Farrell, 2006,
Problems and Progress section, ¶ 9). The average SAT score for incoming
students was 30 points higher than previous years, and approximately 70%

of the incoming freshmen graduated in the top 10% of their high school
class, compared to just 55% prior to the Minerva system.
This model program may prove useful for institutions struggling to address
the issue of alcohol abuse often noted among fraternity and sorority members.
If a living-learning community can assist the academic development of
Greek members, institutions may choose to seek out this possible solution.
For institutions that have large, palatial fraternity and sorority houses with
long-standing histories and traditions, removal of those organizations could
prove controversial in the short-term, but beneficial in the long run if alcohol
abuse and academic performance is rectified.
Fraternity Rape Prevention Program
Because of a concern that Greek males may be involved in sexual assault

more often than non-Greek members, “The Men’s Program” was created
to expose fraternity men to rape and sexual assault issues and how they
could help victims. Foubert and Cowell (2004) examined the program,
which they described as “the only program that has ever been shown to
produce clear, long-term change in men” (p. 4). Foubert and Lavoy (2000)
reported that more than half of the Greek men changed their attitudes and
beliefs in regard to their sensitivity toward rape and sexual assault victims.
The program includes a video with depictions of a male rape victim by other
males, which was reported to have a significant impact on the men in the
program (Foubert & Lavoy, 2000). Foubert and Cowell (2004) found that
men who participated in the program reported a significant change in their
attitude about the connection between drinking and sexual behavior, which
was often attributed to sexual assaults. The fraternity members were much
more sensitive and aware of issues related to rape, and many planned to
implement the program for entire chapters and Greek systems. Student
affairs practitioners that are concerned about sexual assault activities on
college campus and in Greek-letter organizations may want to investigate
the Men’s Program to determine if the attitudes of the likely culprits could
be altered prior to any incidents.
Because the perception exists that fraternity members are more likely to
commit sexual assault and engage in risky sexual behavior, a rape prevention
program such as “The Men’s Program” may help student affairs practitioners
address the issue on college campuses. It is recommended that collaborative

efforts with academic offices investigating rape prevention and Greek Life
offices be undertaken to ensure timely implementation methods.
Greek System Development Officer
Attempts to restructure federal tax law to include fraternities and sororities

as non-profit organizations have largely failed to draw enough interest within
the United States Congress (Zeller, 2006). Because of this lack of federal
status, many national organizations claim that large donors are hesitant to
donate money to locally operated organizations. Recently, the House of
Representatives took up the issue with attempts to pass a federal law to
create a tax break for upkeep and maintenance of fraternity and sorority
houses (Zeller, 2006). However, the University of Arkansas has created a
new system that could be used by other institutions to create revenue streams
for large-scale renovations for Greek-letter organizations. According to
Dr. Scott Walter, associate dean of students and director of Greek Life
(personal communication, July 27, 2006), by combining the efforts of the
University’s Advancement Office with the Greek Life department, several
Greek organizations have begun large-scale capital campaigns to raise funds
for complete renovations of aging facilities.
According to Walter, the program is unique in that the Greek organization

relinquishes its long-held 99-year leases on the organization’s current
property. In return, the group signs a five-year rolling lease, and the
university takes control of housing issues. There are two options for the
groups to choose from: (1) The university takes total control of the fraternity
or sorority house; collects contracts and payments from members; submits
payments for expenses; coordinates maintenance and housekeeping; and
University Housing provides a live-in staff member. (2) The university takes
partial control over the house and does not provide a live-in staff member,
but does collect contracts and payments and pays expenses. The benefit the
organization gains is that any money donated by alumni can be directed to
the university and earmarked for that particular organization, providing a
much-needed tax relief for the large donation.
Walter stated that the program requires a “step of faith” by the housing
corporations and alumni that serve as advisors, but that several large
donations have been committed as a result of the partnership. Recently, the
university announced that the Sigma Nu fraternity would receive a $1.6
million from an alumnus for construction of a new house on campus as part

of a $7.6 million donation. In return, the university will put the house under
University Housing control, and the members will receive a state-of-the art
living center. Walter indicated that several other Greek-letter organizations
on campus are expressing interest, and that he expects the vast majority of
the groups to join the program in the near future. According to Walter, the
program helps sell the safety of the money being donated, as the donation
is being managed by experienced staff members as opposed to a group of
young men or women under the age of 22 with little financial management
experience. The program also ensures that fraternity and sorority members
are as safe as anyone else living in the campus residence halls. Walter cited
that the main benefits the Greek students will see are personal safety, state-
of-the-art facilities, modern living conditions, and improved quality of life.
Conclusion
Greek students are a traditional, yet unique part of college campuses. With
increased social and leadership skills, high retention rates, but questionable
academic and ethical behavior, Greek-letter members are a paradoxical
population for student affairs administrators. Even with decreasing interest
over the past 30 years, Greek letter organizations are still a popular option for
many college students. The purpose of this chapter was to draw comparisons
between Greek members and independent students; clarify the cognitive,
moral, and identity development of Greek members; and provide valuable
programmatic examples of successful programs that other institutions may
wish to investigate.
Greek members clearly present challenges and opportunities for student

affairs administrators. Evidence presented in this chapter suggested that
campuses should clearly examine the structure of their Greek system and
implement changes to address the lack of moral and academic development
in many of the organizations. Kuh, Pascarella, and Wechsler (1996) even
suggested that campuses bar freshmen members from joining Greek-
letter organizations entirely, stating that “deferring membership until the
sophomore year may make fraternity houses less rowdy, since fraternities
may have strong economic incentive to make their houses more appealing to
older members” (p. A68). However, Hayek, Carini, O’Day, and Kuh (2002)
suggested that such a blanket policy not be a stopgap for all campuses and
all the issues. They noted that “a careful inspection of student engagement
data at the campus level by student affairs professionals and others may
be helpful in identifying which groups might benefit from a deferred rush

policy” (p. 659). The recommendation from this author is that campuses
should systematically, effectively, and honestly assess their Greek system,
utilize the input of alumni and current students, and implement changes
that adhere to the local campus culture.
Educationally, Greek members may be primed for a return to their roots in

the literary societies. If other campuses follow the leads of the institutions
modeled here and provide proper guidance toward high levels of academic
achievement, Greek members can implement meaningful programs that
challenge their own cognitive and moral development. Greeks should
include faculty and administrators in activities that make differences in the
lives of others. In turn, student affairs administrators must be ready for the
possible backlash that may result from alumni and Greek constituents when
any change is made. However, the research has been clear that something
must change to address the attitude of alcohol abuse and poor academic
performance associated with Greek students. Otherwise, the potential
for tragedy remains high. Greek membership can have both positive
and negative effects for members and for campuses, but their status as a
traditional segment on most collegiate campuses will most likely not change
in the near future.

References
Alva, S. A. (1998). Self-reported alcohol use of college fraternity and

sorority members. Journal of College Student Development, 39(1), 3-10.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisted.

Astin, A. W., Oseguera, L., Sax, L. J., & Korn, W. S. (2002). The American
Freshman: Thirty-Five Trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education
Boschini, V., & Thompson, C. (1998). The future of the Greek experience:
Greeks and diversity. New Directions for Student Services, 81, 19-27
Byer, J. L. (1997). Comparisons of socioeconomic background characteristics of

Greeks and independents. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED406922).
Case, D. N., Hesp, G. A., & Eberly, C. G. (2005). An exploratory study

of the experiences of gay, lesbian and bisexual fraternity and sorority
members revisited. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of
Fraternity Advisors, 1(1), 15-31.
Cashin, J. R., Presley, C. A., & Meilman, P. W. (1998). Alcohol use in the
Greek system: Follow the leader? Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59(1),
63-70.
Danielson, C., Taylor, S. H., & Hartford, M. (2001). Examining the

complex relationship between Greek life and alcohol: A literature
review. NASPA Journal, 38(4), 451-465.
DeBard, R., Lake, T., & Binder, R. S. (2006). Greeks and grades: The first-
year experience. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 56-68.
De Los Reyes, G., & Rich, P. (2003). Housing students: Fraternities and
residential colleges. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 585, 118-123.
Early, C. (1998). Influencing ethical development in Greek letter

organizations. New Directions for Student Services, 81, 39-47.

Eberhardt, D., Rice, N. D., & Smith, L.D. (2003). Effects of Greek
membership on academic integrity, alcohol abuse, and risky sexual
behavior at a small college. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 137-148.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student

development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Farrell, E. F. (2006). Putting fraternities in their place. Chronicle of Higher

Education, 52(25), A34-A36.
Foubert, J. D., & Cowell, E. (2004). Perceptions of a rape prevention

program by fraternity men and male student athletes: Powerful effects
and implications for changing behavior. NASPA Journal, 42(1), 1-20.
Foubert, J. D., & LaVoy, S. L. (2000). A qualitative assessment of “The

Men’s Program:” The impact of a rape prevention program on
fraternity men. NASPA Journal, 38(1), 18-30.
Hayek, J. C., Carini, R. M., O’Day, P. T., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Triumph or
tragedy: Comparing student engagement levels of members of Greek-
letter organizations and other students. Journal of College Student
Development, 43(5), 643-663.
Jones, C. E., & Watt, J. D. (1999). Psychosocial development and moral

orientation among traditional-aged college students. Journal of College
Student Development, 40(2), 125-131.
Kuh, G. D., Pascarella, E. T., & Wechsler, H. (1996). The questionable

value of fraternities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 42(32), A68.
Lynch, J. F., Mowrey, R. J., Nesbitt, G. M., & O’Nell, D. F., (2004). Risky
business: Misperceived norms of sexual behavior among college
students. NASPA Journal, 42(1), 21-35.
Mathias, A. S., & Turrentine, C. G. (2003). An intimate look at

contraception and alcohol consumption. NASPA Journal, 40(4), 105-
123.
McCabe, D. L., & Bowers, W. J. (1996). The relationship between student

cheating and college fraternity or sorority membership. NASPA
Journal, 33(4), 280-291.

National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations. (n.d.). Retrieved
June 10, 2006 from http://www.nalfo.org/.
National Multicultural Greek Council, Inc. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved

June 10, 2006 from http://www.nationalmgc.org/aboutus.html.
National Panhellenic Conference. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2006 from

http://www.npcwomen.org/.
National Pan-Hellenic Conference, Inc. (n.d.). About the NPHC.

Retrieved June 8, 2006 from http://www.nphchq.org/home.htm.
North-American Interfraternity Conference (NIC). (n.d.). Who we are &

what we do. Retrieved June 6, 2006 from http://www.nicindy.org/.
O’Connor, Jr., R. M., Cooper, S. E., & Thiel, W. S. (1996). Alcohol use as a
predictor of potential fraternity membership. Journal of College Student
Development, 37(6), 669-675.
Pace, D., & McGrath, P. B. (2002). A comparison of drinking behaviors

of students in Greek organizations and students active in a campus
volunteer organization. NASPA Journal, 39(3), 217-232.
Pascarella, E., Edison, M., Whitt, E. J., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., &
Terenzini, P. (1996). Cognitive effects of Greek affiliation during the
first year of college. NASPA Journal, 33(4), 242-259.
Pascarella, E. T., Flowers, L., & Whitt, E. J. (2001). Cognitive effects of

Greek affiliation in college: Additional evidence. NASPA Journal, 38(3),
280-301.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How College Affects Students: Vol.
2: A Third Decade of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peralta, M. (2006, January). The scope of NALFO’s interfraternal mission
and initiatives. Latino Fraternal News Brief. Retrieved June 10, 2006
from http://www.nalfo.org/news/January2006News.pdf
Pike, G. R. (2002). The differential effects of on- and off-campus living

arrangements on students’ openness to diversity. NASPA Journal,
39(4), 283-299.

Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M.
(2005). The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2005. Los
Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Randall, K., & Grady, D. L. (1998). The Greek experience and critical-
thinking skills. New Directions for Student Services, 81, 29-37.
Riordan, B. G., & Dana, R. Q. (1998). Greek letter organizations and

alcohol: Problems, policies, and programs. New Directions for Student
Sax, L. J., Lindholm, J. A., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M.
(2001). The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 2001. Los
Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute: UCLA.
Sutton, E. M., & Kimbrough, W. M. (2001). Trends in Black student

development. NASPA Journal, 39(1), 30-40.
Wechsler, H., Kuh, G., & Davenport, A. E. (1996). Fraternities, sororities

and binge drinking: Results from a national study of American
colleges. NASPA Journal, 33(4), 260-279.
Whipple, E. G., & Murphy, R. K. (2004). Student Activities. In F. J. D.

MacKinnon, & Associates (Eds.), Rentz’s Student Affairs Practice
in Higher Education (Third Edition). (pp.298-335). Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas.
Whipple, E. G., & Sullivan, E. G. (1998). Greek letter organizations:

Communities of learners? New Directions for Student Services, 81, 7-17.
Zeller, S. (2006, May 1). Frat houses seek tax solace on the hill. CQ Weekly.
Retrieved June 6, 2006, from http://0-library.cqpress.com.library.uark.
edu/cqweekly/search.php.

CHAPTER 13
International Students
Teresa B. Bevis
The United States remains the leading destination for the world’s
internationally mobile students and scholars. With current enrollments
exceeding a half-million, international students are a vital presence on
almost every college and university campus in America.
The composition of this subpopulation could not be more diverse. Foreign

students represent a broad collection of countries, cultures, ethnicities,
languages, religions, political views and educational backgrounds. Yet in spite
of a broad array of individual differences, many issues and developmental
concerns, particularly those impacting adjustment and academic performance,
are overarching.
For many years the term “foreign” was generally accepted to identify
enrollees from countries outside the United States. Later, like other phrases
used by those concerned with international affairs, such as “underdeveloped
country” and “illegal alien” it was challenged by some who viewed the term
“foreign” as perhaps “politically incorrect.” The term “international student”
began to replace the “foreign student” tag in many collegiate circles(Althen,
1984). However some of the literature, such as the student census and
demographic data produced by the Institute of International Education
for example, continues to use the term “foreign” to define non-nationals
enrolled in United States higher education. Therefore the terms “foreign”
International Students 267

and “international” are used interchangeably throughout the chapter to refer
to this student subpopulation.
Background
The subpopulation of international students contributes a distinctive and

colorful chapter to the history of American higher education. Influences
driving student migration and scholarship, as well as precedents for policies
governing the assessment, admission, acculturation, development, support,
education and return home of internationals are rooted in antiquity. The
Romans were among the first to document and enforce official policies to
regulate foreigners who came to Rome to study, setting requirements that
clearly prefigure modern-day admissions and immigration policies (Marrou,
1964).
The advance of international students to America was impacted also by the

nation’s founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were
both opposed to education exchange, which at the time meant study abroad,
since American colleges had not yet attracted non-nationals. Independence
was new, and American public opinion favored separation from European
ties, including transatlantic education. Jefferson went so far as to suggest
transplanting the University of Geneva to the United States, which he
thought might eliminate once and for all any need for American students to
go to Europe for degrees (Brickman, 1965).
Washington’s vision was of a uniquely American institution that would offer

an educational equivalent to the European universities, and an attractive
alternative for the nation’s youth. He proposed the idea of a national
university in his first annual address to Congress in 1796. The plan failed but
Washington’s mission to advance higher learning in the United States did
prompt the opening of 19 colleges and universities between 1782 and 1802,
more than had been established in the previous 150 years (Rudolph, 1990).
Ironically the founding fathers’ attempts at circumventing study abroad
launched a period of rapid growth for American colleges and universities, the
appeal of which would soon be irresistible to foreign students and scholars
worldwide. Education exchange was now a two-way path.
The first foreign students to choose that path and come to America were
truly pioneers. Traveling long distances in the 18th and 19th centuries
could be tedious, and upon arrival in America a new student would find

no formalized support systems whatsoever. Passage into the country, food,
shelter, local transportation, orientation to campus and community, and
development of English skills were all left entirely up to the foreign students
who in many cases were teenagers without benefit of a local sponsors or
even acquaintances. So it is not surprising that those first to enroll tended to
share a spirit of adventure to which their colorful stories attest.
An example was Francisco de Miranda who attended Yale in 1784. The young
Venezuelan in his youth had become enamored with America after visiting
Philadelphia, where he met George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and
other notables. He returned for his American degree, then went on to serve
his homeland as a military officer during South America’s independence
from Spain. Gaining power and political fame, he was dictator for a brief
time before being captured and incarcerated by the Spanish. Miranda was
one of the first non-nationals ever to study in America (Wheeler, King &
Davidson, 1925).
Demographics
The most recent census of international students, conducted by the Institute

of International Education and published in Open Doors 2005 reported
a total of 565,039 international students enrolled in United States higher
education, representing 4% of the total student population. The numbers
reflect several decades of growth, followed by a very brief period of moderate
enrollment decline, a decline that appears in 2006 to be leveling off.
The second half of the 20th century witnessed a period of remarkable growth
in international student enrollments. Beginning around World War II, and
for the next 30 years, the international student population in the United
States doubled with each passing decade (IIE, 996). Initiated by the closing
of many of Europe’s universities in the 1930s and 1940s, along with the
migration to America of German scientists and professors hoping to avoid
Nazi persecution, globally mobile students began re-routing to America,
and enrollments began to climb (Fraser & Brickman, 1968).
Initiatives designed to promote and to administer education exchanges

developed as well. The Institute of International Education (IIE) was
founded in 1919 to promote educational ties between the United States and
other countries, and through the years would come to administer hundreds
of exchange programs. One of those programs was inspired by Arkansas

senator William Fulbright, who developed an ingenious plan to use World
War II military surplus equipment to fund educational exchange between
nations. Since the inception of the Fulbright exchange program in 1946, more
than 44,000 students from the United States as well as 147,000 students
from other countries, have benefited from the program (U.S. Department
of State, 2006).
Organizations arose to support the field, such as the National Association

of Foreign Student Advisers (NAFSA). Created shortly after World War II
to lend support and structure to foreign student advisers, NAFSA gradually
expanded its responsibilities to provide help and training for many areas
of education exchange. It was later re-named NASFA: Association of
International Educators to better reflect its broadened interests ( Jenkins,
1983).
Support systems such as NAFSA became increasingly important as

international student numbers rose from about 15,000 in 1946 to a
population of more than 30,000 in 1951. By the 1970s the total had reached
145,000, and by 1980 the figure exceeded 300,000 ( Jenkins, 1983; IIE,
1998). Enrollments continued to increase each year through the end of the
century. The new millennium would soon bring about changes however.
The events of September 11, 2001 had a direct impact on international

students, an impact that manifested itself most obviously in enrollment
numbers. In 2003, for the first time since IIE began its census in 1947,
foreign student enrollments dropped 2.4% from the preceding year. Numbers
declined again in 2004 by about 1% (IIE, 2005).
According to recent articles however, the less-dramatic enrollment loss

in 2004 indicated a leveling off of the decline. Most have attributed the
reduction in enrollment since 2003 to several factors, among them difficulties
in securing student visas. In 2002, as a response to the war on terrorism,
the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) launched
the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). Used by
immigration and customs enforcement to track and monitor foreign students
and scholars issued F-1 visas to study in the United States, SEVIS now
collects and manages information on 730,000 international students and
scholars at 8,700 approved schools and programs nationwide. Unfortunately

obtaining student visas through this complex process is reportedly fraught
with delays and inconsistent methods (Chandler, 2004).
Other factors affecting enrollment include escalating tuition in U.S.

institutions, aggressive recruitment of international students by competing
countries such as Australia, concern abroad that American campuses are
less welcoming, and growth in home country educational capacity (Arnone,
2005; McCormack, 2005; Bollag & Field, 2006).
In spite of the enrollment set-backs of the past three years, some campuses
have continued to report increases. The University of Southern California
for example, with an international student population of 6,846 remains the
leading institution for the fourth year in a row, followed by the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the University of Texas at Austin, Columbia
University and New York University (IIE, 2005).
Table 13.1 2004-05 International Student Enrollments: Top 10 Institutions
1 University of Southern California, Los Angeles
2 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
3 University of Texas at Austin
4 Columbia University, New York, NY
5 New York University, New York, NY
6 Purdue University, Main Campus, West Lafayette, IN
7 University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, MI
8 Boston University, Boston, MA
9 University of California at Los Angeles, CA
10 The Ohio State University, Main Campus, Columbus, OH
Source: IIE Open Doors 2005 Report on International Educational Exchange
State-by-state, California is the leading host of international students, with

a total enrollment of 75,032, a decrease of 3% from last year. Finishing
out the top five is New York (61,994, down 2%), Texas (47,367, up 5%),

Massachusetts (27,985, down 2%) and Florida (26,264, up 2%) (IIE,
2005).
It’s important to note that in 2004-05 the only institutional type showing
foreign student enrollment declines were doctoral degree-granting and
research universities, which as a group dropped about 6%. These large
institutions host more than half of all international students, so the decrease
was significant enough to reflect an overall decline in the nation’s enrollment
total. However other institution types did not experience international
student enrollment declines, and partly offset the losses suffered by the large
universities. Institutions offering master’s, baccalaureate, associates and
specialized degrees have in most cases maintained or increased their foreign
student enrollment levels (IIE, 2005).
According to the 2005 IIE census, five countries--India, China, The Republic
of Korea, Japan, and Canada--account for almost half of all international
students in U.S. higher education. India has held the top position for four
consecutive years with a total of 80,446, about 1% more than in 2003-04
enrollments, which is modest by comparison to the double-digit increases
of the previous years. Conversely China, which sent 5% fewer students in
200304, had a 1% increase in 2004-05. Enrollments from The Republic of
Korea were up about 2% in 2005. Enrollments from Japan increased 3% in
2005, reversing a three-year trend of decline.

Table 13.2 2004–05 Leading Places of Origin
Rank Place of Origin 2003–04 2004–05
Total Foreign Student Enrollment 572,509 565,039
1 India 79,736 80,466
2 China 61,765 62,523
3 Korea, Republic of 52,848 53,358
4 Japan 40,835 42,215
5 Canada 27,017 28,140
6 Taiwan 26,178 25,914
7 Mexico 13,329 13,063
8 Turkey 11,398 12,474
9 Germany 8,745 8,640
10 Thailand 8,937 8,637
Although not in the top 10, enrollments from Middle Eastern countries
have been an important focus of interest since the events of September
11, 2001. The total enrollments from the Middle East declined about 2%
in 2005, down from a 9% reduction the previous year. Saudi Arabia had
the greatest decline in absolute numbers. With a current total of 31,248
students in the United States, Saudi enrollment is down 3,035 students (a
14% decline) which followed a 16% loss in 2004. Students from the United
Arab Emirates were off 7% after an almost 30% drop the year before, Kuwait
was down 7% after a 2004 reduction of 17%, and Jordon followed a similar
pattern. Turkey was the exception with a 9% increase.

By academic level, a disproportionate number of international students
are enrolled in graduate programs compared with the general student
population:
Table 13.3 2004–05 Enrollments by Academic Level
Degree International Students % of Total Enrollment
Associate’s 65,667 11.6%
Bachelor’s 173,545 30.7
Graduate 264,410 46.8
Other 61,417 10.9
Total 565,039 100.0
As the table below shows, the leading fields of study for international
students in 2004-05 were business, management and engineering, followed
by mathematics and computer sciences. All three fields reported enrollment
declines in 2005 however (8%, 2% and 25% respectively). Fields now
experiencing increases are physical and life sciences (up 11%), the health
professions (up 2%), intensive English language (up 8%) and agriculture (up
3%).
Table 13.4 2004-05 Foreign Students’ Personal & Academic Characteristics
Characteristics % Undergraduate % Graduate % Other
Sex
Male 51.4 59.9 53.0
Female 48.6 40.1 47.0
Marital Status
Single 95.1 77.5 84.2
Married 4.9 22.5 15.8
Primary Source of Funds
Personal & Family 80.9 44.0 54.7

Table 13.4 Continued
Characteristics % Undergraduate % Graduate % Other
U.S. College or University 9.4 43.6 8.4
Home Government/University 2.4 2.9 2.6
U.S. Government 0.5 0.7 0.3
U.S. Private Sponsor 4.6 5.5 3.1
Foreign Private Sponsor 1.4 1.1 0.6
International Organization 0.2 0.3 0.3
Current Employment 0.3 1.3 29.6
Other Sources 0.2 0.6 0.4
Fields of Study
Agriculture 0.6 2.2 0.1
Business & Management 24.3 14.9 3.1
Education 1.8 4.7 0.3
Engineering 11.4 23.6 2.5
Fine & Applied Arts 7.1 4.0 0.9
Health Professions 4.9 5.0 1.8
Humanities 1.9 4.1 0.9
Math & Computer Science 7.8 11.4 1.9
Physical & Life Sciences 5.9 13.3 0.9
Social Sciences 8.5 9.0 1.8
Other 17.1 6.5 51.1
Intensive English 0.0 0.0 0.0
Attitudes and Characteristics
Much of the literature produced in recent decades has related to cultural

differences of foreign students and the resulting complications in
communication, learning and adjustment. Few studies have directly compared
characteristics and attitudes of the foreign student subpopulation with those

of the general student population. One of those few was a national survey
conducted by the American Council on Education (ACE) that focused on
first-year foreign freshmen at four-year institutions (IIE, 1996). The study
was based on the well-known Cooperative Institutional Research Program
(CIRP) Freshmen Survey, which conducts annual surveys at four-year
institutions nationwide. By segregating international student responses
from the national CIRP Freshmen Survey and comparing them to those
of the general student population, the ACE study was able to document
differences between the two groups (IIE, 1996). A summary of the results
was published in the 1996 issue of IIE’s Open Doors.
The ACE national study was replicated on an institutional level in 2001. This
more recent secondary study was conducted at the University of Arkansas
main campus in Fayetteville as part of a doctoral dissertation (Bevis, 2001),
using the same methodology as the national study but focusing instead on
a single institution.
A synthesis of the combined surveys offers the reader a “snapshot” of

international students, a composite view of the attitudes and characteristics
that make them unique or that set them apart from the other subpopulations.
A brief overview of the findings are provided within the CIRP survey
categories: Personal and Family Characteristics; Financial Characteristics;
Educational Characteristics; College Choice; Activities; Social and Political
Attitudes; and Goals and Objectives.
In the category of Personal and Family Characteristics, both surveys

revealed international freshmen to be generally older than their American
counterparts. The institutional survey for example showed 97% of the
American freshmen were between 18 and 19 years old, while only 70% of the
foreign freshmen fell into that range (Bevis, 2001). Another difference shown
in both surveys involved the marital and educational status of the parents.
The great majority (over 90% in both surveys) of the mothers and fathers of
the foreign freshmen were still married and living together, compared with
approximately 70% of the American parents. Foreign students’ parents were
also better educated. More of the foreign students’ parents, both mothers
and fathers, had earned college degrees than the American parents (IIE,
1996, Bevis, 2001).
Regarding family income, foreign freshmen at the university, as in the

ACE survey, reported annual amounts that were considerably lower than

American freshmen. The greatest percentage of American freshmen had
family incomes that fell between $50,000 and $100,000 per year. By stark
contrast, in both surveys the majority of the foreign freshmen indicated
that their family’s annual incomes were less than half that amount. Despite
the lower income, the great majority of foreign freshmen in both surveys
(over 90% at that University of Arkansas) reported that they were primarily
self-funded (family, friends, personal loans), far more than the American
freshmen (IIE 1996, Bevis, 2001). More foreign freshmen than American
freshmen also planned to help finance their education with a job on campus,
than American freshmen, this influenced by the fact that Immigration and
Naturalization Services (INS) regulations prohibit international students
from working off-campus (IIE, 1996).
In the category of Educational Characteristics, foreign students appeared

to be generally better prepared for academia than did American students,
particularly in the sciences. The only areas where the proportion of American
students reported stronger preparation than foreign students were in English
and American history (IIE, 1996).
As in the ACE study, the University of Arkansas study showed international

students to be more discriminating when shopping for colleges than
American students. Regarding college choice, the ACE study showed that
Americans made their selection not just on academic reputation but also
on the basis of tuition and proximity to home. Foreign students made their
college selection largely on the basis of academic reputation and whether
or not a school’s graduates were accepted into top graduate schools (IIE,
1996). The vast majority of American freshmen in the secondary study
reported that the University of Arkansas was their first college choice and in
fact more than 40% of the American freshmen who were interviewed had
not applied anywhere else. Foreign freshmen were more selective. While
about 59% considered the university their first choice, internationals had
investigated many more options than did the Americans. About 14% of the
foreign freshmen applied to seven or more institutions (Bevis, 2001).
The Activities category questioned students about how they had spent their
time in the preceding year. One of the differences shown in both reports
related to time spent on religious activities. For example in the institutional
survey more than 92% of the university’s American freshmen had attended
some sort of religious service during the year, compared with 68.2% of the
internationals. In recreational settings, less wine or liquor reportedly was

consumed by foreign freshmen than by American freshmen at the university
(Bevis, 2001). Foreign students also reported having less social interaction
with people from other racial or ethnic groups than did American freshmen
(IIE, 1996; Bevis, 2001).
In both studies, foreign freshmen reported making far greater use of library
and news resources than did American freshmen. About half of internationals
had checked out books or journals from the library sometime during the
previous year, compared to around 20% of the Americans. Internationals
also did more reading about current events (IIE, 1996; Bevis, 2001).
Fewer foreign freshmen reported being bored in class than American

freshmen and fewer showed up late. Fewer foreign freshmen felt overwhelmed
by all they had to do. And both studies showed foreign freshmen to be
less accustomed to group or collaborative study than Americans. The
surveys also revealed that international freshmen spent much more time
doing homework than American freshmen (IIE, 1996; Bevis, 2001). In
the institutional survey for example the majority of internationals reported
spending between 11 and 20 hours per week preparing for academics while
88% of the American freshmen said they studied 10 hours per week or less.
Foreign freshmen also spent many more hours reading for pleasure. In the
institutional study about 60% had spent between one and ten hours a week
reading books other than those required for classes. In contrast, over half of
the American freshmen interviewed had spent either no time or less than
an hour each week engaged in recreational reading (Bevis, 2001).
In the Social and Political Attitudes survey category, about half of both
foreign and American freshmen considered themselves “middle-of-the-
road.” Overall though, Americans reported being more conservative than
the internationals. The biggest differences had to do with their attitudes
toward social change. Nearly half of the foreign freshmen believed they
could do little to change society, compared with less skeptical American
freshmen. Both American and foreign freshmen thought that the federal
government should do more to control the sale of handguns however, and
both groups also agreed that employers should have the right to require
drug testing. Only small percentages of both groups believed that marijuana
should be legalized (IIE, 1996; Bevis, 2001).
According to both the ACE report and the secondary study, foreign students
more so than American students saw college as an opportunity to become

more broadly educated individuals. Greater percentages of foreign students
as compared with the U.S. students looked to college as a place to become a
more cultured person. Americans on the other hand wanted a college degree
for more practical reasons. Most U.S. students looked to college as a means
to a better job and more money.
Internationals in both studies reported having higher aspirations toward

earning doctorates.The majority of American freshmen anticipated that either
a bachelor’s or master’s would be their terminal degree. Foreign freshmen
were also interested in integrating spirituality into their lives, developing a
meaningful philosophy of life, and promoting racial understanding, while
American freshmen tended to be more interested in influencing social
values in general (IIE, 1996; Bevis, 2001).
Student Engagement
There has been limited information relating to international student

engagement. However a recent study supported by the Pew Charitable
Trust and conducted at Indiana University Center for Postsecondary
Research and Planning compared international student and American
student engagement in educational practices. The study examined levels
of engagement of nearly 3,000 undergraduate international students and
more than 67,000 of their American counterparts at 317 four-year colleges
and universities. Overall, international students were more engaged in
educationally purposeful activities than American students, especially
during their first year of college. International students also reported greater
gains in desired outcomes, especially in personal and social development
and general education. In addition, first-year international students used
computer technology more frequently in course learning activities (Zhao,
Kuh & Carini, 2005).
However in the senior year the engagement patterns of international and

American students converged considerably. International students who
were still enrolled tended to be more adapted to the American culture and
did not differ significantly from U.S. students in their patterns of student
engagement, including time spent socializing and relaxing, according to the
study. An exception was in the area of personal and social development and

general education gains where international students reported making more
progress than American students (Zhao, Kuh & Carini, 2005).
Academic Success
As a group international enrollees are, simply put, very good students.

Research confirms that most study more hours and go on to graduate schools
more often than their American counterparts (IIE, 1996; Bevis, 2001).
Two principle areas tend to impact the academic success and retention of
international students as a group however: the successful development of
optimal English skills; and meaningful involvement with, and adjustment
to, the campus and community.
Theorists have long agreed that student retention is tied to meaningful

involvement with the college experience, and that an institution’s best
opportunity to increase retention is to engage students, particularly at the
freshman level, in campus activities and beneficial connections with peers,
right from the outset (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). This holds especially
true for international students, many who travel from far-distant regions,
often knowing no one upon arrival. Isolation is a potential concern for
international students who do not become meaningfully involved in the
campus experience. Some report immersing themselves in study to the point
of limiting their socialization with other students (Scott, 1997). Many have
reported enduring substantial psychological stress resulting from unresolved
adjustment problems (Chen, 1999).
Adjustment of foreign students to the American college and community

environment is critical to retention but also to their academic success.
Research spanning three decades has shown that low participation with other
students and cultural isolation is a deterrent to the academic achievement
of internationals (Clarke and Ozawa, 1970; Yankleovich, 1971; Hull, 1978;
Pyle, 1986; Adams, 1992; Speck, 1997). Other studies over the same period
showed that foreign students’ ability to adjust was often affected by their
cultural background (Win, 1971; Johnson, 1997). For instance, international
students from remote areas of China tended to report more incidences of
inability to become acclimated to the American campus than did Canadians
or Europeans, for example.
Differences in learning styles have been shown to be another deterrent to the

academic adjustment of foreign enrollees. Students from Asia and Africa in

particular may be more accustomed to a routine of lectures, note-taking
and recitation rather than open classroom debate and may face the task
of adjusting their learning process to fit American expectations. Both the
academic and social adjustment of international students has been shown
to be impacted positively by greater association with American students,
and through effective involvement programs (Fox, 1994; Elkins, 1994;
Sun & Chen, 1997). International students may opt to transfer out if their
adjustment needs are not met, and the fact that most internationals are self-
funded rather than reliant on scholarship support adds to their freedom to
transfer.
Institutions typically address the need for foreign student involvement by

sponsoring a selection of student-led organizations that provide a venue
for interaction with peer groups and campus activities. Cultural, country, or
religious groups with names like The Chinese Student Organization, Friends
of India, The Arab Students League, the Muslim Students Association, and
so forth exist on campuses across the United States to help serve the arrival,
acculturation, and social needs of internationals. Studies conducted over the
years generally agree that international students who were involved with
such programs were more satisfied with their college experience (Quintrell
& Westwook, 1994; Abe, Talbot, and Geelhoed,1998). Clubs such as these
are also essential supplements to the support systems of most institutions
because many international offices are afforded little or no budget for
expenses related to arrival services, temporary housing, local transportation
for incoming internationals who do not hold U.S. driver’s licenses, and so
forth.
One or more institution-supported outreach programs are also typically

offered by institutions, to help integrate foreign students into the community.
Involvement programs such as “student ambassador” clubs that connect
public schools with international student speakers for global learning, host
family programs, and English conversation practice programs are prevalent.
ESL programs and Intensive English programs, either within the institution’s
course offerings or supplied by an affiliate, are also staples on most American
college campuses. Frequently foreign students need additional training to
help them successfully achieve a passing grade on the TOEFL (Test of
English as a Foreign Language proficiency examination) as required for
admission or to further develop their writing and conversations skills once
they are enrolled. Equally important is the international student’s ability

to comprehend lectures and participate with classroom discussion, both
essential on the path to successful learning and graduation.
Graduation rates for 2005 were reported by the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) by institution level, institution control, and gender. The
figures reflected the 1998 cohort year for four-year institutions and the 2001
cohort year for two-year colleges (US Department of Education, 2005). As
shown in Table 13.5, graduation rates for international students (identified
by NCES as non-resident aliens) were among the highest of the student
subpopulations.
In four-year institutions, non-resident aliens (58.4%) were second only to

the success of Asian/Pacific Islanders (64.7%) in finalizing their college
degrees. Internationals did not fare as well in public four-year institutions
(50.0%) as they did in the private for-profit or not-for-profit ones (61.4 and
65.1% respectively). In both private not-for-profit institutions and public
four-year institutions, non-resident women graduated at higher rates than
their male counterparts (US Department of Education, 2005).
Table 13.5 Graduation rates at Title IV institutions, by race/ethnicity, level and control of
institution, and gender: United States, cohort years 1998 and 2001
Level,
White/ Asian/
Control of Black/Non- Non-resi-
Total Non-His- Hispanic Pacific
Institution, Hispanic dent Aliens
panic Islander
& Gender
4-year
Institutions
55.3 58.2 39.7 45.8 64.7 58.4
(cohort
year 1998)
Public 51.9 54.6 37.3 40.9 61.3 50.0
Men 48.4 51.3 30.7 35.7 56.9 48.4
Women 65.6 68.2 49.3 58.6 74.6 68.5
Private,
not-for- 63.3 65.8 45.3 56.0 73.3 65.1
profit
Men 60.3 62.9 39.3 52.3 71.6 62.3
Women 65.6 68.2 49.3 58.6 74.6 68.5

Table 13.5 Continued
Private,
45.0 49.2 37.9 49.5 57.1 61.4
for-profit
Men 46.6 50.9 38.3 49.5 56.6 66.5
Women 42.8 46.7 37.5 49.6 58.1 50.6
2-year
Institutions
32.6 33.9 26.6 32.6 35.7 29.6
(cohort
year 2001)
Public 24.1 26.3 16.6 19.3 27.1 25.2
Men 22.9 24.9 15.9 18.4 23.9 21.5
Women 25.1 27.6 17.1 20.0 30.5 28.8
Private,
not-for- 58.4 62.4 50.1 48.7 57.7 61.8
profit
Men 59.7 64.6 49.9 48.4 57.5 60.6
Women 57.1 60.0 50.3 49.1 57.9 62.7
Private,
60.1 65.3 48.8 61.2 64.4 64.8
for-profit
Men 60.6 66.8 46.9 59.6 62.2 59.9
Women 59.7 64.2 49.8 62.3 66.2 68.8
Note: From U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2005.
Public two-year institutions showed substantially lower graduation rates for

non-residents compared with four-year institutions, according to NCES. In
fact in this category the rate of graduation for internationals was near the
bottom of the subpopulation roster (29.6%).
Graduation rates for non-resident aliens in private, two-year colleges far

exceeded those of two-year public institutions. In private not-for-profit
institutions, the rate of graduation for internationals was 61.8%, while

private for-profit institutions reported 64.8%. Graduation rates for female
non-residents in both private and public two-year colleges exceeded those
of male non-residents (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).
Benefits
Contrary to what some may assume, it is far from conclusive whether

hosting large numbers of foreign students generates a net benefit for the
United States (Heaton & Throsby, 1998; Borjas, 2002; Clemons, 2006).
Few disagree that foreign students benefit--many of them receive a highly
subsidized education and a substantially improved chance of obtaining a
coveted green card that will let them live permanently in the United States.
And surely colleges and universities benefit from the vast supply of low-wage
foreign student labor (primarily teaching and research assistants) that keeps
expenses down. But according to skeptics the net profits to the national
economy are small, perhaps less than $1 billion a year and some believe the
gain is offset by the tuition subsidy that taxpayers grant to foreign students
enrolled in public universities (Borjas, 2002). Perceived benefits other than
financial have been challenged as well.
The question of benefits has historically been debated but in recent years an
undercurrent of new skepticism seems to have gained strength. A compelling
article (2002) by George Borjas, Pforzheimer Professor of Public Policy at the
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, challenged
educators to re-think some commonly held assumptions: “Once one stops
mindlessly humming the ‘Ode to Diversity’ that plays such a central role
in the modern secular liturgy,” he contended, “it is far from clear that the
program generates a net benefit for the United States” (Borjas, 2002).
Foreign students generate three types of measurable costs and benefits.

Many foreign students remain in the United States, permanently increasing
the number of skilled workers in the labor force. Second, foreign students
are an important part of the higher education workforce, particularly at large
research universities, where many help teach large undergraduate classes and
provide research assistance to the faculty. Third, foreign students pay tuition.
It turns out though that the pricing of higher education in the United States
is highly distorted in both private and public institutions, according to

Borjas, with the typical tuition payment not being sufficiently large to cover
the actual cost of the education, even in the absence of financial aid.
In addition, available data contradicted a widespread perception that the

foreign students who remain in the United States are the best and brightest.
In fact almost two-thirds of all permanent residence visas granted to foreign
students have nothing to do with “exceptional skills” or “high job demand”
but are granted because of family connections. The employment-related
categories account for only 28% of the foreign students awarded permanent
residency (Borjas, 2002).
Despite recent questions about the benefits of foreign students, many are
convinced of this student population’s positive impact and its contribution
to cultural understanding. Benefits from friendly contact may be greater
than monetary value or security risk, proponents argue, and the fact that
some consequences cannot be easily measured does not mean that they do
not exist.
Issues & Trends
A pre-eminent issue concerning international students in U.S. higher

education today centers around the declining enrollments experienced
since September 11, 2001 and the initiatives under way to reverse that
trend. “America’s mission in this new century must be to welcome more
foreign students to our nation and send more of our citizens abroad to
study” explained Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a recent address.
“To be successful, our government and our universities must forge a new
partnership for education exchange” (Reyes, 2006). She voiced the Bush
administration’s hope to expand existing exchange programs to cultivate
relationships with countries in the Middle East and Asia “to prepare young
Americans to understand the peoples who will help define the 21st century.”
Secretary Rice urged universities to actively recruit in countries like Nepal,
Zimbabwe, Malaysia, Mongolia, Morocco, and the Philippines where she
believed the students to have untapped potential: “We must find a way to
help these students realize their dreams—studying in America—because if
we do not reach them, others will” (Reyes, 2006).
In 2005, the US Senate passed parts of the American Competitiveness

Through International Openness Now (ACTION) Bill, which requires
the active marketing of U.S. colleges and universities to students in foreign

countries. It also calls for the Departments of State, Commerce, Education,
and Homeland Security to work together to attract more international
students to the United States (Reyes, 2006).
In January 2006, the State Department invited 120 college leaders

to brainstorm about how to make American higher education more
accommodating and to find ways to counter the perception that the United
States no longer welcomes foreign students (Bollag & Field, 2006). Other
countries are working on becoming more welcoming to internationals too.
For example a new scholarship program sponsored by Saudi Arabia has
proved to be a bonanza for American universities facing declines in foreign-
student enrollments, even as Saudi students struggle to secure visas from U.S.
consular officials. Through the program almost 6,000 Saudis have received
student visas in the past six months, compared with 2,166 for the year ending
September 2005, according to the U.S. State Department (Bollag, 2004).
An obvious obstacle to reviving enrollment is the increased immigration

scrutiny set in force by the events of September 11, 2001. The investigations
put in motion a succession of new bureaucratic barriers to immigration,
sending a clear message around the world that the United States would
be far less welcoming (Bollag, 2005). The result was a reduction of about
14,000 foreign students the first year. While the State Department tells
applicants to expect to wait 30 days for their visas to be processed, the
General Accounting Office (an investigative arm of the Congress) reported
having no data on how long the process actually takes because setbacks can
occur at several points. For example, the wait for a now-mandatory interview
for a visa may cause delays for as long as 12 weeks. Many delays depend on
whether the applicant undergoes a security check through a system called
Visas Mantis, a system that performs security checks on foreign students and
scholars who study any of about 200 scientific fields on the government’s
Technology Alert List. The list catalogs expertise that might, if transported
across borders, threaten U.S. national security (Arnone, 2004).
The new complications seem to be re-routing some students toward

competitive countries. Other English-speaking countries, particularly the
United Kingdom and Australia have amplified their recruitment programs
as America’s borders have tightened. In recent years, Australia has opened
17 college recruitment offices around the world (Goldstein, 2005). But the

United States still maintains an enviable share, more than 40%, of the world’s
international students (Cohen, 2005; McMurtrie, 2005).
A significant and probably long-range trend is the advance of distance

education in the obtaining of degrees. Each year American institutions
offer more online opportunities for foreign students who are not financially
or otherwise able to come to the United States. Combined with current
efforts of some U.S. institutions to offer on-site courses in various countries,
increasing numbers of international students are electing to earn their
American degrees right at home.
There is also a trend toward increasing foreign student enrollments in

community colleges, which in recent years have become aggressive recruiters
abroad. Some associate’s institutions have been criticized for paying recruiters
commissions, a practice denounced as unethical by most admissions
offices, since such payments encourage misrepresentations (Golden, 2002).
However because foreign students have a high margin of profitability (the
vast majority is self-funded) they have become increasingly attractive to
community colleges. Lower costs, less stringent admissions and English
requirements, and strides made in the transferability of course credits are
encouraging many foreign students to choose the two-year option and then
transfer, which may precipitate future declines in freshmen-level foreign
enrollments at many four-year institutions (Evelyn, 2004).
Another trend currently under way in Europe has initiated a profound

transformation in higher education. Many European countries are uprooting
their traditional systems in favor of a two-tiered model based on bachelor’s
and master’s degrees. A standard credit system is being adopted, and efforts
are underway to promote regional quality assurance. The reforms, known
collectively as the Bologna Process, will no doubt impact Europe in many
ways, but they also hold significant implications for international educational
exchanges in the United States.
The Bologna Declaration was issued by the European Ministers of Education

in Bologna, Italy in 1999, and set into motion a process for creating a
European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010. Among other things,
the Declaration called for the adoption of a system of easily readable and
comparable degrees; adoption of a degree structure based on two main
cycles (undergraduate and graduate); adoption of a system of credits (to
better enable students to transfer); elimination of obstacles that impede the

mobility of students; and promotion of European cooperation. The effort is
also aimed at increasing the competitiveness of European higher education
internationally (Sedgwick, 2003).
More than 40 European countries have already signed on, and more than half
of the participants have already implemented, or are in the planning stages
of implementing, the Bologna reforms. By 2010 the EHEA is predicted to
include 12,000,000 students and 4,000 higher education institutions across
Europe. The impact on United States higher education, and on the migration
patterns of international students, is predicted by many to be potentially
profound (Sedgwick, 2003).
Conclusion
For the foreseeable future the predominant issues and trends concerning
foreign students in America relate to enrollment declines, improvement
of immigration services, new levels of competition from other countries
and from the community college sector, governmental and institutional
mandates for recruitment, and a push toward more effective involvement
and development of internationals. Influences such as the Bologna Process
will also likely impact American higher education and its approach to
international students over the next decade. Confronting a bold new era of
competition, change, complexity and constraint, American higher education
will need to find innovative strategies to effectively recruit, develop, educate,
involve, and retain international students in order to maintain their position
as the world’s predominant host.

References
Abe, J., Talbot, D. & Geelhoed, R. (1998). Effects of a peer program on

international student adjustment. Journal of College Student Development,
39(6), 539-547.
Adams, J.Q. (1992). Promoting cultural friendships with international

students on U.S. campuses. In S. Kaikai & R. Kaikai (Eds.), Understanding
the international student. New York: McGraw-Hill, p.165.
Althen, G. (1984). The Handbook For Foreign Student Advising. NAFSA:

National Association of Foreign Student Advising, Washington, D.C.
Arnone, M. (2004). Security at home creates insecurity abroad. The Chronicle

of Higher Education, 50(27), A21.
Bevis, T. (2001). Attitudes and Characteristics of Foreign Freshmen at the

University of Arkansas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Arkansas.
Bollag, B. & Field, K. (2006). Foreign students: Uncle Sam wants you, The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 5(20), A45.
Bollag, B. (2005). College officials report frustrations with homeland-

security agents, The Chronicle of Higher Education 51(41), A31.
Bollag, B. (2004). American colleges see more Saudi students on scholarships,

The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(13), A53.
Borjas, G. (2002). An evaluation of the foreign student program. Washington,

D.C: Center for Immigration Studies
Brickman, W.W. (1965). Historical development of governmental interest

in international higher education, in Stewart Fraser, Ed. Governmental
Policy and International Education. New York, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
Chandler, D. (2004). Reversing the tide: A complex visa process has

contributed to a decline in the number of international students coming
to the country since 9/11. Black Issues in Higher Education. November 4,
2004.

Chen, C. (1999). Common stressors among international college students:
Research and counseling implications. Journal of College Counseling,
2(1).
Clarke, H. & Ozawa, M. (1970). The Foreign Student in the United States.
Madison: School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin.
Clemons, S.C. (2006). America the Pugnacious: Feinstein Provision Raises

Hurdle for Foreign Students to Access U.S. Universities. The Washington
Note, March 29, 2006.
Cohen, D. (2005). Australia is foreign students’ favorite destination, survey

finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(10), A61.
Davis, J.D. (1936). A Sketch of the Life of Reverend Joseph Hardy Neesima.
Kyoto, Japan: Doshisha University.
Elkins, M. (1994). Chinese students avoid interpersonal communication: An

analysis of the problem and suggestions for retention (Report No. C5508678).
Evanston, Illinois. (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 374474)
Evelyn, J. (2004). Community colleges go globe-trotting, The Chronicle of

Higher Education, 51(13), A11.
Fox, H. (1994). Listening to the world: Culture issues in academic writing

(Report No. ISBN-0-8141-2953-6). Urbana, Illinois. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 373331)
Fraser, S. & Brickman, W. (1968). A history of international and comparative

education. Scott, Forsman & Company.
Golden, D.(2002). Foreign students’ high tuition spurs eager junior colleges
to fudge facts. International Higher Education, No. 29, Fall 2002, p. 7-8.
Goldstein, S. (2005). Colleges are cramming for foreign enrollment: Penn
and other schools - seeking diversity, a way to grow, and new sources of
funding - are determined to lure international students. The Philadelphia
Inquirer. November 13, 2005.
Heaton, C. & Throsby, D. (1998) Benefit-cost analysis of foreign student

flows from developing countries: The case of postgraduate education.
Economics of Education Review, 17(2), p. 117-126

Hooker, R. (1996). Ch’ing China: The boxer rebellion. Retrieved on July 31,
2006 from http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ching/boxer.htm.
Hull, W.F., IV. (1978). Foreign students in the United States of America: Coping
with behavior within the educational environment. New York: Praeger
Publishers.
Institute of International Education (1950). Education for one world: Annual

census of foreign students in the United States, 1949-1950. New York:
author, p. 49.
Institute of International Education (1996). Open Doors Report on

International Education Exchange. New York: author.
Institute of International Education (1998). Open Doors Report on

Institute of International Education (2005) Open Doors Report on

Jenkins, H.M. (1983). Educating Students from Other Nations. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, E. (1997). Cultural norms affect oral communication in the

classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 70, 47-52.
Kao, T. (2001). Yung Wing (1828-1912) and Young Chinese Students

in America (1872-1881). Retrieved on July 31, 2006 from http:
www.120chinesestudents.org/yung.html.
Marrou, H.I. (1964). A History of Education in Antiquity. New York: Mentor

Press.
McCormack, E. (2005). Enrollment of foreign students falls for a second
year. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(13), A1.
McLaughlin, G. & Smart, J. (1987). Baccalaureate recipients: Developmental

patterns in personal values. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 162-
168.
McMurtrie, Beth (2005). American universities step up their sales pitch

overseas. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(23), A8.

Pascarela, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San
Pyle, K. (1986). Guiding the development of foreign students. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.
Quintrell, N. & Westwood, M. (1994). The influence of a peer-pairing

program on international students’ first-year experience and use of
student services. Higher Education Research and Development, 13(1), 49-
57.
Reyes, D. (2006) Friends in high places: How the government is changing

and enacting new laws to protect and attract more international students,
The World Scholar, Uni-recruitment, Inc. Spring/Summer. Retrieved on
July 31, 2006 from www.theworldscholar.com/21.htm.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American College and University. The University of

Georgia Press.
Scott, N. (1997). Student success: Serving international students in an age of

technology. (Report No. CG029910). (ERIC Document Reproduction
No. ED 439 339)
Sedgwick, R. (2003). The Bologna Process: As Seen From the Outside.

World Education News and Reviews. Retrieved on July 31, 2006 from
http://www.wes.org/ewenr/03Sept/PFFeature.htm.
Speck, B. (1997). Respect for religious differences: The case of Muslim

students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 70, 39-46.
Sun, W., & Chen, G. (1997). Dimensions of difficulties mainland Chinese

students encounter in the United States (Report No. CS5509529). Rhode
Island (Eric Document Reproduction No. ED 408635).
United States Department of Education (2005). National Center for

Education Statistics, Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System
(IPEDS), Spring, 2005.
United States Department of State (2006). Bureau of Educational and

Cultural Affairs: Fulbright Program. Washington D.C. Retrieved on July
31, 2006 from http://exchanges.state.gov/education/fulbright.

Wheeler, W.R., King, H.H., & Davidson, A.B. (eds.) (1925). The foreign
student in America. New York: Association Press
Win, U.K. (1971). A study of the difficulties Indian and Japanese students
encountered in six problem areas at the University of Southern California,
1969-1970. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Yankelovich, D. (1971). A preliminary study on foreign students in America:

The effects of today’s campus environment on their attitudes towards America.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State.
Zhao, C.M., Kuh, G.D., & Carini, R.M. (2005). A comparison of

international student and American student engagement in effective
educational practices. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(2), 209-231.

CHAPTER 14
Transfer Students
Michael T. Miller and Sara R. Hillis
The wide variety of subpopulations that comprise higher education is

based on a number of variables, such as gender and ethnicity, belief set,
areas of participation, and even out of class activities and where students
live. However, limited research exists on students whose identity as a
subpopulation is primarily based on their previous college experiences.
The unique and growing subpopulation of college students who transfer
between institutions is the topic of the current chapter. Nearly half of all
college students participate in some form of transfer of college coursework
( Jacobs, 2004), and the current chapter was designed to help the reader
understand the types of transfer patterns that students participate in, what is
unique about these students in relation to student development theory, and
some of the issues surrounding transfer students relevant to student affairs
administrators.
Giroux and Misades (2001) noted that there are some substantial
consequences to the commercialization movement in higher education.
In particular, the contemporary corporate university treats education as a
commodity to be priced and sold, and the not surprising result is the belief,
by students, that higher education is indeed a commodity to be delivered.
This argument presumes that today’s students are less interested than
previous generations about the personal, moral, and spiritual development
that accompanies higher education enrollment. This presumption, however,
has been broadly supported in examinations of current student behaviors and
tendencies, noting a desire to complete degree programs with an expectation
Transfer Students 295

of employment upon graduation (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Johnson & Miller,
2000). Indeed, in many scenarios played out on college campuses today,
students are treating the college experience as leaders would have them, with
a firm eye toward pragmatism and successful employment. In a sense, the
current generation of college students, reinforced and perhaps encouraged
by current college leaders and policy makers, have combined to develop a
system of higher education that is focused almost completely on degree
completion.
Matriculation and retention of students is obviously important, but it

demonstrates a fundamental shift in thinking about higher education, moving
further away from conceptualizations that college is a developmental time
in a person’s life to something akin to career training. Accompanying this
thinking is the perspective by students that higher education is something
to be bought and sold, and in many environments, this means enrolling
in courses at multiple institutions at different or simultaneous times in
order to speed progress toward a degree. For other students, this ability to
weave together academic coursework and participate in both live and online
courses, for example, allows for degree progress at a rate consistent with other
life demands, such as work and family demands. The result is that college
students are transferring between and among higher education institutions
at rates greater than at any other time in history ( Jacobs, 2004).
Transfer students, as defined for this discussion, include those who

enroll for credit at various institutions, and the ultimate importation of
coursework from these different institutions to one host institution to
complete a bachelor’s degree. The long held traditional depiction of transfer
was the model of completing two years at a community college and then
transferring to a four-year institution to complete the last two years of a
bachelor’s degree, sometimes referred to as a “2+2 model” (Laanan, 2004), of
students beginning in a junior or community college and then moving to a
four-year university to complete a bachelor’s degree. And while this is still
a frequent occurrence, it is but one of many depictions of the enrollment
models contemporary students are using.
In addition to beginning postsecondary education in a community college,

the definition of the transfer student has changed to include transferring
among four-year institutions, concurrent enrollment patterns, the
transferring of college-level coursework earned while in high school, and
reverse transfer. With such a broad definition, there is little data on how

large of an issue this has become. Berkner, He, and Cataldi (2002) indicated
that approximately half of two-year college students transfer, yet only 25%
of those students actually complete a bachelor’s degree (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003). Further, half of all students transferring into
a four-year college or university had enrolled in more than one institution
(Harrison, 1993), a figure that has grown to 60% (Carey, 2004). At four-
year institutions, transfer students, including those students who had taken
a course elsewhere and transferred credit hours toward a degree program,
comprised an estimated 40–60% of all student enrollment ( Jacobs, Lauren,
Miller, & Nadler, 2004).
With the broad variety of types of transfer students, this subpopulation is

difficult to conceptualize in any fashion that could be applied to different
types of institutions. Some transfer students look for remedial education
in community colleges, while others enroll in moderately-selective private
colleges to improve their chances of enrolling in more highly selective
institutions later on. Yet, other transfer students simply make use of local
colleges near their hometowns during summer class breaks, and still others
enroll in online courses or courses at nearby colleges to avoid faculty members,
large impersonal classes, or to speed their time to degree completion. This
chapter was designed to explore some of the different types of transfer
students encountered in higher education and how some of their unique
characteristics and perspectives impact the student affairs administrator.
Who are Transfer Students?
The demographic profile of a transfer student two-and-a-half decades ago

was a 20-something, first-generation college student who had enrolled in
a community college to earn an affordable general education that might or
might not transfer to a four-year institution (Cross, 1980; Dougherty, 1992;
Fredrickson, 1998). As the definition of transfer becomes more inclusive
and accurate in portraying student behaviors, this historical description has
evolved dramatically, and has typically resulted in four domains of transfer
students ( Jacobs, 2004).
Community College Transfers
The traditional perspective on college student transfer was a junior college

model, where the junior or community college provided the first two years of
course work followed by enrollment in a major for a bachelor’s degree on a

four-year campus. This perspective has changed dramatically from a number
of perspectives, including who is participating in 2+2 programs. Wolgemuth,
Kees, and Safarik (2003) specifically noted that two-year colleges are being
used as access points to higher education for traditionally-aged women.
They argued that many non-traditional students who are women in the 18–
24 age range need environments that allow them to demonstrate an ability
to succeed in academic coursework and to earn early-successes in their
collegiate careers. Wolgemuth, Kees, and Safarik also suggested that for this
new generation of community college students, ability is less likely to be
an issue for enrollment at a community college, meaning that they are less
likely to be in need of remedial course work. This is a major change in the
study of transfer students, as historically these community college transfers
were those with demonstrated lower academic performance. Additionally,
the depiction of transfer shock, the decrease in grade point average upon
enrolling at a four-year institution, may well need to be revisited. Laanan
(2001), for example, equally noted the idea of transfer ecstasy, where students
perform better academically upon transferring.
The student base of community colleges is evolving, changing from first

generation students, racially under-represented students, and students in
need of remediation to an increasingly middle-class or affluent student base
who see community college enrollment as a cost-saving technique prior to
enrolling in a four-year college. These students previously would have been
those enrolling in four-year institutions, but the growing costs of tuition,
among other variables, has shifted the utility of community colleges to serve
this transfer function. Additionally, strong state articulation agreements that
legislate what is and can be transferred among public institutions in a state
have grown. Lauren (2004) reported the results of an American Association
for Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers survey that identified half
of all states as having a formal transfer agreement between two- and four-
year institutions. Fewer than one in five states, however, has a mechanism in
place by statute or legislative order to enforce these articulation agreements,
and there is skepticism among advising professionals concerning the
appropriate preparation that students in some selected institutions receive
(Lauren, 2004).
When these students do transfer to four-year institutions, they bring with

them a host of unique experiences that can challenge their inclusion and
success, perhaps a major reason that less than 15% of community college

students indicating a desire to earn a bachelor’s degree actually do so (Doyle,
2006). These challenges can be related to having historically smaller class sizes
and the often-cited family-like atmosphere by teachers and administrators
in two-year college settings that focus on individuals and personal success.
Additionally, the sub-culture of support and expectation at many two-
year colleges provides a level of preparation that can not be matched at
larger four-year institutions. At some two-year colleges, for example, daily
homework assignments are submitted with feedback given to students. In
essence, many two-year colleges continue a level of expectation similar to
secondary schools. Four-year institutions, particularly large institutions, are
unable to provide that level of intimacy and support, and the result can
be a substantial difference between native students and transfers (Laanan,
2004).
Quilters
These students, also called “gypsy” students ( Jacobs, 2004), are those who
enroll in multiple institutions, whether simultaneously or individually to
bring together the required courses for an academic degree. As Borland
(2004) described, these “quilting” or “swirling” students are those enrolled
at one institution who take additional courses at nearby institutions for a
variety of reasons, including cost, instructional reputation, convenience, and
level of difficulty. With student work schedules, timing for classes can be an
important stepping stone for degree completion. Additionally, some students
see enrolling in other institutions as a way to complete perceived-difficult
requirements, such as chemistry or foreign languages. Other students who
return to their hometowns for the summer may enroll in the local college to
take classes to stay on schedule, to get ahead in their coursework, or even for
interest as they think about different majors or areas of emphasis. And, as
Borland noted, other students even make use of online or virtual institutions
to take course work to be applied toward a bachelor’s degree.
Little is known about the portrait of these students, although Jacobs (2004)
has suggested that they are bright individuals with a clear sense of how
to complete their programs, and typically, are not pursuing developmental
coursework. She suggested that these students have a strong sense of drive
to complete their degrees and that they have the ability and knowledge to
cobble together an academic program. The result for college administrators
is a need to create opportunities and mechanisms that can facilitate
students who are enrolled at multiple institutions and allow them to more

easily import credit hours and coursework that can in fact lead to degree
completion (Bell, 2004). There are more than technical concerns for these
students as they attempt to import courses, however. These students might
skip certain faculty members or miss key courses within a major, which
would offer fresh perspectives on a discipline and exposure to core ideas and
concepts. Additionally, and as discussed by Townsend (1995), many academic
programs may have a hidden curriculum that supports the program and the
informal interactions between students and faculty members. This academic
support network has the potential to then create a unique environment and
set of expectations, and can define a program as a cultural experience rather
than a loosely coupled combination of courses.
Jacobs (2004) argued that this group “may be the most difficult of transfers
with whom to establish institutional commitment and alumni relationships”
(p. 10), and the lack of exploration into this subgroup seems incongruent
with their place among the higher education student body. Harrison (1993)
reported that as many as 46% of all incoming transfer students have been
enrolled at multiple institutions, and at that time were characterized as
coming from a high socioeconomic background, a high goal commitment,
and a low institutional commitment. That report, completed nearly 15 years
ago, is one of a very few citations in the literature concerning multiple transfer
students and was conducted before online learning institutions became
commonplace. This is an area ripe for research within the study of college
students, and will continue to be an issue for student affairs administrators
as they work to establish in- and out-of-classroom student objectives.
Reverse
College students who begin at four-year institutions and transfer to

a community, junior, or technical college are typically termed “reverse
transfer students” ( Jacobs, 2004). These students typically account for 20%
of community college enrollment (Townsend, 2000; Winter, Harris, &
Ziegler, 2001) and reportedly move to the community college for a number
of reasons. Some students have reported that they found they did not have
the academic skills necessary to be successful at a four-year college, others
found that their occupational interests were more aligned with certificate
programs available at a community or technical college, and yet others found

the social and personal aspects of being part of a larger campus community
intimidating and non-supportive.
Although community, junior, and technical colleges typically do not recruit

students from four-year college campuses, they often have a geographic
advantage for many undergraduate students, with most states sponsoring
some form of a regional two-year college system. This proximity to home,
friends, family members, jobs, or other social support networks can allow
reverse transfer students the opportunity to take advantage of a local
community college and reconnect with a hometown or familiar sense
of community that provides a support network that can better allow for
academic success. And although four-year institutions may bemoan their
retention rates, in many instances the reverse transfer student is accepting a
better institutional and occupational fit.
There are a number of reverse transfer students who attend a community

college upon completion of a bachelor’s degree (Townsend, 2000; Winter,
Harris, & Ziegler, 2001). These students might find that they need remedial
or interpersonal skill training, they might have employment difficulties and
return to be trained or re-trained in a particular employment area, or they
may find that they have academic interests and want to continue taking
classes. These students can be a demanding component of the community
college student body, and can bring with them the responsibilities of families,
full-time jobs, and a directed approach to coursework that is practical and
job-focused.
Also, a growing number of transfer students are reporting that they are
leaving four-year institutions to work full-time and enroll full-time in
bachelor’s degree programs offered in online or other distance education
methods ( Jacobs, 2004; Lauren, 2003; McCauley, 2003). This may be a
result of many different variables impacting the student’s decision making,
including the need to work to support family members, the perceived direct
inapplicability of coursework for a bachelor’s degree, and the cost, speed, and
efficiency of time and resources of enrolling with online providers. These
online institutions are far more than simple “providers” as they have a host of
resources and services for their students and offer coursework that is often

grounded in practical, real-world scenarios, which is particularly relevant for
adult or non-traditional students.
Peers
A unique subset of the transfer population is those students who begin their
studies at one four-year institution and transfer to another; similarly there
are those who begin at one two-year institution and transfer to another.
These students who transfer between peer institutions, that is, institutions
with similar degree offerings or mission, are often looking for either an
academic program or social support network that will support them during
their studies. Harrison (1993) noted that these individuals are often the
most mobile, willing to explore multiple institutions to find the coursework,
experiences, price, etc. that they desire. They are also willing to consider
factors such as family, friends, and location in choosing an institution. This
can ultimately be challenging in attempting to bring these students into
the mainstream of an institution’s life or to engage them in out-of-class
activities, as driving motivations might be highly personal.
A new but growing subpopulation within the transfer student domain is

those who transfer between online institutions or in distance education-
focused colleges. These students typically look for technology adaptability,
professionalism, and convenience and cost as driving forces in deciding
where to ultimately earn their degrees. And similarly, there are those
students in four-year institutions who seek to gain entrance to more
prestigious institutions, following the logic that if they can prove themselves
at a four-year institution of some reputation, then they are more likely to
gain admission to even more prestigious colleges and universities ( Jacobs,
2004).
Challenges these “peer-transfer”students might face are often related to where

they fit into the social fabric and collegiate life of an institution. Bringing in
credit hours earned and certain expectations about what a particular college
might be like can result in met expectations, unmet expectations, and transfer
shock or ecstasy similar to those described by Laanan (2004). Additionally,
as Laanan suggested, these peer-transfer students have the potential to
experience difficulty adapting to a host of institutionally normed activities,

such as the formal or informal nature of advising, time spent on homework,
etc.
Hayek (2002) found that generally any transfer student is “less engaged
across the board in learning activities” (p. i), and Berkner, He, and Cataldi
(2002) also found that transfer students, especially two-year to four-year
transfers, are less likely to graduate with a degree. Carey (2004) noted that
as many as 60% of four-year college graduates import academic credit from
similar institutions, but that only 23% of those who begin at a four-year
institution transfer to another four-year institution.
Greene and Greene (2002) suggested some of the causes of peer transfer non-
matriculation, including a lapse in time between transferring and enrollment
at another institution, academic skills and preparation, and trying to balance
academic coursework and part-time enrollment with jobs, families, and
other responsibilities. So although transfer students are difficult, at best, to
categorize as a singular subpopulation, they do have some similarities that
can cause concern for student affairs administrators.
Student Development Among Transfer Students
As suggested by Giroux and Mysiades (2001), students who utilize the

transfer capability provided by higher education institutions may be less
interested in learning and development and more interested in obtaining a
degree for personal or professional reasons. This can be considered a cause
for concern as the developmental function of college attendance has been a
cornerstone of academic life. Smith (2005) summarized four primary models
of academic acculturation that lead to student success, including a traditional
model based on pre-college characteristics such as student background,
preparation, and goals (Astin, 1993). Second, is the student-institution fit
model, where student persistence and growth are tied to the student’s ability
to integrate into the social system of the institution (Tinto, 1987). Third,
campus climate can impact student development and retention, and is
based on the prejudice, discrimination, harmony, and tolerance of individual
campuses and the ability of students to find the academic environment that
best meets their needs (Tierney, 1999). And fourth, the structural-functional
model that issues such as campus complexity, selectivity, size, and institutional
focus or mission all impact a student’s ability and decision making about

integration and future success (Weidman, 1989). These cultural conceptions
of the college campus all have direct bearing on transfer students.
In the first model, students bring with them the complexities and challenges
of previous institutions and their own abilities. With transfer students
this extends beyond secondary school preparation and parental levels of
education, and reaches into the students’ personal motivation for achievement
and desire to earn a degree or adequate training. Similarly, in the student-
institution fit model, transfer students may find that their decision-making
about selecting an institution is accurate and adequate, and allows them
to find a place for their own experimentation and exploration throughout
a developmental period in their lives or for the purpose of engaging in an
academic discipline. The campus climate model is perhaps less relevant with
transfer students, as many transfer students may take the time to explore
their options and develop a sense of individual campuses before making
the decision to transfer. There is no guarantee that these students make the
right decision about where to attend or in what capacity to attend, and the
results can lead to either full integration or complete disengagement. And
finally, transfer students can be perhaps best prepared to explore the student-
institutional fit model. With some experience in higher education, they can
be better prepared to identify factors that they agree with or do not agree
with, and based on this conceptualization, may be better prepared to make
decisions about where to transfer.
These conceptualizations are also relevant in the exploration of how students

grow and develop while enrolled in their degree programs. In such a setting,
Josselson’s (1987) framework of confronting different ideas and perspectives
in order to grow is appropriate. These challenges, responses, changes, and
reflection can lead to meaningful growth among students, but only if
they can look beyond the functionality of a college degree or job training.
Student affairs administrators and faculty need to be strongly aware of the
delicate balance these transfer students experience as they attempt to adjust
to new settings. Although some will undoubtedly become immediately
immersed in campus life, the inconsistent and changing nature of transfer
students requires a particular level of care, advisement, and attention to this
subpopulation (Frost, 1991).
Schlossberg provides an alternative lens through which the transition process

can be viewed. According to Scholossberg’s theory of student development,
a transition is “any event, or non-event, that results in changed relationships,

routines, assumptions, and roles” (Evans, Forney, Guido-DiBriot, 1998, p.
111). Situation, self, support, and strategies are the four characteristics that
govern personal development, according to Schlossberg, and how well an
individual will cope with a transition. The variance between an individual’s
assets in each of these four areas explains why two individuals will respond
and cope in different ways to the same situation. When faced with a
transition to or from one institution, an individual will make two initial
assessments: is the transition positive, negative, or irrelevant, and to what
extent the individual has the ability to deal with the transition. For student
affairs professionals, the key to helping transfer students succeed is directly
linked with their ability to identify the state of transfer students in each of
the four categories and their ability to build interventions and strategies that
empower students to be successful.
Concerns about Transfers for Student Affairs Administrators
The growing number of transfer students, and the variety of paths they take
into different institutions, results in a number of serious considerations for
student affairs professionals. First and foremost, though, student affairs
professionals must consider their role as campus educators and their
responsibility for inclusive programming and decision making. They have
a responsibility to consider transfer students as a subpopulation along with
other subpopulations to build a sense of community that supports both
individuality and growth along with a sense of community that transcends
individual wants and desires. Although there is a multitude of concerns
that student affairs professionals will have to face in working with transfer
students, listed below are five leading issues to be aware of immediately.
More transfer students on campus. The number of higher education

institutions has grown dramatically in the United States, and with this
growth has come a variety of pricing structures and accessibility options not
conceived of in previous generations. The result will be that more students
will pursue initial access to higher education through different types of
higher education institutions, and will bring these varied experiences and
expectations to campus. In particular, online learning institutions will
provide a growing share of the academic coursework for students, and these
learners will in turn come to two- and four-year institutions to complete
and perhaps legitimate their degree programs. The challenges specifically
for student affairs will relate to how to build effective transition programs
to bring all transfer students into the mainstream of campus life, how to

effectively advise them, and how to build academic support networks that
adequately respect, and respond to, the differing levels of preparation they
bring to campus.
Tighter articulation agreements. As state and governing bodies recognize

the growing number of transfer students on their campuses, there will be a
growth in articulation agreements with institutions such as public community
colleges. A number of institutions have already developed elaborate transfer
agreements with both community colleges and other four-year institutions.
These behaviors, while ultimately benefiting the students who transfer, can
provide a tremendous strain on attempts to develop an academic community
on campus and can impinge academic freedom issues. And while half of all
states have formal, mandated articulation agreements, the potential exists for
intra-state articulation agreements, meaning that students completing work
in one system will be better aligned with degree requirements in other states.
The federal commission exploring higher education and accountability has
made overtures to this effect, as have regional accrediting bodies, and the
result may be less distinction between states and systems.
Community strain. The extent to which transfer students arrive on campus

and become embedded in the community of an institution is perhaps the
most substantial area for student affairs professionals to explore. Responsible
for creating community on campus and fostering out-of-classroom learning
environments, divisions of student affairs may well find that the wildly
different experiential base of students works in opposition to attempts
to bring students together. Additionally, the volume of transfer students
coming to campus, a trend that broadens the range of student interests on
campus and experiences on which to build, can result in very real challenges
to attempts at mass programming.
Emerging theories of student development. Traditional theories of how

students learn, grow, develop, and mature can be challenged by the new
wave of students entering campus with clear goals and objectives for degree
attainment. In the current environment of a consumer-based student body,
out-of-class encounters and experiences can and will be processed differently,
resulting in perhaps new theories of student development. Student affairs

professionals must continue to be the leaders in understanding these
differences and how they impact the community as a whole.
For community college student affairs professionals, this also means that
the functionality often directing community college curricula might be
changed in new and different ways, as students expect more opportunities
for self-exploration and moral development in a compressed two-year
environment.
Challenges to systems behavior. College campuses have evolved during the

last 35 years on the model of traditional students arriving on campus and
matriculating in four or five years. As students arrive for shorter periods of
time, with a broader spectrum of experiences and ages, and expectations
about the college experience, the current systems may be challenged as never
before. If higher education continues its march toward a corporate model,
then divisions of student affairs may find that the systems they have in place
are inadequate to meet a rapidly changing and increasingly goal-oriented
student body.
There are, of course, other issues that will impact institutions.These include how
to assure academic program quality when students are importing coursework
from a multitude of institutions, how degree audits and graduation applications
are processed, the mechanisms in place nationally to accredit institutions
that provide the majority of their coursework in a piecemeal fashion rather
than focusing on degrees, and more. As a subpopulation of college students,
transfer students have assumed a position of prominence and are in need
of continued scholarship surrounding their unique characteristics. Previous
decades of research illustrate that transfer students do have difficulty when
they arrive on campus, and student affairs leaders on both two- and four-year
college campuses must make extra efforts to become aware of the magnitude
of these difficulties and the strategies that can help minimize their impact on
learning and degree progress. Perhaps most importantly, student affairs leaders
need to be attuned to changing patterns of transfer behavior and the various
implications on learning, both in and out of the classroom, and success at the
institution. The greatest implication of this trend is the need for educational
leaders in all types of institutions to work together to understand each other
and to find ways to articulate similar objectives. This means open, honest, and
meaningful dialogue about student learning expectations, both in and out of
the classroom, how these are measured, and what learning-related activities
might be sacrificed or improved upon in working with transfer students.

References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters most in college: Four critical years revisited.
Bell, L. W. (2004). Critical issues in advising transfer students: Student

retention begins before matriculation. In B. Jacobs, B. Lauren, M. Miller,
& D. Nadler (eds.), The College Transfer Student in America the Forgotten
Student (pp. 69-85). Washington: American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers.
Berkner, L., He, S., & Cataldi, E. F. (2002). Descriptive summary of 1995-
1996 beginning postsecondary students: Three years later, with an essay on
students who started at less-than-4-year institutions. Washington: National
Center for Education Statistics.
Borland, K. W. (2004). Enrollment management issues. In In B. Jacobs,

B. Lauren, M. Miller, & D. Nadler (eds.), The College Transfer Student
in America the Forgotten Student (pp. 27-46). Washington: American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.
Carey, K. (2004). A matter of degrees: Improving graduation rates in four-year

colleges and universities. Washington: Education Trust.
Cross, K. P. (1980). Our changing students and their impact on colleges:

Prospects for a true learning story. Phi Delta Kappan, 62, 630-632.
Doyle, W. R. (2006). Community college transfers and college graduation:

Whose choices matter most? Change, 36(3), 42-44.
Dougherty, K. J. (1992). Community colleges and baccalaureate attainment.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido-DiBriot, F. (1998). Schlossberg’s transition
theory. In N. J. Evans, Student Development in College (pp. 107-126). San
Fredrickson, J. (1998). Today’s transfer students: Who are they? Community

College Review, 26(1), 43-52.

Frost, S. H. (1991). Academic advising for student success: A shared responsibility.
ASHE-ERIC Report No. 3. Washington: George Washington University
and the Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Giroux, H. A., & Myrsiades, K. (2001). Beyond the corporate university,

culture, and pedagogy in the new millennium. Lanham, MD: Rowan and
Littlefield.
Greene, H., & Greene, M. (October 2002) Understanding and targeting

retention. University Business, 21-22.
Harrison, C. H. (1993). Orienting transfer students. In M. L. Upcraft, R. H.

Mullendore, B. O. Barefoot, and D. S. Fidler (eds.), Designing successful
transitions: A guide for orienting students to college (Monograph No. 13, pp.
123-140). Columbia, SC: The National Resource Center for the First
Year Experience.
Hayek, J. (2002). Most college students satisfied but transfer students

less engaged. The National Survey of Student Engagement (online).
Retrieved July 1, 2006, from http://www.indiana.edu/~nsse.
Howe, N., Strauss, W., & Matson, R. J. (2000). Millenials rising: The next
great generation. NY: Vintage.
Jacobs, B. (2004). Today’s transfer students: Trends and challenges. In B.

Jacobs, B. Lauren, M. Miller, & D. Nadler (eds.), The College Transfer
Student in America the Forgotten Student (pp. 1-14).Washington: American
Jacobs, B., Lauren, B., Miller, M., & Nadler, D. (Eds.). (2004). The college
transfer student in America the forgotten student. Washington: American
Johnson, D. B., & Miller, M. T. (2000). Redesigning transitional programs
to meet the needs of generation Y. Journal of College Orientation and
Transition, 7(2), 15-21.
Josselson, R. (1987). Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in

women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Laanan, F. S. (2001). Transfer student adjustment. In F. S. Laanan (ed.),
Transfer Students: Trends and Issues. New Directions for Community
Colleges No. 114 (pp. 5-13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Laanan, F. S. (2004). Studying transfer students, part I: Instrument design

and implications. Community College Journal of Research and Practice,
28(4), 331-351.
Lauren, B. (2004). Transfer and articulation: Survey of state practices. In B.

Jacobs, B. Lauren, M. Miller, & D. Nadler (eds.), The College Transfer
Student in America the Forgotten Student (pp. 109-115). Washington:
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers.
McCauley, M. ( January 2003). Using technology to enhance transfer

services. Paper presented at the Bi-Annual Institute for the Study of
Transfer Students, Denton, TX.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The condition of education:

Student effort and education progress. Retreived February 10, 2006 from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2005/section3/indicator19.asp.
Smith, T. M. (2005). Doctoral education in the sciences: African-American

scholars reflect on their experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
Tierney, W. (1999). Models of minority college going and retention: Cultural

integrity versus cultural suicide. Educational Researcher, 31(9), 3-12.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Townsend, B. K. (November 1995). Is there a hidden curriculum in higher

education doctoral programs? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Orlando, FL.
Townsend, B. K. (2000). Redefining the community college transfer mission.

Community College Review, 29(2), 29-42.
Weidman, J. C. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach.

In J. Smart (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research in Higher Education
Volume 5 (pp. 289-322). NY: Agathon.

Winter, P. A., & Harris, M. R. (November 1998). A field study of completer
and non-completer community college reverse transfer students. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of
Higher Education, Miami, FL.
Wolgemuth, J. R., Kees, N. L., & Safarik, L. (2003). A critique of research

on women, published in the Community College Journal of Research
and Practice. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 757-
768.

CHAPTER 15
Latino/a/Hispanic Students
Erika Gamboa and Sandra Y. Vasquez
As the number of Latino/a/Hispanic college students rises across the United

States, American colleges and universities have taken a much greater interest
in this community of students. To obtain a better understanding of Latino/
a/Hispanic college students, this chapter will cover national demographics,
high school demographics, pre-college trends, college enrollment, and issues,
student development, retention, model programs, and benefits attributed
to Latino/a/Hispanic college students. Initially, the terms “Latino/a”
and “Hispanic” will be clarified. Both terms will be used interchangeably
throughout the chapter in a style similar to that of the U.S. Census Bureau
(Grieco & Cassidy, 2001):
The term “Hispanic” is often used interchangeably with the
term “Latino.” The term “Hispanic” was introduced into the
English language and into the 1970 census by government
officials who were searching for a generic term that would
include all who came from, or who had parents who came
from, Spanish-speaking countries. It is, therefore, an
English-language term that is not generally used in Spanish-
speaking countries. The term “Latino,” on the other hand,
is a Spanish-language term that has increased in usage
since the introduction of the term Hispanic. Some Latinos/
Hispanics feel strongly about which term they prefer. Some
reject both terms, and insist they should be known by their
Latino/a/Hispanic Students 313

national origin; still others use all terms and vary their usage
depending on context. (Rodriguez, n.d, ¶8)
The Pew Hispanic Center (2005) adds clarity to the understanding of people
who identify as Hispanic/Latino:
The Hispanic population is not a racial group, nor does it

share a common language or culture. The single over-arching
trait that all Hispanics share in common is a connection by
ancestry to Latin America. This population, in fact, traces
its origins to many countries with varied cultures, and
while some Latinos have family histories in the United
States that date back centuries, others are recent arrivals.
Some speak only English, others only Spanish, and many
are bilingual. (p. 3)
Which is the proper term to use? The answer can be found in the words of
Jos Mass, which were quoted in The Boston Globe, “The unfortunate thing
is that we have a tendency here in the United States to use one word to
capture who we are, when in reality it’s many words” (Diaz, 2004, p.2).
National Demographics
According to the U.S. Census Press Release by Bernstein and Bergman

(2003), the Hispanic population has surpassed all other minority groups
to become the largest minority community in the United States. As of
2000, 35,622,000 Hispanics were living in the United States, an increase of
58% from the 1990 census. By 2005, this population grew to an estimated
41,870,703 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005), a jump of more than 17.5% in only
five years. As noted in Table 15.1, of the top three groups, people originating
from Mexico were the majority representing 63.9%, followed by Puerto
Ricans (9.1%), and Cubans (3.5%) (Pew Hispanic Center, 2006a).

Table 15.1 Hispanic Origin of United States Population for 2005 (Pew Hispanic Center, 2006a,
Table 3).

Moreover, as noted in Table 15.2, the majority of Hispanics living in the
United States reside in three states: California (29.9%), Texas (18.8%) and
Florida (8.2%). However, New Mexico (43.9%) leads as the state with the
highest percentage of residents who are of Hispanic origin (Pew Hispanic
Center, 2006a).
Table 15.2 Residency by Hispanic Origin: 2005
Hispanic % of Total U.S. % of State Population

Population Hispanic Population who are of Hispanic
by states Origin
California 12,534,628 29.9 35.5

Texas 7,882,255 18.8 35.4
Florida 3,433,355 8.2 19.8
New York 3,026,286 7.2 16.2
Illinois 1,807,908 4.3 14.5
Arizona 1,679,416 4.0 28.9
New Jersey 1,312,326 3.1 15.4
Colorado 895,176 2.1 19.7
New Mexico 827,940 2.0 43.9
Source: Pew Hispanic Center, 2006a, Tables 11 & 12).
Future predications indicate that by 2050, the U.S. Hispanic population

will increase to 102,560,000 or 24.4% of the U.S. population (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2004). This rise in the population has had and will continue to have
its effect on the nation, but how will it affect the future of institutions of
higher education?
High School Demographics and Impact on College Enrollments
As discussed in Chapter 2, Hispanic high school graduates will be the fastest

growing ethnic/racial group in the United States representing 22.2% of high
school graduates by 2017–18 as compared to 12.3% in 2002–03. The growth
will occur in all states except Hawaii with the Western and Southern regions
of the country experiencing the most significant gains. This compared to a
decline beginning in 2008–09 of White, non-Hispanic in all regions with

the Midwestern region experiencing the most significant decline. Black,
non-Hispanics will show a modest increase (WICHE, 2003).
Nonetheless, recent statistics such as high school dropout rates, completion

rates and college enrollment rates demonstrate the various obstacles
many Hispanic students encounter on their paths to college. For example,
high school dropout rates for Hispanics are higher than the other major
ethnicities. In 2004, Hispanics between the ages of 16 and 24 had a high
school dropout rate of 23.8% in comparison to Whites and Blacks, 6.8%
and 11.8% respectively (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005a).
However, the dropout rates have steadily declined for all three racial/ethnic
groups since 1991 with Hispanics having the greatest decline from 35.3%
in 1991, the highest recorded drop out rate, to 27.8% in 2000 and 23.8% in
2004 (see Figure 15.1).
Figure 15.1 High School Dropout Rates Among 16 to 24 year olds
Source: Snyder, Tan & Hoffman, 2006, Table 105, p. 185

As Hispanic high school dropout rates have decreased, the Hispanic
high school completion rates (18 to 24 year olds not currently enrolled in
high school or below) have increased. The percentage rate of high school
completion for Hispanics was 69.2% in 2003, a continual increase from
56.5% in 1991 and 64.1% in 2000; whereas, White and Black high school
rates had modest increases as noted on Figure 15.2 (Laird, Lew, DeBell, &
Chapman, 2006).
Figure 15.2 High School Completion Rates Among 18 to 24 year olds not enrolled in
high school
(Laird et al., 2006, Table 11, p. 34-35)
Also, there remains a significant gap between Hispanic college age students
and other college age ethnic groups who are enrolled in college. Table 15.3
illustrates that in 2004, 24.7% of Hispanics between the ages of 18 and
24 were enrolled in college as compared to 38.0% of Whites of the same
age group and 31.4% of Blacks. Some studies have suggested that Latino
students, who live in Spanish speaking immigrant households, tend to have
high rates of work force participation which deters them from enrolling in
college (Fry, 2002; Llagas & Snyder, 2003).
High school completion appears to be a key factor in determining future

college enrollment. Of those who completed high school, the gap between
Hispanics and the other ethnic groups enrolled in college is less significant

with 37.7% Hispanics enrolling in college, as compared to 45.9% Whites
and 40.6% Blacks.
Table 15.3 Proportion of 18 to 24 year olds Enrolled in College
All Hispanic White Black
High- High- High- High-

school school school school
Year All graduates All graduates All graduates All graduates
1994 34.6% 42.4% 18.8% 33.2% 35.3% 42.7% 27.3% 35.5%
2000 35.5% 43.3% 21.7% 36.5% 35.6% 43.2% 30.3% 39.4%
2004 38.0% 46.0% 24.7% 37.7% 38.0% 45.9% 31.4% 40.6%
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, Almanac Issue, 2005–06, p. 14
Furthermore, in 2004 of those individuals who finished high school and

enrolled in college within one year following high school graduation,
Hispanics enrolled (61.8%) in college at a similar rate to Blacks (62.5%) with
both groups somewhat below Whites (68.8%), but continuing to improve
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2005b). As stated by Roberto
Suro, “Far too few Latinos finish high school, but this report shows clearly
that among those who do make it, large numbers go on to college” (Pew
Hispanic Center, 2006b,¶3). Hispanic high school graduates are clearly
closing the college enrollment rate gap with other ethnic groups (National
Center for Educational Statistics, 2005b). However, for some Latino/a
college students, pre-college obstacles can prevent immediate admission to
an institution of higher learning.
Pre-College Issues and Trends
When working with Latino students, institutions must assess the various
obstacles these students are likely to encounter in college and provide
the resources necessary for them to succeed in attaining their educational
goals. Today, many Latino students are not entering college with the same
preparation that many other ethnic groups possess. The National Public
Radio (NPR) Special Report: Educating Latinos (2002) mentioned that:
Latino students now make up the largest minority group in

the school-age population in the country. Yet they lag behind

their white and Asian peers—and in some cases African-
Americans as well—on most measures of achievement: test
scores, college completion, and dropout rates. (¶1)
According to the ACT News (2004), the average ACT score for Hispanics
was 18.5 in 2004. Though this number is greater than the 17.1 reported for
African American/Black students, it is lower than the numbers reported for
Asian American/Pacific Islander and Caucasian Americans/Whites, 21.9
and 21.8, respectively. While there has been a slight decrease in Hispanic
scores since 2000, ACT reported that there has been a significant increase of
Hispanic test takers who were likely more academically diverse. Table 15.4
shows how Hispanic ACT scores compare to those of other racial/ethnic
groups.
Table 15.4 ACT Scores by Selected Years and Ethnicity/Race
Asian Am./ Caucasian Am./

Year Hispanic African Am./ Black Pacific Islander White
2000 18.9 17 21.7 21.8
2001 18.8 16.9 21.7 21.8
2002 18.4 16.8 21.6 21.7
2003 18.5 16.9 21.8 21.7
2004 18.5 17.1 21.9 21.8
Source: ACT News, 2004
Low ACT scores are not the only obstacle many Latino college students
encounter on their way to obtaining higher education. The same is true
when it comes to the overall percentage of Latino and Black students
enrolled in remedial courses during the beginning of their postsecondary
career. Of the Latino students, 23.2% were enrolled in remedial classes. This
compares to 24.3% for Blacks, 13.8% for Asians, and 17.4% for Whites
(Kojaku & Nuñez, 1998, Table 11.1-B). In addition to having lower ACT
scores and having a higher percent enrolled in remedial classes then other
ethnicities, another obstacle Hispanics face is the challenge of choosing
between attending school full or part time.
In 2004, 936,600 (52.8%) Hispanic college students were enrolled full-time

while 873,000 (47.2%) were enrolled part-time (Snyder et al., Table 205,
2006). This compared to White and Black students enrolled part-time 38.6%
and 40.7%, respectively. Although the percentage of Hispanic students

enrolling part-time has declined since 2000 (51.4%), the percentage of all
students enrolled part-time has also declined from 41.6% to 38.6% in the
same years. The type of institution Latino students select can help to predict
future outcomes within this community. Part-time attendance at two-year
colleges is considered by the U.S. Department of Education as a risk factor
for not obtaining a college degree (Fry, 2002). As summarized in a Pew
Hispanic Center Press Release (2006b):
Latinos often pursue higher education in ways that can

thwart degree completion. Many Latinos attend school
part time and many enroll in community colleges. Others
prolong their college education into their mid-20s and
beyond. Each of these three forms of college attendance is
associated with lower graduation rates compared to full-time
enrollment at a four-year institution during the traditional
college-going age. (p. 2)
College Enrollment
The previously mentioned barriers may prevent some students from enrolling
in college; however, Table 15.5 below indicates that the enrollment of
undergraduate Hispanic college students increased from 724,600 in 1990 to
approximately 1.7 million in 2004. Although the total number of Hispanic
college undergraduate enrollment is still lower than the White and Black
racial groups, the rate of increase (130%) in the past 14 years has been most
significant.

Table 15.5 Total Number of Enrollment by Type of Degree and Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment Rate of

Fall 1990 Fall 2000 Fall 2002 Fall 2004 Increase
from 1990
to 2004
All Students 13,818,600 15,312,300 16,611,700 17,272,000 25.0%
Undergraduates 11,959,100 13,155,400 14,257,100 14,780,600 23.6%
Graduate 1,586,200 1,850,300 2.035,700 2,156,900 36.0%
Professional 273,400 308,600 319,100 334,500 22.3%
Hispanic
All Hispanic
782,400 1,461,800 1,661,700 1,809,600 131.3%
Students
Undergraduate 724,600 1,351,000 1,533,300 1,666,900 130.0%
Graduate 47,200 95,400 112,300 125,800 166.5%
Professional 10,700 15,400 16,100 17,000 58.9%
Black
All Black
1,247,000 1,730,300 1,978,700 2,164,700 73.6%
Students
Undergraduate 1,147,200 1,548,900 1,763,800 1,918,500 67.2%
Graduate 83,900 157,900 189,600 220,400 127.1%
Professional 15,900 23,500 25,300 25.000 59.1%
White
All White
10,722,500 10,462,100 11,140,200 11,422,800 6.5%
Students
Undergraduate 9,272,600 8,983,500 9,564,900 9,771,300 3.2%
Graduate 1,228,400 1,258,500 1,348,000 1,413,300 9.7%
Professional 221,500 220,100 227,400 238,200 2.7%
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, Almanac Issues, 2005-06 & 2006-07, p. 15
In addition, by Fall 2004, both Hispanic graduate and professional

enrollments increased significantly. Yet, in comparison to White and Black
total enrollments, Hispanic enrollments remain significantly lower in all
three levels, undergraduate, graduate and professional. Various factors, which
will be discussed later, help explain this phenomenon.

Similar to the steady increase in the growth of the Latino population
(National Council of La Raza, 2005), the growth of Latino students at
all types of college campuses is also increasing as evidenced in Table 15.6
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2005c).
Table 15.6 Percentage of Hispanic students of Total fall enrollment in degree-seeking

institutions by type and control of institution: Selected years, 1976 through 2004
Institution Type and 1976 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Control of Institution (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
All Institutions 3.5 3.9 5.7 9.5 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.5
Public 3.9 4.3 6.2 10.5 10.7 10.9 11.0 11.4
Private 2.0 2.5 3.7 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.5 7.7
4-Year Institutions
All 2.4 2.9 4.2 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.5 7.8
Public 2.6 3.1 4.5 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.9 8.3
Private 2.0 2.5 3.5 6.0 6.3 6.5 6.8 7.1
2-Year Institutions
All 5.4 5.6 8.1 14.2 14.5 14.7 14.4 14.9
Public 5.5 5.8 8.2 14.2 14.5 14.7 14.3 14.8
Private 2.0 2.8 6.3 13.8 13.9 14.8 16.2 16.8
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2005c
However, in comparison to all students enrolled in degree-granting

institutions, a disproportionate percentage of Hispanic students are enrolled
in community colleges, 37.9% vs. 53.7%, respectively (NCES, 2005c).
Moreover, there are disparities in the gender and enrollment percentages

of Hispanic students. Overall, Hispanic women have enrolled in college in
greater numbers and percentages than Hispanic men. As noted in Table 15.6
during 1990, of the 782,400 Hispanic students enrolled in college, 54.8%
were Hispanic women while 45.2% were Hispanic men. By 2004, of the
1,809,600 Hispanic students, 58.8% were Hispanic women verses 41.2%
Hispanic men (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2005 & 2006).

Table 15.7 Enrollment Percentages by Gender and Race/Ethnicity, Selected Years
Hispanic
Students All Students Black Students White Students
Students
Year Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Fall 1990 45.5% 54.5% 45.2% 54.8% 35.8% 64.2% 45.3% 54.7%
Fall 2000 43.7% 56.3% 42.6% 57.4% 36.7% 63.3% 44.3% 55.7%
Fall 2002 43.4% 56.6% 42.1% 57.9% 35.8% 64.2% 44.0% 56.0%
Fall 2004 43.1% 56.9% 41.2% 58.8% 35.0% 65.0% 43.7% 56.3%
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, Almanac Issues 2005–06 & 2006–07, p. 15
Not only has the percentage of Hispanic women surpassed Hispanic men in
percentage of college enrollment, but Hispanic women have also surpassed
the comparison between genders of all students enrolled as noted in Table
15.7. The continual increase in college enrollment of Hispanic women
suggests that the spread between males and females will continue in the
future. The decline in male enrollees across all ethnic groups, including
Hispanics, is a major concern for higher education.
Student Development and Related Issues
Developmental Theories
Randy L. Mitchell (2001), in Listen Very Loud: Paying Attention in the

Student Affairs Profession, encourages professionals to take a step back and
think about whether or not we are actually listening to students and their
needs, how we are listening, how we respond (verbally and nonverbally)
to what we hear or see, and how students are impacted by our response,
our failure to respond, or to our creation of a façade that is supported with
empty promises. “Whether we believe it or not, our decisions have the
power to alter students’ pathways” (M.Holland, Director of the Office for
Community Standards and Student Ethics, University of Arkansas, personal
communication, October 13, 2006). A sense of vulnerability on the part of
students exists in which they unconsciously trust their institution with not
only their education, but in aiding them with their endeavors toward their
degree attainment and toward their personal success. The element of trust
is significant because students unconsciously trust what educators, both

in and out of the classroom, teach them to be true. When there is that
element of trust, students can challenge the knowledge of educators and in
doing so, allow them to gain a glimpse or a better understanding of their
perception of the world. The question is, whether or not we, as professionals,
intentionally take the time to reflect upon and “communicate what, when,
why, and how” (Ibarra, 2001, p. 50) we listen and respond to students. What
then, is our understanding of Latino/a students and their development? Are
we, as professionals “listen[ing] very loud[ly]” to them?
When students entrust themselves into an educational structure, they are also
entrusting their holistic being to the systematic process of higher education
(Hall as cited in Ibarra, 2001). Prior to being students, students are holistic
individuals that are admitted into institutions of higher education with a
preconceived knowledge of their perception of the world and their role in it.
Naturally, this is a result of their upbringing, experiences, and the external
forces that have had an impact on their development as individuals; the world
that their parents, oftentimes engrained in their cultural values, have instilled
in them (Ibarra, 2001). The socioeconomic status of a student’s parents can
have an impact on the student’s quality of life and the community in which
the student is socialized. Society, in and of itself, is also an external force
that can shape the individual’s understanding of his or her relationship with
the world (Levine & Cureton, 1998). This learned behavior determines how
individuals “communicate what, when, why, and how to do things or signal
relationships between individuals” (Ibarra, p. 50). Thus, it is not surprising
to know that “when people of different cultures interact, each uses different
criteria to interpret the other’s behavior, and each may easily misinterpret the
relationship, the activity, or the emotions involved” (Hall as quoted in Ibarra,
2001, p. 49). Ibarra contended that “Latinos, among others, are not accepting
the dictum to learn in only one way, nor are they willing to give up their own
cultural contexts and cognitive styles as did earlier immigrant groups in the
country” (p. 62). Additionally, Ibarra claimed that “the real issue is how to
deal with the deficiencies in our educational system, in our organizational
structures, and in the cultural values of higher education itself ” (p. 62) that
“requires reframing the current cultural context of academia altogether”
(p. 62). This is the foundation for understanding the development of the
Latino/a college student.
In Beyond Affirmative Action: Reframing the Context of Higher Education, Ibarra

(2001) provided insight into Latino/a identity development by exploring

how Latino/a students oftentimes are forced to unconsciously navigate
through their dual identities at a very young age in order to be successful
in both their home, community, and school environment (Ibarra, 2001).
Ibarra found that Halls’ high and low cultural context model indicates that
individuals who function in a “high-context culture tend to use the multiple
streams of information that surround an event, situation, or interaction (e.g.,
words, tones, gestures, body language, status, or relationship to speakers) to
determine meaning from the context in which it occurs” (p. 53). When one
functions in a “low-context culture … they tend to filter out the conditions
surrounding an event, situation, or interaction to focus as much as possible
on words or objective facts” (p. 53). According to Ibarra, Latino/as tend to
function in a high context whereas higher education tends to function in a
low context. Table 15.8 is a brief summary of Ibarra’s (2001) explanation of
the differences between high and low context cultures that were originally
developed by Edward T. Hall and Mildred R. Hall in 1990.
Table 15.8 Comparison of Selected Characteristics of High and Low Context Cultures
(Ibarra, 2001)
Low context (LC) High context (HC)

1. Interaction 1. Interaction
Low use of nonverbal signals. High use of nonverbal signals.
Communication is direct. Communication is indirect.
Messages are explicit and elaborate. Messages are implicit and restricted.
Messages are literal. Messages are an art form.
Long-term interpersonal feedback. Short-term interpersonal feedback.
Disagreement is depersonalized. Disagreement is personalized.
2. Association 2. Association
Personal commitment to people is low. Personal commitment to people is high.
Task orientation. Process orientation.
Success means being recognized. Success means being unobtrusive.
3. Territoriality 3. Territoriality
Space has more boundaries. Space is more communal.
Privacy is more important. Privacy is less important.
Personal property is shared less. Personal property is shared more.
4. Learning 4. Learning
Knowledge is obtained by logical
reasoning.
Knowledge is obtained by a gestalt model.
Analytical thinking is important.
Comprehensive thinking is important.
They learn best by following directions.
They learn best by demonstration.
Learning is oriented toward the
Learning is group oriented.
individual.
Creative learning process is internalized.
Creative learning process is
externalized.
5. LC Academic Systems 5. HC Academic Systems
LC disciplines. HC disciplines.
Scientific thinking is emphasized. Practical thinking is valued.
Academic/teaching style is technical. Academic/teaching style is personal.
Source: Adapted from the work of Edward T. Hall (1959-1993) and Edward T. Hall and Mildred
R. Hall (1990) (as cited in Ibarra, 2001).

When working with Latino/a students, student affairs professionals
must understand that although Latino/a students tend to function in a
high context, they must also learn to or continue to be able to function
in both high and low contexts if they are to be successful personally and
academically (Ibarra, 2001). Latino/as must be able to unconsciously switch
in and out of the contexts according to the appropriate environment and
simultaneously function in both contexts. Furthermore, they “prefer to
learn in multiple ways without compromising their cultural preferences
in their academic communities too” (p. 62). This is something that student
affairs professionals may not understand because “low-context…knowledge
and learning may be so ingrained and so prevalent in education that any
alternative is unimaginable” (p.61). As student affairs professionals seek to
gain a better understanding of how to work with Latino/a students, they
must first understand that Latino/a students function in a dual identity.
In relation to undocumented and first-generation Latino students, Torres’s

theory of Latino ethnic identity (Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper,
2003) provides student affairs professionals with additional insight regarding
the development of Latino students and their experiences.
Abalos (1986), as cited in Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper (2003),

defined “biculturalism” as “the synthesis of two cultures, out of which a
third ‘reality’ emerges that incorporates both cultures” (p. 58). According to
Torres’s Bicultural Model Orientation (Torres, et al., 2003), Latino students
are able to manage and thrive with their dual identity. She found that “the
use of ethnic identity and acculturation measures could distinguish college
students among four cultural orientation quadrants: bicultural orientation,
Latino orientation, Anglo orientation, or marginal orientation” and that
“there is no advantage in one orientation over another” (p. 58). Torres’s
Bicultural Orientation Model is similar to the ability of Latino students to
transition in and out of their environments just like individuals who speak
two languages fluently are able to seamlessly adapt their language to the
appropriate environment. For some Latinos home and college lives are two
completely different entities; each with a different set of expectations and
outcomes (Torres, et al., 2003).
However, Latino college students may struggle more with “developing

interpersonal competence” (Evans, Forney, & DiBrito, 1998, p. 38) as they try
to find a common ground between the conflict between their environment
at home and in college (Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003). For

Latino students, this conflict can exist among various elements such as: their
cultures (Torres et al., 2003), their expectations of the college that they attend,
“the expectations of their parents” (p. 56), the expectations of “the college
environment” (p. 56), and the outcomes from trying to balance between the
expectations of the home and the college environment. Torres et al. (2003)
found that “change occurred when students experienced conflict with culture
or when a change in relationship within the environment occurred” (p. 57).
This may lead to an intensification of feelings of guilt, shame, self-doubt,
failure, and loneliness. Moreover, first-generation college students’ parents
are less likely to understand these experiences or “conflicts” (p. 57). The “two
conflicting cultural forces” (p. 42) that Ibarra (2001) referred to are “the
influence of culture and ethnicity imprinted on individuals in childhood by
family and community, and a second set of cultural forces that reshapes them
throughout their pre-college and postsecondary educational experiences” (p.
42). As a result, students may feel challenged to prove that their association
with their new environment has not impacted their bond to their roots,
their language, their culture, and most importantly their heritage (Torres,
Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003).
Family is not only a significant factor to maintain Latino students’ identity

but also influences persistence for Latino college students (Ortiz, 2004). For
Latino students, their obligations to the family (Cartagena, 2005; Zurita,
2005); their place at their family’s table; and their ability to live their culture,
do not end when they turn 18 years of age or move off to college (Pizarro,
2005; Ibarra, 2001). One can only speculate the pressure that these students
have when thinking about going to college and/or how moving away from
home to go to college may affect them and their family. However, these
factors may also be the highest motivating factors contributing to their
persistence (Ortiz, 2004). As Latino students rapidly continue to enroll in
institutions of higher education, student affairs professionals must explore
avenues through which they can intentionally, as Nevitt Sanford argued,
“support and challenge” (Evans, Forney, & DiBrito, 1998, p. 7) these students
as their identity develops.
Given that Latino faculty, staff, and administrators are the minority in
institutions of higher education (Castellanos & Jones, 2003), Latino
students tend to search for “mature interpersonal relationships” (Evans,
et al., 1998, p. 39) as support to “manag[e] [their] emotions” (p. 39) and
“mov[e] through autonomy toward interdependence” (p. 39). This network

can include well-trusted Latino or non-Latino peers, faculty, staff, and
administrators who can aid them in “developing [their] purpose” (p. 39).
Moreover, student affairs professionals must also understand that although
the student may have changed through his or her encounters with the
educational environment (Ibarra, 2001),the student’s visits back home may
add yet another stressor: his or her ability to acknowledge the difference as
an individual in comparison to those in his or her environment of comfort.
Most significant is the fact that individuals within the student’s comfort
zone may take notice of this change and may acknowledge it (Ibarra, 2001).
For these reasons it is imperative for student affairs professionals to better
understand the unique needs of Latino college students.
First-Generation Students
First-generation college students are students whose parents did not attend
college, regardless of citizenship status. Therefore, these students have
limited or no role models that can help mentor and guide them as they
attempt to navigate their way to the front door of what can appear to be
foreign territory: higher education (Pizarro, 2005). According to Pizarro:
Because their families had to struggle financially and often

in extreme working conditions, the familial identities of the
students were grounded in their pride, and even more so in
their goals of improving their families’ material conditions.
In this way, school became a critical facet of identity for
almost every student … because the students saw school as
their path to fulfill their family obligations and to create the
type of familial identity they sought. (p. 155)
Going to college is not all about the student; it is also about the family
(Hernandez, 2002) and about demystifying the assumptions, stereotypes,
and the “low expectations” (Gandara & Bial, 2001, p. 9) that society may
have of Latino students.
A majority of first-generation students who are born to undocumented

parents have had to endure the challenges that their immediate or extended
family may have faced due to the parents or relatives not being legal citizens.
This is inclusive of, but not limited to, seeing the poor working conditions
and treatment that the parents may face at work; having to take on the

responsibility to translate for the parents or complete paperwork for them;
and lack of access to healthcare.
Undocumented Students
The political debate over immigration has led higher education to take
a closer look at the undocumented college-student. Passel, Capps, & Fix
(2004), defined undocumented individuals as:
those who entered the country without valid documents,

including people crossing the Southwestern border
clandestinely; and (b) those who entered with valid visas but
overstayed their visas’ expiration or otherwise violated the
terms of their admission. Some undocumented immigrants
in our estimate have legal authorization to live and work in
the United States. Two such groups—those with temporary
protected status (TPS) and asylum applicants—may account
for as much as 10 percent of our estimate. (p. 2)
Student affairs professionals must understand that “each country of origin

has distinct circumstances that caused the migration of its people (the push),
while political, economic, and legal circumstances in the United States
provided opportunities for immigration (the pull)” (Ortiz, 2004, p. 90). The
push and pull partially explains the statistics, as described by Dr. Eduardo J.
Padron, President of Miami Dade College (2006):
• The United States is home to more than 10.3 million

undocumented residents.
• 1.6 million [of these] children are under the age of 18,
most of them have grown up in the U.S., and are in low-
income homes and inner city schools. (p. 14)
Hence, it is not surprising to know that “higher education is becoming the
new frontier in the immigration debate” (Horwedel, 2006, p, 23).
Some undocumented students have been raised in the United States

for the majority of their lifetime (Padron, 2006; Del Conte, 2006). Del
Conte indicated that “every year an estimated 65,000 undocumented
children graduate from public high schools in the United States” (2006,
p. 60). Despite their being raised in the United States, what distinguishes
undocumented Latino students from native Latinos is the lack of access to

resources and rights that legal citizens have. Upon graduation from college,
these students cannot legally work in their field of study (Del Conte, 2006).
This can result in “a lot of them … [being] in a state of depression” (p. 60).
For some undocumented students, however, many of these can merely be
empty promises that cannot be realized unless they are legalized. Obtaining
a higher education for them can be like an empty promise that currently
higher education has no control over.
The experience of undocumented college students can vary depending on

the length of time that they have been in the United States. Undocumented
students who were not raised in the United States for a majority of their
lives may be oblivious to the art of being able to function with dual identities
(home and school). Therefore, these undocumented students may see
assimilation as the only option for being able to be successful in the United
States.
Although a majority of Latino college students may be indirectly impacted

by the political strife surrounding The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and
Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005, also known as HR4437 (The Library
of Congress, 2006), this legislation has heightened the fear in college-bound
undocumented Latino students of being deported. This fear has resulted in
a reduction of enrollment of undocumented students at some institutions
(Cruzalegui, 2006). The passing of HR4437 will deny undocumented
individuals access to the basic necessities that Maslow (Maslow, n.d.)
delineates, including, but not limited to employment, access to a home,
and medical attention. Moreover, it will “criminalize[e] organizations and
individuals assisting undocumented immigrants [and will] lead to the tragic
separation of families as undocumented members of mixed-status families
would never be able to secure lawful immigration status in the United
States” (Immigrant Legal Resources Center, 2006, p. 2–3). Recently, the city
of Escondido, California, was the first in the nation to pass an “ordinance
that would prohibit landlords from renting to undocumented immigrants”
( Jones & Graham, 2006, ¶1). According to Jones and Graham, “Escondido
activist, Danny Perez” stated that, “We’re families, we’re not animals” (¶25).
For some of the students who have been affected by political strife, safety
and survival may be their first priority and this may translate in their having
to work longer hours and ensuring that they contribute to their family’s
home. It is not surprising then, for some of these students to feel a sense

of guilt for even thinking about moving far away from home, or taking the
opportunity to obtain a higher education for granted.
Until recently, the undocumented Latino/a student population has been

primarily pre-college-aged children; thus, debate surrounding access to higher
education has been limited. With significant numbers of undocumented
children graduating from high school, issues pertaining to inadequate
learning environments and preparation for college are being heard.
Questions regarding eligibility for admission and enrollment in colleges
(Horwedel, 2006) as well as employment, access to housing, and health care
as college students are becoming an increasing concern that institutions of
higher education will have to deal with. Furthermore, institutions admitting
undocumented students will have to consider the repercussions not being
able to meet basic needs will have on these students.
Another issue facing Latino/a students is the cost of college tuition. Although
some institutions allow undocumented students the opportunity to pay in-
state tuition, other institutions charge out-of-state or international fees,
while some “reject such students” (Horwedel, 2006, p. 23). Despite the fact
that these situations create financial barriers, Latinos believe in the value and
the promise that higher education provides. Many undocumented college
students or aspiring college students are anxiously placing their dreams and
their hopes on the pending passage of the DREAM ACT. The DREAM
ACT, if passed, would allow undocumented students the opportunity go to
college and become legal citizens (Del Conte, 2006) and claim their rights
as college students. One can only speculate what the enrollment rate of
undocumented students would be if every state took the stance of providing
these students with, at minimum, the opportunity to apply for admission
and pay in-state tuition.
Impact of Stress on Latina Student Development
A key issue facing Latinos, specifically the Latina population is stress (Torres,
Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003; Asquith, 2006). According to Torres,
Howard-Hamilton and Cooper (2003):
For first generation in the United States students, their less

acculturated parents created additional conflicts between
the two cultures. These students were expected to balance
the expectations of their parents with those of the college

environment; many times these expectations conflicted
with each other, while the second generation and beyond
students had more acculturated parents and were better able
to intermingle the two cultures, experiencing less stress over
the expectations in the college environment. (p. 56)
Dr. Zayas believed that, “Conflicts are ‘common among parents who don’t
quite understand what it’s like to be a teenager growing up in this country.
The girls feel a great deal of pressure … We want to understand the girls’
experience and the forces around them at home and in school that give rise
to influence the attempt” (Asquith, 2006, p. 6). Dr. Luis H. Zayas also states
that, “One in five [Latina teenage] girls [is] attempting suicide” (Asquith,
2006, p. 6). Furthermore, Latinas are more likely than any other ethnicity
to attempt suicide (Asquith). Findings gathered by the United Sates
Department of Health and Human Services indicated that “Hispanics born
in the United States to immigrant parents are the most likely to attempt
suicide” (p.6). According to Brice (2002), the inadequate access to healthcare
and counseling is a contributing factor to this trend. Dr. Zayas hopes “to put
in place prevention programs, and we think the best place to do that is in the
schools” (Asquith, 2006, p. 6).
Retention
Higher education administrators are concerned with the issue of low

student retention and graduation rates, particularly for minority populations.
According to Fry (2004), the more selective the institution of attendance,
the more likely Latino students will persist. Fry concluded that Latino
persistence at highly selective institutions is a direct result of higher
expectations to succeed and the institution’s strong and active commitment
to student success as evidenced by its support for its students. Fry (2004)
explained that:
Less than 13 percent of Hispanic students who begin at

community college complete a bachelor’s degree, compared
to 23 percent of their white peers. Assuming that promoting
degree completion for qualified students is a worthy objective,
it might be argued that community colleges have “succeeded”
if they facilitate the successful transfer of students to four-
year colleges. Examining the propensity to transfer, however,
does not alter the discrepancy—less than 25 percent of

Hispanic community college students finish a bachelor’s or
transfer to a 4-year college, compared to 36 percent of white
community college students. (p. 15)
Fry (2004) also mentions that, “More than four out of five U.S.-educated
young Hispanics who finish high school go on to postsecondary education”
(p. 16). However, “Thousands of talented and prepared Hispanic college
students are not realizing their potential” (p. 17). As noted in Figure 15.3,
various reasons contribute to this phenomenon.
Figure 15.3 Obstacles to Higher Education for Latinos (Fry, 2004)
Source: Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004. National Survey of Latinos:
Education Summary and Chartpack
The following are also barriers to the degree completion of Latino

students:
• Pathway to college
• Delayed entrance to college
• Familial responsibilities
• Living at home vs. living on campus

More importantly, Fry (2004) argued that “colleges and universities are
simply not succeeding with Hispanic students to the extent that they are
with white students, and inadequate secondary school preparation is not to
blame” (p. 17-18).
Castellanos and Jones (2003) explained that oftentimes, “Latina/o students

enter the educational system, dropout, and are subsequently replaced by new
Latina/o students” (p. 3). Even so, The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac
Issue 2005–06 provided the six-year graduation results (Table 15.9) for
students who were freshmen in four-year institutions in 1996–97. Hispanic
students had a 44.8% graduation rate, which was greater then American
Indians and Blacks whose rates were 36.7% and 38.2% respectively, but
lower than White, non-Hispanics (57.2%) and Asians (62.6%).
Table 15.9 Six-Year Graduation Rates of 1996–97 Freshmen at Four-Year Institutions
Male Female Total
All Students 51.0% 57.2% 54.4%

American Indian 34.3% 38.6% 36.7%
Asian 58.7% 66.2% 62.6%
Black, non-Hispanic 32.3% 42.2% 38.2%
Hispanic 40.6% 48.3% 44.8%
White, non-Hispanic 53.9% 60.1% 57.2%
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, Almanac Issue, 2005–06, p. 14
Although the graduation rates of Hispanic students entering four-year

institutions are relatively positive, many student affairs professionals have
concerns about how they can help retain and graduate Latino college
students. According to Patricia Gandara and Deborah Bial (2001) in Paving
the Way to Postecondary Education: K-12 Intervention Programs for
Underrepresented Youth, the following are some of the barriers that impact
Latino persistence beyond high school:
• Inequalities of familial, cultural, and social capital
• Inequality of resources in neighborhoods and

communities
• Lack of peer support for academic achievement
• Racism

• Inequalities in K–12 schools, including unequal distribution
of well-qualified teachers
• Segregation of black and Hispanic students
• Poor high school counseling
• Low expectations and aspirations
• High dropout rates
• Limited financial resources (p. 8–9)
These obstacles prior to college enrollment and after enrollment show the
desperate need for student affairs professionals, faculty, and administrators
to intentionally and actively seek to not only attempt to diversify their
departments, but to also become better educated about the needs of their
diverse student populations and to serve as mentors and role models for
Latino students. It is important for institutions to build “interpersonal
relationships” (Evans, Forney, & DiBrito, 1998, p.39) with Latino students
so that these students not only find their place at the table, but feel like there
was already a designated seat for them at the table. Additionally, institutions
need to actively seek these students to let them know that they belong there
(beyond simply sending them an invitation and viewing them as a number)
and to let them know and feel like they are part of the institutional familia
(family) (Gandara & Bial, 2001).
Castellanos and Jones (2003) stated that, “It is critical that higher education
institutions be accountable for understanding, recruiting, retaining, and
matriculating Latina/o students. In doing so, factors that must be considered
are cultural and background variables…” (p. 5). Latinos are known to value
“family commitment, which involves loyalty, a strong support system, a belief
that a child’s behavior reflects on the honor of the family, a hierarchical
order among siblings, and a duty to care for family members” (Griggs &
Dunn, 1996, ¶2). Therefore, the experience of going away to college for
many first-generation American born Latino students can be similar to
the emotional toll the student’s parents dealt with when the parent made
the sacrifice of leaving his or her familia (family) in order to attain a more
promising future.
Institutions that are committed to reaching out and, more importantly,

retaining and graduating this booming population will continue to move

forward from the historical mistrust (Gloria, Castellanos, & Kamimura,
2006) to gaining trust. According to Fiske (2004), “For U.S. colleges and
universities, the challenge these days isn’t so much to attract more students;
rather, it is to help students succeed once they get there” (¶4). This is critical
to the future of higher education because if members of the higher education
community fail to reach out to this population, then they will also fail to
diversify the future of higher education, to meet the demands of the labor
force, to ensure that Latino/as are not in minority when it comes to higher
education. Institutions must continue to take on the responsibility of going
beyond the marketing of a welcoming and diverse institution and recruiting
efforts to attract minority students; higher education must be cognizant of
the fact that these efforts can create an expectation of total inclusion on
behalf of potential students and their families.
Institutions of higher education are now becoming more aware of Latino

students due to their demographic shifts within the nation and increase in
high school graduation rates and enrollment in colleges and universities.
Nevertheless, Latino students may continue to feel alone in the process of
their attempt to find their place within the college environment; in other
words, to find their place at the table. For some Latino students the college
experience makes them feel, “Like a ‘mojado’ [wetback] … , I attempt to
cross the artificial borders into occupied academic territories, searching for
a ‘coyote’ [smuggler] to secure a safe passage” (Murillo as cited in Villenas,
1998, p. 389). Student affairs professionals must seek to understand such
discomfort among Latino students, enhance programs and services to meet
their needs, and be genuinely engaged in developing personal relationships
with these students in order to aid in the retention of Latino students in
higher education.
Additionally, institutions need to target both the students and the parents
so that they can obtain a better understanding and trust in what a higher
education has to offer. By providing the necessary assistance, an increase
in attendance, retention, and graduation within the Latino community can
occur.

Model Programs
As more Latino students enroll in college, institutions of higher education

are feeling the need to adapt programming to this population because:
By the year 2025, 25 percent of school-age children in the

United States and 22 percent of the college-age population
will be Hispanic. In the nation’s largest states—California,
Texas, Florida, and New York—Hispanics already have
reached that level. (Santiago & Brown, 2004, p.2)
What can be done to help Latino students achieve success throughout their
path in college? Creating a variety of programs that address the needs of
Latino college students is a necessity for students in this group to excel.
Programs such as Puente Project can help to prepare Latino students for
higher education academic success. This program is utilized in 55 community
colleges and 36 high schools within California. The project’s mission is to
help students succeed in four-year institutions and return as mentors to their
respective communities (Puente Project, n.d.). The result of implementing a
program like this has been successful. Puente Project participants graduate
from high school at a rate of 88% while 47% of community college
participants transfer to four-year colleges.
Institutions that target specifically the needs of Hispanic students are

those considered to be Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs). The Hispanic
Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) defines HSIs as:
colleges, universities, or systems/districts where total

Hispanic enrollment constitutes a minimum of 25% of the
total enrollment. “Total Enrollment” includes full-time and
part-time students at the undergraduate or graduate level
(including professional schools) of the institution, or both
(i.e., headcount of for-credit students). (Hispanic Association
of Colleges and Universities, n.d., ¶1)
One such institution is California State University, Los Angeles. This

institution has created the Chicano/Latino Student Resource Center that:
[s]upported the advancement, recruitment, and retention

of the Latino student community while also enriching
the cultural and social awareness of the entire campus. By

presenting workshops, films, seminars, and other programs,
the center promoted cultural preservation, education and self-
determination related to the Chicano/Latino community.
(Santiago, D.A., Andrade, S.J., Brown, S.E., 2004, p.7)
Non-HSI classified institutions also have begun to implement Latino-

targeted programs. To better serve their Latino students, the University
of Texas at Austin has implemented resources to help their large Latino
populations succeed. An example of this has been the creation of the
Hispanic Center of Excellence College of Pharmacy at UT Austin whose:
[p]rograms are designed to promote the recruitment and

retention of Latino students and faculty, support their
research, and educate our students to better meet the needs
of culturally and linguistically diverse populations. In so
doing, we welcome and foster the enrichment that increased
diversity brings to the entire University and the community.
(University of Texas at Austin, n.d., ¶2)
Model programs like those mentioned show the impact Latinos are having
at various institutions and the commitment of student affairs professionals
to Latino college student success.
Benefits
The beneficial outcomes of attending and graduating from college are many.
Through attending college, Hispanic students become more knowledgeable
of the world around them, develop the ability to think critically, enhance
their ability to analyze situations and make decisions, and have greater
opportunities both personally and financially. According to Llagas and
Snyder (2003), Hispanic men age 25 and older who obtained a bachelor’s
degree earned on average $41,244 per year in 2000. This is $16,271 more
than Hispanic males who obtain a high school diploma. Hispanic females
of the same age who have a bachelor’s degree earn $28,531, which is
approximately $11,774 more than Hispanic female high school completers.
When comparing Hispanic men and women, women with a bachelor’s
degree earned $12,713 less a year than men. In contrast with African

American males, Hispanic males who obtained a bachelor’s degree earned
an average of $884 more a year.
Earning a college degree can help Hispanic students incorporate new values
and attitudes within those already established, opening the possibilities
for achieving greater goals in life. Additionally, the benefits of obtaining a
post-secondary education can also have an inter-generational effect, helping
to improve the opportunities available to the family’s future generations.
With a college degree, Hispanic students will be able to better guide their
children into college and can help encourage the attendance of other family
members.
Conclusion
The education Latino students receive today is crucial in determining

what positions they will hold tomorrow. Education not only makes Latino
students more productive members of society but also helps the Latino
community to have a voice in regard to matters that shape this important
American community. Latino students will continue to increase in numbers
in institutions of higher education. However, without the full commitment
of institutions to embrace Latino students, institutions will fail to properly
serve this population.
Institutions of higher education must realize that when working with

Latino college students, they cannot lure them to the institution with
false promises. Doing so will yield mistrust in the institution, not only in
the student, but also in the student’s entire family and friends. However,
institutions that are committed to reaching out and more importantly,
retaining, and graduating Latino students will be able to begin the building
process toward one of the most important elements most individuals seek, a
trusting relationship. It is critical that institutions of higher education take
the necessary steps to foster this type of relationship in order to increase
institutional diversification, to meet the demands of the labor force, and to
provide Latino students with the necessary tools to succeed. Institutions
have an obligation to attempt intentionally to meet the needs of and support
their diverse student populations.
Although Latino research is currently available, crucial factors facing

Latinos are not covered. Additional research that needs to be conducted
includes: various segments of the Latino college student population, such

as immigrant, nationalized, international, transfer, non-traditional, Greek,
athletes, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, Latino men, Latina women,
Latino parents, generational differences, single verses traditional family
upbringing, and working Latino students. Additionally, the diversity within
the Latino community also needs to be explored to better educate student
affairs professionals about the dynamics of this population. Attention also
must be paid to the attrition of Latino faculty, staff, and administrators in
higher education. As more Latinos attain positive experiences throughout
their college careers, projections indicate that an increase in Latino college
students will continue to make waves across the nation.

References
ACT News (2004). National Data Release. Retrieved on May 24, 2006 from
http://www.act.org/news/releases/2004/8-18-04.html
Asquith, C. (2006). Researching Latinas in crisis. In Anyaso, H.H. (Ed.),

Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(16), 6.
Bernstein, R. & Bergman, M. (2003). Young, diverse, urban. U.S. Census

Bureau News. Retrieved May 19, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/
Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-100.html
Brice, A.E. (2002). The Hispanic child: Speech, language, culture and education.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
Cartagena, C. (2005). Latino boom! Everything you need to know to grow your
business in the U.S. Hispanic market. New York: Ballantine Books.
Castellanos, J. & Jones, L. (2003). Latina/o undergraduate experiences in

American higher education. In Castellanos, J. & Jones, L. (Eds.), The
majority in the minority: Expanding the representation of Latina/o faculty,
administrators, and students in higher education, 1-13. Sterling, Virginia:
Stylus.
Cruzalegui, A. (2006). An immigrant’s future comes at price of hard labor.

Daily Sundial. Retrieved on July 3, 2006 from http://sundial.csun.edu/
media/storage/paper862/news/2006/07/03/News/An.Immigrants.
Future.Comes.At.Price.Of.Hard.Labor-2119852.shtml?norewrite2006
10262247&sourcedomain=sundial.csun.edu
Del Conte, N.T. (2006). Out of the shadows. In Lee, I. & Eilemberg, D.
(Eds.), Hispanic Magazine, 60-61.
Diaz, J. (2004). Latino? Hispanic? Which is it? Spanish speakers are divided,
and others are confused. Retrieved on September 26, 2006 from http://
www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/01/25/latino_hispanic_
which_is_it/?page=1
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development


Fiske, E.B. (2004). Lumina foundation focus: Introduction. Retrieved May
1, 2006 from http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/focus/
introduction.html
Fry, R. (2002). Latinos in higher education: Many enroll, too few graduate.
Retrieved February 6, 2006 from http://pewhispanic.org/files/
reports/11.pdf
Fry, R. (2004). Latino youth finishing college: The role of selective pathways.
Pew Hispanic Center. Retrieved on September 27, 2006 from http://
pewhispanic.org/files/reports/30.pdf
Gandara, P. & Bial, Bial, D. (2001). Paving the way to postsecondary education:
K-12 intervention programs for underrepresented youth (NCES 2001-205).
Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics.
Gloria, A.M., Castellanos, J., & Kamimura, M. (2006). Entendiendo la

historia de latina/os en el camino a la universidad (understanding the
history of latina/os on the road to the university): education for la raza
cosmica. In Castellanos, J., Gloria, A.M., & Kamimura, M. (Eds.) The
Latina/o pathway to the Ph.D.: Abriendo caminos. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Grieco, E.M. & Cassidy, R.C. (2001). Overview of race and Hispanic origin:
2000. Census 2000 Brief. U S Census Bureau. Retrieved September 21,
2006 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf
Griggs, S. & Dunn, R. (1996). Hispanic-American students and learning

style. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early
Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 393607).
Hernandez, J.C. (2002). A qualitative exploration of the first-year experience
of Latino college students. In NASPA Journal, 40(1), 69-84.
Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. (n.d.). Hispanic-serving

institution definitions. Retrieved on October 15, 2006 from http://www.
hacu.net/hacu/HSI_Definition_EN.asp?SnID=1773988048
Horwedel, D.M. (2006, May). For illegal college students, an uncertain

future. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 23(6) p.22-26.

Ibarra, R.A. (2001). Beyond affirmative action: Reframing the context of higher
education. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
Immigrant Legal Resources Center. (2006). Dangerous immigration legislation

pending in Congress! Retrieved online on October 21, 2006 from http://
www.ilrc.org/resources/hr4437_general.pdf
Jones, J.H. & Graham, D.E. (2006). Escondido council oks immigration ordinance
vote to bar illegal immigrant rentals draws hundreds. Retrieved online on
October 21, 2006 from http://deletetheborder.org/en/node/1579
Kojaku, L.K., Nuñez, A.M. (1998). Descriptive summary of 1995-96

beginning postsecondary students: With profiles of students entering 2- and
4-year institutions. Retrieved on August 19, 2006 from http://nces.
ed.gov/pubs2003/2003151.pdf
Laird, J., Lew, S., DeBell, M., Chapman, C. (2006). Dropout rates in the
United States: 2002 and 2003. Retrieved on May 17, 2006 from http://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006062.pdf
Levine, A., & Cureton, J.S. (1998). When hope and fear collide: A portrait
of today’s college student. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Llagas, C., & Snyder, T.D. (2003). Status and trends in the education of
Hispanics. Retrieved February 16, 2006 from http://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2003/2003008.pdf
Maslow. (n.d.). Abraham Maslow biography: Hierarchy of needs. Retrieved

online on October 21, 2006 from http://www.valuebasedmanagement.
net/leaders_maslow_hierarchy.html
Mitchell, R.L. (2001). Listen very loud: Paying attention in the student affairs
profession. Madison, WI: Atwood.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005a). Digest of education

statistics, 2005: Table 105 [Data file]. Available from National Center for
tables/dt05_105.asp

National Center for Education Statistics (2005b). Digest of education
tables/dt05_181.asp
National Center for Education Statistics (2005c). Digest of education

tables/dt05_206.asp
National Council of La Raza (2005). Latino Population Profiles by State.

Retrieved online on September 27, 2006 from http://www.nclr.org/
content/publications/detail/31926/
Ortiz, A.M. (2004). Promoting the success of Latino students: A call

to action. In Ortiz, A.M. (Ed.), Addressing the unique needs of Latino
American students. 105 (Spring 2004) (pp. 89-97). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Padron, E.J. (2006, April). The learning imperative. In Lee, I. & Eilemberg,
D. (Eds.), Hispanic Magazine, 14.
Passel, J.S, Capps, R., & Fix, M. (2004). Undocumented Immigrants: Facts and
Figures. Urban Institute Immigration Studies Program. Retrieved on
October 31, 2006 from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1000587_
undoc_immigrants_facts.pdf
Pew Hispanic Center. (2005). Hispanic Trends: A people in motion. Retrieved

on May 30, 2006 from http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/40.pdf
Pew Hispanic Center. (2006a). A statistical portrait of Hispanics at mid-decade.

Retrieved October 20, 2006 from http://pewhispanic.org/reports/
middecade/
Pew Hispanic Center. (2006b). Latino high school graduates enroll in

college at higher rates than whites, yet too few graduate. Press release.
Retrieved September, 2006 from http://pewhispanic.org/newsroom/
releases/release.php?ReleaseID=1
Pizarro, M. (2005). Chicanas and Chicanos in school: Racial profiling, identity

battles, and empowerment. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Puente Project. (n.d.). Fact sheet. Puente project. Retrieved June 4, 2006
from http://www.puente.net/printmaterials/General%20Info/factsheet.
pdf
Rodriguez, C.E. (n.d.). What it means to be Latino. Retrieved on October 19,

2006 from http://www.pbs.org/americanfamily/latino3.html
Santiago, D.A., Andrade, S.J., Brown, S.E. (2004). Latino student success at
Hispanic-serving institutions. Retrieve on April 4, 2006 from http://
www.edexcelencia.org/pdf/web-LSSatHSIs.pdf
Santiago, D.A., Brown, S.E. (2004). What works for Latino students. Retrieved
on April 4, 2006 from http://www.edexcelencia.org/pdf/whatworks2Ed-
new3.pdf
Snyder, T.D., Tan, A.G., Hoffman, C.M. (2006). Digest of education statistics,
2005. Retrieved July 14, 2006 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006030

2005, Vol. XLVIII, No. 1, Washington, DC

2006, Vol. XLVIII, No. 1, Washington, DC.
The Library of Congress. (2006). H.R.4437. Retrieved online on October

21, 2006 from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:
HR04437:@@@D&summ2=m&
The National Public Radio (2002). NPR special report: Educating Latinos.
Retrieved July 17, 2006 from http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/
features/2002/nov/educating_latinos/index.html
Torres,V.,Howard-Hamilton,M.F.,Cooper,D.L.(2003).Identity development
of diverse populations: Implications for teaching and administration in higher
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Projected population of the United States, by race:
2000 to 2050. “U.S. Interim Projections by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic
Origin.” Retrieved March 31, 2006 from http://www.census.gov/ipc/
www/usinterimproj/

U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Fact sheet. Retrieved August 31, 2006 from
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_
id=01000US&_geoC
University of Texas at Austin. (2005). Hispanic center of excellence college

of pharmacy. Retrieved on May 1, 2006 from http://www.utexas.edu/
pharmacy/hcoe/index.html
Villenas, S. (1998). The colonizer/colonized Chicana ethnographer: Identity,

marginalization, and co-optation in the field. In A. Woyshner & H.
Gelfond (Eds.), Minding Women: Reshaping the Educational Realm, (pp.
389-410). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Knocking at the college door – 1988-2018. Boulder, CO: WICHE
Publications. 22, 2006 from http://www.wiche.edu/policy/knocking/
1988%2D2018/
Zurita, M. (2005). Stopping out and persisting: Experiences of Latino

undergraduates. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(3), 301-324.

CHAPTER 16
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Students

Annemarie Vaccaro
In one short chapter, it is impossible to cover all the material related to gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students. In the following pages, readers
will find an overview of GLBT definitions, identity development, challenges
faced, and recommendations for inclusive student affairs practice. Both
classic and recent research studies from higher education and other fields
provide a foundation for this chapter. In the following pages, readers will
find a broad exploration of the GLBT literature, not merely research done
with college students. Such research is plentiful, as a large number of GLBT
research studies use participants who range in age from adolescence through
the mid-20s. Student affairs professionals and graduate students can benefit
from this breadth of research, as it is important to understand from where
incoming, first-year students are coming. Adolescent GLBT experiences
and identity development shape not merely their college applications, but
also expectations and experiences once students arrive on campus.
What Does it Mean to be Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgender?
Answering this question is not an easy task. Although the acronym GLBT
suggests a common entity or group, there are a number of important
differences. These distinctions are made throughout the chapter. Two
significant differences should be made before proceeding with an in-depth
discussion of definitions. Being gay, lesbian, or bisexual refers to someone’s
sexual orientation. It is also important to comment on the use of language.
The term gay has many different meanings in the literature. It has often
been used as an umbrella term to include anyone who is not heterosexual.
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Students 349

However, more recent literature uses the term gay to refer to men only. The
terms lesbian and bisexual are often used in conjunction with gay to signify
the diversity of people with sexual orientations that are not exclusively
heterosexual. The term transgender relates to an individual’s sense of gender
identity, not sexual orientation. Students who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual are
not necessarily transgender while students who identify as transgender can
be of any sexual orientation, including heterosexual. Why these groups of
people are lumped together is complex. If there were a gender chapter in this
book, transgender students would be discussed there, as being transgender is
about a person’s sense of gender identity. However, transgender students are
included here and nationally in the GLBT acronym because they sometimes
face challenges similar to those of gay, lesbian, and bisexual students.
There are a plethora of definitions and descriptions about sexual orientation.

This is partly because scholars have not always agreed upon the components
to be included in a definition of sexual orientation. A variety of variables,
including same-sex attractions and behaviors have been used to identify gay,
lesbian, and bisexual research participants. Other studies have included other
factors such as self-labeling and time between same-sex behaviors (Hewitt,
1998). Such lack of consistency is problematic for comparison across studies.
More importantly, some studies have called into question the assumption
that either same-sex attraction or behavior alone is a good indicator of a
gay or lesbian identity (Diamond, 2003; Laumann, Gagnon, Michael &
Michaels, 1994). A number of studies have shown that individuals can engage
in same-sex intimate relations or fantasies, yet not adopt a GLB identity
(Baumeister, 2000; Diamond, 2003; Diamant, Schuster, McGuigan &
Lever, 1999). This research revealed the complexity and long-term nature of
identity development. For student affairs practitioners, this often conflicting
literature should teach us that a singular definition of sexual orientation may
be over-simplistic and insufficient when creating policy, planning events,
and working with individual students.
In the following paragraphs, classic studies on sexual orientation (Kinsey,

Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard,
1953) and a newer model of identity are discussed (Klein, 1993). Kinsey, the
pioneering researcher, and his colleagues, grounded their sexual orientation
research on a continuum scale, which relied on erotic responses and intimate
behavior (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy,
Martin, & Gebhard, 1953). On this “Kinsey scale,” as it is generally described,

participants were asked to rate their responses to both men and women on
a scale of 0–6. The scale represented a continuum of feelings and behaviors,
not merely a yes/no response pattern. This research suggested that there is
more to orientation than being exclusively gay or straight. Almost three
decades after Kinsey’s research, Klein (1993) developed a sexual orientation
grid (KSOG) that recognized that sexual orientation is far more than just
feelings and behaviors. Klein’s model acknowledged that individuals can have
a combination of same- and opposite-sex attractions, behaviors, fantasies,
social and emotional preferences, and lifestyles. For Klein, self-identification
as gay, lesbian, or bisexual is also part of a complex identity.
There are two key factors worth noting in Klein’s model. First, it accounts for
past and present experiences along with ideal or future expectations. Many
contemporary scholars believe that sexual orientation can change over time
(Baumeister, 2000; Brown, 1995, Diamond, 1998, 2003; Laumann, Gagnon,
Michael & Michaels, 1994; Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, 1994). Second,
sexual orientation is not dualistic, it accounts for a broad spectrum of
identities, including gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Although there are
similarities, each of these groups has unique experiences and developmental
differences.
The term transgender is an umbrella term that describes a variety of people

and groups such as: transsexuals, intersexed individuals, drag kings, drag
queens, transvestites (pre-, post-, and non-operative), or anyone who bends
traditional notions and norms of gender. In general, transgender people are
“individuals of any age or sex whose appearance, personal characteristics, or
behaviors differ from stereotypes about how men and women are ‘supposed’
to be” (Currah & Minter, 2000, p. 3). Someone’s “gender identity refers
to a person’s internal, deeply felt sense of being either male or female, or
something other or in between” (Currah & Minter, 2000, p. 3). Identifying or
labeling oneself as transgender can be a challenge to the normative view that
there is a female and male gender only and that there are certain acceptable
appearances and behaviors associated with those genders. Because the term
transgender is an umbrella term, it includes a variety of people who view
their gender in unique and diverse ways. For instance, an intersexed person
who is born with ambiguous genitalia will likely experience gender identity
in a different way than transsexuals or drag kings.
Although transgender individuals are often grouped with gay men, lesbians,
and bisexuals, transgender people can be of any sexual orientation including

gay, lesbian, bisexual, straight, or asexual. Because transgender people
bend gender norms, they are generally assumed to be gay or lesbian; thus,
transgender people experience much of the same prejudice, discrimination,
and violence as their gay and lesbian counterparts. This is one of the reasons
for their inclusion in the GLB community. However, little research is
available on the experiences of transgender students, yet it is important
not to marginalize this group or make it more invisible than it is already.
Throughout this chapter, information on transgender students is shared in
two ways. First, literature about transgender people is described in separate
sentences or paragraphs. Additionally, research or literature that includes
transgender people along with gays, lesbians, and bisexuals is noted with the
GLBT acronym, while only GLB is used elsewhere.
Prevalence of GLBT Students
There is little agreement about the prevalence of gay, lesbian, or bisexual

people (GLB) in the general population and less agreement about numbers
of GLB college students. The problem of definitions causes some of the
issues related to counting, as some research focuses on behavior while other
studies center on attraction or self-identification. Billy, Tanfer, Grady, and
Klepinger (1993) studied the sexual behavior of American men aged 20–39.
Using data from the National Survey of Men, 2.4% of White men and 1.3%
of Black men reported same-gender sexual activity within the past 10 years.
Kinsey et al. is famous for the widely cited, though most likely inaccurate,
statistic describing 10% of the population as gay (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin,
& Gebhard 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953). This research
cannot be generalized, as non-probability sampling was used. Only one other
study suggested that approximately 10% of college students identify as gay,
lesbian, bisexual, or questioning (Ellis, 1996). Other research has suggested
lower prevalence. Based on the findings of several studies, Hewitt (1998)
concluded that there “is remarkable agreement among the studies. The
proportion describing themselves as gay or bisexual averages slightly more
than 3%, while those who say they had sex with a man in the previous year
averages about 2%” (p. 5). Authors of the Gay and Lesbian ATLAS estimate
that 3% of the population is gay or lesbian (Gates & Ost, 2004). Yet, they
acknowledge that they cannot know for sure. Thus, little agreement exists

about the prevalence of GLB people in the general population or on college
campuses.
Even less information is available about the prevalence of transgender

students on campus. There are a number of difficulties in measurement.
Some individuals who may be labeled as transgender actually self-identify
as male or female. In some of these instances a person’s biological sex does
not match his or her gender identity. For instance, a biological male may
be in transition or may feel inside that she is a woman, and might identify
as female when asked. Conversely, other transgender people, especially
transsexuals, may choose to adopt transgender or gender variant identity as
a political position to rebel against binary notions of gender (Carroll, Gilroy
& Ryan, 2002). For others, no term or label seems sufficient. One research
participant who had transitioned from a biological woman described the
situation as follows:
I am not comfortable labeling myself as just a man. For me

it’s too limiting. To call myself only a man is to deny my
history—the 24 years I spent living in a visibly female body,
and my present, in which I continue to live in a body, that
after hormones and some surgery, persists in being neither
female nor wholly male. (Hansbury, 2005, p. 252)
What is more important than the numbers or percentages of GLBT

college students are the reasons why there are not accurate statistics. First,
identifying as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender is a process. Students
asked at different points of their college career might identify as straight
then come out as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender later. Thus, sexual
orientation and gender identity can change over time. Second, transgender
students may not have the option of sharing their identity, as many university
forms and surveys only offer male and female demographic options. Finally,
as will be discussed at length in a later section, discrimination, hatred, and
violence against GLBT people is a reality—one that keeps many people from
sharing their identity with others (Comstock, 1991; D’Augelli, 1989, 1992;
D’Augelli and Rose, 1990; Evans, 2001; Herek, 1991; Stevens, 2004).
The lack of information about sexual orientation and transgender identity

leads to a host of gaps for student development practitioners. We cannot
know if or how gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students differ from
straight students in persistence, graduation rates, participation in clubs

and organizations, or a host of other variables. Because of this, effective
practice is limited to working with students who are comfortable being out
or open about their sexual orientation or gender identity. Creation of policy,
procedures, and interventions is further limited by this lack of statistical
information.
Heterosexism, Homophobia, Biphobia, & Transphobia
To fully understand identity development and the experiences of gay,

lesbian, bisexual, and transgender college students, two concepts are key:
heterosexism and homophobia. “Homophobia is the fear and hatred of
those who love and sexually desire those of the same-sex” (Blumenfeld, 2000,
p. 263). Hostility, prejudice, negative attitudes and discrimination are all
hallmarks of this phobia (Herek, 1996). The terms transphobia and biphobia
are sometimes used in lieu of homophobia to describe unique experiences of
transgender and bisexual people (Blumenfeld, 2000; Carroll, Gilroy & Ryan,
2002). Heterosexism is the “institutionalization of a heterosexual norm or
standard, which establishes and perpetuates the notion that all people are
or should be heterosexual” (Blumenfeld, 2000, p. 262). As will be discussed
later, the challenges faced by GLBT college students are rooted in these
phenomena (Comstock, 1991; D’Augelli, 1989, 1992; D’Augelli & Rose,
1990; Herek, Gillis & Cogan, 1999). Being outside the norm has significant
implications for identity development.
Identity Development
As the definition of sexual orientation is complex, so are the models of

identity development for gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals. Over the
past few decades, a plethora of identity development theories have emerged
(Cass, 1979; Chapman and Brannok, 1987; Coleman, 1982; D’Augelli, 1994;
D’Augelli and Patterson, 1995; Fassinger and Miller, 1996; McDonald, 1982,
1989; Sophie, 1986; Stevens, 2004; Trioden, 1979, 1989). However, very
little information exists about transgender identity, and what is available is
generally anecdotal information about individual experiences.
It would be impossible to summarize all of the information on sexual

identity or gender development in this chapter. Instead, common themes
and trends found in these theories are presented. A few paragraphs are
dedicated to more recent studies that recognize that a singular gay identity
may not be sufficient. This section begins with a brief overview of Cass’

(1979) model of identity development. This theory was chosen not because
it is necessarily the best theory, but because it is the most widely used theory
by student development practitioners, as evidenced by the many citations
in student affairs journals, and is used in foundational texts such as Student
Development in College: Theory, Research and Practice (Evans, Forney, and
Guido-DiBrito, 1998). Further, many of Cass’ (1979) ideas were used in
later identity models.
Cass’ (1979) model, derived from clinical work with gays and lesbians, has
six stages through which people recognize and adapt to a non-heterosexual
identity. In the first stage, Identity Confusion, people have initial awareness
that they are different from the heterosexual norm. A host of feelings, both
positive but mostly negative, can accompany this awareness. In the second
stage, Identity Comparison, people compare their orientation to others and
explore the positive and negative implications of living in a society where
they are different. Individuals confront the possibility of being isolated and
socially alienated from both larger society and loved ones because of their
orientation. Identity Tolerance is the third stage. At this point, individuals
attempt to tolerate their new identity, learn more about themselves, and
make connections with other GLB people. Through these relationships,
they can combat isolation while learning that there are unique needs that
accompany a GLB identity. In stage four, Identity Acceptance, people move
to a positive realm of identity where they begin to shape what a gay or
lesbian identity means for their personal and social lives. They may begin to
come out or disclose their gay identity to select individuals while refraining
from doing so in other settings. Identity Pride is the fifth stage and is
generally a time of being publicly out and active. Individuals might even
immerse themselves in gay subculture. The final stage is Identity Synthesis,
where being gay or lesbian becomes one of the many important identities
and roles in a person’s life. At this stage, an individual has a more congruent
public and private persona, making his or her outward and internal identity
a holistic one (Cass, 1979).
Many themes emerge from a review of GLB identity models (Cass, 1979;
Chapman and Brannok, 1987; Coleman, 1982; D’Augelli, 1994; D’Augelli
and Patterson, 1995; Fassinger and Miller, 1996; McDonald, 1982, 1989;
Sophie, 1986; Stevens, 2004; Trioden, 1979, 1988). Instead of listing phases
or stages, some theories have described milestones or tasks that gays and
lesbians experience during the course of their lives (D’Augelli, 1994; Garnets

and Kimmel, 1993; McDonald, 1982). A few of these milestones relate to
claiming a GLB self-identity, coming out or disclosing that identity to
others, creating intimate relationships, and entering the GLB community.
These milestones happen at different times and in different ways. Some
trends in early GLB identity development include confusion, first awareness
of difference, discomfort, self hatred, or mere tolerance for being different.
Most models have suggested that people move from a position of self-
dislike to an increasingly more comfortable and accepted sense of self.
Later in development, a theme of exploration emerges. Individuals look
deep within themselves and begin to explore the GLB community. Later
stages of identity generally include issues of pride, activism, empowerment,
commitment to self-identification, and connection to the GLB community.
Finally, an integrated identity, where sexual orientation is one of many
important aspects, is also a theme in the literature (Cass, 1979; Coleman,
1982 Fassinger and Miller, 1996).
Another important overarching theme is that of a minority development

process (Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Garnets, 2002; Pachankis, 2004). Garnets
(2002) described a number of experiences faced by minority groups that
influence development, including stereotypes, hostility, discrimination, group
solidarity, and identity development rooted in the challenge of oppression.
However, some researchers argued that being able to pass as straight makes
the GLB population markedly different from other visible minority groups
(Garnets, 2002; Pope, 1995). Nonetheless, GLB individuals must develop
a sense of self within a society where they are not the norm and where
they hold a marginalized status. As is described later in the chapter, GLB
individuals may experience not only rejection, but outright violence because
of this identity. Being socialized into a culture where being gay is stigmatized
can also lead to internalized homophobia or self-hatred. In his qualitative
study, Stevens (2004) found that all of his male participants experienced
internalized homophobia.
Lesbian Identity
One of the challenges of discussing identity development is the diversity of

theories that are available. Some theories purport to describe the experiences
of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Yet, some scholars argue it is impossible for
a singular model to reflect the unique experiences of male and female sexual
identity (Reynolds & Hanjorgiris, 2000; Yarhouse, 2001). Since some of
the pioneering studies were done with mostly male participants, researchers

have begun to study lesbian and bisexual women to determine if and how
traditional theory describes these populations adequately (Chapman &
Brannock, 1987; Diamond, 1998, 2000, 2003; Rust, 1992; 1993; Weinberg,
Williams & Pryor, 1994). Highlights from this literature are briefly
mentioned here.
McCarn and Fassinger (1996) proposed a model of lesbian identity

formation that suggested separate aspects of individual and group identity
formation, as opposed to intertwined concepts found in most other GLB
identity models. Lesbian identity is thus two pronged with awareness,
exploration, deepening commitment/internalization, or synthesis, and
possibly happening on different timelines for a woman’s individual versus
her group membership identity.
Fluidity of orientation, strength of orientation, and change in self-

identification seem to be themes in lesbian literature more often than
the general sexual orientation literature (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1990;
Diamond, 2003; Kitzinger & Wilkinson, 1995). Studies with lesbian
and bisexual women affirmed the complex interplay between attraction,
behavior, lifestyle and lesbian or bisexual identification. In a longitudinal
study with 80 non-heterosexual women, Diamond (2003) found that one
quarter of the women who changed identity from lesbian or bisexual back to
a heterosexual one, reported less same-sex behavior, but no less attraction to
other women. Further, all women in this study acknowledged the possibility
of having same-sex relationships again in the future. Other research showed
that women describe their identity process as including not only attractions
and behavior, but also cognitive factors, such as the rejection of dominant
ideology that purports heterosexuality as normative and sexuality as dualistic
(Blumstein & Schwartz, 1990; Esterberg, 1994; Nichols, 1990; Whisman,
1996). Abes and Jones (2004) suggested that lesbian identity and cognitive
complexity are intertwined, as making meaning of gender and sexual
orientation identities is complex. Adding social and political perspectives
into lesbian and female bisexual identity development makes it unique to
much of the general GLB literature.
Bisexual Identity
Many of the well-known gay and lesbian models of identity development

(Cass, 1979; Chapman & Brannock, 1987; Troiden, 1988) either marginalize
or did not acknowledge bisexual identity. However, some authors, namely

Cass and Troiden, have more recently recognized bisexuality, as an identity
of its own. There are some theories (Rust, 1992 & 1993; Blumstein &
Schwartz, 2000) that have acknowledged bisexuality as an identity apart
from heterosexuality and homosexuality.
A significant difference between bisexual identity development and

traditional research with gays and lesbians is that bisexuals have reported
first same-sex attractions at later ages (Fox, 1995). The result is later self-
identity and disclosure, usually happening anywhere from late adolescence to
early 20s; timing that may coincide with college application and entry (Fox,
1995). Beemyn (2003) and Lees (1998) suggested that college campuses are
also often the first places where transgender students explore their gender
identity. Conversely, GLB students in D’Augelli, Grossman, and Stark’s
(2005) study reported first same-sex attractions occurring at the average
age of 10. These gay and lesbian students made their first disclosures at the
age of 14.5 and first disclosed their sexuality to a parent at 14.9 years of age.
Such significant differences in age range of coming out for gays and lesbians,
as opposed to bisexuals and transgender students, is significant for higher
education practitioners. The age ranges cited in these studies may imply that
the coming out process for bisexuals and transgender students may happen
on campus (for traditional-age students), but might have already occurred
in high school for many gay men and lesbians (Beemyn, 2003; D’Augelli,
Grossman & Stark, 2005; Lees, 1998). Campus interventions should reflect
the differential development and needs of these groups.
Transgender Students
Almost no research is available on transgender identity development. One

reason for this gap is that the umbrella term encompasses so many different
types of experiences, identities, and transitions. For instance, the identity
development of an intersexed person will likely be different from a drag
king, a transsexual, or any of the other groups included in the definition.
That said, it is likely that transgender people experience some of the same
themes as GLB people, as heterosexism, transphobia, and homophobia can
be realities of daily life. They, too, hold a minority or marginalized status
in society where being transgender is not accepted. Only one model was
found to describe identity development and it was specific to only a portion
of the T population, transsexuals. Devor (2004) proposed a 14-stage model
of transsexual identity that included many of the same experiences found
in GLB models, including: discovery, confusion, comparison, tolerance,

acceptance, and integration. Far more research must be done to understand
the complex stages and patterns in which these, and other themes, occur in
the lives of transgender students.
Race/ Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation
Proposing a singular GLB identity is also problematic because other social

identities intersect to create unique experiences for people. It was not possible
to cover all of the different social identities, nor was research readily available.
There is a significant amount of literature related to the intersections of
sexual orientation and race/ethnicity. Some of that literature is included
here. As mentioned previously, GLBT people experience prejudice and
discrimination as do other minority groups (Bell and Weinberg, 1978;
Garnets, 2002; Pachankis, 2004). However, one of the distinct differences
between racial identity and GLB identity is that gay, lesbian, and bisexual
people must come out to family. Families of color not only know their child’s
race, but they usually share in the experiences and developmental challenges
related to their racial identity. Conversely, GLB people of color face the
unique developmental task of coming out to and educating their families
about their marginal GLB status (Elliott, 1990). Similarly, transgender
youth rarely have role models or family members to help them through
questions, challenges, and transitions (Hansbury, 2005).
One of the major themes in this literature is the recognition that navigating
a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender identity within particular ethnic
subcultures can be challenging (Icard, 1986; Martinez and Sullivan, 1998;
Robertson, 1997; Savin-Williams, 1996; Wooden, Kowasaki & Mayeda,
1983). GLB people of color sometimes feel like they are forced to choose
between a cultural or GLB identity (Chan, 1989, 1995). GLB people of
color must negotiate between dominant heterosexual, white culture, their
ethnic subculture, and the GLB community (Garnets & Kimmel, 1991;
Greene, 2000, Rust, 1996). In searching for a sense of community, GLB
people of color often face racism in predominately White, gay communities
and heterosexism and homophobia in their ethnic communities, sometimes
leaving them isolated and alone (Greene, 1994; Stevens, 2004). A few
empirical studies show the impact this has in communities of color. Rosario,
Scrimshaw, and Hunter (2004) found that Blacks and Latinos came out to
fewer people, and Blacks were involved in fewer gay related activities than
their White counterparts. Such behavioral differences have not been shown

to impede identity formation, but they certainly may delay the achievement
of a holistic or integrated GLB identity.
Student affairs practitioners must be aware of the complexities of

development for students of color. Literature about unwelcoming or hostile
campus climates for students of color abounds (Bowman & Smith, 2002;
Chang, 2000; Feagin, Vera & Imani, 1996; Hurtado, 2002; Tatum, 1992). To
support students, practitioners must recognize and address racism in GLBT
student organizations and also be vigilant about addressing heterosexism
and homophobia in organizations of color. Both GLBT and students of
color groups are intended to provide a safe space and sense of community for
marginalized individuals. Yet, GLBT students of color might not experience
safety or community in either place.
Coming Out
As Waldo (1998) noted, “although many LGB students claim their

identities in their college environments, these same contexts are often
fraught with hostility and abuse in reaction to these visible identities” (pp.
747-8). Disclosing one’s sexual orientation, or coming out, is a complex and
constant process, one that combines internal and external recognition of
identity (Liang & Alimo, 2005; Fassinger & Miller, 1996). Every time GLB
people meet someone new or enter a new group, they must decide whether
or not to reveal their sexual orientation or gender identity. The milestone
of coming out is one that people do over and over again. Evans and Broido
(1999) suggested that gays and lesbians make decisions to come out to three
distinct entities; themselves, other GLB people, and to heterosexuals. In
reality, gay, lesbian, and bisexual students must decide whether or not to
disclose or hide their sexual orientation every time they meet a new faculty,
staff, or fellow student. Higher education practitioners can imagine the
enormity of this responsibility when estimating the number of new people
students can meet on a daily basis.
Responses to coming out can be positive and affirming, yet most studies
reveal reactions that are far less welcoming and accepting. GLB individuals
and groups can be an incredible support to students during the coming out
process, but they can also pressure people to come out of the closet before they
are ready (Evans and Broido, 1999). Although families are not necessarily on
campus with students, they can play a large role in the coming out process
(Stevens, 2004). Some families welcome their children with open arms,

yet research has shown that families are less than positive in their reaction.
Some literature even compares the familial response to the process of loss
and grieving (Dahlleimer & Feigal, 1994; Pachenkis & Goldfried, 2004).
Likewise, transgender relatives can experience anger, denial, or depression
when their loved one begins coming out or transitioning (Zamboni, 2006).
Given these responses, one recent study showed that although relatives
typically react negatively they become more open and accepting as time passes
(Savin-Williams, 2001). Nonetheless, relationships between students and
their relatives generally must be reformed and connections re-established.
Some college students come out on campus but remain closeted to their
families. Such situations can become difficult during school breaks, family
weekends, and graduation. Trying to hide one’s identity from family can
cause stress, pressure, and guilt (Brown, 1988; Pachenkis & Goldfried, 2004;
Stevens, 2004). Recognition of the varying amounts of pain and distress
caused by family dynamics is important, as GLB college students might be
dealing with significant wounds. Some might be trying to survive without
support from family. GLBT students who are estranged from their families
can loose not only emotional support, but also financial support. Losing
college tuition can be devastating to students, forcing them to leave their
institutions or struggle to make it on their own.
Two recent college studies found that disclosure was a key factor in
solidifying a gay identity (Rosario, Schrimshaw & Hunter, 2004; Stevens,
2004). Research from psychology and counseling has shown that coming
out is related to positive development while passing or hiding one’s identity
can result in lower self esteem or have other psychologically damaging
effects (Berger, 1982; Freedman, 1971;Weinberg & Williams, 1974). In their
study of 2,041 lesbian and bisexual women, Morris, Waldo, and Rothblum
(2001) found that being more “out” or open about one’s sexual orientation
predicted lower rates of psychological distress. Similarly, transgender
people can experience pain in hiding their gender identity. For instance,
transgender people describe both emotional and physical burdens associated
with deciding when and where it is safe to dress or act differently from
the norm (Beemyn, 2003; Gray, 2000). In spite of these findings, positive
effects of coming out include dignity, pride, empowerment, and relief that

one is being true to oneself (Cass, 1979; Morris, Waldo & Rothblum, 2001;
Stevens, 2004).
Coming out is an aspect of most developmental models. However, some

researchers are wary of making coming out a requirement for later stages
of identity development. They see it as a process that happens differently
depending on the environment, the people, and relative safety felt by the
individual (Rasmussen, 2004; Yarhouse, 2001). In their qualitative study
with 20 gay, lesbian, and bisexual college students living in residence halls,
Evans and Broido (1999) concluded that coming out was indeed more of
a continuous assessment of environment than solely a developmental stage.
Students were out in particular situations, such as in their residence halls,
and in the closet in other settings such as work or in particular classrooms.
Unique Challenges for the GLB Population
Campus Climate: Discrimination, Harassment, and Violence
The most challenging and negative issues faced by GLB students are
generally rooted in heterosexism and/or homophobia, with the most extreme
forms of hate associated with violence and discrimination. Violence, verbal
harassment, and threats are a reality for GLB people in general and for
college GLB students in particular (Comstock, 1991; D’Augelli, 1989,
1992; D’Augelli & Rose, 1990; Herek, Gillis & Cogan, 1999). According to
Rankin (2003), “More than one-third (36 percent) of LGBT undergraduate
students have experienced harassment within the past year” (p. 4). Of those
students, derogatory remarks were the most common source of harassment.
In addition, some 51% of GLB students in that study remained closeted in
order to avoid intimidation. Similarly, D’Augelli (1992) found that almost
three-quarters of gays and lesbians experienced verbal abuse and almost
one-quarter were threatened with violence while in college. Since they push
traditional gender boundaries, and are thus assumed to be gay, transgender
people are equally, if not more, at risk for hate crimes. In fact, transgender
people account for as much as 20% of reported GLBT murder cases (Currah
& Minter, 2000). Less overt, but equally as significant as physical violence
and verbal assaults, is the overall campus climate for GLBT students.

Climate is the result of a variety of things, including but not limited to
policies, practices, and the attitudes and behaviors of others.
Over the past quarter of a century, attitudes toward gays and lesbians have
grown more positive (Yang, 2000). In a 2005 study of college students, Liang
and Alimo (2005) found that pre-college attitudes were generally positive
and that there was an increase in positive attitudes over time at school. Since
1976, surveys from the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) have
asked entering freshmen students at four-year institutions if there should
be laws prohibiting same-sex relationships. The chart below shows that the
percentage of students who agree or strongly agree with this statement has
declined.
Figure 16.1 Percentage of Incoming Freshmen Agreeing Strongly or Somewhat Strongly that
Laws Should Prohibit Homosexual Activity
55
50
45
40
Percentage
35
30
25
20
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Source (1976-2001 data): Astin, Osequera, Sax, & Korn, (2002); (1997-2005 data source) The
American freshman: Forty-year trends (2007)
Even with the trend toward more positive opinions, hostility is still present
on college campuses. Studies have shown that these negative attitudes are
prevalent, and can create unwelcoming and possibly dangerous environments
for GLBT students (Evans, 2001, 2002; Evans & Broido, 1999; Love,
1997; 1998; Rhoads, 1994, 1995, 1997). Not only students, but also large

proportions of GLBT educators experience this negative climate. Almost
half of the educators in one study described their campus climate as poor
(Myrick & Brown, 1998). Waldo (1998) provided evidence that straight
students rated campus climates much more positively than did GLB
students. However, both gay and straight students can witness hostility on
campus. Bowen and Bourgeois’ (2001) study evidenced that heterosexual
students rated themselves seemingly high in terms of comfort with GLB
residents in a residence hall, but acknowledged that the “typical college
student” is homophobic. However, even among student leaders, those
who can inspire change and openness in their peers, heterosexist attitudes
can be found (Horne, Rice, & Israel, 2004). Some studies (Eliason, 1996,
1997) showed that heterosexuals find bisexuality even less acceptable
than homosexuality. Eliason (1997) administered the Beliefs about Sexual
Minorities Questionnaire (BSM) to 320 undergraduate students. Survey
results showed that bisexuals received higher ratings in the categories of
“disapproval” and “disgust” than did lesbians or gay men.
Where on campus do students experience prejudice and discrimination?

Homophobia and heterosexism are prevalent in all corners of society and
in most campus spaces. Interviews with college students show athletics and
fraternities can be unwelcoming areas for gay, lesbian, and bisexual students
(Rhoads, 1997; Windmeyer & Freeman, 1998). Studies have also shown
residence halls to be especially difficult places for gay, lesbian, and bisexual
students (Evans & Broido, 1999; Rhoads, 1995, 1997). Since students spend
much time interacting closely with others, hiding one’s sexual orientation
or gender identity is problematic for those who are not out, and can be
dangerous for those who are. Classrooms, intended to be bastions of learning,
can also be spaces where heterosexism, homophobia, and transphobia are
sometimes espoused or ignored by professors and students alike (Lopez &
Chism, 1993; Rhoads, 1997). Finally, GLBT students are subjected to anti-
gay signs, vandalism, and propaganda on campus walkways, bulletin boards,
bathrooms, and in other public spaces.
Some sexual orientation literature has shown a relationship between gender

and negative attitudes toward GLB people. First, hostile and intolerant
attitudes seem to be directed more toward gay men than lesbians (Hewitt
& Moore, 2002). Second, many studies have shown that women tend to
have more open perspectives and are more accepting of gays and lesbians
than men (D’Augelli & Rose, 1990; Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1997; Brown,

Clarke, Gortmaker & Robinson-Keilig, 2004; Herek, 2002; Liang & Alimo,
2005; Simoni, 1996). Differential acceptance by gender may be related to
issues of masculinity (Kaufman, 1998). This connection between gender and
sexual orientation can encourage fear and hate toward transgender people,
too. By nature of their being, transgender people can call into question if a
fixed or absolute sense of manhood or womanhood really exists. This can
be especially challenging to men who might be trying hard to hold on to
traditional notions of what it means to identify as a real, masculine man
(Kimmel & Messner, 1998).
Impact of Campus Climate
Campus climate can influence all aspects of GLBT student’s lives. It tells
them where and when it might not be safe to walk alone or study. It also
impacts students in ways that might never be considered. For instance,
Tomlinson and Fassinger (2003) found lesbian identity to be less salient in
positive environments and more salient in negative ones. More specifically,
in that study, the use of campus resources, such as the career center, was
influenced by the heterosexist and homophobic climate on campus.
Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender can influence academic lives of

students. Although higher levels of education is an established covariate of
being gay (Black, Gates, Sanders & Taylor, 2000), gay adolescents reported
high levels of school performance deterioration. In Remafedi’s (1987)
qualitative study of 29 adolescents aged 15–19, 80% reported deteriorated
school performance, mental health issues, and substance abuse. Studies
with college students revealed similar struggles. During interviews with
GLB college students, Lopez and Chism (1993) found that academic
work was affected during the coming out process, as students had difficulty
concentrating.
Studies from counseling and psychology revealed a variety of additional

issues faced by GLB young people. Living in a heterosexist and homophobic
environment can have significant effects on mental and physical health.
Szymanski (2005) concluded that correlates of such distress included recent
hate crime victimization, sexist events, and internalized heterosexism.
Unhappiness with self can lead to eating disorders, which have been shown
to be of particular concern for gay males (Russell & Keel, 2002). An extreme
effect of psychological distress can be thoughts or attempts at taking one’s
own life. One of the better documented correlates of homosexuality is

suicidality (Plöderl and Fartacek, 2005). D’Augelli, Grossman, Salter,
Vasey, Starks, and Sinclair (2005) studied suicidal tendencies among 528
gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths aged 15–19. Of their sample, 31% reported
having attempted suicide in some manner.
All of these psychological problems can add an inordinate amount of stress,

in addition to the common stressors already experienced by college students.
Student affairs professionals must be vigilant in identifying warning signs
and intervening. Making sure students are connected to the appropriate
resources, such as counseling centers, is paramount.
As a result of many of the aforementioned challenges, it is possible that

GLBT students are presenting at college with different levels of interpersonal
competence than their heterosexual peers. Struggles of coming out to oneself
and to others can exasperate other forms of development. As practitioners,
it is helpful to remember that, if developmental tasks in some areas are not
mastered, it is possible that others can be delayed (Pope, 1995). For instance,
struggles with identity development can influence not only the management
of emotions and development of relationships, but can also potentially
impact a host of other developmental tasks (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).
Managing emotions can be of particular trouble to students struggling

through the coming out process. In their study of 90 self-identified gay
men, Allen and Oleson (1999) found evidence of significant levels of shame
associated with being gay. According to Radlowsky and Siegel (1997),
“Peer acceptance, exploration of intimate relationships, individuation, and
formation of a positive identity are all hindered because these youth are
generally taught to despise a vital part of themselves” (p. 212). Further,
harassment, violence and a negative campus climate can cause a variety of
emotions that gay, lesbian, and bisexual people must handle. Managing so
many powerful emotions can be a difficult developmental task.
GLBT students may also experience challenges with developing mature

interpersonal relationships (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Supportive peer
and mentoring relationships are enormously important for GLBT students
(Stevens, 2004), as they serve as primary sources of support (Kurdek &
Schmidt, 1987; Smith, 2004). However, GLBT students can experience a
host of hurdles in forging intimate relationships. Because the coming out
process may take time, GLB youth often begin dating at later ages than their
straight peers (Diamond, 2003). GLB individuals might take longer periods

of time to develop mature relationships, since they get a later start than their
heterosexual counterparts. Additionally, heterosexism and homophobia
make safety and legal legitimacy of same-sex relationships problematic.
GLBT people can experience hurdles in justifying the existence, significance,
and function of their intimate relationships (Pachankis & Goldfried, 2004).
Transgender students can also face the challenge of finding a partner who
understands and accepts them for who they are and the gender they believe
themselves to be. As mentioned previously, transgender people hold a variety
of orientations including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and straight. Yet, many people
assume them to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual because the “T” is included in the
GLBT acronym. These assumptions might make it especially problematic
for finding an intimate partner.
Finally, GLBT students can experience more alienation than their peers
(Abbot & Liddell, 1996). Themes of isolation and alienation also appear
in most transgender narratives (O’Keefe & Fox, 2003). A long history of
research has shown the importance of feeling integrated and connected to
one’s campus community (Tinto, 1987, 1993, 1998; Pascarella & Terrenzini,
1980, 2005). If students are isolated, as opposed to academically and socially
integrated into campus, they are at risk for dropping out (Stoecker, Pascarella,
& Wolfe, 1988; Tinto, 1987, 1993, 1998).
Where Do We Go From Here?
This final section provides an overview of some of the many ways practitioners
can create positive and affirming campus climates for GLBT students.
There is space to highlight only some of the excellent suggestions found
in the literature (Abes & Jones, 2004; Crouteau & Lark, 1995; Engstrom
& Sedlacek, 1997; Evans & Broido, 1999; Evans & Herriott, 2004; Liddle,
Kunkle, Kick & Hauenstein, 1998; Stevens, 2004). For additional reading,
consider some classic and recent resources which are dedicated to making
campuses safe and welcoming places for GLBT students (Cramer, 2002;
Currah & Minter, 2000; Sanlo, 1998; Sanlo, Rankin, & Schoenberg, 2002;
Evans & Wall, 1991; Wall & Evans, 2000).
When thinking about improving the climate of a campus, many factors

are significant. They include: policies, practices, services, resources, and
individual and group attitudes. Changing climate begins with individual
attitudes and behaviors. Being open to and affirming of GLBT students
is imperative, as mere toleration suggests that there is a negative aspect of

people that has to be “tolerated.” Basic behavior includes learning what
language is appropriate, such as gay, as opposed to the more clinical and
sometimes offensive term homosexuality. Learning more about definitions,
terms, and pronouns related to transgender experiences is also imperative.
Support for GLBT students should not fall on the shoulders of GLBT
students, faculty, and staff. The burden of being the “only one” who actively
supports GLBT students can be overwhelming for GLBT faculty and staff
(Rhoads, 1997). Straight allies are essential. Henquinet, Phibbs, and Skoglund
(2000) defined an ally as a “person who works toward combating homophobia,
biphobia . . . and heterosexism . . . on both a personal and institutional level”
(p. 24). In their study of ally activity on college campuses, Distefano, Croteau,
Anderson, Kampa-Kokesch, and Bullard (2000) identified these common
ally activities: affirmative programming, displaying symbols, providing
personal and mentor relationships, confronting homophobia, advocating
for policy change, and assisting LGB student organizations. Allies are
committed to learning more about the experiences of GLBT people and
about campus and community resources. Some national resources include:
Dignity, The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, the Lambda
10 Project, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Learning should
also include historical and current socio-political issues. For instance, allies
cannot effectively advocate in the GLBT struggle for civil rights if they do
not understand the issues GLBT people face in contemporary society.
Allies attend, plan, and support educational opportunities on campus. Such

opportunities can include speakers, panel presentations, films, discussions,
and a host of other creative projects aimed at providing accurate information
about GLBT issues. Contacting practitioners at institutions of similar size
and type can be useful for learning about the kinds of programs that might
be successful at your school. One widely recognized educational tool is the
Safe Zone program (http://safezonefoundation.tripod.com), which has
been adopted by college and universities across the country.
Student affairs practitioners have been identified as more supportive of

GLBT students, and they have been found to confront anti-gay actions
more frequently than faculty (Brown, Clarke, Gortmaker, & Robinson-
Keilig, 2004). Such findings should inspire student affairs professionals
to make connections and offer resources to faculty. This is essential, as
faculty spend significant amounts of classroom time, sometimes in intimate
settings, with students. Conversely, student affairs staff can learn much from

successful interventions done by faculty. For instance, Cheviollot, Manning,
and Nesbitt (2002) suggested those in power (like faculty and staff ) share
their own struggles, confront silence, and help all students find a voice. More
radically, Little and Marx (2002) recommended experiential education
where straight students are asked to participate in activities, such as wearing
gay pride symbols, so that they might experience homophobia firsthand.
Supportive peers are essential to the coming out process of GLB students
(Rhoads, 1997). GLBT organizations can be invaluable safe spaces for
GLBT students to explore their identity and receive unconditional support
from others who have experienced a similar journey. Conversely, GLBT
organizations can also be places of rejection. Research has shown patterns
of mistrust, dislike, and exclusion of bisexuals and transgender students by
gay and lesbian communities (Ault, 1996; Beemyn, 2003; Blumstein and
Schwartz, 1977; Rust, 2000). Thus, bisexual and transgender students face
the prospect of being rejected not only by the straight community, but also
in places such as GLBT organizations, where they seek refuge. Beemyn
(2003) found such rejection to be especially true for transgender students
who identified as straight. Student affairs professionals can play a key role
in helping GLBT student organizations, as mentors, advocates, or advisors.
Two practical things to consider when beginning a GLBT group include:
meeting in a safe and relatively private setting and assuring that membership
lists are confidential.
As allies, higher education practitioners assume the responsibility for

challenging heterosexist, homophobic, or discriminatory policies and
practices within higher education institutions. Another task of an ally is to
show students where support exists on campus by posting GLBT friendly
signs, images, and symbols. For instance, individuals who take part in Safe
Zone training receive safe space posters or stickers that can be posted in their
work space. Ensuring that policies and practices are more than words on a page
is also incredibly important. Diehm & Lazzari (2001) found that although
employees heard much rhetoric about campus non-discrimination policies,
there was little real action. Hiring GLBT faculty and staff and supporting
GLBT scholarships are also indicators of institutional commitment (Liddle,
Kunkle, Kick & Hauenstein, 1998).
One of the best ways to institutionalize support for GLBT students is

to create a GLBT resource center, one staffed by paid employees (Sanlo,
Rankin & Schoenberg, 2002). GLBT centers can provide a host of services

such as: advocating on behalf of GLBT community members; providing judicial
responses to incidents; creating networks among students, alumni and community
members; and creating and supporting inclusive policies and practices. GLBT
resource directors should know the unique needs of transgender students so that
appropriate resources can be provided. Beemym (2003) warned that it is a mistake
to assume that a GLBT director will have such knowledge, as transgender issues
can be unique. Small institutions that are unable to support a GLBT center
must be creative in ensuring that the aforementioned services are provided. By
collaborating with multicultural offices, counseling centers, women’s centers,
women’s studies departments, and off-campus GLBT organizations, schools can
provide supportive services without having a GLBT center.
Finally, practitioners must look at the big picture. A review of an institution’s

mission, goals, and publications can reveal text and images that are offensive or
make GLBT people invisible. Student affairs practitioners should fight for the
inclusion of both sexual orientation and gender identity in a university’s non-
discrimination statement. Further, advocacy can include support for domestic
partner benefits and healthcare that covers some transgender needs, such as
sex reassignment surgery and/or hormone therapy. Such inclusive policies are
essential to the daily well being of GLBT community members. Making such
policies public and accessible also serves as a reminder to faculty, staff, and students
that inclusion and equity are central to a campus community.
Since heterosexism and unequal treatment of GLBT people can be embedded

in almost any institutional policy or practice, higher education practitioners
must review polices such as judicial codes, recognition and funding procedures
for student groups, distribution of scholarships, and employment opportunities.
Transgender students can find policies especially difficult. For institutions, the
ability to change one’s gender on campus health, financial, employment, and
academic records can be an unnecessarily difficult process for some transgender
students who wish to make such changes. Further, campus facilities can be altered
to provide basic safety for GLBT students. For example, campuses should offer
unisex bathrooms and locker room facilities for transgender students. Campus
counselors must also be trained to work with the unique needs of GLBT
clients.
A final suggestion is for research. The best way to know what a particular campus
needs is to do campus climate studies. Only through research can you truly know
what straight students are thinking and doing and what GLBT students are
experiencing on your campus.

References
Abbot, E., & Liddell, D. L. (1996). Alienation of students: Does sexual

orientation matter? College Student Affairs Journal, 16(1), 45-55.
Aberson, C. L., Swan, D. J., & Emerson, E. P. (1999). Covert discrimination

against gay men by U. S. college students. Journal of Social Psychology,
193, 323-334.
Abes, E. S., & Jones, S. R. (2004). Meaning-making capacity and the

dynamics of lesbian college students’ multiple dimensions of identity.
Journal of College Student development, 45(6), 612-632.
Allen, D. J., & Oleson, T. (1999). Shame and internalized homophobia in

gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 37(3), 33-43.
Ault, A. (1996) Ambiguous identity in an unambiguous sex/gender structure.

The Sociological Quarterly, 37(3).
Astin,A.W.,Osequera,L.,Sax,L.J.,& Korn,W.S.(2002).The American freshman:

Thirty-five year trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research
Institute, UCLA.
Austin, S. B., Ziyaden, N., Kahn, J. A., Carmargo, C. A., Colditz, G. A.,
& Field, A. E. (2004). Sexual orientation, weight concerns, and eating
disorder behaviors in adolescent girls and boys. Journal of American
Academy of Childhood Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 1115-1121.
Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female

sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126,
347-374.
Beemyn, B. (2003). Serving the needs of transgender college students.

Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(1), 33-50.
Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of diversity

among men and women. London: Mitchell Beazley.
Berger, R. (1982). Gay and gray: The older homosexual man. Boston, MA:
Allyn Bacon.
Billy, J., Tanfer, K., Grady, W., and Klepinger, D. (1993). The sexual behavior
of men in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives, 25(2), 52-60.

Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Demographics of the
gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available
systematic data sources. Demography, 37(2), 139-154.
Blumenfeld, W. J. (2000). How homophobia hurts everyone. In M. Adams,

W. J. Blumenfeld, R. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X.
Zuñiga (Eds.). Readings for diversity and social justice: An anthology on
racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, and classism (pp. 267-
275). London: Routledge.
Blumstein, P.W., & Schwartz, P. (1977). Bisexuality: Some psychological

issues. Journal of Social Issues, 33(2), 30-45.
Blumstein, P.W., & Schwartz, P. (1990). Intimate relationships and the

creation of sexuality. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch
(Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp.
307-320). NY: Oxford University Press.
Blumstein, P.W., & Schwartz, P. (2000). Bisexuality: Some social

psychological issues. In Rust, P.C. (Ed.). Bisexuality in the United States:
A social science reader. Columbia, NY: New York University Press.
Bontempo, D. E., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization

and sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk
behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 364-374.
Bowman, P. J., & Smith, W. A. (2002). Racial Ideology in the campus

community: Emerging cross-ethnic differences and challenges. In Smith,
W. A., Altback, P. G. & K. Lomotey (Eds.), The racial crisis in American
higher education: Continuing challenges for the twenty-first century (revised
ed.). (pp.103-120). Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Bowen, A. M., & Bourgeois, M. J. (2001). Attitudes toward lesbian, gay,
and bisexual college students: The contribution of pluralistic ignorance,
dynamic social impact, and contact theories. Journal of American College
Health, 50(2), 91-96.
Brown, L. S. (1988). Lesbians, gay men, and their families: Common clinical
issues. Journal of Lesbian and Gay Psychotherapy, 1, 65-77.

Brown, L. S. (1995). Lesbian identities: Concepts and issues. In A. R.
D’Augelli & C. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities over
the lifespan (pp. 3-23). New York: Oxford University Press.
Brown, R. D., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig, R. (2004).

Assessing the campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
(GLBT) students using a multiple perspectives approach. Journal of
College Student Development, 45(1), 8-26.
Carroll, L., Gilroy, P. J. & Ryan, J. (2002). Counseling transgendered,

transsexual and gender-variant clients. Journal of Counseling &
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model.

Journal of Homosexuality, 4, 219-235.
Chan, C. S. (1989). Issues of identity development among Asian-American

lesbians and gay men. Journal of Counseling & Development, 68, 16-20.
Chang, M. J. (2000). Improving campus racial dynamics: A balancing act

among competing interests. The Review of Higher Education, 23(20),
153-175.
Chapman, B. E., & Brannock, J. C. (1987). Proposed model of lesbian identity

development: An empirical examination. Journal of Homosexuality, 14,
69-80.
Chevillot, F., Manning, S. S. & Nesbitt, P. D. (2002). Journeying together:

Three voices on the process of making the invisible visible. In E. P. Cramer
(Ed.), Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses (pp.
191-204). Binghamton, NY: Hawthorne Press.
Chickering, A., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San
Cohen, K. M., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (1996). Developmental perspectives

on coming out to self and others. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M.
Cohen (Eds.). The lives of lesbians, gays and bisexuals: children to adults
(pp.113-151). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process.

Journal of homosexuality, 7, 82-100.

Comstock, G. D. (1991). Violence against lesbians and gay men. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Croteau, J. M., & Lark, J. S. (1995). A qualitative investigation of biased and

exemplary student affairs practice concerning lesbian, gay, and bisexual
issues. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 472.482.
Cramer, E. P. (Ed.). (2002). Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on

College Campuses (pp. 191-204). Binghamton, NY; Hawthorne Press.
Currah, P., & Minter, S. (2000). Transgender equality: A handbook for activists
and policymakers. Washington, D.C.: The Policy Institute of the National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Dahlheimer, D., & Feigal, J. (1994). Community as family: The multiple-

family contexts of gay and lesbian clients. In C.H. Huber (Ed.).
Transitioning from individual to family counseling (pp. 63-74). Alexandria,
VA: American Counseling Association.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1989). Lesbians’ and gay men’s experiences of discrimination

in a university community. American Journal of Community Psychology,
17, 317-321.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1992). Lesbian and gay male undergraduates’ experiences

of harassment and fear on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3),
383-95.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward

a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J.
Watts, and D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in
context. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2005). Parents’ awareness
of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths’ sexual orientation. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 67, 474-482.
D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., Salter, N. P., Vasey, J. J., Starks, M. T.,
& Sinclair, K. O. (2005). Predicting the suicide attempts of lesbian, gay,
and bisexual youth. Suicide & Life-threatening Behavior, 35, 646-660.
D’Augelli, A. R., & Patterson, C. J. (1995). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual lifestyles
over the lifespan. NY: Oxford University Press.

D’Augelli, A. R., & Rose, M. L. (1990). Homophobia in a university
community: Attitudes and experiences of white, heterosexual freshman.
Journal of College Student Development, 31, 484-491.
Devor, A. H. (2004). Witnessing and mirroring: A fourteen stage model

of transsexual identity formation. In J. Drescher, (Ed.). Transgender
subjectivities: A clinician’s guide. NY: Hawthorne.
Diamant, A. L., Schuster, M. A., McGuigan, K. & Lever, J. (1999). Lesbians’

sexual history with men. Archives of Internal Medicine, 159, 2730-2736.
Diamond, L. M., (1998). Development of sexual orientation among

adolescent and young adult women. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1085-
1095.
Diamond, L. M., (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among

young sexual-minority women over a 2-year period. Developmental
Psychology, 36(2), 241-250.
Diamond, L. M. (2003). Was it a phase? Young Women’s Relinquishment of

Lesbian/Bisexual Identities over a 5-Year Period. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84(2), 352-364.
Diehm, T. M., & Lazzari, M. M., (2001). The university’s role in promoting
human rights through nurturing human diversities. Journal of Gay,
Lesbian and Bisexual Social Services, 13, 171-189.
Distefano, T. M., Croteau, J. M., Anderson, M. Z., Kampa-Kokesch, S., &

Bullard, M. A. (2000). Experience of being heterosexual allies to lesbian,
gay, and bisexual people; A qualitative exploration. Journal of College
Counseling, 3, 131-141.
Engstrom, C. H., & Sedlacek, W. (1997). Attitudes of heterosexual students
toward their gay male and lesbian peers. Journal of College Student
Development, 38(6), 565-76.
Eliason, M. J. (1996). Identity formation for lesbian, bisexual and gay persons:
Beyond a “minoritizing” view. Journal of Homosexuality, 30, 31-58.
Eliason, M J. (1997). The prevalence and nature of biphobia in heterosexual

undergraduate students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 317-326.

Elliott, J. E. (1990). Career development with lesbian and gay clients. Career
Development Quarterly, 41, 210-216.
Ellis, L. (1996). Theories of homosexuality. In R. C. Savin Williams & K. M.

Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays and bisexuals: Children to adults
(pp. 11-34). Fort worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Esterberg, K. G. (1994). Being a lesbian and being in love: Constructing

identities through relationships. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services,
1, 57-82.
Evans, N. J. (2002). The impact of an LGBT safe zone project on campus

climate. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 522-39.
Evans, N. J., & Broido, E. M. (1999). Coming out in college: Negotiation,

meaning making, challenges, supports. Journal of College Student
Development, 40(6), 658-668.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S. & Guido-DiBrito, F. (Eds.). (1998). Student

development in college: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass.
Evans, N. J. & Herriott, T. K. (2004). Freshman impressions: How

investigating the campus climate for LGBT students affected four
freshman students. Journal of College Students Development, 45(3), 316-
332.
Evans, N. J., & Wall, V. (1991). Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals
on campus. Alexandria, VA: ACPA.
Fassinger, R. E., & Miller, B. A. (1996). Validation of an inclusive model of

sexual minority identity formation on a sample of gay men. Journal of
Homosexuality, 32(2), 53-78.
Feagin, J. R., Vera, H. & Imani, N. (1996). The agony of education: Black
students at white colleges and universities. NY: Routledge.
Freedman, M. (1971). Homosexuality and psychological functioning.

Belmont CA: Brooks/ Cole.
Fox, R.C. (1995). Bisexual identities. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. Patterson

(Eds.), Lesbian, Gay and bisexual identities over the lifespan (pp. 48-86).
NY: Oxford University Press.

Fox, R.C. (1996). Bisexuality in perspective: A review of theory and research.
In Firestein, B.A. (Ed.). Bisexuality: The psychology and politics of an
invisible minority. London: Sage.
Garnets, L. D. (2002). Sexual orientation in perspective. Cultural Diversity

and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8(2), 115-129.
Garnets, L. D., & Kimmel, D. C. (1991). Lesbian and gay male dimensions
in the psychological study of human diversity. In J. Goodchilds (Ed.),
Psychological perspectives on human diversity in America (pp. 137-192.).
Thousand Oaks, AC: Sage.
Garnets, L. D., & Kimmel, D. C. (1993). Introduction: Lesbian and gay male
dimensions in the psychology study. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel
(Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male psychology (pp. 1-
51). NY: Columbia University Press.
Gates, G. J., & Ost, J. (2004). The gay & lesbian atlas. Washington, D.C.:
Urban Institute Press.
Gray, A. (2000). Wearing the dress. In K. Howard & A. Stevens, (Eds.), Out
and about on campus: Personal accounts by lesbian, gay and bisexual, and
transgendered college students (pp. 83-91). Los Angeles, CA: Alyson.
Greene, B. (1994). Ethnic-minority lesbians and gay men: Mental health

and treatment issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62,
243-251.
Greene, B (2000). Beyond heterosexism and across the cultural divide:

Developing an inclusive lesbian, gay, and bisexual psychology: A look to
the future. In B Greene & G. L. Croom (Eds.), Education, research and
practice in gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered psychology (pp. 1-45).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hansbury, G. (2005). The middle men: An introduction to the transmasculine

identities. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 6(3), 241-264.
Henquinet, J., Phibbs, A., and Skoglund, B. (2000, November/December).

Supporting our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students. About
Campus, 24-26.

Herek, G. M. (1991). Stigma, prejudice, and violence against lesbians and
gay men. In J. Gonsiorek & J. R. Rudolph (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research
implications for public policy (pp. 60-80). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (1996). Heterosexism and homophobia. In R. P. Cabaj & T. S.

Stein (Eds.), Textbook of homosexuality and mental health (pp. 101-113).
Washington, D. C.: American Psychiatric Press.
Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexual attitudes toward bisexual men and

women in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 39(4), 264-275.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, R. J., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of

hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay and bisexual adults. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 945-951.
Hewitt, C. (1998). Homosexual demography: Implications for the spread of

AIDS. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 390-397.
Hewitt, E. C., & Moore, L. D. (2002). Role of lay theories of the etiologies
of homosexuality in attitudes towards lesbians and gay men. In E. P.
Cramer (Ed.), Addressing Homophobia and Heterosexism on College
Campuses (pp. 59-72). NY; Hawthorne Press.
Higher Education Research Institute – Cooperative Institutional Research

Program 1997-2006. (Data File). Los Angeles, CA.
Horne, S., Rice, N. D., & Israel, T. (2004). Heterosexual student leader
attitudes regarding lesbian, gay, and bisexual students. NASPA Journal,
41, 760-772.
Hospers, H. J., & Jansen, A. (2005). Why homosexuality is a risk factor for
eating disorders in males. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24,
1188-1201.
Hurtado, S. (2002). Creating a climate of inclusion: Understanding Latina/

o college students. In W. A. Smith, P. G. Altback & K. Lomotey (Eds.),
The racial crisis in American higher education: Continuing challenges for
the twenty-first century (revised ed), (pp.121-136). New York: State
University of New York.

Icard, L. (1986). Black gay men and conflicting social identities: Sexual
orientation versus racial identity. Journal of Social Work and Human
Sexuality, 4, 83-93.
Israel, G. E. (2004). Supporting transgender and sex reassignment issues:

couple and family dynamics. In J. J. Bigner & J. Wetchler, (Eds.),
Relationships therapy with same-sex couples. New York: Hawthorne
Press.
Kaufman, M. (1998). The construction of masculinity and the triad of men’s

violence. In M. S. Kimmel, & M. A. (Eds.), Men’s Lives (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn Bacon
Kimmel, M. S., & Messner, M. A. (Eds.). (1998). Men’s Lives (4th ed., pp.
4-17). Boston, MA: Allyn Bacon.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the
Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. E. & Gephard, P.H. (1953). Sexual
behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Kitzinger, C. & Wilkinson, S. (1995). Transitions from heterosexuality to

lesbianism: The discursive production of lesbian identities. Developmental
Psychology, 31, 95-104.
Klein, F. (1993). The bisexual option: A concept of one-hundred percent. New

York: Arbor House.
Kurdek, L. A. (1988). Perceived social support in gays and lesbians

cohabitating relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54,
504-509.
Kurdek, L. A., & Schmidt, J. P. (1987). Perceived support from family
and friends in members of homosexual, married, and heterosexual
cohabitating coupes. Journal of Homosexuality, 14, 57-68.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R.T. & Michaels, F. (1994).

The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Lees, L. (1998). Transgender students on our campuses. In R. Sanlo (Ed.),
Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender college students: A
handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 37-43). Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Liang, C. T., & Alimo, C. (2005). The impact of white heterosexual students’
interactions on attitudes toward lesbian, gay and bisexual people: A
longitudinal study. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 237-
250.
Liddle, B. J., Kunkel, M. A., Kicks, S. L., & Hauenstein, A. L. (1998). The
gay, lesbian, and psychology faculty experience: A concept map. Teaching
Psychology, 25(1), 19-25.
Little, P. & Marx, M. (2002). Teaching about heterosexism and creating an

empathic experience of homophobia. In E. P. Creamer (Ed.), Addressing
Homophobia and Heterosexism on College Campuses (pp. 191-204). New
York; Hawthorne Press.
Lopez, G., & Chism, N. (1993). Classroom concerns of gay and lesbian
students. College Teaching, 41(3), 97-103.
Love, P. G. (1997). Contradiction in paradox: Attempting to change the

culture of sexual orientation at a small catholic college. Review of Higher
Education, 20(4), 381-98.
Love, P. G. (1998). Cultural barriers facing lesbian, gay and bisexual students
at a catholic college. Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 298-323.
Malaney, G. D., Williams, E. A., & Geller, W. W. (1997). Assessing campus

climate for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals at two institutions. Journal of
College Student Development, 38, 365-375.
Martinez, D. G., & Sullivan, S. C. (1998). African American gay men and
lesbians: Examining the complexity of gay identity development. Journal
of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 1, 243-264.
Marsiglio, W. (1993). Attitudes toward homosexual activity and gays as

friends: A national survey of heterosexual 15- to 19-year-old males.
Journal of Sex Research, 30(1), 12-17.

McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority
identity formation: A new model of lesbian identity and its implications
for counseling and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 24, 508-534.
McDonald, G. J. (1982). Individual differences in the coming out process for

gay men: Implications for theoretical models. Journal of Homosexuality,
8, 47-60.
Mohr, J.J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2000). Perceived barriers to friendship with

lesbians and gay men among university students. Journal of College
Morris, J. F., Waldo, C. R. & Rothblum, E. D. (2001). A model of predictors

and outcomes of outness among lesbian and bisexual women. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71(1), 61-71.
Myrick, R., & Brown, M. H. (1998). Out of the closet and into the
classroom: A survey of lesbian, bisexual educators’ classroom strategies
and experiences in colleges and universities. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and
Bisexual Identity, 4, 295-317.
Nauta, M. M., Saucier, A. M. & Woodard, L. E. (2001). Interpersonal

influences on students’ academic and career decisions: The impact of
sexual orientation. Career Development Quarterly, 49(4), 352-62.
Nichols, M. (1990). Lesbian relationships: Implications for the study

of sexuality and gender. In J. C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.),
Homosexuality: Research implications for public policy (pp. 350-364).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
O’Keefe, T., & Fox, K. (2003). Finding the real me: True tales of sex and gender
diversity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pachankis, J. E., & Goldfried, M. R. (2004). Clinical issues in working with
lesbian, gay and bisexual clients. Psychotherapy: Theory, research, practice
and training, 41(3), 227-246.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terrenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence

and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of
Higher Education, 51(1), 60-75.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terrenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. San
Plörderl, M., & Fartacek, R. (2005). Suicidality and associated risk factors
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual compared to heterosexual Austrian
adults. Suicide & Life-threatening Behavior, 35, 661-670.
Pope, M. (1995). The ‘salad bowl’ is big enough for us all: An argument for the
inclusion of lesbians and gay men in any definition of multiculturalism.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 73, 301-304.
Radkowsky, M., & Siegal, L. J. (1997). The gay adolescent: Stressors,

adaptations, and psychological interventions. Clinical Psychology Review,
17, 191-216.
Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
people: A national perspective. New York: The National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force Policy Institute.
Rasmussen, M. L. (2004). The problem of coming out. Theory into Practice,

43(2), 146-150.
Renyolds, A. L., & Hanjorgiris, W. F. (2000). Coming out: Lesbian, gay and
bisexual identity development. In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K. J.
Bieschke (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian,
gay and bisexual clients (pp. 35-56), Washington, D.C.: APA.
Remafedi, G. (1987). Adolescent homosexuality: Psychosocial and medical

implications. Pediatrics, 79, 331-337.
Rey, A. M. (1997). Beyond high school: Heterosexuals’ self-reported anti-

gay/lesbian behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Lesbian Social Services,
7(4), 65-84.
Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Attitudes toward lesbian, gay and bisexual college

students: The contribution of pluralistic ignorance, dynamic social
impact and contact theories. Journal of American College Health, 50(2),
91-97.
Rhoads, R. A. (1995). Learning from the coming-out experiences of college

males. Journal of College Student Development, 36(1), 67-74.

Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Implications of the growing visibility of gay and
bisexual male students on campus. NASPA Journal, 34(4), 275-86.
Robertson, D. V. (1997). I ask you to listen to who I am. In S. Jacobs, W.

Thomas, & S. Lang, (Eds.), Two spirit people: Native American gender
identity, sexuality, and spirituality (pp. 228-237). Chicago, IL: University
of Illinois Press.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W. & Hunter, J. (2004). Ethnic/Racial

differences in the coming-out process of lesbian, gay and bisexual
youths: A comparison of sexual identity development over time. Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(3), 215-228.
Russell, C. J., & Keel, P. K. (2002). Homosexuality as a specific risk factor

for eating disorders in men. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31,
300-306.
Rust, P. C. (1992). The politics of sexual identity: Sexual attraction and

behavior among lesbian and bisexual women. Social Problems, 39, 366-
386.
Rust, P. C. (1993). Coming out in the age of social constructionism: Sexual

identity formation among lesbians and bisexual women. Gender and
Society, 7, 50-77.
Rust, P. C. (1996). Managing multiple identities: Diversity among bisexual

men and women. In B. A. Firestien (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychology and
politics of an invisible minority (pp. 53-83). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rust, P. C. (2000a). Neutralizing the political threat of marginal women;

Lesbians’ belief about bisexual women. In Rust, P.C. (Ed.), Bisexuality
in the United States: A social science reader. Columbia, NY: New York
University Press.
Sanlo, R. (Ed.) (1998). Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Sanlo, R. (2005). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students: Risk, resiliency,
and retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 97-110.

Sanlo, R., Rankin, S., & Schoenberg, R. (Eds.). (2002). Our place on campus:
Lesbian, bisexual and transgender services and programs in higher education.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1996). Memories of childhood and early adolescent

sexual feelings among gay and bisexual boys: A narrative approach. In
R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays
and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 94-109. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). “Mom, Dad. I am gay”: How families negotiate

coming out. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Simoni, J. M. (1996). Pathways to prejudice: Predicting students’ heterosexist

attitudes with demographics, self-esteem, and contact with lesbians and
gay men. Journal of College Student Development, 37(1), 68-77.
Sophie, J. (1986). A critical examination of stage theories of lesbian identity

development. Journal of Homosexuality, 12, 39-51.
Stevens, Jr., R. A. (2004). Understanding gay identity development within

the college environment. Journal of College Student Development, 45,
185-206.
Stoecker, J., & Pascarella, E.T. (1991, July/ August). Women’s colleges and
women’s career attainments revisited. Journal of Higher Education, 62,
394-406.
Stoecker, J., Pascarella, E. T., & Wolfle, L. M. (1988). Persistence in higher

education: A nine year test of a theoretical model. Journal of College
Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Heterosexism and sexism as correlates of
psychological distress in lesbians. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 83,
355-360.
Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The

application of racial identity development in the classroom. Harvard
Educational Review, 62(1), 1-24.
The American freshman: Forty-year trends. (2007). Los Angeles: Higher

Education Research Institute, UCLA. Unpublished data.

attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
attrition. (2nd Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as Communities: Taking research on student

persistence seriously. Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177.
Tomlinson, M. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2003). Career development, lesbian

identity development, and campus climate among lesbian college
students. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 845-60.
Troiden, R. R. (1979). Becoming homosexual: A model of gay identity

acquisition. Psychiatry, 42, 362-373.
Troiden, R. (1988). Gay and lesbian identity: A sociological analysis. Six Hills,
NY: General Hill.
Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexuality identities. Journal of

Homosexuality, 17, 43-73.
Waldo, C. R. (1998). Out on campus: Sexual Orientation and academic

climate in a university context. American Journal of Community Psychology,
26, 745-774.
Wall, V. A., & Evans, N. J. (2000). Toward acceptance: Sexual orientation issues
on campus. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Weinberg, M. S., & Williams, C. J. (1974). Male homosexuals. New York:

Oxford University.
Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). Dual attractions:

Understanding bisexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wilkinson, W. W., & Roys, A. C. (2005). The components of sexual

orientation, religiosity, and heterosexuals’ impressions of gay men and
lesbians. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(1), 65-83.
Windmeyer, S. L., & Freeman, P. W. (1998). Out on fraternity row: Personal

accounts of being gay in a college fraternity. Los Angeles, CA: Allyn.
Whisman, V. (1996). Queer by choice: Lesbians, gay men, and the politics of
identity. New York: Routledge.

Wooden, W. S., Kawasaki, H., & Mayeda, R. (1983). Lifestyles and identity
maintenance among gay Japanese-American males. Alternative Lifestyles,
5(4), 236-243.
Yang, A. (2000). From wrongs to rights: Public opinions on gay and lesbian
Americans’ move toward equality. Washington, D.C.: National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force.
Yarhouse, M. A. (2002). Sexual identity development: The influence of

valuative frame identity synthesis. Psychology: Theory, Research, Practice,
and Training, 38(3), 331-341.
Zamboni, B. D. (2006). Therapeutic considerations in working with the

family, friends, and partners of transgendered individuals. Family Journal:
Counseling and Therapy for couples, 14(2), 174-179.

CHAPTER 17
Asian American Students

Fred A. Bonner II, Michael E. Jennings, Yi-Hsuan Chen, and
Shailen M. Singh
Introduction
Part of the mission of American colleges and universities is to create

educational environments that foster and promote opportunities for student
learning, growth, and development (Evans, Forney, Guido-DiBrito, 1998).
In creating these environments, it is important for institutions to not only
recognize but also to engage actively in processes that are aimed at meeting
the needs of all students. Ideally these environments should recognize the
needs of the collective and the individual regardless of race, ethnic origin, or
cultural background. Additionally, this recognition should then be translated
into appropriate and effective accommodations.
Historically, one particular group has been underrepresented in these

accommodation processes: namely, Asian American college students.
Research (Chiang, 2000; Chung, 1997; Chae, 2004; Yeh, 2004) has indicated
that little attention has been spent on the special needs of this collegiate
cohort. Hune found that “most Asian Americans today, however, are part of
the second migration wave, whose experiences in Asia and the United States
are distinct from the American born of the first wave” (p. 13). According to
Hsia and Hirano-Nakanishi (1996), “Beyond the headlines, there has been
too thin an information base for higher education policymakers as they plan
services” (p. 241). Thus, a more concerted effort to promote the intentional
study of Asian American students must be undertaken in order to better
Asian American Students 387

understand the unique academic, social, and psychosocial needs of these
college students.
A key goal of this chapter is to provide critical demographic information

on Asian American students in an attempt to reveal the vast diversity found
within and across this cultural group. It is important to note that the term
Asian is a broad term that is all encompassing and describes several different
cultural and ethnic subgroups.1 According to Hune (2002):
The term Asian American originated during the social reform

efforts of the late 1960s to end racial discrimination….In
the 1970s, the U.S. Census Bureau sought to gather statistics
on ethnic groups that government officials deemed similar
and created the “Asian or Pacific Islander” (API) category.
After Asian and Pacific groups protested the loss of their
distinctiveness by this action, the Census Bureau retained
separate data collection on ethnic-specific groups in
conjunction with a summary API category. (p. 11)
The contemporary issues and how these issues are addressed among this
group will be explored. The conclusion will offer a number of suggestions to
assist student affairs administrators and higher education officials in better
understanding how the unique history, demographic profile, challenges, and
opportunities experienced by Asian American college students influence
their experiences in and with higher education.
Demographic Overview
The increase in the numbers of second generation Asian Americans in this

country can be primarily attributed to the boom in immigration that occurred
during the early 1970s (Hsia & Hirano-Nakanishi, 1996). In responding to
questions related to the dramatic increase of the Asian American population
between 1970 and 1980, Hsia and Hirano-Nakanishi stated:
It [population increase] did not come about through what

demographers would call “natural increase,” wherein recorded
live births exceed recorded deaths. Asian American women
of child-bearing age recorded lower fertility rates than
white, black and Hispanic women….That growth has been

due principally to a steady stream of Asian immigrants and
refugees. (p. 242)
Important to the increase in the numbers of Asian Americans during this

era was the passage of key legislation that provided more opportunities for
people of Asian descent to migrate to North America. A prime example
of the influence of legislation is captured in Skeldon’s (2000) research that
highlighted the dismantling of restrictions that barred Asian immigrants
from entering Canada and the United States—effectively opening the doors
for Asian Americans to enter these two countries (Le, 2006). Skeldon also
reported that beyond the 1980s and 1990s, the trend of continued access
effectively doubled the population of Asian Americans in the nation; the
numbers rose from 3.5 to 7.3 million.
The current number of Asian Americans in the United States, as reported

by Reeves and Bennett (2003) revealed a more expanded definition of who
is included in this count. The definition used throughout this paper includes
the full range of ethnic groups cited under this broad umbrella.
“Asian” refers to those having origins in any of the original

peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian
subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China,
India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine
Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. “Pacific Islander” refers to
those having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii,
Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. The Asian and Pacific
Islander population is not a homogeneous group; rather,
it comprises many groups who differ in language, culture,
and length of residence in the United States. Some of the
Asian groups, such as the Chinese and Japanese, have been
in the United States for several generations. Others, such
as the Hmong, Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians,
are comparatively recent immigrants. Relatively few of the
Pacific Islanders are foreign born. (¶ 3)
Still another of the more noted expansions in the Asian population has
been the inclusion of Asian Indians, who had been formerly classified as
Caucasian. Asian Indians, after their concerted lobbying efforts, were
counted as Asian in the 1980s census (Hsia & Hirano-Nakanishi, 1996)—
providing a 200,000 person increment. According to Reeves and Bennett

(2003), “In March 2002, 12.5 million Asians and Pacific Islanders lived in the
United States, representing 4.4 percent of the civilian non-institutionalized
population” (¶ 2).
Finally, in looking at the demographic profile of the Asian American cohort,

it is also important to look at where the majority of the growth among
this population is occurring. Data have indicated that the most significant
growth among the Asian population has occurred in the western United
States—51% (Reeves & Bennett, 2003). According to demographic data
cited in Asian Week:
Asian Pacific Americans will experience moderate dispersion

throughout the nation by 2020. However, two-fifths of the
net growth in population will be in California. By 2020, there
will be more Asian Pacific Americans in California than the
total for 46 other states (excluding New York, Hawaii, and
Illinois); Asian Pacific Americans will make up nearly 18
percent of the state’s population. The New York/New Jersey
area will also become an Asian Pacific American center, with
nearly 2.5 million people. (Ong & Leung, 2003, p. 11)
Data have also indicated that “in 2002, Asians and Pacific Islanders were
younger than non-Hispanic Whites. Twenty-six percent of Asians and
Pacific islanders were under 18, compared with 23 percent of non-Hispanic
Whites; while 7 percent of Asians and Pacific Islanders were 65 and over,
compared with 14 percent of non-Hispanic Whites” (Reeves & Bennett,
2003, p. 2).
These data have direct implications for the participation rates of Asian
Americans in higher education. According to Ong and Leung (2003),
there is an overrepresentation of Asians at both ends of the educational
continuum, creating a bimodal distribution; that is, “a higher percentage
of Asians than non-Hispanic whites have completed 4 or more years of
college….At the same time, five times as many Asians as non-Hispanic
whites have 0 to 4 years of education” (p. 13). However, despite this apparent
gap, worthy of note is the fact that “Asian American enrollment increased
to more than 987,000 over the 10-year period between 1993 and 2003, up
43.5 percent” (Edmonds & McDonough, 2006, ¶ 7). To further highlight
the direct impact that participation rates of Asian Americans have exacted
on higher education, Chang and Kiang (2002) found that “55.1 percent of

all Asian Americans between ages eighteen and twenty-four were enrolled
in college during 1990….Almost double the rate for other people of color”
(p. 277).
Contemporary Issues for Asian Americans in Higher Education
Academic Achievement
Education has long been highly valued and associated with status and respect
in most Asian societies (Hsia & Hirano-Nakanishi, 1996). Among Asian
Americans, family values and respect for the elders play an important role in
the learning process. In many East and Southeast Asian cultures, Confucian
teachings that emphasize academic achievement, respect for authority, and
self-control have contributed to students’ enhanced educational performance
(Chiang, 2000). In addition to a culture of support for education, another
major factor driving the heavy investment in education is the desire to
gain entry to good jobs and a more comfortable life (Hsia & Hirano-
Nakanishi, 1996). Therefore, Asian American families’ social economic
status has improved dramatically and their resulting higher social status has
fueled Asian families to pursue an “overinvestment in higher educational
credentials” (Hsia & Hirano-Nakanishi, 1996, p. 245).
In the 1990s, Sanderson and Dugoni (1999) reported that the number of
Asian Americans with doctorates in the sciences was disproportionately
high in proportion to the Asian population in the United States. During
the 1990s, Siu (1996) noted that of all racial groups in the United States,
Asian American and Pacific Americans had the highest percentage (36.6%)
of people with at least a college degree. Similarly, The Chronicle of Higher
Education Almanac Issue (2005) reported that Asian students have a 62%
six-year retention rate for those entering four year institutions—the highest
of any demographic group.
These figures often reinforce a stereotype that Asian American students

are an “overly successful” college demographic prone to excellence in all
endeavors and seemingly above reproach. This stereotype has contributed to
hardships faced by Asian American students due to the oversimplification
of their academic experiences (Suzuki, 2002; Siu, 1996). To further illustrate
this point and to additionally clarify the bimodal distribution we tend to see
among this population, Magner (1993) found that one third of the students

who enrolled in English as a Second Language and vocational training
courses were Asian Americans.
Model Minority Myth
The United States has traditionally been a multicultural society with a large
variety of ethnic and racial minorities. This multiculturalism has added
particular complexity to the dynamics of higher education (Kobayashi,
1999). Within this complex milieu, the emergence of Asian Americans as
a minority group in the United States has been particularly notable. Part of
this notoriety can be attributed to the characterization of Asian Americans
as a “model minority” (Chae, 2004, p. 61) group. This term has its roots in
a 1966 New York Times article titled “Success Story: Japanese American
Style,” in which sociologist William Petersen (1966) detailed Japanese
Americans’ success in America. Petersen (1966) argued that Japanese
culture, with its family values and strong work ethic, saved the Japanese
from becoming a “problem minority” (Petersen, 1966, p. 20). This reference
to problem minorities likely refers to African Americans and frames the
model minority stereotype as a backlash against the Civil Rights Movement
waged by African Americans in the 1950s and 1960s (Chun, 1995; Cho,
1993).
Throughout the 1960s and early 1970s Asian Americans were described as
hard-working people whose success was attributed to strong family values
and stability (Osajima, 1988). However, the “model minority” image has
been called into question by scholars who have categorized this image as a
myth that has served to disguise issues of underemployment and other social
problems within the Asian American community (Hurh & Kim, 1989). This
myth has also been perpetuated for years in American higher education
where the high achieving efforts of Asian American students has been used
as validation. Fuertes and Sedlacek (1994) challenged the “model minority”
stereotype of Asian American students in colleges and universities. They did
this by problematizing the Asian American experience as one characterized
by the myth of universal high academic achievement. They stated that:
The model minority myth, however, is an incorrect depiction

of Asian Americans in higher education. There is likely a
bimodal distribution with groups such as Southeast A s i a n
refugees encountering difficulties in academic achievement,

whereas Asian groups that have been in the United States
longer have higher achievement. (p.77)
This myth has perpetuated itself in university settings with potentially dire
consequences resulting from the unintentional lack of oversight provided
by university faculty, staff, and administrators (Suzuki, 2002). Yeh (2004)
echoed this same theme stating that “first and foremost the false perception
that APA [Asian Pacific Americans] are all well-adjusted and high-achieving
has led student service and outreach programs to overlook the issues and
needs of these students, and even exclude them from receiving services or
benefits” (p. 90).
In summary, the model minority myth has shaped perceptions of Asian

American students in higher education and contributed significantly to a
lack of understanding regarding their particular educational experiences.
This truncated understanding has led to an overly simplistic view of Asian
American students that makes it difficult to gain a true understanding of
the needs and specific backgrounds of these students. Although reflective
of high school populations, it was Kim’s (1997) research nearly a decade
ago that revealed the high school dropout rates of Asian Americans from
Southeast Asia (50%), Filipinos (46%), and Samoans (60%) in 1992.
Thus, according to Yeh (2002), differences in Asian American subpopulations

“make it difficult for those from disadvantaged backgrounds to advance
educationally and economically because neither their institution nor their
own communities provide them with support or assistance” (p. 66). To further
illustrate these differences, Hune and Chan (1997) in discussing the uneven
enrollment rates among Asian American ethnic groups also highlighted the
relative differences found to exist across the various ethnic groups. Hmong,
Guamanian, Samoan, Hawaiian, and Laotian Americans were found to
be enrolled at rates less than twice that of their Chinese, Japanese, Asian
Indian, and Korean American peers. Additionally, they report:
Cambodians, Hmong, and Laotians have the highest rates

of having less than a high school education ( Japanese have
the smallest) and the lowest rates of having either a college
degree or an advanced degree. Additionally, when considering
educational attainment, Asian Indians amass 64.4% of the

college degrees and 12.5 % of the advanced degrees (i.e., law,
medical, or doctoral degree) among this population.
On Campus Alienation
Another emerging issue of Asian American students in higher education

is a prevalent feeling of alienation. Although Asian American students are
stereotyped as excelling academically, it is still essential to recognize and
acknowledge the difficulties in trying to uphold the “model minority” image
(Chung,1997; Fisher,Wallace,& Fenton,2000). Yeh (2004) asserted that these
feelings are the result of several factors, including racism, marginalization and
cultural barriers. Suzuki (2002) highlighted increased occurrences of racism,
discrimination and violence against Asian American students. Perhaps most
disturbing in Suzuki’s research is that discriminatory statements directed at
Asian Americans on campus have often been attributed to faculty as well
as students. A review of the literature on at-risk Asian American students
demonstrated the social and psychological struggles accorded this group due
to their status—often resulting in discrimination and anti-Asian sentiments
from their peers (Siu, 1996). Moreover, as Helms (2000) noted, researchers
have typically focused on variables related to ethnicity and culture and
given relatively minimal attention to understanding how Asian Americans
internalize and cope with race and racism.
Another source of alienation identified by Kim and Yeh (2002) stemmed

from inter-group prejudice existing within the Asian American community.
Kim and Yeh (2002) documented that some of the more wealthy Asian
American students try to distance themselves from the less educated
and poorer Asian American groups on campus. Lee (1996) added to this
discussion through his research describing attempts by Korean students to
distance themselves from Southeast Asian students because of a desire to
avoid being perceived as “welfare sponges” (p. 200).
Another factor contributing to feelings of marginalization by Asian American

college students is the lack of Asian American leadership on college and
university campuses. Lagdameo, Lee, Nguyen, Liang, Lee, Kodama, and
McEwen (2002) heard this concern echoed in several interviews with Asian

American students who agreed to discuss their college experiences. Bao, a
student who participated in their study stated:
One of my professors told me that Asian American students

are apathetic and they are here just to study and get their
degree and get out. Students are disconnected due to the fact
that they cannot relate to the people who are making the
decisions that affect them. It is difficult for students to accept
and take ownership of an institution when they feel that
they are not a part of the institution. The university needs
to change its routine and enact creative methods to recruit
quality Asian American administrators—chancellors, vice
chancellors and directors. The university lacks the diversity
in leadership that has manifested itself to a campus that too
many say lacks spirit and pride. (Lagdameo et al., 2002, p.
6)
The experiences of this student illustrate issues of marginalization, inadequate

resources, a lack of diversity among staff, institutionalized privilege, racism,
and the need for a safe space on campus (Lagdameo et al., 2002).
Identity Development
Ethnic identity development models and their impact on higher education

are difficult to apply to Asian American students partially because of the bi-
cultural nature of their upbringing. Typically, Asian American students have
very strong cultural influences from their parents and other family members
(Yeh & Huang, 1996). However, these same students are also subject to
societal pressures and influences on a daily basis. Several areas of research
regarding identity development have been considered in an effort to advance
the understanding of Asian American students as a whole (Alvarez, 2002).
As Phinney (1990) illustrated:
While these frameworks overlap in their general

conceptualizations of ethnic identity, they differ in the
specific aspects they emphasize. As a result, the range of
inquiry and focus of ethnic identity research has been broad,
including self-identification, group memberships, attitudes

towards one’s ethnic group, ethnic involvement and cultural
values and beliefs. (p. 645)
Typically, ethnic identity development models have been characterized by a

reliance on research that describes identity development as occurring in stages
that are linear in their progression (Alvarez, 2002; Yeah & Huang, 1996). Yeh
and Huang (1996) agreed that these models of ethnic development provide
heuristic benefits; however, they assert that such models are inappropriate
in describing ethnic identity among Asian American college students.
Models that rely on “stage” theories imply that ethnic identity is a static
phenomenon that evolves in a linear progression through various stages of
identity development (Yeh & Huang, 1996).
For Asian Americans, ethnic identity may contain fluid and diverse elements
that are constantly evolving (Phinney, 1990) and not contingent on a
specific linear progression (Yeh & Huang, 1996). Issues involving ethnic
identity may be affected by a variety of factors including family interactions,
social contexts, geographic location and psychological proximity to Asian
American political movements (Hayano, 1981). In short, existing theories
of ethnic development have not sufficiently examined the collectivistic and
social aspects of identity development among Asian American students
and therefore have not allowed for a full range of understanding regarding
the complexities of identity development that affect the life and campus
experiences of Asian American college students. As Kodama, McEwen,
Liang, and Lee (2002) asserted:
Knowing and taking into account students’ familial and

cultural contexts and helping them draw on their strengths
and values, rather than viewing them as deficient in relation
to dominant society ideals, will assist Asian American students
in greater and more meaningful psychosocial development.
(p. 56)
Additionally, these scholars in their statement regarding the paucity of

research on the Asian psychosocial development stated: “…the psychosocial
development of Asian American students is not reflected adequately in
the psychosocial theory of Chickering and Reisser (1993) and propose a

model of psychosocial development that accounts more effectively for the
experiences and development of Asian American students” (p. 45).
Addressing the Contemporary Issues for Asian Americans in

Higher Education
Academic Achievement
As previously discussed, academic success has served as a double-edged

sword for Asian American students, many times casting them in an unfair
light. By disaggregating the Asian American populace, disparities within the
culture are readily recognized. According to Chang and Kiang (2002), “The
monolithic image of Asian Americans also breaks up when we consider
selected fields of study. Asian American students are often criticized as too
academically “narrow” interested only in mathematics and applied sciences”
(p. 277). Additionally, Chang and Kiang asserted that this statement is
reflective of the low numbers of Asian Americans earning baccalaureate
degrees in areas such as health and the arts.
Also striking is the number of Asian Americans who require academic

assistance, an issue that is seldom addressed, again due to the monolithic
image that many hold regarding this group’s academic prowess. It was Weiss
(2000) who reported that “in the California State University (CSU) system,
for example, of the entering Asian American first-year students in 1999, 62
percent needed remedial work in English and 41 percent needed remedial
work in mathematics” (p. A18).
To address this contemporary issue, higher education must be cognizant

of the range of ability and interest levels that Asian American students
bring to the college and university setting. By readily assuming that these
students unilaterally come to college with high grade point averages and
stellar standardized tests scores is limiting and unfair. A one-size-fits-all
template must be jettisoned for a more individualized approach at focusing
on achievement—this will more properly provide the necessary information
to ensure that these students are happy and successful. Much like Hune

(2002) stated, “Acknowledging the presence of Asian American students is
not the same as recognizing their educational needs and concerns” (p. 19).
Redefining the “Model Minority Myth”
A redefinition of the characterization of Asian Americans as “model

minorities” must be forthrightly addressed by the academy. One potential
pitfall that stems from this designation is that this utopian view of Asian
American college students will continue to lead to a lack of interest and
concrete research aimed at accurately documenting the exigent needs among
the range of students in this cultural group (Fuertes & Sedlacek, 1994).
There is a potential to mask the academic and social struggles experienced
by individuals within this cohort due to the veneer of uniform success that
is promoted within academic and non-academic circles.
In university settings this overly simplistic view of Asian Americans has

resulted in dire consequences. In an effort to address this contemporary
challenge to Asian American college students, institutions of higher
education must engage in research efforts that seek to uncover the unique
needs based on the heterogeneous background of Asian American college
students. Thus it is critical to provide some sense of understanding that using
this term may obscure salient aspects of the Asian American culture such
as ethnic background and socioeconomic status (Hwang, Le, & Nguyen,
2001).
Institutions of higher education must forthrightly address the negative

impact that the “model minority” myth has exacted on the Asian American
population. Inherent in this stereotype is an essentialist discourse that portrays
all Asian American college students as well-adjusted and high-achieving
individuals. Colleges and universities must go beyond this stereotypical
image in an effort to design outreach programs and student services to help
meet the individual needs of Asian American students. Additionally, colleges
and universities must be aware of the unrealistic academic expectations
that the model minority stereotype can place on Asian American students.
This pressure may be overwhelming and lead to emotional and academic

problems that may force students to withdraw from college altogether (Yeh,
2004).
Strategies for Advising
Due to the unique cultural background experiences that Asian American

students bring to the higher education context, it is critical to incorporate
both academic advising and psychological counseling strategies that are
supportive of differences within and across this group. As previously stated,
the Asian label must be all encompassing and should not obscure efforts
to reveal differences among individuals within the population (Tracey,
Leong, & Glidden, 1986; Strage, 2000). One area within the academy that
is significantly impacted by the move away from a monolithic view of Asian
Americans is in the area of advising.
Chung and Sedlacek (1999) determined that Asian American students tend
to use advising (counseling) services more for career and academic guidance
rather than emotional or personal issues. The under use of these services
coupled with the pervasive model minority myth potentially creates an image
of the Asian American student as being devoid of emotional problems and
concerns. To treat this contemporary issue, higher education institutions,
particularly divisions of student affairs, regardless of prior experiences or
historical perceptions should recognize that Asian American students
may require more deliberate attention in regard to the type of advising
they receive (Leong, 1986). Thus, whether delivered at the classroom and
departmental level or at the college or university level, an understanding of
cultural nuances that Asian American students bring to the advising context
is critical. To reify this point, Cheng and Leong (1993) stated:
The different cultures that these students come from are

generally very distinct, so that a student with Italian heritage
would likely be quite culturally different from a student with
Japanese heritage. Research must turn to the study of student
populations from specific cultures. (p.186)
Counseling Asian Americans is another area of emphasis that requires a

concerted effort on the part of higher education to understand the differences
presented by this group. As Narikiyo and Kameoka (1992) and Sue and
Morishima (1982) pointed out, although Asian American college students
under use counseling and mental health services, they do not have fewer

psychological problems than White students. Their findings support one of
the classic arguments that Asians do not present personal and emotional
problems due to a cultural notion of “saving face.” According to Cheng and
Leong (1993), “These students perceive that there is less of a stigma attached
to academic and career problems, so they are more likely to focus on these
issues and focus less on personal and emotional concerns” (p. 183).
In order to promote constructive advising and counseling strategies, higher

education officials must ensure that not only academic and career advising is
advanced but emotional and psychological advising is promoted among this
population as well—one can not serve as a viable substitute for the other.
Cheng and Leong suggested that “practitioners need to be aware of these
tendencies when seeing Asian clients. Even if Asian clients present nothing
more than academic or career issues, it might be fruitful for practitioners to
assess possible personal and emotional problems as well” (p.182).
Career Choices
Career counseling and services comprises another area in which the unique
needs of Asian American students should be carefully examined. Kim, Li, and
Liang (2002) have noted in their study of Asian American college students
that there was a tendency to “underuse and prematurely terminate counseling
services” (p. 1). Explanations of this phenomenon have been closely related
to the role played by cultural values in the relationship between students and
counselors (Sue & Sue, 1999; Kim & Atkinson, 2002). According to Cheng
and Leong (1993), Asian students expressed a significantly higher need and
a higher importance for both academic and career counseling than their
White counterparts. Research on one area in particular, career counseling,
has addressed the difference between Asian American and White students
(Kim, Li, & Liang, 2002). To illustrate this point, Leung, Ivey, and Suzuki
(1994) conducted a study that used an occupations preference list and
compared a group of White students with a group of Asian American college
students. Results from the study revealed that, “Asian American students
were more likely to have considered investigative occupations and less likely
to have considered enterprising and conventional occupations than were
their White peers” (p.405). Additionally, Leung, Ivey, and Suzuki revealed
that Asian American students had a certain propensity to pursue career
opportunities almost exclusively in science or math related fields, leading to
their over inclusion in these fields. Questions related to this phenomenon
also revealed that the career decisions these students made were based on

parental and familial influence; parents saw these careers as high-prestige
occupations that would essentially contribute to their sons’ or daughters’
success in American society.
To address this contemporary issue, institutions of higher education should

focus on the unique career aspirations and challenges presented by Asian
American students. The role and influence of parents and family should
also be examined as part of this process. Research completed by Leung, Ivey
and Suzuki (1994) has clearly articulated the emphasis that many Asian
parents place on study in science and mathematics fields and the relative
influence they place on their children to seek employment in these areas.
Therefore, to provide a different perspective, it will be critical for institutions
of higher education to encourage these students to explore challenges and
opportunities outside of the hard sciences, perhaps in areas such as the liberal
arts and humanities. Perhaps higher education can use Hune and Chan’s
(1997) projections that asserted successive generations of American-born
Asian Americans will broaden the range of majors and fields of endeavor as
a means to increase the participation of this group across academe.
The Next Steps
The Asian American population is one of the fastest growing groups in

higher education (Hune, 2002). With this increase in the number of
students from this racial group, it will become increasingly important to
implement effective research initiatives that will inform our thinking
about key programs, policies, and procedures as an outgrowth of these
investigations—ultimately enhancing their college experiences. This chapter
has touched upon several of the major themes that have proven salient when
addressing the Asian American experience in higher education and the
following recommendations are offered in response:
(1) A critical look at this group reveals that not all members fall
within this model minority template. Many subgroups are not the
mathematics- and science-oriented “high achievers” that labels often
convey. For example, Bennett and Debarros (1998) indicated that
high school completion rates are different among ethnic groups
(from 31% for Hmong to 88% for Japanese Americans in 1990).
Additionally, in 1990 while 58.4% of Asian Indians in the United
States had completed a bachelor’s degree, only about 5% of Laotian

and Cambodian students and 2.9% of Hmong students in the United
States were reported as college graduates.
2) Career counseling efforts aimed at Asian American students

should not be limiting in their capacity to inform this cohort about
the range of educational and career opportunities. As a direct correlate
of the first recommendation, oftentimes career advisors become
locked into stereotypical notions of the career paths that Asian
American students should take—i.e., a science- and mathematics-
oriented focus. Yet, research (Kobayashi, 1999) has revealed uneven
patterns of success and achievement: “Even when the effects of
differential home resources are controlled, Pacific Islanders have
always achieved lower reading and math scores than Whites” (p. 12-
13). These findings attest to the need to look at the individual and
not the group in making determinations about career aspirations
and potential.
(3) Yeh and Huang (1996) pointed out that the collectivistic nature
of Asian American culture necessitates theories of ethnic identity
development that consider and incorporate this collectivistic aspect
of Asian culture. This is in contrast to the contemporary models
of ethnic identity development that are more reflective of the
individuocentric nature of this population—failing to acknowledge
social interaction and cultural context. An example of this cultural
context that is particularly salient for the Asian American community
and under-theorized in the academic literature on Asian American
college students is the concept of “covering” (p. 772). Yoshino (2002)
described covering as a method by which minorities seek to publicly
downplay or “cover” (p. 772) their racial identities in order to better
cope with perceived discrimination in society. This concept has
important connotations for those who work in higher education
institutions and who seek to understand racial identity development
as it relates to Asian American college students. This is evidenced in
Yoshinio’s (2006) work in which he described an Asian American
graduate student who asserted that “Asian Americans occupy a
kind of closet, in which attributes associated with our culture must
be muted in the public sphere” (p. 127). This denial of self should
be of interest to college administrators and faculty who must seek
ways to individualize students and understand that not all Asian

American students will react to college settings in similar ways.
Understanding what role specific cultural values and racial identities
play in the everyday interactions of Asian American college students
could provide a significant opportunity to serve these students more
productively.
(4) Higher education officials, particularly in student affairs,

should address the salient issues found to impact Asian American
student populations outlined by Lagdameo, Lee, Nguyen, Liang,
Lee, Kodama, and McEwen (2002): Marginalization; inadequate
resources and diversity among staff; institutionalized privilege and
racism; and safe spaces on campus all speak to the need to provide a
concentrated focus on the unique needs presented by these students.
One plausible suggestion is offered in the work of Alvarez and Liu
(2002), who made a compelling argument for the integration of
student affairs and Asian American studies as a means of addressing
these concerns. According to these researchers, “In light of the
complementary goals of both professions, collaboration between
AAS and student affairs seems to provide a natural link between
the theoretical and the applied, the intellectual and the psychosocial,
and the historical and the present” (p. 76).

Footnotes
1
“Asian” refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples of
the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent. It includes people
who indicated their race or races as “Asian Indian,” “Chinese,” “Filipino,”
“Korean,” “Japanese,” “Vietnamese,” or “Other Asian,” or wrote in entries
such as Burmese, Hmong, Pakistani, or Thai. “Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander” refers to people having origins in any of the original peoples
of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who
indicated their race or races as “Native Hawaiian,”“Guamanian or Chamorro,”
“Samoan,” or “Other Pacific Islander,” or wrote in entries such as Tahitian,
Mariana Islander, or Chuukese. The terms “Asian and Pacific American” and
“Asian American” are sometimes used to refer to the same sub-population
and are used interchangeably in this article (Grieco & Cassidy, 2000).

References
Alvarez A. N. (2002). Racial identity and Asian Americans: Supports and

challenges. In M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, &
C.T.H. Liang (Vol. Eds.), New Directions for Student Services, Vol. 97.
Working with Asian American college students (pp. 33-44). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Alvarez, A.N., & Liu, W. M. (2002). Student affairs and Asian American
studies: An integrative perspective. In M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama,
A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, & C.T.H. Liang (Vol. Eds.), New Directions for
Student Services: Vol. 97. Working with Asian American college students (pp.
73-80). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bennett, C. E., & Debarros, K. A. (1998). The Asian and Pacific Islander
population. In U.S. Census Bureau, The Official Statistics. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Chae, H.S. (2004). Talking back to the Asian model minority discourse:
Korean-origin youth experiences in high school. Journal of Intercultural
Studies, 25(1), 59-73.
Chang, M.J., & Kiang, P. (2002). New challenges of representing Asian

American students in U.S. higher education. In W. A. Smith, P. G.
Altbach & K. Lomotey (Eds.), The Racial crisis in American higher
education: Continuing challenges for the twenty-first century (pp. 137-158).
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Cheng, D. & Leong, F. (1993). Cultural differences in psychosocial distress

between Asian and caucasian American college students. Journal of
Multicultural Counseling & Development 21(3), 182-190.
Chiang L. H. (2000). Teaching Asian American students: Classroom implications.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting Midwestern Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Cho, S.K. (1993) Korean Americans vs. African Americans: Conflict and
construction. In R. Gooding-Williams (ed.), Reading Rodney King:
Reading urban uprising (New York: Routledge).
The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac. (2005). Retrieved October

23, 2006 from http://chronicle.com/free/almanac/2005

Chun, Ki-Taek. (1995). The myth of Asian American success and its
educational ramifications. In D. Nakanishi & T.Y. Nishida (eds), The Asian
American Educational Experience. (p. 95-112). New York: Routledge.
Chung, B. & Sedlacek, W (1999). Ethnic differences in career, academic

and social self-appraisals among incoming college freshmen. Journal of
College Counseling, 2, 14-24.
Chung, W. (1997). Asian American children. In E. Lee (ed.), Working

with Asian Americans: A guide for clinicians (pp. 165-174). New York:
Guilford.
Edmonds, K. & McDonough, T. (2006). Students of color make dramatic

gains in college enrollment but still trail Whites in the rate at which
they attend college (American Council on Education). Retrieved
November 8, 2006, from http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.
cfm?Section=Publications_and_Products&CONTENTID=18725&T
EMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development

Fisher, C.B., Wallace, S.A., & Fenton, R.E. (2000). Discrimination distress
during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29(6), 679-695.
Fuertes, J. & Sedlacek, W. (1994). Using SAT and noncognitive variables to

predict the grades and retention of Asian American university students.
Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development, 27(2), 74-85.
Greico, E.M. & Cassidy, R.C. (2000). Overview of race and Hispanic origin:
Case brief. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/
prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf
Hayano, D. (1981). Ethnic identification and disidentification: Japanese-
American views of Chinese Americans. Ethnic Groups, 3, 157-171.
Helms, J. E. (2000, Aug). “Model minorities: Coping with racism in Asian

American communities.” Symposium conducted at the meeting of
108th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, D.C.

Hsia J., & Hirano-Nakanishi, M. (1996). The demographics of diversity:
Asian American and higher education. In C. S. Turner, A. L. Antonio,
M. Garcia, B. V. Iaden, A. Nora, & C. L. Presley (eds.), Racial and ethnic
diversity in higher education. (1st ed.)(pp. 241-246) Boston: Pearson
Custom Publishing.
Hune, S. (2002). Demographics and diversity of Asian American college

students. In M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, &
C. T. H. Liang (Vol. Eds.), New Directions for Student Services: Vol. 97.
Working with Asian American college students (pp. 11-20). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hune, S., & Chan, K. S. (1997). Special focus: Asian Pacific American
demographic and educational trends. In D. J. Carter and R. Wilson
(eds.), Fifteenth annual status report on minorities in higher education.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Hurh W. M., & Kim, K. C. (1989). The “success” image of Asian Americans:
Its validity, and its practical and theoretical implications. Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 12(4), 512-538.
Hwang, S., Le, R., & Nguyen, T. (2001). Asian Pacific American and higher
education issues: University group policy paper. Retrieved November 9,
2006 from http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~rle/project.html
Jeffers, L.W. (1983). Communication, social class, and culture. Communication

Research, 10(2), 220-246.
Kiang, P. (1992). Issues of curriculum and community for first-generation

Asian Americans in college. New Directions for Community Colleges,
20(4), 97-112.
Kim, B. S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (2002). Asian American client adherence to
Asian cultural values, counselor expression of cultural values, counselor
ethnicity, and career counseling process. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
49, 3-13.
Kim, B. S. K., Li, L. C., & Liang, C. T. H. (2002). Effects of Asian American
client adherence to Asian cultural values, session goal, and counselor
emphasis of client expression on career counseling process. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 49, 342-354.

Kim, A., & Yeh, C. J. (2002). Stereotypes of Asian American Students. ERIC
Digest. Retrieved Sept. 25, 2006 from http://www.ericdigests.org/2002-
4/asian.html
Kim, H. (1997). Diversity among Asian American high school students. Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service. (Eric Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 408 388).
Kobayashi, F. (1999). Model minority stereotype reconsidered. Austin,

TX: The University of Texas at Austin. (Eric Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 434 167)
Kodama, C.M., McEwen, M.K., Liang, C.T.H., & Lee, S. (2002). An Asian
American perspective on psychosocial student development theory. In
M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, & C.T.H. Liang
(Vol. Eds.), New Directions for Student Services: Vol. 97. Working with
Asian American College Students (pp. 45-60). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lagdameo, A. Lee, S., Nguyen, B., Liang, C. T. H., Lee, S., Kodama, C. M.,
& McEwen, M. K. (2002). Voices of Asian American students. In M. K.
McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, & C.T.H. Liang (Vol.
Eds.), New Directions for Student Services: Vol. 97. Working with Asian
American College Students (pp. 5-10). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Le, C. N. (2006). “The 1965 Immigration Act” Asian-Nation: The landscape

of Asian America. Retrieved November 9, 2006 from http://www.asian-
nation.org/1965-immigration-act.shtml
Lee, S.J. (1996). Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: Listening to

Asian American youth. New York: Teachers College Press. Leong F.
T. L. (1986). Counseling and psychotherapy with Asian Americans:
Review of the literature. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 196-202.
Leong, F. T. L. (1986). Counseling and psychotherapy with Asian Americans:
Review of the literature. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 196-202.
Leung, S. A., Ivey, D & Suzuki, L. (1994). Factors affecting the career
aspirations of Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling & Development,
72(4), 404-410.
Magner, D. (1993). Colleges faulted for not considering differences in Asian-

America groups. Chronicle of Higher Education, 39(23), A32-B34.

Narikiyo, T. & Kameoka, V. (1992). Attributions of mental illness and
judgments about help seeking among Japanese-American and White
American students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39(3), 363-369.
Ong, P. M. & Leung, L. (2003). Diversified growth. In Lai, E. and Arguellas,

D., (Eds.), The new face of Asian Pacific America. San Francisco: Asian
Week Books.
Osajima, K. (1988). Asian Americans as the model minority: An analysis

of the popular press image in the 1960’s and 1980’s. In G. Okohiro, S.
Hune, A. Hansen, & J. Liu (Eds.), Reflections on shattered windows. (pp.
165-174). Pullman, WA: Washington State University.
Petersen, W. (1966). Success story, Japanese American style. The New York
Times Magazine, 20-21, 33, 36, 38, 40-41, 43.
Phinney, J.S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of

research. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 499-514.
Reeves, T. & Bennett, C. (2003). The Asian and Pacific Islander population
in the United States: March 2002, Current Population Reports, P20-
540, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Retrieved on November 7,
2006 from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p20-540.pdf
Sanderson, A. & Dugoni, B. (1999). Summary report 1997: Doctorate recipients

from United States universities. Chicago: National Opinion Research
Center.
Siu, S. F. (1996, December). Asian American students at risk: A literature

review. Report No. 8. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University,
Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 406).
Skeldon, R. (2000). Trends in international migration in the Asian and
Pacific Region. International Social Science Journal, 52(165).
Strage, A. (2000). Predictors of college adjustment and success: Similarities

and differences among Southeast Asian American, Hispanic, and White
students. Education, 120(4), 731-740.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1999). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and
practice (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Sue, S., & Morishima, J.K. (1982). The mental health of Asian Americans. San
Suzuki, B. (2002). Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implications for

student affairs practice and higher education. In M. K. McEwen, C. M.
Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, & C.T.H. Liang (Eds.), New Directions
for Student Services: Vol. 97. Working with Asian American college students
(pp. 21-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tracey, T. J., Leong, F. T. L., & Glidden, C. (1986). Help seeking and problem
perception among Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33,
331-336.
Weiss, K. R. (2000). Cal state sees dip in need for remedial help. Los Angeles
Times, March 15, A3, A18.
Yeh, T. (2004). Issues of college persistence between Asian and Asian Pacific
American Students. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(1), 81-96.
Yeh, T. (2002). Asian American college students who are educationally at

risk. New Directions for Student Services, 97. In M. K. McEwen, C.
M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, & C.T.H. Liang (Vol. Eds.), New
Directions for Student Services: Vol. 97. Working with Asian American
College Students (pp. 61-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yeh, C. J., & Huang, K. (1996). The collectivistic nature of ethnic identity
development among Asian-American college students. Adolescence, 31,
645-661.
Yoshino, K. (2006). Covering: the hidden assault on our civil rights. New York:
Random House.
Yoshino, K. (2002). Covering. Yale Law Journal, 111(4), 769-940.

CHAPTER 18
Conclusion
“A Nation of 300 Million” (Nasser, H. E.) was the headline for the July 5,
2006, issue of USA Today. Nasser indicated that such a large population was
unthinkable 25 years ago, all the result of immigration, longevity, a relatively
high birthrate, and economic stability—making the United States the third-
most populous country. By 2040, the number will increase to 400 million.
“The biggest driver of growth is immigration—legal and illegal. About
53% of the 100 million extra Americans are recent immigrants or their
descendents” according to Jeffery Passel, demographer at the Pew Hispanic
Center (Nasser, p. 1). Nasser continued, “The newcomers have transformed
an overwhelmingly white population of largely European descent into a
multicultural society that reflects every continent on the globe” (p. 1). Figure
1.1, from Chapter 1, perhaps best illustrated the change based on race and
ethnicity of generations in the past century.
With the projected growth and change in the U.S. population, what will be
the composition of the next generation and, more importantly, of college
students? How will individual college campuses be represented?
Although we don’t know who exactly will be represented in the next college
generation, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, for children younger
than 5 years of age, over 45% are racial or ethnic minorities (The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, Oct. 15, 2006, D3). Such data would suggest that the
Conclusion 411
next generation of college students beginning in approximately 13 years will
be even more diverse regarding race and ethnicity.
College campuses may also be affected by the changing demographic of age.

Brush (October 2, 2006) in U.S. News and World Report, commented on
the “graying” of America. “The United States is growing dramatically older.
Back in 1990, the median age in the United States was 22.9 years” (p. 54).
She continued, “The median age is up to 36.5 and is expected to rise to 39 by
2030 before leveling off ” (p. 54). In 1970, only 9.9% were 65 or older; today,
that figure has risen to 12.4%, and by 2030, it will reach 19.6% (Brush).
The cover title of the October 2, 2006 U.S. News & World Report read
“Special Report: 300,000,000 Sometime this month, America’s population
will pass the 300 million milestone. What it means for who we are, how
we live, and what kind of place our kids will grow in.” This best describes
perhaps many of the issues and questions that the authors have attempted
to address in the book as it pertained to college students and the various
student subpopulations.
College student demographics in the United States—what they are, how

they have changed, how they will be different in the future, and how they are
unique—has been the emphasis of this book. The book specifically described
today’s college student subpopulations, their differences and similarities,
their unique issues and concerns, how they as a group of students develop,
the unique benefits they derive from college, and some examples of successful
campus programs designed to meet each subpopulation’s particular needs.
College campuses today are dominated by a multitude of various student

subpopulations, represented primarily by the current millennial generation.
With such a blend of students on college campuses, perhaps there is no
simple way to describe today’s students other than to think of them as a
mixture of several generations, several subcultures, several subgroups, all
with different agendas, different goals and ambitions, different attitudes,
and different experiences that have shaped and are shaping their futures.
Fifteen major student subpopulations have been discussed: student-athletes;

African American students; honors students; first-generation college
students; students with disabilities; Native American students; nontraditional
students; working students; students living in residence halls; students in
greek-letter organizations; international students; transfer students; Latino/

a/Hispanic students; gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students; and
Asian American Students. These subpopulations were not presented in any
particular order, but as noted in Chapter 1, there are several natural groupings
for these subpopulations: traditional students; nontraditional students; and
students who may be both traditional and nontraditional.
It also became very clear throughout all of the chapters that college students
today may be identified in multiple subpopulations at the same time. They
may also move from one subpopulation to another throughout their college
careers. In other words, student affairs professionals must understand
that today’s college students, as individuals, do not remain in one or two
subpopulations. Most college students initially enroll as traditional students;
however, during their four or more years of enrollment, their characteristics
change from those associated with being a traditional student to those that
are more often identified with nontraditional students, i.e. working extensive
hours, enrolling part-time, being financially independent, taking care of
children or dependents, and/or being a single parent.
Higher Education, just like the U.S. population and demographics,

has changed rather dramatically during the past century. Even more
dramatically, college students have changed. It is evident from the literature
and demographics that the 21st century will witness even greater changes in
both higher education and in the students who are enrolled.
The words “changing” and “evolving” perhaps best describe what has
occurred and will continue to occur with college students. Student affairs
administrators must be aware of and prepared for these ongoing and rapid
changes that are occurring in their students. The brief history of higher
education and college students from Chapter 1 indicated several major
eras when change was most noteworthy. The development of Land Grant
institutions beginning in the mid 1800s certainly introduced a different
type of student to higher education—students from all walks of life and
particularly those not from upper class backgrounds were provided the
opportunity to study. The expansion of historical Black institutions in
southern states in the late 1800s resulting from the Land Grant legislation
gave African Americans greater opportunities to study beyond secondary
education. This legislation was augmented by the Civil Rights movement
Conclusion 413
in the 1960s, which resulted in African American students becoming the
largest minority student population.
Similarly, the tremendous growth in women students beginning in the 1950s

and continuing throughout the remainder of the 20th century has resulted
in women students approaching 60% of the total undergraduate student
population. To further add to the mix of students, the doors that opened
to adult students that began following World War II with GI veterans,
the push to be competitive with the Soviet Union during the “Cold War”
years, the development and rapid expansion of community colleges, and
the modification of traditional teaching colleges into more comprehensive
four-year institutions, all had a major impact on higher education and the
students who attended.
The 1960s and 70s brought change throughout higher education as the
result of both campus and society’s values and principles being tested and
challenged by students through rebellion and protests. During the 80s and
90s, the advancement and use of technology, along with the tremendous
growth of women and racial/ethnic minorities attending college, continued
the change. We’ve also witnessed a change in traditional students, from
attending and completing college in four or five years, to students who
have worked extensively, attended part-time, stopped-out, transferred,
enrolled simultaneously at more than one institution, and simply have
not followed the traditional route in completing an undergraduate degree.
Today’s universities reach out to the working adult student choosing to go
back to college after entering the workforce or choosing to continue his or
her education through the assistance of employee tuition reimbursement
programs. Most recently, a number of online courses and distance education
opportunities have been created to meet the schedules and demands of both
traditional and nontraditional students. These changes continued into the
21st century.
Although this book has concentrated primarily on degree seeking

undergraduate students enrolled in accredited colleges and universities,
little has been said about the thousands or millions of individuals who are
enrolled in online courses for job-related skill enhancement or who are
perhaps ultimately seeking a degree.
Tomorrow, the major change will be the overall growth of minority students
who when combined, will comprise the majority of students enrolled.

However, White, non-Hispanic students will continue as the largest racial/
ethnic subpopulation with Latino/a/Hispanic students becoming the
second largest followed by African American, Asian American, and Native
American. Many of the Hispanic and other minority students will be
first-generation students; will begin at community colleges and ultimately
transfer to four-year institutions; will live at home or in the community; will
continue working throughout college, and in most cases alternate between
part-time and full-time status; will periodically stop out for a semester or
more; will accumulate credits from multiple institutions as well as online
credits; and will extend their education beyond the traditional four years
before graduating. Whereas, the more traditional student enters college
immediately following high school graduation, assumes the traditional
experience of initially living in campus housing, and completes the college
degree in four or five years. Many of these traditional students will ultimately
assume a similar pattern of the new majority students through work, part-
time status, multiple institutional credits, etc., all resulting in campuses
experiencing students with tremendous diversity in all aspects.
Throughout the book, the authors have attempted to provide unbiased

and researched data and information regarding each of the major student
college subpopulations discussed. Hopefully, this has been achieved. As was
addressed in Chapter 1, it is very easy to generalize and draw conclusions
that perhaps become stereotypes regarding student subpopulations and even
more concerning regarding individual students. Each of us has been raised
in an environment in which our thoughts, our opinions, and our perspectives
regarding students who represent particular subpopulations are somewhat
biased.
It is only human nature to form attitudes based on observations, readings,

and various forms of communications as so vividly described in Rick
Badie’s (2006) article titled “Why would kids think they’re in the wrong
skin?” (p. J3). Badie, an African American journalist, discussed two similar
experiments over a span of 50 years. According to Badie, the first experiment,
used to help persuade the Supreme Court to strike down segregation and
conducted in the 1950s by Dr. Kenneth Clark, asked Black children ages 6 to
9 their perception of a White and a Black doll. The second and more recent
experiment, which also asked Black children ages 6 to 9 their perception of
the two dolls, was conducted by a high school student and documented on
Conclusion 415
film. In both experiments, the majority of the children favored the White
doll.
Badie noted that we shouldn’t be surprised by the outcome of the second

experiment as our perceptions, our self identity, and what we value are
shaped through all forms of media. What we view, what we hear, what we are
confronted with, all add to a young person’s image of self and others. Even
at the college level, professionals need to continually ask how comfortable
college students are in their “skin” or with their identity. This applies not only
to students of color, but also to most all students who have been identified in
one of the subpopulations presented.
Attitudes are also shaped by the eras in which we live and the major events
that occur in our society and world, particularly during our youth. As
discussed in Chapter 1, the Great Depression, wars, catastrophic events,
social movements, acts of violence, etc. all had significant effects on the
generations. Attitudes are also shaped by family members, by our peers and
associates, and by those with whom we are comfortable or have learned
to know as individuals, as well as groups or organizations with whom we
associate or observe.
It is too easy for all of us to generalize about particular subpopulations and

forget that the information we have read or the data and research that we
have reviewed are mostly about groups, not individuals within the group. As
professionals and educators, we must always remember that we are dealing
primarily with individual students, and we can make a significant difference
in their lives. In addition, we must always remember that each of us must be
willing to recognize our own attitudes (many of which are ingrained within
us over years of life and experiences) and be willing to change as we expand
our knowledge and understanding of those with whom we have had limited
experience in the past.
Significant Conclusions
From the review of the various student subpopulations, several significant

findings can be determined. A brief review of the conclusions drawn in
Chapter 2 will serve as a base for additional conclusions about specific
student subpopulations.
• College undergraduate enrollments will continue to increase in total

numbers through 2020 and probably beyond.

• College graduate and professional enrollments will likely increase at a
faster rate than undergraduates through 2020 and beyond.
• College enrollment growths will be concentrated primarily in the

West and South resulting in colleges in certain states or regions of the
country struggling to maintain enrollments.
• College students will be much more diverse as Hispanic students

become the largest minority. This change has already occurred in a
number of institutions and states and will continue as greater numbers
of Hispanics move throughout the country and aspire to higher career
opportunities.
• College undergraduate growth will continue to be that of traditional-age

students, and graduate/professional growth will result from traditional-
aged students continuing their education beyond the bachelor’s degree
or returning after a few years in their careers.
• Older students have the potential of growing significantly, but the data
do not support that during the next 10 to 15 years adult-aged students
will increase significantly when compared to traditional-aged students.
However, due to the large number of potential students particularly
in states that have declining high school graduates and increasing
percentages of older citizens, this may be a great opportunity for
increasing enrollments. The continual change in and usage of technology
may provide opportunities for older students to attend college— but not
necessarily in the traditional “classroom” environment.
• Students will in all likelihood continue to work more and carry fewer
hours each semester, resulting in the extension of time enrolled in higher
education, which will actually increase the total enrollment numbers.
• Students will continue to enroll in institutions primarily in their home
states in which both two- and four-year institutions will share somewhat
equally in student numbers.
• Female students will continue to dominate enrollments in higher

education for the next 20 years and perhaps beyond. However, great
potential exists as does the need to engage a higher percentage of
traditional-age male students in higher education, both as new first-time
Conclusion 417
and nontraditional students, as well as former students who withdrew
prior to completion.
• Growth or decline in international students is very difficult to predict

due to the ongoing issues in international affairs and national security.
• Millennial students will be attending all levels of higher education at

higher rates when compared to previous generations.
As more parents become better educated, achieve higher family income,

and reduce family size, their children are more likely to attend college.
In addition, as demand grows for more highly skilled careers, college
education will be expected. As lower economic families aspire to improve
their socioeconomic status, education will be viewed as the opportunity
to achieve such for themselves and/or for their children.
Specific Conclusions Regarding Subpopulations
The following is a summary of additional conclusions that should be

highlighted, emphasized, or added to the above more general conclusions
derived from the demographics.
1. Clearly, the change in the overall demographics of the country and

of those who will be attending colleges and universities will result in
dramatic demographic changes in the composition of college student
populations. Students of the 21st century will be much more diverse.
Hispanics will be the largest minority student population approaching
25% of total student enrollments by 2050. Combining the other three
minority subpopulations (African American, Asian American, and Native
American) with Hispanics, the minority college student population will
outnumber White students.
2. Within these changing and growing racial and ethnic subpopulations,

additional subpopulations are emerging. Asian American students are
represented by a bimodal distribution of academic achievement. One
might speculate that such may also be accurate for other subpopulations,
particularly other minority racial/ethnic groups. Higher education must
be willing to recognize and address those students who particularly
represent the lower end of academic achievements.
3. Nontraditional students already exist as the largest group on many

campuses, particularly community colleges. What is most interesting,

students of traditional age will remain the dominant group of entering
undergraduates. However, as more students work and thus may become
part-time students, take longer to graduate, and become independent,
even these traditional-aged students move into a nontraditional category.
Colleges and universities whose entering students are predominantly
traditional students must learn to adapt to these changing students.
4. Students will continue to work and work longer and more hours with
many maintaining full-time employment while attending college. Again,
colleges must learn how to better enhance the college experience so that
working students are engaged in the learning experience while they are
on campus or in many cases, while they are working via the Internet.
5. Traditional-aged students entering colleges and universities will

continue to choose, either by choice or due to campus policies, to live on
campus in residence halls during their first year. However, as students
move from traditional status to nontraditional classification such as
part-time enrollment, working extensive hours, interrupted enrollment,
etc., most residence halls simply do not meet the students’ needs.
6. Honors or high-ability students are in great demand—being actively

recruited by colleges and universities, often with offers of lucrative
scholarships or other attractions. However, research is limited on these
students. Are campuses meeting their unique needs? Are these students
being as successful as would be predicted? Are colleges and universities
adequately addressing the educational and developmental needs of these
students while using for prestige and rankings?
7. College athletics are a major part of most college campuses including

alumni, financial supporters, media, and communities. Student athletes,
with the tremendous pressure to perform on the playing field, often
lose sight of the real reasons for enrolling in college. Campus leaders
must remain vigilant in their efforts to assure that these students
receive appropriate guidance, support, and understanding of their real
priorities.
8. Gender issues were not specifically addressed in this book. However,

hind sight would suggest that such should have been the case. Although
female students are still today considered a minority or an under-
represented population for many reasons, female students do and will
Conclusion 419
continue to dominate student enrollments. No one should overlook the
unique issues that female students encounter such as lower wages upon
graduation or the inequality that still exists on most campuses. However,
the changes in enrollment percentages clearly raise serious questions
about issues regarding male enrollments. Across all racial/ethnic groups,
the percentage of males enrolling in college has declined in relationship
to females. And, the percentage of recent male high school graduates
going on to college following high school graduation has declined or
remained the same in the past 10 years; whereas, the opposite is true for
females. What can higher education do to change this trend and at the
same time continue with the thrust of making women equal in all other
aspects of college life?
9. With the predictions of tremendous growth in the racial/ethnic

minority groups, (African American, Native American, Asian American,
and Latino/a/Hispanic), each subpopulation (or subgroups within the
subpopulations) will continue to need encouragement and support in
order for them to successfully navigate higher education and ultimately
graduate. These racial/ethnic subpopulations must also be encouraged to
advance beyond the undergraduate degrees.
10. Transfer students are becoming common place, but most institutions
simply do not recognize this significant population on college campuses.
How might institutions better assist students who enroll in multiple
institutions throughout their college experience?
11. Students with disabilities arrive on college campuses with many

unique needs but often unknown or unrealized by campus leaders.
Approximately one-tenth of students enrolled have some long lasting
condition that limits basic physical activities and an even larger
percentage have some form of learning or psychological disability. As
the student populations age and extend their enrollments beyond the
traditional years through work, graduate school, etc., many students will
develop or be diagnosed with a disability.
12. Perhaps the least identified and often overlooked group of students
on college campuses today are those whose sexual orientation or identity
is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Although these students represent
a relatively small percentage of college students, their personal identity
and the issues related most often create extraordinary consequences and

internal conflict that potentially impacts their personal life, academic
success, and future careers.
13. First-generation students currently account for more than 40% of

the newly enrolled students in higher education. With the projected
growth of Latino/a/Hispanic students, first-generation students will
continue to be a significant group of entering students.
14. International students enhance the college experience for all

students and are a valuable asset for higher education and society in
general. With the current societal climate of fear, international student
interest and enrollments in U.S. institutions of higher education have
declined or leveled off. This trend will most likely continue with students
from certain countries or regions.
15. Students who affiliate with Greek-lettered organizations gain

valuable skills and often remain committed to the institution after
graduation. However, interest and numbers have declined over the years,
and certain developmental issues valued by higher education are not on
par with unaffiliated students.
16. Graduation rates are expected to remain about the same, which has
been the case for years. However, as what has been evident in the past, four
and five years to graduate has been extended to six years, and realistically,
six years may need to be extended to eight years if we are to truly capture
the level of college students graduating. Students are taking fewer hours
and working more, which interferes with full-time academic loads and
interrupts their college experience with multiple transfers, stop outs, etc.
This will become even more evident with the increase of Hispanics and
other minorities dominating the college enrollment.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) authors have

identified seven significant “risk attributes” that have a negative
impact on persistence and degree attainment. These include: delayed
postsecondary enrollment by one or more years; enrolled part-time;
financially independent; have children or dependents; single parents;
work full time while enrolled; and GED or high school dropout (Horn
L., Peter, K., Rooney, K., 2002). Institutions must create effective
tracking methods that identify students as they move in and out of these
Conclusion 421
significant risk factors and provide creative programs/services to address
individual needs.
17. Greater numbers of students will progress directly into graduate

and professional degrees rather than delaying enrollment while working
for several years.
Questions
As all authors know, much of what is written may already be out of date
or will be in a short period of time. In particular, if the next several years
produce even greater change in college students than has existed in the past
century, then perhaps our greatest value in writing this book has been in
raising questions that need to be encountered, challenged, debated, and
researched. Here are some of the questions that we believe are pertinent.
1. How will institutions respond to changing demographics in their

region? With the major growth areas projected for the South and West
regions, and leveling off or declines in other sections of the country,
what will individual campuses do to address these changes?
2. How might higher education and student affairs professionals address

the growing decline of males of all ethnic and racial groups enrolling in
higher education? What research is needed to determine the reasons
behind this trend?
3. How might higher education collaborate with secondary education to

enhance the percentage of high school graduates, particularly Hispanics,
African Americans, and Native Americans?
4. What programs might each campus develop to better meet the unique
needs of their particular students?
5. How might campuses better identify and address the specific needs
of what may become the majority of students who enroll in multiple
campuses, gain credits through online courses, transfer credits between
campuses, and, in many ways, have little or limited identity or engagement
with those institutions?
6. How might campuses reduce the real or perceived need for students
to work extensive hours and, thus, reduce one of the major risks of
attrition? How might colleges and universities become more pro-active

in either creating meaningful part-time jobs both on and off campus for
college students? How might these jobs be more closely aligned with the
academic experience?
7. How might campuses enhance the likelihood of those students who

stop out or drop out in returning to complete their degrees?
8. How might two- and four-year institutions do a better job encouraging

students to continue their education beyond the two-year institution?
9. How might campuses better recognize the “risks of attrition” and more
successfully address those issues for individual students, subpopulations
of students, and all of the enrolled students?
10. If honors students and student athletes are such valued institutional
citizens, what innovative programs/services might be created to better
meet these students’ needs during their college careers? Similarly, might
recruiting and retention techniques currently used with honors students
and student athletes be utilized more widely in recruitment and retention
efforts for under-represented students?
11. Although only mentioned occasionally in the chapters, how might

campuses assist students in reducing their level of debt, which appears
to be a major growing concern of both students and higher education
administrators? Is debt primarily a result of students meeting academic
costs or personal costs or does it make any difference? How might
financial aid policies and funding be modified to provide financial
support for those in most need?
12. How will higher education reinforce the value and commitment to
educate students from throughout the world, thus making the campuses
and learning experiences a truly global or international experience for
all students?
13. How might individual campuses creatively track individual students

and address issues once these individual students move into one or more
of the “significant risk attributes” identified by NCES?
14. How might student affairs professionals engage their students

through programs, policies, and practices so that individual students and
students who identify with particular subpopulations, understand and
Conclusion 423
obtain the overall values and benefits of an educated person, not just
monetary?
15. African American students have historically been the prominent

racial or minority subpopulation in higher education as has been
paralleled in U.S. society. However, with the tremendous influx of
immigrants in the past 20–30 years, with representation from all regions
of the world and especially from Latin American countries, other ethnic,
racial, and cultural subpopulations have emerged and will become much
more prominent throughout higher education. Will student affairs and
higher education maintain an appropriate commitment and balance in
addressing the needs of these different and unique subpopulations?
16. With the “graying” of America, will the baby boomers enroll in
higher education in greater numbers? With their departure from the
work force, will high school graduates, particularly those who are
potential first-generation college students, choose these open-quality
jobs with good pay over higher education?
17. Current millennial students, particularly those with high ability, are
under tremendous stress to achieve and to be admitted to the “best”
colleges and universities. Will this pressure to succeed become too much
of a burden and might higher education witness a rebellion or significant
increase in mental health issues?
18. With the recognition that student subpopulations arrive on

campus with different cultural experiences, different levels or stages of
development, as well as different developmental needs, different learning
styles, and different expectations of outcomes, can higher education
adequately serve these very diverse students?
19. Finally, and perhaps most important, how do we as student affairs

professionals and administrators engage ourselves in the lives of individual
students and particularly those students who are too often “forgotten” or
“lost” and ultimately become a statistic? The Native American student
who has few if any peers on campus and is pulled by the strong connection
to his family, tribe, and reservation. The gay or lesbian student who fears
the potential consequences or ramifications of “coming out.” The student
athlete whose athletic career has ended due to injury, and has lost her life
“identity.” The honors student who has failed several exams and just can

not continue with the demands or “expectations.” The first-generation
student whose parents and family have no appreciation of his strong
desire to learn and excel. The student with a hidden disability but who
doesn’t want to be identified as such. The student who must work to
survive but is in a job that is far too demanding and time consuming.
The bi-racial student who is confronted with her racial identity. The
international student whose family identity in the home country rides
on his academic achievements. The sorority student who was sexually
assaulted but knows the internal pressure that will occur if reported. The
single mother of two small children maxing out her high interest credit
cards trying to pay medical bills and have food on the table. Or any of the
millions of individual students who are of any race, ethnic group, or some
other subgroup but who could easily identify with the statement by the
authors of Chapter 15 regarding Latino students, “(They) may continue
to feel alone in the process of their attempt to find their place within the
college environment; to find their place at the table,” (p. 337) and, the
statement by Murillo, “Like a ‘mojado’ [wetback] …, I attempt to cross
the artificial borders into occupied academic territories, searching for
a ‘coyote’ [smuggler] to secure a safe passage” (Villenas, 1998, p. 389.).
How are we assisting individual students to find their place at the table
and what kind of safe passages are we providing?
In 1937 The Student Personnel Point of View, a philosophical position on

beliefs and assumptions as to how those in the student personnel profession
were to treat and serve students was written.
The philosophy imposes upon educational institutions the

obligation to consider the student as a whole–intellectual
capacity and achievement, emotional make-up, physical
condition, social relationships, vocational aptitudes and
skills, moral and religious values, economic resources, and
aesthetic appreciations. It puts emphasis, in belief, upon the
development of the student as a person rather than upon his
intellectual training alone. (¶3)
A revision of The Student Personnel Point of View was published in 1949

(http://www.naspa.org/pubs/StudAff_1949.pdf ), and in 1987 NASPA
published the Perspective on Student Affairs (http://www.naspa.org/pubs/
StudAff_1987.pdf ). Each of these philosophical statements for the Student
Personnel profession focused on two primary words: individual student.
Conclusion 425
The emphasis is placed on the role of student personnel professionals, as
educators, to have an understanding of student groups or subpopulations in
order to better understand individual students, but to recognize that each
student is an individual with individual unique characteristics, concerns,
hopes and dreams. We as professionals can and do have an impact upon
their development and ultimate personal success and life. In fact the 1949
statement stated that “the test of effectiveness of any personnel services lies
in the differences it makes in the development of individual students” (p.
33). Two major premises in the 1987 document stated that “Each Student is
Unique” and “Each Person Has Worth and Dignity” (p. 9).
In 2003 Rhatigan and Schuh authored the article “Small Wins” in which they
implied that in each interaction that we, as professionals, have with individual
students or through orchestrated initiatives, we create opportunities (mostly
unrealized at the time) for “small wins” in the lives of students. This may
be as simple as a note of congratulations, a positive comment on a graded
paper, a friendly hello, a few extra minutes of time to really listen before
rushing to another meeting, or as complex as implementing programs and
initiatives throughout the organization that influence how others respond to
students or programs that respond to needs. “Small wins can produce results
that are electrifying and, in some cases, life changing. It is not necessarily the
profound nature or depth of what is done that makes the difference, however,
but the timing” (Rhatigan & Schuh, p. 19). These “small wins” change and
reshape the lives of students. Student affairs professionals along with their
faculty colleagues can and must be the opportunists who create “small wins”
in students’ lives. As Rhatigan and Schuh stated,
We read or write articles about the factors inherent in

student development but may lack the time or perspective to
see that sitting right before us is a single student for whom a
small win might tip the balance between staying in school or
dropping out, between success and failure. (p. 20)
Borrowing the words so adeptly scribed by author Badie and authors

Rhatigan and Schuh, we pose the following two questions to all student
affairs professionals.
What kind of campus environments are you creating that allow and support
each student to feel comfortable in his/her “skin”? What “small wins” are
you creating?

And, in conclusion, we pose a third question. How do we as student affairs
professionals and administrators engage in the lives of individual students
and particularly those students who, too often, become a statistic?
Conclusion 427
References
A Perspective on Student Affairs. (1987). Retrieved October 19, 2006 from

http://www.naspa.org/pubs/StudAff_1987.pdf
Badie, R. (October 15, 2006). Why would kids think they’re in the wrong
skin? The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. J3.
Brush, S. (October 2, 2006). A Nation in Full. U.S. News and World Report,
Vol. 141, No. 12, 46-57.
Horn, L., Peter, K., Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of undergraduates in U.S.

postsecondary institutions: 1999-2000. Retrieved October 20, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002168.PDF
Howe, N. & Strauss, B. (2000). Millennials rising: the next great generation.
New York: Vintage Books.
Nasser, H. E. ( July 5, 2006). A Nation of 300 Million. USA Today, pp.1A,

6A.
Rhatigan, J. J. & Schuh, J. H. (2003). Small Wins. About Campus, Enriching

the Student Learning Experience, Volume 7, No. 6, March-April 2003
Special Report: 300,000,000.(October 2, 2006). U.S. News & World Report,

Vol. 141, No. 12, cover page.
The Student Personnel Point of View. (1949). Retrieved October 19, 2006
from http://www.naspa.org/pubs/StudAff_1949.pdf
The Student Personnel Point of View. (1937). Retrieved October 19, 2006
from http://www.naspa.org/pubs/StudAff_1937.pdf
U.S. population: 300 million’s a crowd. (October 15, 2006). The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution, pp D3.
Villenas, S. (1998). The colonizer/colonized Chicana ethnographer: Identity,

marginalization, and co-optation in the field. In A. Woyshner & H.
Gelfond (Eds.), Minding Women: Reshaping the Educational Realm, (pp.
389-398). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

Contributors
Lyle A. Gohn, PhD, is emeritus vice chancellor for student affairs and
associate professor, Higher Education Leadership at the University of
Arkansas. A student affairs educator and administrator with 40 years of
professional experience, he holds a bachelor’s in agriculture business
management and master’s and doctorate degrees in counseling from Purdue
University in Indiana. He is a past president of NASPA.
Ginger R. Albin is a doctoral academy fellow in the Higher Education

Leadership program at the University of Arkansas. She holds a bachelor’s in
business from the University of Tulsa in Oklahoma, and a master’s in college
teaching from Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, Oklahoma.
Teresa B. Bevis, EdD, is an adjunct faculty member for Crowder College in

Neosho, Missouri. Previously, she served as the program coordinator for the
international student population at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Her articles about international students have been published in NAFSA’s
International Educator and in the Jossey-Bass periodical About Campus,
and she is currently under contract for a book, The History of International
Students in United States Higher Education, co-authored with Christopher
Lucas. She holds a master’s and doctorate in higher education administration
from the University of Arkansas.
Fred A. Bonner II, EdD, is an associate professor of higher education at

Texas A&M University, College Station. He served as an assistant to the
president at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, as an ACE
429
Fellow. He holds a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from the University of
North Texas, a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction from Baylor
University in Texas, and a doctorate in higher education from the University
of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Yi-Hsuan Chen is a PhD candidate in educational administration at

Texas A&M University. She holds a bachelor’s in political science from
National Taiwan University, and a master’s in educational administration
from National Taiwan Normal University. Prior to studying at Texas A&M,
she was a teacher at the Affiliated Senior High School of National Taiwan
Normal University.
Jeremy D. Dickerson is assistant director in the Office of Admissions at the

University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. He holds a bachelor’s in German from
Hendrix College in Conway, Arkansas, and a master’s in higher education
from the University of Arkansas.
Trevor T. Francis is an academic counselor for the Fulbright College Advising

Center at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, and he is subsequently
pursuing a Doctorate of Education with a concentration in higher education.
He holds a bachelor’s degree in communication and sociology and a master’s
degree in communication from the University of Arkansas.
Erika Gamboa is the academic counselor for Veterans Upward Bound at the
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. She holds a bachelor’s in criminology
and Spanish from the University of New Mexico at Albuquerque, and
master’s in higher education from the University of Arkansas.
Jennifer L. Greer is a doctoral student in sports psychology at Florida

State University. She is a former compliance coordinator in the athletics
department at the University of South Carolina. Jennifer holds a bachelor’s
in kinesiology from Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia, Arizona,
and a master’s in higher education from the University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville.
Sara R. Hillis is the coordinator of new media and programs at Texas A&M
University–Commerce. She holds a master’s in higher education leadership
from the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, and a bachelor’s in marketing
from the University of Mary Hardin–Baylor in Belton, Texas.

Jennifer A. Hottinger is a national account coordinator for Del Monte Foods
with previous work experience in TRIO programs. She holds a bachelor’s
in English literature from Arkansas Tech University in Russellville, and a
master’s in higher education from the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Michael E. Jennings, PhD, is an assistant professor in the department of

Educational Leadership & Policy Studies at the University of Texas at San
Antonio. He holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from Hampton
University, a master’s degree in political science from the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a doctorate in the Social Foundations
of Education from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Willis A. Jones is a doctoral student in the higher education program at

Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. He holds a bachelor’s in
sociology from the University of North Texas in Denton, and a master’s in
higher education from the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Andrew J. Mauk is the associate director for the multicultural center at the
University of Arkansas. He holds a bachelor’s in biology and a master’s in
Lynn T. Meade is an instructor of communication at the University of

Arkansas, Fayetteville, and she is subsequently pursuing a Doctor of Education
degree in higher education with a concentration in college teaching. She
holds a bachelor’s in communication and a master’s in communication from
the University of Arkansas.
Michael T. Miller, EdD, is a professor and the program coordinator of

the higher education leadership program at the University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville. As a higher education professor for 15 years, he has published
extensively and has held leadership roles in several professional organizations.
He holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and a master’s degree in
higher education from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, and a
doctorate in community and human resources (continuing and postsecondary
education) from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln.
Jacob G. Murdock is the program coordinator for service programs at the

University of Nevada in Las Vegas. He holds a bachelor’s in political science
431
from Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado, and a master’s in higher
education from the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Jennifer D. Robinson is an academic advisor in the University College at the

University of Arkansas at Little Rock. She is a former academic advisor in
the Sam M. Walton College of Business and women’s athletics department
at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. She holds a bachelor’s in sociology
and criminal justice, and a master’s in higher education from the University
of Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Bradley A. Rohrer is a resident director at the University of Massachusetts–

Dartmouth. He holds a bachelor’s in communications from Bradley
University in Peoria, Illinois, and a master’s in higher education from the
University of Arkansas.
Caleb P. Rose is the student development specialist with the federally funded
TRIO Program Student Support Services at the University of Arkansas, and
he is subsequently pursuing a Doctor of Philosophy degree in public policy
with a concentration in higher education. He holds a bachelor’s degree in
psychology from East Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina,
and a master’s degree in clinical psychology from Marshall University in
Huntington, West Virginia.
Billy H. Satterfield is a financial aid counselor at the University of Arkansas,

and he is subsequently pursuing a Doctor of Education with a concentration
in higher education administration. He holds a bachelor’s in history from
Henderson State University in Arkadelphia, Arkansas, and a master’s in
Shailen M. Singh is a student development specialist in the Department of

Student Activities at Texas A&M University. Prior to his position at Texas
A&M, he served as the associate director of the First Year Experience at the
University of Arkansas. He holds a bachelor’s degree in communications
from Texas A&M, a master’s in higher education from the University of
Arkansas, and is currently pursuing his doctoral degree in human resource
development at Texas A&M University.
Theres W. Stiefer is director of the Center for Management and Executive

Development at the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, and is subsequently pursuing a Doctor of Education
with a concentration in higher education at the University of Arkansas. She

holds a bachelor’s in psychology, and a master’s in psychology, counseling,
and communications from Cameron University in Lawton, Oklahoma.
Annemarie Vaccaro, PhD, is the faculty director for living and learning
communities at the University of Denver (DU). She also teaches courses
and serves as the assistant to the coordinator of the MA program in
higher education at DU. Her degrees include a BA in social science from
Castleton State College in Castelton, Vermont, an MA in sociology from
the University of Denver, and an MA in student affairs from Indiana
University of Pennsylvania. Her PhD, also from DU, is in higher education
administration with an emphasis on teaching about diversity and social
justice.
Sandra Y. Vasquez is the assistant director for the Office of Community

Standards and Student Ethics at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
with previous experience in residential life. She holds a bachelor’s in liberal
studies from California State University, Northridge, and a master’s in
higher education from the University of Arkansas.
433

Understanding College Student Subpopulations PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding College Student Subpopulations PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding College Student

Student Affairs Administrators

Student Affairs Administrators

Student Affairs Administrators

Copyright © 2006 by the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators

This e-book was designed primarily as a resource for professionals and

Prior to submitting each chapter to NASPA, most chapters were reviewed

Introduction to College Students: Generations,

Today’s college students are an extremely diverse group of people. Many

This book will describe today’s college student subpopulations, their

College Generations and How College Students Have Changed

Howe and Strauss (2000) deﬁned a generation as “a society-wide peer group,

2 Understanding College Student Subpopulations

· Students of the 1920s – wet, wild, and wicked or “lost” generation

· Students of the 1930s – somber and radical or“Depression” generation

· Students of the 1940s – mature and “In a Hurry”

· Students of the 1950s – “silent” generation

· Students of the late 1970s and 1980s – “me” generation

· Students of the 1980s and 1990s – Generation X or 13th Gen or

Students entering college in 2000 have been identiﬁed as the Millennials or

Table 1.1 Current College Student Generations

Estimated Years as Estimated Years Estimated No.

Baby Boomers 1943-1960 70 mil 1961 -1982 1961 -1988 NA

Gen X 1961-1981 80 mil 1979-1999 1979-2005+ 5.8 mil

Millennials 1982-2002 100 mil 2000-2021 2000-2027+ 6.9 mil

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census (2002).

Generations are shaped by what has occurred or is occurring within a

4 Understanding College Student Subpopulations

Views Toward Boomers Gen Xers Millennials

Conﬁdent of self, not

Loyalty to institutions Cynical Considered Naïve Committed

Title and the corner

Having children Controlled Doubtful Deﬁnite

Family life Indulged as children Alienated as children Protected as children

Once a year with “Sorry, but how am I Feedback whenever I

Political orientation Attack oppression Apathetic, individual Crave community

Source: DeBard, 2004, p. 40.

Stereotyping groups of people is commonplace. It seems no matter how

As an example, in a recent class a student sneezed and someone immediately

How many times do we all do this as we attempt to classify new acquaintances,

6 Understanding College Student Subpopulations

Who are the Student Subpopulations?

Who are the subpopulations on today’s college campuses? Most campuses

This book will focus primarily on undergraduate students and

We are also confident that other authors or administrators, depending

8 Understanding College Student Subpopulations

Developmental Theories Overview

Student development theory is valuable to higher education professionals as

To illustrate how student developmental theories can apply, Jordan (2000)

10 Understanding College Student Subpopulations

Table 1.3 Psychosocial and Identity Development Theories

Development Theory Description

Chickering’s Theory of Proposed seven vectors of development comprising the formation

Schlossberg’s Transition According to Schlossberg’s theory, student’s ability to cope with

Source: Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998).

Table 1.4 Overview of Major Cognitive-Structural Development Theories

Developmental Theory Description

Perry’s Theory of Intellectual Comprises nine positions to understand how students

Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Focuses on a sequential process of developing moral

Gilligan’s Theory of Women’s Outlines a moral development theory speciﬁc to

Source: Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito (1998).

The cognitive-structural theories outlined above are applicable to the

12 Understanding College Student Subpopulations