Skip repetitive navigational links
View: Next (less recent) message | Previous (more recent) message
Next (less recent) in topic | Previous (more recent) in topic
Next (less recent) by same author | Previous (more recent) by same author
Previous page (September 2005) | Back to main LRNASST-L page
Join or leave LRNASST-L (or change settings)
Reply | Post a new message
Search
Log in
Options:   Chronologically | Most recent first
Proportional font | Non-proportional font

Subject:

Studying Students/copy of article

From:

Dan Kern <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Dan Kern <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 1 Sep 2005 11:04:03 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (175 lines)

Studying Students Moving into Higher Education . . . to a Community College?!

by Timothy Leinbach - August 19, 2005



The comprehensive community college has emerged as a major, yet often unheralded, player in the American higher education system. Whereas public perceptions of postsecondary education in this country are laced with ivy-covered walls in quaint New England towns and sprawling land-grant universities, community colleges are absent in most people's minds when they think of higher education. And when these schools or their students are spoken of (other than as the punch line in a late-night television monologue), people use a voice tinged with disappointment or embarrassment, at least in the prestigious inner circles of academia, politics, and business. Among even those with knowledge of community colleges they are often considered only places where incumbent workers find additional job training. Yet nearly half of all first time college students start their postsecondary careers in a community college.1 These institutions are an important educational and economic gateway for many students, and the colleges hold a position of status in many communities. It is time that community colleges earn deserved respect for their role in American higher education and as institutions worthy of examination.




A recent monograph by Clifford Adelman and published by the U.S. Department of Education, Moving Into Town-And Moving On: The Community College in the Lives of Traditional-Age Students (2005), is significant because it takes the academic role of community colleges seriously. Adelman gives an illuminating portrait of students in community colleges that, in concert with other research and data, provides convincing evidence of the increasingly important role that these colleges play in the higher education system in this country. Adelman's research uses the latest available data- postsecondary transcripts through 2000 of students from the high school class of 1992-in a study of traditional-age (those between the ages of 18 and 24 who entered higher education by 21) community college students.2 In his substantial analysis, Adelman produces a dense and insightful report of the characteristics and enrollment patterns of these students in community colleges, revealing much about the important role these institutions play in higher education.




Among its many findings, this work helps dispel three myths about community colleges: (a) They serve a small proportion of the higher education population; (b) they serve the losers in the race to higher education; and (c) they fail to get their students either to complete degrees or to transfer to four-year colleges.




Community colleges enroll a vast swath of all young adults in postsecondary education. Adelman shows that larger proportions of traditional-age college students are attending community colleges than ever before: Two out of every five graduating seniors who continue on to postsecondary education attend a community college as their first institution after high school. And many others will enroll in a community college for at least part of their higher education. Through the open doors of community colleges pass more than half of all persons who attend higher education in this country. Since the borders of community colleges are more porous than those of most other higher education institutions, students from all levels of the economic and academic hierarchy walk down their halls.




Following from this diversity, community colleges enroll in large numbers neither the lowest tier of economically nor academically challenged students. Among students in the lowest quartile of household income and those with the poorest high school preparation (many of whom don't complete high school), very few even attend postsecondary education, at least not as traditional-age students.3 As Adelman and others (Bailey, Leinbach, et al., in press; Grubb, 2002) have shown, the majority of community college students, in fact, come from the middle quartiles of our economic and academic hierarchies.




Despite stories of student failure and woeful graduation rates, community colleges "work" for vast numbers of students. Adelman shows us that those students who earn a minimum of 10 credits and pass successfully through "gatekeeper" courses have high completion rates in community college and, significantly, they possess comparable completion rates-once they transfer to four-year institutions-to students who start in four-year institutions. Adelman does indicate that community colleges serve vast numbers of students who wander through the doors and wander out again with little to show for their perambulations. Yet many others who enter only briefly, but with the specific intention to supplement their education at their primary (usually four-year) institution, fulfill their objective and leave without a credential, but with the expectation of completing their education elsewhere.




We find Adelman's emphasis on a highly circumscribed population of students (traditional age with a minimum level of credit accumulation and persistence in college) both a service and a disservice to community colleges. Among this select population, Adelman finds high rates of student outcome success, which bathes the colleges in a positive light. However, what do we make of those students who don't fall into his selective population? Granted, as Adelman points out, the community college population has been getting younger and most credit-earning first-time students are traditional age. Furthermore, he argues that 10 earned credits represents a minimum commitment to college. But community colleges do not have the luxury to dismiss the latter as "ad hoc" or "incidental" enrollees (Adelman's terms). These students still exhibit some intent for postsecondary education even if they only drop in (for a class or two) or drop out (after a class or two). Colleges and researchers cannot ignore their presence in higher education, but must examine their objectives and reasons for their choices in order to serve them better.




We concur with Adelman that when studying community college students, age is an important analytical category. Older students, a significant population in community colleges, are very different than traditional-age students in their objectives, educational expectations, course-taking patterns, fields of study, outcomes, and, in many cases, by the deficiencies in their education (Bailey, Leinbach, et al., in press; Prince & Jenkins, 2005). This older population should neither be lumped in with their younger peers nor dismissed because, despite the recent trend toward younger students in community colleges, they represent a significant proportion of the community college population and, more importantly, community colleges remain the primary higher education destination for older students (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). We would like to see a similar analysis of older students as Adelman does with traditional-age students.4




Adelman's study produces other important insights worth noting about community colleges and their students.




His research clearly demonstrates the increasingly common nonlinear pattern of postsecondary student enrollment. He reveals increases in multi-institutional attendance, including patterns of student "swirling" between colleges, "drop-in" enrollment at community colleges by students based at four-year institutions, and "reverse-transfers" from four-year to community colleges. Adelman's description of six archetypes representative of typical community college student enrollment patterns, just by its existence, indicates the increasingly complex nature of student enrollments. Although most casual observers are still stuck with the perception of a traditional enrollment pathway (immediate post-high school, full-time uninterrupted enrollment until graduation), that pattern is now the minority among undergraduate enrollments.




For students without postsecondary family histories (still the majority in this country), community colleges are the destination of choice (Adelman, 2005, p. 30). This conduit into higher education cannot be overlooked. Furthermore, while most racial and ethnic groups are generally represented in community colleges in relative proportion to their overall representation in the U.S. population, Hispanics attend community colleges in disproportionate numbers. This is notable given that the Hispanic population is the fastest growing demographic segment of the U.S. population.




Yet, despite the appearance of community colleges as the "melting pot" of American higher education, when one examines programs and classrooms one observes much segregation and tracking. This is one area requiring investigation that Adelman's data could not reveal. Program enrollments by credential (certificate, associate, transfer) and major (occupational versus academic, between specific majors) are inequitably distributed across demographic categories (race/ethnicity, SES, age). Even more disturbing are the vast outcome variations by these categories among community college students.5 Although community colleges' open doors allow individuals to overcome social and economic barriers to higher education, in other ways these colleges reinforce those barriers by the outcome differentials among their students. Using data at the state and institutional levels, with a similar analysis as Adelman's, would shed light on these discrepancies and enable community college practitioners to implement change.




Adelman was able to tease out some important enrollment characteristics for achievement at community colleges among the young population: a strong academic high school curriculum, particularly in math; reaching a 10 credit minimum; logical sequencing of courses; and avoiding no penalty withdrawals and noncredit repeat classes. These are lessons for community college administrators, as well as for educators in general. A strong college prep curriculum in high school is important for success in community colleges-it is not just for those students who will be going on to selective four-year colleges. We must demand the same academic rigor for future community college students as for future Ivy League students, and encourage students to make intelligent course choices in high school and college and stick with them. High student expectations must exist for all students at community colleges.




A college education is a requirement for obtaining a living-wage job and having career prospects in the current global economy. Yet we should disown students of the notion that college equates only with four-year institutions. Talk of meaningful jobs coming with higher education is fine, but a college education should not a priori mean a bachelor's degree. Research shows that both associate degrees and certificates produce economic benefits to those who earn them (Bailey, Kienzl, & Marcotte, in press; Grubb, 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).




Community colleges are open-door institutions: Any student with a high school diploma (and, in some cases, those without) may enroll in credit courses leading to a credential. In this respect, community colleges are shaped by the students who choose to enter their doors, rather than the institutions selecting students that fit the profile they want to maintain. Furthermore, colleges are expected to train students to fill local workforce requirements and to adjust their training to accommodate economic change. To this end, community colleges not only serve their community of students, but also serve the geographic community in which they are situated. With recent dramatic rises in tuition at four-year colleges, selectivity increasing as four-year schools compete for higher national rankings, and remedial education no longer provided at many public four-year universities, community colleges will necessarily be more integrated into the American higher education landscape. As Adelman shows, they are taking on greater prominence as a viable postsecondary choice for an increasing number of high school graduates. Community colleges are a rational (and sometimes only) choice for millions of capable and motivated students moving into higher education who see the value of these institutions for their postsecondary education.




Notes




1 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, 1996-2001. Authors' calculations.

2 Data are from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 from the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

3 Some of these students may eventually arrive at community colleges as older students requiring adult basic education, ESL, or workforce training.

4 Prince & Jenkins (2005) is a good example looking exclusively at older students.

5 See Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach (2005).




References




Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into town - and moving on: The community college in the lives of traditional-age students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.




Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., & Leinbach, T. (2005, January). Community college low-income and minority student completion study: Descriptive statistics from the 1992 high school cohort. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.




Bailey, T., Kienzl, G., & Marcotte, D. (in press). The return to a sub-baccalaureate education: The effects of schooling, credentials, and program of study on economic outcomes. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.




Bailey, T., Leinbach, T., Scott, M., Alfonso, M., Kienzl, G., Kennedy, B., & Marcotte, D. (in press). The characteristics of occupational sub-baccalaureate students entering the new millennium. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.




Grubb, N. (2002). Learning and earning in the middle, part I: National studies of pre-baccalaureate education. Economics of Education Review, 21(4), 299-321.




Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research, volume 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.




Prince, D. & Jenkins, D. (2005, April). Building pathways to success for low-skill adult students: Lessons for community college policy and practice from a statewide longitudinal tracking study. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.




U.S. Department of Education (2002). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.




U.S. Department of Education (2003). 1995-96 Beginning postsecondary students longitudinal study, second follow-up (BPS: 96/01). [Data CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.






      Cite This Article as: Teachers College Record, Date Published: August 19, 2005
      http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 12125, Date Accessed: 9/1/2005 12:04:56 PM

Dan Kern
Reading Skills Improvement
East Central College AD21
1964 Prairie Dell Road
Union, MO 63084
Phone: 636-583-5195
Extension: 2426
Fax: 636-584-0513
Email: [log in to unmask]
"What you teach is second
to whom you teach. If it isn't,
please find a 'job' very far
away from students"
(Andy Maedit)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web browser to
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager