University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The impact of work study on the integration and retention of undergraduate students at the University of California

(USC Thesis Other)

The impact of work study on the integration and retention of undergraduate students at the University of California

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 1 THE IMPACT OF WORK STUDY ON THE INTEGRATION AND RETENTION OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA by Maria Queta Blandizzi A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERISTY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May 2013 Copyright 2013 Maria Queta Blandizzi INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 2 Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my mother and father, Jacqueline and Giuseppe Blandizzi. My mother, the consummate educator, has taught me to love doing homework; and my father, the most persistent man I know, has instilled in me the stamina and fortitude to conquer anything. It is my love of homework, my stamina, and my fortitude that has gotten me this far along on my education journey. This dissertation represents the best gifts my parents have given me and it is my hope that I have exceeded their expectations. In addition to paying tribute to my parents for their love and support, I dedicate my future to the three most important men in my life—Ricky Wan, Luca Ji Fung and Leonardo Ji San Blandizzi Wan. I look forward to reaping the rewards of life without the looming dissertation with my partner and co-parent and our sons. And finally, to future students of the University of California, I dedicate my professional career to using research and experience to enhance the quality of your experience so that when you reflect upon your undergraduate days, you think fondly of them and use your voice and vote to financial support the University of California so that it can remain the greatest public higher education system in the world. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 3 Table of Contents Dedication.....................................................................................................................................2 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................5 Abstract.........................................................................................................................................6 Chapter 1: Overview of the Study ................................................................................................8 Background of the Problem.................................................................................................10 Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................13 Purpose of the Study............................................................................................................14 Importance of the Study ......................................................................................................15 Limitations and Delimitations .............................................................................................16 Definition and Measurement of Retention ..........................................................................17 Organization of the Study....................................................................................................19 Chapter 2: Literature Review......................................................................................................20 Factors Related to Retention................................................................................................20 Theoretical Model and Limitations of the Model................................................................26 Financial Aid and the Work Study Program .......................................................................30 Review of the Literature Specific to the Working Student..................................................34 Review of the California Master Plan .................................................................................38 Summary..............................................................................................................................42 Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................46 Population and Sample ........................................................................................................47 Instrumentation....................................................................................................................49 Data Collection ....................................................................................................................54 Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................55 Chapter 4: Results.......................................................................................................................57 Treatment of the Data ..........................................................................................................58 Participant Demographics....................................................................................................59 Results and Analysis of Research Question 1 .....................................................................60 Results and Analysis of Research Question 2 .....................................................................61 Results and Analysis of Research Question 3 .....................................................................62 Summary of Findings ..........................................................................................................65 Chapter 5: Conclusions...............................................................................................................66 Summary of Findings ..........................................................................................................67 Limitations...........................................................................................................................71 Implications for Practice......................................................................................................73 Future Research ...................................................................................................................75 Conclusions .........................................................................................................................77 INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 4 References...................................................................................................................................82 Appendices Appendix A: 2004 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey................97 Appendix B: Pell Grant Recipients at UC and Selected Institutions, 2005-06 ................121 Appendix C: Income Distribution of UC Freshman and California Families...................122 Appendix D: Income Distribution of UC Undergraduates, 2005-06 Constant Dollars.....123 Appendix E: Hours of Student Employment by Income, 2006 Cost of Attendance Survey.............................................................................................................124 Appendix F: Trends in Four-and Six-year Graduation Rates by Income and Academic Preparation.........................................................................................................................125 Appendix G: Trends in the Manageability of Debt at Graduation by Parent Income: Percentage of Students’ Average Salary Required to Repay Student Loans.....................126 Appendix H: Trends in Cumulative Debt at Graduation by Parent Income, Constant 2005-06 Dollars..................................................................................................127 Appendix I: Projected Trends in the Funded Loan/Work Expectations with and Without Fee Increases .......................................................................................................128 Appendix J: Variation in Projected Loan/Work Expectation Association with Different Cost Increase Scenarios .....................................................................................129 Appendix K: Variation in Students' Actual In-School Wages, Starting Salaries, and Self-Reported Expenses..............................................................................................130 INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 5 List of Tables Table 1: Average On-Campus Undergraduate Student Budget for California Residents, Academic Year 2009-10 .............................................................................................................11 Table 2: Income Distribution of UC Students by Ethnicity........................................................14 Table 3: UC Average Cost of Attendance from 2003-2008 .......................................................41 Table 4: Average 2006-2007 Total Cost and Estimated Net Costs, UC and Comparison Public Institutions .......................................................................................................................41 Table 5: Description of the two Groups......................................................................................59 Table 6: Demographic Description of Study Participants ..........................................................60 Table 7: Comparison of Time to Degree between Groups .........................................................61 Table 8: Academic Disengagement ............................................................................................62 Table 9: Satisfaction with the Value of Education Given how much it Costs............................63 Table 10: Satisfaction with GPA ................................................................................................64 INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 6 Abstract Consistent increases to the educational costs to attend the University of California are the current climate students and families find themselves grappling with. The federal work study program is one program employed to support students and their families in financing the cost of education. In an effort to further enhance the professional literature on the relationship of work on the retention, academic and social integration of undergraduate students at multiple campuses within a highly selective state system, the purpose of this study is to ascertain to what degree work- study positions influences academic and social integration, 4-year graduation rates for work study students, and quantitatively describe work study students satisfaction with their experience at the University of California. In 1975 Astin published research that found that work study programs could increase student persistence by 15%. He reported that these opportunities provide students with money, experience in the field, and, perhaps most important, networking capabilities for future employment and research possibilities. Is this finding applicable to today’s undergraduate student at the University of California? And in light of the theoretical foundations published by Tinto on the importance of academic and social integration on a student’s persistence towards degree completion, is there a difference between the integration of work study students and students not in work study positions into the campus community? The secondary analysis in this study is comparative research and compares the persistence and experience of two groups: students who hold word study positions while enrolled (Group A) and student who do not have work study positions while enrolled (Group B). This act of comparing these two groups identifies if there is a positive or negative effect on INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 7 students who hold work study positions on their time to degree, their academic and social engagement and satisfaction with their experience at the University of California. The data revealed the following four findings: first, there is a 5% difference in four-year graduation rates between non work study and work study students; second, work study students are more academically disengaged than non-work study students; third, there is a 8% difference in GPA between the two groups; and finally, there is a 5% difference in perceived value of the education between the two groups. Analysis also showed that there is no statistical difference between the two groups with their overall satisfaction with their college experience. While these findings are counter to Astin’s seminal work, the researcher must acknowledge that the data analyzed was from a single cohort. A deeper look into the relationships identified in this analysis is needed. If the findings are correct, then the implications for practice are focused solely on the work study program, as opposed to financial aid in general. That said, the findings may be a false indicator of what’s occurring as there may be a stronger variable influencing the relationship (i.e., wealth, incoming GPA). The paper concludes with a discussion of possibilities. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 8 Chapter 1: Overview of the Study As higher education has become more accessible to a wider range of citizens, today’s undergraduate college student faces a complex set of dilemmas about where to attend college, how to pay, how many hours to work, how to afford cost of living expenses, and how to balance all of these competing priorities while in school. As a result, many leave the institutional system prior to completing a degree or achieving their academic and social goals (Tinto, 2005). Theory and common sense suggest that economic circumstances play an important role not only in whether and where students go to college but also how long they remain (St. John, Paulsen & Starkey, 1996, Tinto, 1993). Throughout the college search, choice, enrollment, and persistence process, students and often their families balance the anticipated educational and occupational return from attending college and earning a degree against its cost. Students meet these costs through a variety of mechanisms including institutional, state, and federal financial aid in the form of grants, scholarships, loans, and work study job positions as well as through family support, personal savings, and non-school-related work. The amount of time students spend working while concurrently enrolled in school has been an increasing concern for educators that serve them, and the students themselves. Data reflects that 80% of American undergraduates worked while attending college in 1999-2000 (King, 2003). This represents a 9% increases over the previous decade when 72% of students reported working (Cuccaro-Alamin & Choy, 1998). The research on the effects of employment on persistence and degree completion consistently indicates that the more hours students work, the more likely they are to shift from full-time to part-time enrollment and the less likely they are to persist from one year to the next or to complete a bachelor’s degree program. The negative effects of hours worked on just about any criterion measure (such as persistence to the next year, INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 9 graduation, or time-to-degree) remain in national studies both with and without controls for such factors as gender, race-ethnicity, age, attendance level, full-time or part-time enrollment status, income, institutional type, job location, and receipt and types of financial aid (Astin, 1993; Choy, 2000; Cuccaro-Alamin, 1997; Horn, 1994, 1998; King, 2002). Many studies focus on working students— how work affects the college experience and persistence. Researchers have looked at how work affects campus engagement, persistence and graduation rates, cognitive and social development, leadership development and social skills, GPA, faculty interaction, peer interaction, and the relationship of work on financial aid. Given that 80% of American undergraduates worked while attending college in 1999-2000 (King, 2003), it is important for higher education researchers, policy analysts, practitioners, faculty, and administrators to continue to understand student needs and challenges in trying to balance work, financing education, and reaping the rewards of the collegiate experience. Other studies find statistically significant, positive, and frequently unique effects of work study assistance on persistence and degree-completion (DesJardins et al., 1997; Heller, 2003; St. John, 1990). In addition to providing financial support, work study gives students opportunities to interact with administrative staff and faculty members, enhancing a student’s social and academic integration. The federal government has acknowledged the need for students to work to fund their education. Since the Higher Education Act of 1965, and each subsequent amendment, the federal work study program has been funded. The Federal Work Study Program provides funds for part-time employment to help students in need finance the costs of their education. Students can receive these funds at approximately 3,400 participating postsecondary institutions. In most cases, the institution pays up to a 50% share of a student’s wages, and the Department of Education (DOE) contributes the remaining 50% (through allocations given to the institution) INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 10 under the federal work study program. In the 2011 fiscal year, the DOE appropriated $929,531,016. Since 2007, the annual appropriation has been very stable. This is only one-half of the contribution to make the program possible; in 2011 the amount of aid available to students was $1,168,428,261. This includes the total federal appropriations and the institutional matching dollars. This funding provides for approximately 711,588 students with an average of a $1,642 award. Money is available to students and institutions and there is no indication that funding for this program will decrease dramatically given the federal government’s commitment to the program over the life of the program. Given the conflicting research on the impact of work on students’ persistence, is the work study program helping students toward the goal of graduating at the University of California? Or are work study positions hindering a student’s progress toward degree completion? Does it take a student in a work study position longer to graduate? Who is benefiting from the work study program? Is the University of California getting a cheap labor force at the expense of the ultimate goal—degree completion? The aim of this study is to delve into the relationship between work study and persistence rates of students at the University of California, and to further understand the impact of work study responsibilities on students’ academic and social integration on the nine undergraduate campuses of the University of California. Background of the Problem The University of California (UC) has been remarkably successful at enrolling a socio- economically diverse undergraduate student body (University Of California, 2007). Despite recent increases in students’ total cost of attendance, the University’s success relative to that of comparably selective institutions has remained strong. The success is attributable both to the high quality of the University’s academic programs and to large increases in financial support INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 11 available to UC students. Projections of future cost increases and the availability of financial aid – in particular, need- based grants – suggest that the amount that students and parents are expected to contribute towards an undergraduate UC education will continue to increase for families at every income level (University of California, 2007). The University must consider options for addressing this projected trend in light of the University’s financial aid goals. Current context for undergraduate student support at the University of California. Undergraduate student budgets vary and include factors such as residency status, campus, and living arrangement (living with parents, on campus, or off campus). The average UC undergraduate student budget for 2009-10 for a California resident living on campus is shown in the table below. Table 1 Average On-Campus Undergraduate Student Budget for California Residents, Academic Year 2009-10 Student Fees: $9,272 Books and Supplies: $1,552 Living: $12,270 Personal Expenses: $1,582 Transportation: $1,055 Healthcare Allowance: $955 TOTAL: $26,686 Student budgets are derived from known institutional charges (e.g., fees and on-campus room- and-board charges) and results from the Cost of Attendance Survey (COAS). The COAS, typically conducted every three years, provides comprehensive data on UC students’ non-fee expenses. The survey provides a standardized basis for calculating student budgets at each campus that reflect local economic conditions and student spending patterns. UC’s average total cost of attendance has risen substantially in recent years. Since 2004-05, total expenses have INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 12 grown by $5,492 in nominal dollars. Systemwide fee increases accounted for less than half ($2,689) of the growth in the total cost of attendance during this period; campus-based fees and non-fee costs, taken together, increased by $2,803. In 1994, The Regents adopted a financial aid policy that established the guiding principles of the University’s financial aid programs. That policy states “The University's undergraduate student support policy is guided by the goal of maintaining the affordability of the University for all the students admitted within the framework of the California Master Plan." At the system wide level, that goal represents a commitment to ensure that the University remains financially accessible to students, regardless of their financial resources. Despite a host of challenges in recent years – including large fee increases resulting from deep cuts in State support for the University’s budget, increases in non-fee costs, and large fluctuations in the health of the California economy – many indicators suggest that the University has remained financially accessible to students at all income levels. For example: The University continues to enroll a large number of Pell Grant recipients comparable to other universities (Appendix A). The income distribution of UC students has generally remained stable, with small changes that have generally reflected trends in the income distribution of California families (Appendices C and D). Differences in persistence and graduation rates for low- and high-income students (after controlling for academic preparation) have not widened in response to cost increases (Appendix E). Although some students at every income level work excessive hours (more than twenty hours per week), the relationship between hours worked and parent income is weak, and many students at every income level do not work (Appendix F). And finally, at every income level, a small percentage of students do graduate with excessive student loan debt. However, in constant dollars, students’ average debt at graduation has remained flat INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 13 or declined for students in most income levels, and the percentage of students graduating with debt has fallen (Appendices G and H). Statement of the Problem Still, there is real cause for concern about the University’s ability to remain financially accessible in the future. Expected increases in student costs – both fee and non-fee costs – are expected to outpace the growth in resources available to needy students. This will increase the burden on students and their families to cover the cost of their education at every income level. Even today, the University does not have mechanisms in place on a system wide basis to fully address the special needs of certain student populations. Examples include: independent students; undocumented students; foster youth; middle-income students whose parents are unwilling or unable to contribute their expected amount; students from very low-income families who, in addition to financing their own education, must contribute towards family expenses unrelated to their education; and students who lack knowledge about the financial aid available to them, or who lack many college-bound role models, and hence do not apply for admission. The cost pressures noted above, if left unaddressed, will create further financial barriers for these students. Providing adequate financial support in the face of projected cost increases is directly related to the University’s ability to enroll an ethnically diverse student body. As shown in Table 2, below, underrepresented minority students are more likely than others to be from lower-income families and, hence, are keenly affected by the availability of need-based financial aid. The University must anticipate and address these challenges to ensure that it can continue to fulfill the overarching goal articulated by The Regents and ultimately the California Master Plan. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 14 Table 2 Income Distribution of UC Students by Ethnicity Parent Income Ethnicity Independent Less than $43,000 $43,000 and Above African American 16% 35% 49% Asian 4% 34% 61% Hispanic 11% 41% 48% Native American 15% 20% 64% White 8% 15% 77% Other 11% 29% 59% Unknown/Not stated 9% 19% 72% All students 7% 27% 65% Student attrition and persistence is a complex topic as multiple variables come in to play for students making the decision to persist or leave an institution of higher education. A multi- theoretical approach— addressing the many complexities of student decisions, allows a variety of strategies for optimal description of student departure (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005). Past theoretical explanations and models of retention have addressed economic, psychological, sociological, organizational, and interactional factors. Purpose of the Study In light of the consistent increases to the educational costs to attend the University of California, the conflicting research on the impact of work on the retention, and the continual investment the federal government makes in support of the work study program, the purpose of this study is to ascertain to what degree work study positions influences academic and social integration, and time to degree for undergraduate students who fulfill work study positions at the University of California. Three research questions were developed for instrumental focus and direction of the study. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 15 1. What is the relationship between work study and persistence at the University of California? 2. What is the relationship of work study responsibilities on students’ academic and social integration at the University of California? 3. Does the work study position have a relationship (negative or positive) on a students’ satisfaction with their experience at the University of California? Importance of the Study Attending college and persisting to degree completion is most often rewarded with higher annual and lifetime earnings. But for many students, enrollment and persistence decisions are driven by the availability of financial aid. In 1999-2000, 77 % of financially dependent students from families with less than $20,000 in family income received some financial aid, with an average award of $6,727. In contrast, 44 % of those from families with income of $100,000 or more received aid, with an average award of $7,838 (Institute for Higher Education, 1999). Low-income students who receive grants generally are more likely to persist than those who receive loans (Kane, 1999). However, given the rising costs of attending the University of California, it is unlikely that low-income students will be able to receive bachelor’s degrees without any loan aid. At the same time, the research also suggests that the shifts in aid from grants to loans and from need-based to merit-based programs adversely affect both enrollment and persistence for minority students (Kane, 1999). Reversing these shifts may be needed to increase college access and success for lower-income and minority students. Assistantships and work study programs can be an important part of a student’s college education. Astin (1975), for example, found that work study programs could increase student persistence by 15%. These opportunities provide students with money, experience in the field, INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 16 and, perhaps most important, networking capabilities for future employment and research possibilities. Research by the National Center for Education Statistics (Horn, 1998) supports Astin’s finding that a threshold exists where the amount of work per week distracts students from their studies and lowers the chances of a student’s persisting. While it would appear that on-campus work strengthens campus integration and academic engagement, there are relatively few opportunities for on-campus work. Cuccaro-Alamin and Choy (1998) found that most working students (91%) worked off-campus. Given that work study allocations serve approximately 1 million students out of a total of nearly 15 million undergraduate degree seekers, this would seem consistent (College Board, 2004). This study will test Astin’s findings for students at the University of California. Are work study positions contributing to the academic and social integration of students at UC? Is the work study program helping students toward the goal of graduating? Or is the work hindering a student’s progress toward degree completion? Does it take a student in a work study position longer to graduate? Who is benefiting from the work study program? Is the University of California getting a cheap labor force in students at the expense of the ultimate goal—students completing their degree(s)? Limitations and Delimitations This study rested on several assumptions. The study assumed: 1. Work has been shown to have an impact on the academic and/or social integration of students, in turn impacting attrition and retention; 2. The UC Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) served as the conceptual schema within which the rationale for this study was established; 3. Data from UCUES helped describe the work study student at UC, and provided opportunities for comparisons across different demographic groups. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 17 The following delimitations are evident in the study: 1. The UCUES survey is voluntary, providing no way to account for students who chose not to complete it; 2. Only data from nine campuses within a highly selective state system on undergraduates will be used; 3. There will be no attempt to contact work study students who may have left the university prior to completing their degree. Definition and Measurement of Retention When examining retention, we are looking at what percentage of entering students complete their college degree within a certain time frame (Tinto, 1993). The definition and measurement of retention has an inconsistent and varied history, making it difficult to compare analyses from one institution to another. McNeely (1937) described premature departures as mortality, Summerskill (1962) popularized the word dropout, and Berger (2000) coined the term persistence. Terms such as “student mortality”, “college dropouts”, “student attrition”, “college retention”, “student departure”, “institutional departure”, “system departure”, “stopouts”, “graduation rates”, and “student persistence” flood the literature in the field of retention and attrition. While retention terms are used interchangeably, they are not synonymous. Further complicating retention research is the need to incorporate and take into account varying types of students and institutions. Berger and Lyon (2005) argue success of a student is measured as the ability to persist through to graduation by having attended one or more colleges or universities. Tinto (1993) reports institutional departure as leaving individual institutions, while system departure means leaving the higher education system at large. Stopouts are defined as students temporarily withdrawing from the system and specifically with the term institutional INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 18 stopouts, meaning they return to their initial institution (Tinto, 1993). Students leaving the university, but enrolling in another institution are deemed the term delayed transfer student (Tinto, 1993). The term dropouts is frequently portrayed as a student having distinct personality profiles, a deviant, failure, or lacking in attributes vital for degree completion (Tinto, 1993). Academic paths of students are unclear and stem from a variety of reasons including, transfer, academic rigor, personal, occupational, or financial (Porter, 2003). Not all reasons for departure are negative in nature, but can be perceived as such (Tinto, 1993). The varying definitions complicate the ability to report or track student attrition as well (Hagedorn, 2005). Retention’s multi-dimensional and complex definitions point to the importance of focusing institutional efforts on student-centered programs. Making students the center of attention leads to questions by the university as to why some students decide to stay while others leave. What psychological, emotional and institutional factors affect students’ decisions to persist? How do goal commitment, familial relations, financial abilities, personal motivation levels, and aspirations impact the student after enrollment? Losing students to other institutions can be reported as failures at one institution, but in reality may be beneficial to the student at hand (Tinto, 1993). For this reason, Tinto (1993) suggests colleges and universities document not only who leaves the university, but also the reasons for the departure in an attempt to more accurately track attrition rates. If a student fails to achieve academic goals and drops out, can we safely say the student and/or institution have failed? However, if the student leaves for occupational reasons, commitment to family or for transfer to another educational institution, the student will not define this departure as a failure and the institution should not as well. A national tracking system for types of departures has not yet been established within the higher education system. Additional challenges in measuring INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 19 retention include varied time spans of student completion rates, community college data, transfers among universities, and re-admittance to the higher education system later in life. The idea of lost students within the tracking system proves to be a difficult and complex component of reporting retention in higher education. Organization of the Study Chapter one provides an overview of the issue, the current context of undergraduate student support at the University of California, and a brief summary of the terms used when discussing persistence. Chapter two reviews the literature and research conducted on historical aspects of higher education and retention; the current status of financial affairs in relation to funding for higher education in California; literature specific to the working students’ experience; and the historical aspects of financial aid programs. Chapter three describes the research, including the sample, population, survey instrument, data collection, and analysis of the data. Chapter four discusses the analysis performed on a pre-existing data set and compares the persistence and experience of two groups: students who hold work study positions while enrolled (Group A) and students who do not have work study positions while enrolled (Group B) at the University of California. This act of comparing these two groups aims to identify if there is a positive or negative effect on students who hold work study positions on their time to degree, their academic and social engagement and satisfaction with their experience at the University of California. Finally, chapter five summarizes the study and offers implications for those involved with supporting work study students and the higher education community. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 20 Chapter 2: Literature Review This chapter reviews the literature and theoretical models pertaining to retention along with factors influencing departure from the university setting. A review of financial aid options, and specifically the work study program, universities employ to assist students in paying for college is considered as a component influential to the working student’s experience. The effects of work on retention are considered and the literature reviewed. Finally, a discussion on the California Master Plan and the University of California’s current relationship to the state of California. This review will highlight the breadth of the dilemma the University of California has in supporting its students in need of financial assistance and the challenges students face in light of the current funding crisis the UC is experiencing. Factors Related to Retention There are a number of factors related to retention and persistence found in the research literature. It is critical to understand these factors as the inter-play between them impacts and influences a student’s progress to degree completion. The following factors will be reviewed: pre-matriculation variables are those factors related to a student’s background prior to their enrollment in higher education; institutional variables are those factors related to the type of institutional a student enrolls in; and finally, post-enrollment variables are those factors that support or hinder a student’s progress toward degree completion once enrolled. This study is most concerned with the post-enrollment variables that influence persistence, specifically a student’s academic and social integration into the campus community and its impact on graduation rates and time-to-degree. Pre-matriculation variables. Students enter the university setting with a complexity of variables and bring different backgrounds to one institutional setting. Pre-matriculation factors INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 21 influencing departure or persistence decisions are social status, parental education, size of previous community, sex, race, physical handicaps, intellectual skills, social skills, financial resources, dispositions such as motivation and political preferences, and vastly different pre- collegiate experiences such as grade-point average and sports involvement (Tinto, 1993). Tinto (1993) purports each variable as having effects on departure and commitment decisions and help establish the conditions for interactions, positive or negative, between the individual and members of the institutional community. Astin (2004) further supports that student characteristics, such as socio-economic status, gender, age, ethnicity, parental education, academic ability, and high school grades (Astin & Oseguera, 2005; Feldman, 1993) are strong predictors of degree attainment. The ability to secure a baccalaureate degree depends strongly on pre-matriculation factors critical for the processes of college life (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Braunstein, McGrath, and Pescatrice (2001) argue students from lower socio-economic communities are more likely to drop out than those of their more affluent counterparts in the higher education setting. Affluent students can have increased access and better educational opportunities at higher quality levels than their less affluent counterparts (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges & Hayek, 2006). Students from a lower socio-economic status more commonly attend two-year colleges where four-year degree attainment rates diminish (Kuh et al., 2006; Mortenson, 2005). Parental education as a pre-matriculation factor also influences persistence decisions among college students (Astin, 1993; Astin & Oseguera, 2005). Parental education can influence students’ decisions to attend college (Kuh, et al., 2006; Hamrick & Stage, 2004) and engagement and involvement of parents in the higher educational process is important to the success of INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 22 college students (Astin & Oseguera, 2005). Students with college educated mothers are more likely to persist than leave the university setting (Ishitani & DesJardins, 2003). Pre-matriculation factors can be complex and influence student behavior within the institutional setting. However, retention cannot be explored through a lens of pre-enrollment characteristics alone. Tinto (1993) states: Though prior dispositions and attributes may influence the college career and may, in some cases, lead directly to departure, their impact is contingent on the quality of individual interactions with other members of the institution and on the individual’s perception of the degree to which those experiences meet his/her needs and interests. It is for this reason that researchers generally agree that what happens following entry is, in most cases, more important to the process of student departure than what has previously occurred. (p. 45) In conclusion, while it is extremely important to understand the dynamics that each student presents upon entrance to the university, it is not solely pre-matriculation variables that influence persistence. Thus, we now move on to a review of the institutional factors that also play a role in the retention puzzle. Institutional variables. Difficulty or ease in adjusting to college life can be attributed in part to the characteristics of the institution in which students enroll for degree attainment. Astin (1993) describes institutional characteristics as location, type, control, size, organizational structure, and selectivity requirements. Highly selective institutions typically exemplify lower attrition rates due to the higher level of entrance requirements and retain students once enrolled (Kamens, 1971). Highly selective institutions generally have greater monetary and INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 23 administrative resources than public universities and can assist students in adjusting to college through in-tact programs, leading to higher freshman retention rates (Mortenson, 2005). Size and diversity can also impact student departure as institutional characteristics influence student decisions. The larger university likely houses a greater variety of cultural and social backgrounds, but decreases the incidences of contact between students and faculty and staff (Tinto, 1993). On the contrary, smaller colleges tend to be more socially and intellectually homogenous, but allow greater opportunities for contact between students and instructor or administrators (Tinto, 1993). Students with personality traits that make it difficult to interact in new situations may find the larger institution limiting for integration into the academic community. A smaller college may prove more engaging and thus lead to decisions of persistence. However, universities with lower enrollment numbers may be difficult for students seeking greater diversity and variation in cultural differences of the student body. Institutional fit is important to the subject of retention as the ability to adapt to the new environment can influence success or failure. In sum, researchers agree that institutional “fit” and campus integration are important to retaining college students to degree completion. Lack of diversity, with regard to income and race/ethnicity, in the student population, faculty, staff, and curriculum often restrict the nature and quality of minority students’ interactions within and out of the classroom, threatening their academic performance and social experiences. The inter-play between pre-enrollment variables and institutional variables has different effects on each individual. Post-enrollment variables. Even greater than the influence of institutional characteristics is that of post-matriculation factors. Tinto (1993) states, “In most colleges and universities, experiences within the college after entry are primary sources of student departure” INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 24 (p. 81). Post-matriculation experiences have a significant impact on degree attainment when pre- enrollment factors have been accounted for (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto 1993). To review the post-matriculation factors, they include: social integration, academic integration, institutional mismatch, goal commitment, monetary support, isolation, diversity, quality of student services and faculty-student relationships (Swail, 2004; Tinto, 1993). Student interaction with faculty plays an important role in the subject of retention (Stoecker, Pascarella, & Wolfle, 1988; Boyer, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). The classroom provides optimal opportunity for engagement of students by faculty and can influence commitment students have for degree completion (Tinto, 1993). Interpersonal relationships between faculty and students can continue outside the classroom, in hallways and faculty offices, for additional social engagement leading to quality academic efforts (Tinto, 1993). Within the social realm of higher education institutions, academic achievement can be nurtured and prove important for experiences of the college student. Expectation levels of college students can play a part in initial fit and commitment to the university and provide opportunities for students to decide to stay or leave the academic setting (Kuh, et al., 2006; Tinto, 1993). Tinto (1993) states: Issues of quality of intellectual work, commitment to student intellectual growth, and opportunities for student involvement in learning, especially in the classroom, are all deeply affected by the way the faculty interacts with students over matters of intellectual substance. (p. 53) Social and academic integration play an important role in the matriculation of college students to the new collegiate environment. The successful navigation of social and academic integration within the higher education institution can lead to increased persistence rates of students (Spady, 1970). According to Tinto (1993), continued enrollment is reliant upon the INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 25 ability of students to integrate at the social and academic levels of the institutional organization. Integration includes the perception of institutional fit, or mismatch, by that of the student. When comfort and fit levels vary significantly between student and institution, withdrawal is higher. These academic and non-academic structures prove vital for the persistence of students as they engage and adapt to the newer setting of academic life (Tinto, 1993). According to Tinto (1993), “A common feature of effective retention programs, indeed of institutions with high rates of student retention generally, is their emphasis upon the communal nature of institutional life and the importance of educational community, social and intellectual, in the learning process” (p. 147). Social integration is described by Braxton and Lee (2005) as the harmonious relationship between the student and the social system of a college or university. Interpersonal relationships with faculty, staff, and other students foster feelings of belongingness important to the successful integration of students. Socially withdrawn students are less likely to engage in collegiate activities and less likely to “fit in”, leading to an increased rate of departure decisions (Tinto, 1993). Both minority and non-minority students describe an increase of commitment to remain in college with higher levels of social integration in the college environment (Zea, Reisen, Beil, & Caplan, 1997). Academic integration concerns itself with the more formal aspects of student life at the institution (Tinto, 1993). According to Tinto (1993), “Its activities center about the classrooms and laboratories of the institution and involve various faculty and staff whose primary responsibility is the education of students” (p. 106). Without successful academic endeavors at the university, a student experiences failure and likely leaves. Academic integration involves not only performance levels of students, such as test scores and course grades, but also factors such INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 26 as faculty-student relations, instructional effectiveness, academic advising, campus support services, and financial aid. Faculty and staff can intentionally influence students’ learning and personal development by giving sufficient support to meet the demands imposed on them by the institution (King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). In conclusion, it is critical to support students’ academic and social integration into the university community if we aim to support student success toward degree completion. This study will hone in on these two factors in the analysis of student survey data. Theoretical Model and Limitations of the Model In 1975 Vincent Tinto’s research article “Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research” was published, and thus began more than thirty years of dialogue on student retention and persistence in higher education. Though it has been de-constructed by some and revised by Tinto himself, his work has remained the dominant sociological theory of how students navigate through the United States’ labyrinth of higher education. More than a quarter-century later, the issues of student retention and persistence are as pertinent as they were when Tinto first published his student integration model. In the 1970s and 1980s, public policy focused primarily on access, with federal and state legislation aimed at reducing barriers to high education. By the mid-1990s, the discussion moved from access to issues of choice, affordability, and persistence. Although gaining entry to college is still a dramatic accomplishment for some, persisting to degree is what really matters in the job market. Unfulfilled academic goals often result in unfulfilled career realities: lower pay, less job security, fewer employment opportunities, and dreams deferred or even abandoned. The issue of retention is a persistent problem in higher education. For the past 100 years, the institutional graduation rate has consistently held at the 50-60 percent mark. As Tinto INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 27 remarks, “The consequence of this massive and continuing exodus from high education are not trivial, either for the individuals who leave or for their institutions” (1993). Tinto’s (1975, 1982, 1993) Student Integration Model prevails as a dominant foundation for subsequent research on attrition and an understanding of student departure decisions based on pre-enrollment factors and institutional characteristics. Four schemes attributed to student departure decisions were developed as 1) background of characteristics of enrolled students, 2) integration level of students into the academic environment, 3) integration of students into the social environment, and 4) persistence toward the degree or goal commitment (Tinto, 1975). Students develop characteristics prior to entry into the college environment and come with what are confirmed pre-enrollment factors (Tinto, 1993; Astin & Oseguera, 2005). Established characteristics, prior to entrance at the university, serve as predictors for first-year persistence and include, socio-economic status, gender, age, ethnicity, parental educational attainment, high school grades, standardized test scores, and academic readiness (Astin & Oseguera, 2005; Feldman, 1993). Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek (2006) report 85% of students with parents who earned higher education degrees, in a specific high-school cohort studied, enrolled in colleges or universities, compared to 45% of first-generation college bound students. Characteristics such as high school grades, SAT scores, academic aptitude, study habits, and rigorous high school curriculum affect student retention once in the higher education setting as well (Tinto, 1993; Astin & Oseguera, 2005; Kuh, et al., 2006, DeBerard, Spielmans, & Julka, 2004; Lang, 2001; Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005). Additionally, personal student characteristics such as alienation, loneliness, emotional adjustment, self-confidence, community involvement, race, social/familial support, mentoring relationships, familial encouragement, employment, financial support, living arrangements, and pre-academic preparedness have been INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 28 identified as influential in the ability to persist on college campuses (Mohr, Eiche, & Sedlacek, 1998). In addition to personal student characteristics (i.e., pre-enrollment variables) being considered as factors impacting student departure rates, institutional factors have come to the forefront of research in an effort to understand what role colleges play in influencing the social and intellectual development of their students (Tinto, 1993). This shift from personal characteristics to institutional influence on attrition, and the differences among varying institutions, has been examined as a source of departure decisions among the college student population (Astin, 1997; Dey, 1990; Kamens, 1971; Kim, Rhoades & Woodard, 2003; Marcus, 1989; Saupe et al., 1999; Sjoberg, 1999; Thomas & Bean, 1988). Additional complexities impacting retention at the university level include institutional fit, student motivation, commitment to occupational goals, and campus climate (Tinto, 1993; Ishitani & DesJardins, 2001; Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005; Hurtado, 1998). Other institutional components include positive social integration and student involvement both of which influence abilities for college students to persist academically and socially (Tinto, 1993; Swail, 2004). Although individual characteristics play a role, involvement, or engagement of students, is critical during the first year of college life and can only occur when the institution commits to an environment providing opportunities for success (i.e., post-enrollment variables) (Tinto, 2001; Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005). The university needs to have meaning for the student, manifest in different settings (e.g., non-residential colleges), and occur for varying students (e.g., commuting students or working students) in efforts to increase retention (Tinto, 2006). Once external institutional factors are optimal, personal characteristics can emerge as a means of positive INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 29 engagement for increased likelihood of persistence during the first year (Tinto, 1997; Tinto, Russo, & Kadel, 1994). Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, and Hengstler’s study suggested (1992) Tinto’s model argues that pre-college characteristics are determinants of college behaviors and actions that the student/institution fit are important issues, and that persistence is a result of a complex set of interactions (Hossler, 1984). But the research community, while embracing this theoretical model, has limited its enthusiasm because of the lack of empirical data to substantiate their effectiveness in describing the process of student integration and departure from college. A review of empirical analysis of Tinto’s theory (Braxton and Lien, 2000) sorted published studies into two categories: supportive or unsupportive. Although there was evident support for the theory in several areas, the authors concluded that there was not enough empirical support to substantiate much of Tinto’s theory. Tinto’s theory is severely limited when applied to students of color (Tierney, 1992; Rendon, Jalomo, and Nora, 2000). To think that students, especially students of color, must or will dissociate from their culture, belief system, and familial support network to become integrated and accepted into their new life on a college campus is difficult to swallow; the reality is more complex. “Nontraditional students often have to negotiate a new landscape, learn how to step in and out of multiple contexts, engage in double readings or social reality and move back and forth between their native world and the new world of college- all at an accelerated pace. Non-traditional students live in multiple realties and lead to cyclical lives that demand a high degree of bi-culturalism” (Rendon, 1996). The study of retention has evolved over time. In the beginning the responsibility of completing a degree was placed solely on the student. As knowledge progress, a recognition that INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 30 the institution, and in a sense the climate on the campus, had a large role in supporting or preventing students in their degree completion. The research up to this point has helped us understand the complexity of retention rates and the multiple factors that play into a student’s attainment of a degree. It has become one of the core indicators and continues to be a main field of study in higher education research. The more we study retention, the more we recognize the complexity involved in supporting the diverse array of students success in our expansive system of higher education (Berger and Lyon, 2005). Financial Aid and the Work Study Program Financial aid is a critical part of the persistence puzzle. Attending college and persisting to degree completion is most often rewarded with higher annual and lifetime earnings. But for many students, enrollment and persistence decisions are driven by the availability of financial aid. In 1999-2000, 77% of financially dependent students from families with less than $20,000 in family income received some financial aid, with an average award of $6,727. In contrast, 44% of those from families with income of $100,000 or more received aid, with an average award of $7,838 (Institute for Higher Education, 1999). Low-income students who receive grants generally are more likely to persist than those who receive loans (Kane, 1999). However, given the rising costs of attending college, it is unlikely that low-income students will be able to receive bachelor’s degrees without any loan aid. At the same time, the research also suggests that the shifts in aid from grants to loans and from need-based to merit-based programs adversely affect both enrollment and persistence for minority students (Kane, 1999). This final factor of retention, financial aid, leads into a review of financial aid options universities employ to assist students in paying for college as a component influential to the working student’s experience and persistence. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 31 Four categories are used to describe financial aid for this review. Grants and scholarships, student loans, financial counseling, and assistantships/work study programs were all identified in the literature to be important factors in student retention. Although research has shown that grants are a much better predictor of students’ persistence than loans (Astin, 1982; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995), the finite limitations on the availability of grants and scholarships suggest that loans and work study options must remain open avenues for students to gain access to the nation’s postsecondary institutions. Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, and a host of other Ivy League campuses have made news in recent years by making large commitments to need-based aid, but the reality outside of a handful of institutions in our entire postsecondary system suggests that colleges must develop increasingly creative and alternative ways to increase institutional aid for needy students (The Chronicle, 2007). Although some ethnic groups historically are averse to financial debt (Thomas, 1986), loans are nonetheless a standard component of most financial aid packages. The delivery of accurate and easy-to-follow information regarding loan availability and regulations is an important factor for families (Thomas, 1986). A major barrier to access and persistence is the lack of information for parents and students regarding grants, loans, and scholarship opportunities. Colleges must be proactive in advising families of the price of college, selection criteria, and availability of financial aid opportunities. The application process must also be designed such that it does not deter families from applying for financial aid (Astin, 1982; Collison, 1988). In the late 1990s, the U.S. Department of Education conducted focus groups and video profiles of parents and families completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form, which must be completed by all students INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 32 applying for federal aid in the United States. The department found that most families, from all income levels, had trouble completing the form. Although the Student Financial Aid office within the U.S. Department of Education has made strides in this area, the financial aid process is still a maze and deterrent for many families. Assistantships and work study programs can be an important part of a student’s college education. Astin (1975) found that work study programs could increase student persistence by 15%. These opportunities provide students with money, experience in the field, and, perhaps most important, networking capabilities for future employment and research possibilities. Research by the National Center for Education Statistics (Horn, 1998) supports Astin’s finding that a threshold exists where the amount of work per week distracts students from their studies and lowers the chances of a student’s persisting. This study is focused on reviewing the effectiveness of the Work Study Program at the University of California, thus we move into a review of the federal program. Work Study Program. Federal programs to support work have been a part of federal support to higher education since at least the Depression. From 1936 to 1943, the federal government awarded millions to pay for campus employment to over 200 colleges to enable students to work their way through college through the National Youth Administration (NYA). Subsidizing work during college was held to be consistent with the American values of hard work and more palatable than handouts from even the most conservative perspectives. Although the NYA program lost support in partisan wrangling in 1943, the Federal Work study program was its descendent, and was established in 1964 as part of President Johnson’s larger Great Society initiative in the arsenal of other programs to help fund access to higher education. In 2004, the Federal Work study budget was $1,218,000,000 and benefited 1,073,000 students (College Board, 2004). INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 33 The Federal Work study (FWS) Program provides funds that are earned through part-time employment to assist students in financing the costs of postsecondary education. Students can receive FWS funds at approximately 3,400 participating postsecondary institutions. Institutional financial aid administrators at participating institutions have substantial flexibility in determining the amount of FWS awards to provide to students who are enrolled or accepted for enrollment. Hourly wages must not be less than the federal minimum wage. Financial need is determined by the Department of Education using a standard formula, established by Congress, to evaluate the financial information reported on the FAFSA and to determine the expected family contribution (EFC). The fundamental elements in this standard formula are the student's income (and assets, if the student is independent), the parents' income and assets (if the student is dependent), the family's household size, and the number of family members (excluding parents) attending postsecondary institutions. The EFC is the sum of: (1) a percentage of net income (remaining income after subtracting allowances for basic living expenses) and (2) a percentage of net assets (assets remaining after subtracting an asset protection allowance). Different assessment rates and allowances are used for dependent students, independent students without dependents, and independent students with dependents. After filing a FAFSA, the student receives a Student Aid Report (SAR), or the institution receives an Institutional Student Information Report (ISIR), which provides the student’s EFC. Federal Work study (FWS) allocations are made to eligible institutions for the purpose of providing part-time employment to needy undergraduate and graduate students attending participating institutions. Institutional allocations are based on institutional requests for program funding under a statutory formula. Under the funding formula, funds are distributed to institutions, first, on the basis of the institution's base guarantee plus the pro rata share received INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 34 during the 1999–2000 award year under the FWS Program and, then, on the basis of the aggregate need of the eligible students in attendance. Employers of FWS recipients must contribute 25% of the funding (except in the case of private, for-profit organizations, which must match 50%, and in the case of established criteria for which the matching requirement is waived.) The U.S. Department of Education encourages colleges and universities to use FWS Program funds to promote community service activities. Institutions must use at least 7% of their work study allocation to support students working in community service jobs, including: reading tutors for preschool age or elementary school children; mathematics tutors for students enrolled in elementary school through ninth grade; or literacy tutors in a family literacy project performing family literacy activities. Students receive FWS awards from participating institutions after filing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) to determine their financial need and may be employed by: the institution itself; a federal, state, or local public agency; a private nonprofit organization; or a private for-profit organization. Review of the Literature Specific to the Working Student Fjortoft (1995) reported that the more time a student devotes to employment, the less he or she has for either academic or social activities. Although this may leave the students with less time, what is the impact on college success? Some studies have looked at the effects of working on social and academic integration. This is an important component in student behavior theory (Bean, 1985; Pascarella & Staver, 1985; Tinto, 1975) that has long been linked with persistence (Kuh, 1995; Pascarella & Terrenzini, 1983). Lundberg (2004) examined a national sample of 3,774 responses to the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) and found that students working more than 20 hours per week reported significantly fewer interactions with faculty and lower quality student relationships with peers. Cheng (2004) examined how work affected the academic and social experience of college students, using a mixed method design, INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 35 and found “no significant difference between working and nonworking students in their academic and social experience, though working students’ GPAs are lower than those of the nonworking”(pg. 1). Some authors have stated that nearly 50% of all full-time students are working enough hours to hinder their academic experience, including grade performance, class schedule, and class choice (King & Bannon, 2002). However the evidence on the effect of working on persistence is somewhat conflicting. Some studies have shown the positive benefits of working on student persistence. King (2002) noted that students from all income groups who worked part- time persisted at higher rates than students who did not work at all. Pascarella and Terrenzini (1991) reviewed a number of studies and noted the positive relationship between working and student success. Cheng (2004) questions the college centric focus on persistence and graduation as the outcome measure, suggesting that it “contributes little to our understanding of work on students’ college experience itself” (pg. 2). There appears to be evidence that shows that working does affect the time available for student interaction with faculty and for academics, and that this might inhibit social and academic integration or engagement. But does this impact persistence and, if so, at what point does it influence persistence at a highly selective research institution? Why students work. The reason students work may seem self-evident—to pay for college; however, the sense of many administrators seems to be that students are working more hours due to a desire for increased cash flow, and this choice inhibits their college success as it cuts into study time. As the price of higher education continues to increase, the amount of credit card debt is also increasing and this could be contributing to more students working more hours (Pinto, Parente, & Palmer, 2001). Cheng’s student focus groups revealed a theme of “constantly searching for meaningful work as well as meaning in their work” (2004, p. 9). Students expressed a complex attitude developing toward their work, first seeing it as purely economic, but then with a growing appreciation for the academic, social, and career advantages of their work. Choy (2002) reported INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 36 that 26% of students who considered themselves students who worked thought that working helped them with their course work, and 55% thought it helped to prepare them for a career. But Horn and Berktold capture the catch 22 in their report, Undergraduates Who Work. “If the amount they work has an adverse effect on their academic performance or impedes their progress toward attaining a degree, then the primary reason for working has been undermined.” Work intensity and college success. Students who work more than 25 to 30 hours per week are often less involved than their peers on campus (Furr & Elling, 2000; Hood, Craig, & Ferguson, 1992; Lundberg, 2004). However, those students working 15 hours per week or less may receive a positive impact on student involvement and learning (Furr & Elling, 2000; Lundberg, 2004; Orszag, Orszag, & Whitmore, 2001; Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, & Terenzini, 1998). Carroll & Chan-Kopka (1988) found that of college students from 1980-84, one in twelve worked more than full-time while attending college full time and 25% worked less than 20 hours per week, and that those who worked during the academic year persisted better than those who worked during the summer only. Effects of on-campus vs. off-campus work. Most colleges and universities offer an array of on-campus opportunities for student employment, some funded through the Federal work study program. However, at many campuses, especially nonresidential, the majority of students work off-campus. The U.S. Department of Education (1998) found that less than one in five students in 1995- 96 who self-identified as students who work, were employed on campus (15%). These were the students who were most likely to be working 15 or fewer hours a week and were most likely to be work study students. One study at a selective urban institution found that a higher rate of persistence was found for students who were employed on campus in the first or second year of college. In addition, these students also reported higher satisfaction with the institution and higher graduation rates (Cermak & Filkins, 2004). INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 37 There are some studies that would seem to indicate benefits to students who work on- campus. Working on campus seems to have the most positive impact on student performance and satisfaction with college (Astin, 1993; Terenzini, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996). Examining data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and the Beginning Postsecondary Study (BPS) between 1991 and 1994, researchers at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that working on campus part-time may facilitate social integration (Cuccaro-Alamin & Choy, 1998). This seems to support the findings of earlier researchers who suggested that working off campus is more likely to inhibit social or academic integration (Anderson, 1981; Ehrenberg & Sherman, 1987). Off-campus employment is negatively associated with involvement in critical learning experiences including faculty interaction, at least in one study at a southeastern urban university (Furr & Elling, 2000). Jobs related to a career interest may also have a positive impact on students (Broughton & Otto, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Pascarella & Staver (1985) found that working on campus in science related areas had a positive influence on science major choices. They suggest that for those science career aspirants, working in a science-related area reinforces their major choice. Freshmen and working. In his 30-year report on the College Institutional Research Program (CIRP) survey, Astin (1998) reported that entering freshman classes were reporting record-high percentages of students expressing significant concern about finances and “record- high percentages of freshman [said] that they [would] have to ‘get a job to help pay for college expenses’”(pg. 120). Similar numbers reported they would have to work full time while attending (pg. 120). The first year in college is a vulnerable time in terms of persistence. Fjortoft (1995) comments that “academic advisors and counselors continue to suggest that students not work particularly during their first year on campus” (pg. 3) in spite of the research pointing to the positive benefits of working. In a 1994 study focused on the cognitive development of first-year INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 38 students, off-campus employment was found to have no effect on their cognitive development (Pascarella, Bohr, Nora, Desler, & Zusman, 1994). How does this play out for students at the University of California? Let's move into a review of the specifics related to public higher education in the state to get a better grasp of the financial realities that students in the state are facing. Review of the California Master Plan The California Master Plan for Higher Education, adopted by the state in 1960, helps integrate the missions of three college and university systems in meeting the educational needs of Californians. In addition to the University of California’s ten campuses, higher education in the state includes the 23 campuses of the California State University System, the 108 campuses of the California Community College System, and independent institutions throughout the state. The Master Plan designates UC as the primary state-supported academic research institution. It also gives UC exclusive jurisdiction in public higher education for doctoral degrees (with the exception that CSU can award joint doctorates) and for instruction in law, medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine. The Master Plan also established an admissions principle of universal access and choice, assigning UC to select its freshmen students from the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the high school graduating class and CSU from the top one-third (33.3%). The California Community Colleges were to admit any student capable of benefiting from instruction. The Master Plan was subsequently modified to provide that all California residents in the top one-eighth or top one- third of their high school graduating classes who apply on time be offered a place somewhere in the UC or CSU system, respectively. The community college transfer function is an essential component of this commitment to access. Under the Master Plan, UC and CSU set aside upper INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 39 division places for and give priority in the admissions process to eligible California Community College transfer students. The Master Plan is one of California's truly outstanding accomplishments, because it helped in major ways to create the nation's largest and most distinguished system of higher education. Furthermore, California's economic vitality and its unequaled climate of opportunity are due in large part to the innovation, creativity, research and educated workforce that are the products of its higher education institutions. In the 1970s, and again in the 1980s, the Legislature reaffirmed its support for the Master Plan as the state's blueprint for providing high-quality and affordable higher education to California's residents. It has served the state well for more than four decades, embodying a strong commitment on the part of the state and the segments to provide educational opportunity and make it affordable for all qualified Californians. There was a turn of events in the 1990s. Breneman and Finney describe the challenges California faced in the shift of revenue sources for higher education in their article The Changing Landscape: Higher Education Finance in the 1990s. For the first time since the mass expansion of higher education, tuition charges surpassed state appropriations to colleges and universities. Prior to this shift state revenue was the single largest source to the public higher education system. The public system of higher education in California received 13.8% of the state’s budget in 1990, 11.3% of the state budget in 1994, and 7% of the state’s budget by 2005. Tuition increases during this same period rose faster than the Consumer Price Index to address the loss of support from the state. Students began borrowing more money and more students borrowed to pay for higher education. This last point brings us back to the purpose of this study. Clark Kerr, president emeritus INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 40 of the University of California has described the mix of public and private control and financing of colleges and universities in the state as a “halfway house”. Changes in the financing of higher education in the 1990s have gradually shifted the burden of paying from the state to the individual. Rapidly increasing costs of operations for the “house”—combined with continued intense competition for state resources in and projected enrollment jumps – threaten to exacerbate those changes. Meanwhile, California’s public institutions are adopting strategies similar to those of private institutions in raising revenues. Until state and institutional leaders begin to fully grapple with the effects of the changes in financing during the recession of the 1990s, coupled with the recession that began in 2008, they are unlikely to fully understand or take responsibility for the changes that are on the horizon. Which leads me to the questions of this study—what happens to the student experience and their persistence at the University of California with the continued and on-going pressures of financing their education given the state’s continued decrease in sharing the cost of educating the people of California? Is the work study program, which is one program the University relies on to support students’ persistence an effective program as measured by work study students’ academic and social integration and satisfaction with their experiences at the University of California. Statistics related to UC costs and financial aid. Between 2003-04 and 2007-08, total feels increased by $1,976 while total non-fee costs increased by $2,369. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 41 Table 3 UC Average Cost of Attendance from 2003-2008 UC Average Costs 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 % Increase Fees $5,519 $6,302 $6,802 $7,017 $7,495 36% Systemwide fees $4,984 $5,684 $6,141 $6,141 $6,636 33% Campus fees $535 $618 $661 $876 $859 61% Non-fee expenses $12,295 $13,212 $13,672 $14,300 $14,664 19% Books & supplies $1,286 $1,417 $1,446 $1,512 $1,475 15% Living $7,681 $8,252 $8,613 $8,885 $9,317 21% Transportation $1,313 $1,374 $1,366 $1,447 $1,397 6% Personal $1,463 $1,556 $1,564 $1,646 $1,585 8% Healthcare $552 $613 $682 $810 $889 61% Total Cost of Attendance $17,814 $19,514 $20,474 $21,317 $22,158 24% (University of California, Office of the President, Student Financial Services, 2007) UC has lower fees but higher non-fee costs than the average for its public comparison schools, resulting in a higher average cost of attendance. Table 4 Average 2006-2007 Total Cost and Estimated Net Costs, UC and Comparison Public Institutions Average Costs UC Average of Michigan, Illinois, SUNY Buffalo, and Virginia Fees $7,017 $8,642 Non-fee Costs $14,300 $11,159 Cost of Attendance $21,317 $19,801 Less Estimated Gift Aid $9,780 $7,183 Estimated Net Cost $11,537 $12,628 Patterns of Student Aid at the University of California Cost increases—in particular, increases in costs other than fees—have led to an increase in the amount that UC students are expected to work and borrow. In 2007-2008, UC students were expected to contribute about $300 more from work and borrowing than in the prior year. UC on-campus room and board costs are nearly $900 higher, on average, than room and board at INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 42 other four-year institutions located in the same areas as UC campuses. Still given these fees, here are a few statistics from 2005-2006 enrollment data on the economic diversity of UC undergraduates: • 21% of students are “first-generation” college students; • 34% of students come from families with parent income less than $50,000; • 29% of students come from families with parent income between $50,000-$100,000; • 29% of students receive Pell grants; • 54% of students receive grants and scholarships; • 64% of students receive some financial aid (including loans and work study); • 40% of undergraduate students took out a student loan; • 52% of the graduating class of 2006 left school with some student loan debt. • 2005-2006 graduates with loans, the average debt was $14,511. This figure has remained generally flat in constant dollars in recent years; it will likely increase in future years due to increased federal loan limits beginning in 2007-2008. Summary The examination of retention with respect to the finance of California’s public higher education system and the impact on the working college student is important for an understanding of the complexities surrounding the college experience. The literature and theoretical foundations pertaining to retention support the need for research for the working student population and provide direction for future implications. State, institutional and personal influences play a part of social and academic success, specifically with the working college student experience. Financial aid practices and the federal work study program influence the satisfaction levels of the working student population and are important components of the conceptual retention picture. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 43 Tinto (2005) provides a clear body of research on the subject of retention and has established the processes and contributing factors related to the departures of higher education students. In more recent years, Tinto has proposed a shift in the study of retention from those factors influencing reasons students leave to that of factors contributing to the decisions to stay. Shelton et al. (1995) comments that “retention is a joint effort between the student and the institutions,” and the reality of working students is an opportunity for colleges to show innovation and leadership. King (2002) and others have pointed out that institutions may want to think about their discourse with students on the choices they must make. It is a complex calculus of work and borrowing with decisions to be made about whether to work full or part time and whether to attend school full or part time and there is little in the life of the young adult to prepare him or her for this kind of cost-benefit analysis. The research on the effects of employment on persistence and degree completion consistently indicates that the more hours students work, the more likely they are to shift from full-time to part-time employment and the less likely they are to persist from one year to the next or to complete a bachelor’s degree program. However, the relation between hours worked and persistence or degree completion is not linear. Previous studies have indicated that working 20 or more hours per week (particularly off-campus) reduces student persistence and degree completion. But as suggested in the review of literature on the work study program, on-campus employment may actually enhance the chances of persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Other studies in the 1990s suggest that the critical point may be closer to 15 hours than to 20. Horn and Berktold found that net of other factors, working 14 or fewer hours weekly had a positive effect on persistence compared with working 15-33 hours a week. The nonlinear trend, moreover, may be U-shaped: students who do not work are more likely to withdraw than those who work 1 to 15 hours per week (Choy, 2000, King 2002). Indeed students who do not work INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 44 may be as likely to interrupt their studies as students working 16 to 34 hours a week (Horn & Berktold, 1998). All said, the findings support the proposition that employment, under certain circumstances (particularly when it is limited in duration and on campus), can enhance student program and degree completion. The overall weight of evidence suggests that work study assistance, net of student characteristics and other forms of financial aid, is positively related to persistence and degree completion. But a more definitive conclusion requires further research, and the underlying casual mechanism also needs clarification. Is the positive effect of work study related to the reduction of students’ financial burdens, to greater opportunities for student engagement in the academic and social systems of the institution, or to both? Projections of future cost increases and the availability of financial aid – in particular, need- based grants – suggest that the amount that students and parents are expected to contribute towards an undergraduate UC education will continue to increase for families at every income level (University Of California, 2007). The University must consider options for addressing this projected trend in light of the University’s financial aid goals. In recent years, the loan-work-expectation (LWE) of UC students has remained near the midpoint of the manageable range. By 2012-13, the projections suggest an annual funding “gap” of $97 million between projected funds and the funds that would be required to reduce the LWE to the midpoint of the range. Thus, the University expects the LWE to increase within the manageable range, reducing the University’s financial accessibility. The increase in the LWE reflects a structural weakness in the University’s approach to funding its financial aid program. The overall goal of this research paper was to analyze the quality, access, and efficiency of the University of California through the lens of the work study student’s experience. The reality outside these illusory walls is that American students are working their way through a INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 45 more costly college education, and as college has become more accessible for a greater part of the population, colleges have to find strategies to adapt to these realities. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 46 Chapter 3: Methodology The University of California has been remarkably successful at enrolling a socio- economically diverse undergraduate student body (University Of California, 2007). The success is attributable both to the high quality of the University’s academic programs and to large increases in financial support available to UC students. Projections of future cost increases and the availability of financial aid – in particular, need- based grants – suggest that the amount that students and parents are expected to contribute towards an undergraduate UC education will continue to increase for families at every income level (University of California, 2007). Thus there is real cause for concern about the University’s ability to remain financially accessible in the future. Expected increases in student costs are expected to outpace the growth in resources available to needy students. This will increase the burden on students and their families to cover the cost of their education at every income level. Providing adequate financial support in the face of projected cost increases is directly related to the University’s ability to enroll an ethnically diverse student body. The aim of the forthcoming analysis is to delve into the relationship between work study and persistence rates of students at the University of California, and to further understand the impact of work study responsibilities on students’ academic and social integration on the nine undergraduate campuses of the University of California and the student’s satisfaction with their experience. The three research questions developed to ascertain the relationship between the work study program, persistence, academic and social engagement, and student satisfaction are: 1. What is the relationship between work study and persistence at the University of California? INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 47 2. What is the relationship of work study responsibilities on students’ academic and social integration at the University of California? 3. Does the work study position have a relationship (negative or positive) on a students’ satisfaction with their experience at the University of California? These questions guided the quantitative analysis of a UC systemwide student satisfaction survey, and financial aid and time to degree data for undergraduate students at the University of California who began their studies in the fall of 2004. Population and Sample There are ten highly diverse campuses that make up the University of California (UC) system – one of two public university systems serving the nation’s most populous state. With over 234,000 enrolled students, 207,000 faculty and staff, and 1.6 million living alumni, the University of California is one of the largest and most respected university systems in the world (UCOP website). UC’s academic offerings span more than 150 disciplines, with more departments ranked among the top ten nationally than any other university, and with six UC campuses having membership in the prestigious 62-member Association of American Universities. UC confers more than 40,000 bachelor’s degrees each year and awards more Ph.D.s than any other US university – 7% of the annual nationwide Ph.D. total (UCOP website). Three campuses (Davis, Berkeley, and Santa Cruz) are located in northern California, Merced (the newest campus) is located in central California, and five campuses (Santa Barbara, Los Angeles, Riverside, Los Angeles, and San Diego) are in southern California. This study analyzes responses from the 2004 online administration of the University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) survey. The 2004 survey was an undergraduate census using one comprehensive questionnaire. A census approach (every INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 48 undergraduate who was registered in Winter Quarter at Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz or Spring Semester at Berkeley and Merced) was invited to participate. Up to nine recruiting emails were sent to students between April and July 2004. Students who responded to the survey were eliminated from subsequent recruitment mailings. Individual student responses from UCUES were matched to data contained in the Corporate Student System database which includes demographic data, enrollment data, and financial aid data on each student. This central database is maintained by the UC Office of President. All data provided to the researcher was non-identifiable. The 2004 UCUES survey was administered from April 2004 to July 2004 and the total number of participants was 48,083. The response rate for the system wide census survey was 32.1% (campus range: 24.2% to 39.9%). With these cumulative results, UCUES response rates meet or exceed the current standards of acceptable response rates for student surveys. The National Survey for Student Engagement (NSSE) reports that 42% is the average response rate per institution but the response rate for all students taking the survey is 37%. NSSE includes many small colleges and universities that can achieve a high institutional response rate. However, the average response rate for large public universities is 33%. None of the other national surveys adequately meet the UCUES research priorities and several different instruments would have to be implemented system wide in order to cover the same content as UCUES. The Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), which sponsors a number of national surveys, estimated that 20% would be the expected UC response rate to one of their student experience surveys and also reported a 25-30% response for their survey of seniors. Their INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 49 Freshman Survey (CIRP) achieves a much higher rate (75% or better) but that survey is generally administered to a captive audience of incoming freshmen at orientation. While some sample surveys at large universities have achieved higher response rates than UCUES, most published examples of large-scale university student survey response rates are similar or lower than that of UCUES. Instrumentation UCUES is a collaborative research project of UC faculty and campus institutional research professionals. It is the primary product of the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) housed in the Center for Studies in Higher Education (CSHE) and is supported by funding from the UC Office of the President (UCOP) and campus Student Affairs divisions. The survey solicits student opinions on all aspects of the UC experience – academic and co-curricular involvement as well as interactions with academic departments and student services. According to the UCUES website, UC researchers use UCUES data to support campus accreditation, decision making about student services, and long-range planning to create independent, scholarly research on UC admissions and outcomes, student civic engagement, and the role of UC in enhancing social mobility for California's young people. At present, there are six years of system wide data from 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010. In an attempt to assess the impact of work study responsibilities on student’s academic and social engagement at a highly selective research public institution (research question 2), the researcher needed to define academic engagement and disengagement and social engagement and then compare non-work study students’ responses to work study students’ responses. The INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 50 following questions from the UCUES survey were used to determine a students’ behavior in regards to their academic engagement (Appendix A): Survey Question 15: Thinking back on this academic year, how often have you done each of the following? 1. Had a class in which the professor knows your name 3. Found a course so interesting that you did more work than was required 9. Met with faculty in person, for example, during office hours 10. Met with teaching assistant in person, for example, during office hours 11. Exchanged email with a faculty member 12. Exchanged email with a teaching assistant Survey Question 15a: Thinking back on this academic year, how often have you done each of the following? 1. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class 8. Gone to the library to do research 9. Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during class discussions 10. Developed your own point of view about an issue and used facts and examples to support your viewpoint 11. Examined how others gathered data and assessed the soundness of their conclusions Response: (score)  Never (1)  Rarely (2)  Occasionally (3)  Often (4)  Very often (5) The following questions from the UCUES survey were used to determine a students’ behavior in regards to their academic disengagement: Survey Question15: Thinking back on this academic year, how often have you done each of the following? 6. Turned in a course assignment late 7. Not turned in a course assignment at all Survey Question 15a: Thinking back on this academic year, how often have you done each of the following? 4. Come to class without completing readings or assignments 5. Skipped class because of your work (paid employment) schedule 6. Skipped class because the lectures were available on-line or on the Web 7. Skipped class for other reasons INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 51 Response: (score)  Never (1)  Rarely (2)  Occasionally (3)  Often (4)  Very often (5) As was found in the literature review on important variables impacting retention, student interaction with faculty plays an important role (Stoecker, Pascarella, & Wolfle, 1988; Boyer, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). The classroom provides optimal opportunity for engagement of students by faculty and can influence commitment students have for degree completion (Tinto, 1993). Interpersonal relationships between faculty and students can continue outside the classroom, in hallways and faculty offices, for additional social engagement leading to quality academic efforts (Tinto, 1993). The following questions from the UCUES survey were used to determine a students’ behavior in regards to their social engagement: Survey Question 2: During a typical week in this academic year, how many hours do you spend doing the following: 3. Perform community service or volunteer activities 4. Participate in physical exercise, fitness activities or recreational sports 5. Participate in student clubs or groups such as publications, cultural groups or student government 6. Attend movies, concerts, sports or other events 7. Party 8. Exchange email or visit online chat rooms other socializing, talk with friends 9. Other socializing, talk with friends 12. Spiritual activities (mediation, prayer, religious services) Responses: (score)  0 (1)  <1 (2)  1-2 (3)  3-4 (4)  5-6 (5)  7-8 (6)  9-10 (7) INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 52  11-12 (8)  13-16 (9)  >17 (10) Social integration is described by Braxton and Lee (2005) as the harmonious relationship between the student and the social system of a college or university. Interpersonal relationships with faculty, staff, and other students foster feelings of belongingness important to the successful integration of students. Both minority and non-minority students describe an increase of commitment to remain in college with higher levels of social integration in the college environment (Zea, Reisen, Beil, & Caplan, 1997). This survey question requests the respondent to describe how they spend their time outside the classroom and provides response options that demonstrate the social nature of the collegiate environment (i.e., participate in student club, socialize with friends in-person and/or via social media). In an attempt to assess the impact of work study responsibilities on student’s overall satisfaction with their collegiate experience at a highly selective research public institution (research question 3), the researcher needed to define overall satisfaction and then compare non- work study students’ responses to work study students’ responses. The following questions from the UCUES survey were used to determine a students’ overall satisfaction with their with their college experience: Satisfaction with their overall UC experience, for the purposes of this study, is defined by the perceived value of the education, overall grade point average, and overall academic, social and UC experience. The following questions from the UCUES survey were used to determine a student’s satisfaction with their experience: Survey Question 33: How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of your overall UC experience? 1. Value of the education you are getting given how much you have to pay for it 3. Your overall UC GPA INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 53 5. Overall academic experience 6. Overall social experience 7. Overall UC experience Response: (score)  Very Dissatisfied (1)  Dissatisfied (2)  Somewhat Dissatisfied (3)  Somewhat Satisfied (4)  Satisfied (5)  Very Satisfied (6) The aforementioned survey questions support the researcher’s desire to quantitatively describe students’ satisfaction with their experience; in this case, the researcher assumed that satisfaction comes from expectations being met. According to the literature, expectation levels of college students can play a part in initial fit and commitment to the university and provide opportunities for students to decide to stay or leave the academic setting (Kuh, et al., 2006; Tinto, 1993). The process of becoming integrated into the fabric of the university has also been found to be both a cumulative and compounding process, and the level of integration within a given year of study is part of a cumulative experience that continues to build throughout one’s college experience. According to Tinto (1993), continued enrollment is reliant upon the ability of students to integrate at the social and academic levels of the institutional organization. Integration includes the perception of institutional fit, or mismatch, by that of the student. When comfort and fit levels vary significantly between student and institution, withdrawal is higher. These academic and non-academic structures prove vital for the persistence of students as they engage and adapt to the newer setting of academic life (Tinto, 1993). The researcher is interested in the difference in self-reported satisfaction levels because this might further help understand the barriers (perceived or real) that work study students face at the institutions. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 54 In summary, the researcher did not use the survey instrument to answer research question one. Rather, demographic data collected through the corporate student database provided the basis for the analysis to report time-to-degree between the two groups. The survey instrument was used to answer research questions two and three. Research question two relied on the responses from survey questions 15 and 15a to assess academic integration and survey question two to assess social engagement. Research question three relied on survey questions 31 and 33 to report on student satisfaction with their experiences as it relates to the value of the education they received, their GPA, their overall academic experience, their overall social experience, and finally their overall UC experience. Data Collection A proposal was submitted by the researcher to the UCUES principal investigators and steering committee with specifics related to this analysis. The principal investigators and steering committee welcome research proposals from faculty, independent researchers and students and have approved numerous studies over the past 10 years using the UCUES data set(s). The researcher’s proposal was approved; the caveat being that data analysis would not be conducted that compared student experiences on individual campuses. As this was a secondary data source, IRB approval by the researcher’s home campus is not required. That said the UCUES principle investigators have gone through the IRB process on each of the nine UC campuses to receive approval to disseminate the survey to all undergraduates at the University of California. Directors of Institutional Research on each campus manage and maintain the data collected through UCUES on their own populations, and institutional researchers at the Office of the President maintain the system wide data set. This researcher worked with colleagues at the Office of the President for access to the data sets. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 55 Participation in the survey was voluntary, and a clear disclaimer was presented at the outset of the survey. A student’s decision whether or not to participate in the survey did not affect grades or the student’s relationship with the campus or the University of California. Survey responses were asked to input their student ID number which allowed for responses to be matched to official campus information (the Corporate Student database) which includes major, year in school, financial aid awards, and other background information. Other than the matching of the survey responses with the student ID number for demographic information, the responses were kept completely confidential and the results of the student are reported only as aggregate data. The data was provided to the researcher via uploading to a password protected server and once analysis was completed, data files were removed from the site and electronic files were deleted. Data Analysis The secondary analysis in this study is comparative research and aspires to compare the persistence and experience of two groups: students who hold work study positions while enrolled (Group A) and student who do not have work study positions while enrolled (Group B). This act of comparing these two groups aims to identify if there is a positive or negative effect on students who hold work study positions (Group A) on their time to degree, their academic and social engagement and satisfaction with their experience at the University of California. Secondary analysis of quantitative data is relatively widespread in comparative research, undoubtedly in part because of the cost and time of obtaining primary data on large groups. Descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage scores) were generated through the use of SAS to describe the student demographics including gender, race-ethnicity and socio-economic status of the two groups, students who have work study (Group A) and students who do not have work INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 56 study (Group B) to begin to answer the researchers first question. The chi-square test was used to analyze for significant differences between the two groups. Mean and standard deviations computed the behavior and satisfaction data for scores on individual UCUES questions to answer the researcher’s second and third research. Behavior scores revealed how often students exhibited the questioned behavior. The higher the score, the more times the students reported exhibiting said behavioral pattern. Then the two groups’ behaviors were compared to one another. Satisfaction ratings revealed how satisfied the student was that the institution met his/her expectations. Higher scores meant more satisfied students. Again, the two groups’ level of satisfaction was compared to one another. The t-test, a statistical method used to test one or more hypotheses within a population or a proportion within a population, was used to determine the probability of the hypothesis (otherwise known as statistical significance). For the purposes of this study, statistical significance meant that the two groups were difference from one another based on their involvement or non-involvement in the work study program. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 57 Chapter 4: Results There were three research questions which guided this study. First was to ascertain if there was a relationship between persistence and work study; a comparison of the 4-year graduate rates of students who hold work study positions (Group A) and students who do not hold work study positions (Group B) provides some explanation. Second, is work study influence the academic and social integration of students who hold these positions at the University of California? Third, was there a different level of satisfaction with the collegiate experience between the two groups? This chapter describes the research results of this comparative study in which both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were carried out. Seminal research suggests that that work study programs could increase student persistence by 15% (Astin, 1975). Is this finding applicable to today’s undergraduate student at the University of California? A consistent increase to the educational costs to attend the University of California is the current climate students and families find themselves grappling with, and thus many are reliant on the work study program to assist in covering the cost of education. Additionally, in light of the theoretical foundations published by Tinto on the importance of academic and social integration on a student’s persistence towards degree completion, is there a difference between the engagement of work study students and students not in work study positions into the campus community? Evaluating the data collected from the UCUES survey in 2004 allowed the researcher to look at 4-year graduation rates of the class of 2007. Comparing and contrasting the survey results from the two groups’ experiences, as well as matching data of the graduation rates of the class of 2007 provides an understanding of the work study students experience and thus leads to INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 58 recommendations to assist the institution, and the work study student to enhance their academic and social integration in the collegiate experience. Treatment of the Data In an attempt to assess the impact of work-study responsibilities on students’ academic and social integration at the UC (research question 2), the responses were aggregated into the five possible responses and assigned a value on a five-point scale. For the assessment of academic engagement, the lower the response, the less academically engaged a student was identified; the higher the response the more academically engaged a student was identified. For the assessment of academic disengagement, the lower the score the less academically disengaged a student was identified; the higher the response the more academically disengaged a student was identified. Similarly, the researcher assessed social engagement in regards to the amount of time a student spent doing the described activity, the lower the response, the less amount of time a student spent of social activities, the higher the response the more time a student spent on social activities and thus the more socially engaged a student was identified. In the second step of analyzing the data on engagement, the researcher took the average of the each individual’s responses on the identified questions (survey questions 15, 15a and 2 respectively). This average helped the researcher develop a composite score notating the level of academic engagement, academic disengagement, or social engagement of each student. For the third step, the researcher calculated the mean of each control group from the composite scores. Finally, t-test was used to test for significant differences between the composite score of non- work study students and work-study students. The survey data for questions assessing satisfaction on the value of the education, satisfaction with GPA and satisfaction of the academic experience were each single questions on INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 59 the survey, with six response options to note the range of satisfaction (survey question 33). The researcher coded response options “very dissatisfied”, “dissatisfied” and “somewhat dissatisfied” into one response “dissatisfied” and “very satisfied”, “satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied” into another response “satisfied.” Participant Demographics The database used for this study’s analysis consisted of 29,068 respondents. Table XX shows the breakdown between the two groups (students not in work study positions and students in work study positions). The majority of the sample did not maintain work study positions. Table 5 Description of the two Groups Non-work study Work-study N (%) 21957 (75.5) 7111 (24.5) Table 6 provides the demographics and characteristics description of study participants. 62% of participants were female. The majority of participants were white (37.4%), followed closely by Asians (37.2%). A large number of respondents declined to state their socio- economic status, but of who reported their economic background, almost 40% reported being in the middle class with a total combined annual parental income between $50,000 and $99,999. Table 6 provides further descriptive results. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 60 Table 6 Demographic Description of Study Participants Non-work study Work-study N (%) Gender Female 13143 (45.2) 4845 (16.7) Male 8767 (30.2) 2264 (7.8) Unknown (missing) 39 (0.1) 2 (0.01) Ethnicity American Indian 144 (0.5) 52 (0.2) Black 375 (1.3) 264 (0.9) Chicano/Latino 2295 (7.9) 1543 (5.3) Other 421 (1.5) 121 (0.4) White 9265 (31.9) 1602 (5.5) Asian 7631 (26.3) 3180 (10.9) Unknown 1826 (6.3) 349 (1.2) Social Class Wealthy 380 (1.6) 12 (0.1) Upper Middle Class/ Professional Middle Class 5820 (24.8) 468 (2.0) Middle Class 6885 (29.4) 1735 (7.4) Working Class 3307 (14.1) 2066 (8.8) Low Income/Poor 1401 (6.0) 1355 (5.8) Decline to state 5639 Results and Analysis of Research Question 1 Research Question One asked: What is the relationship between work study and persistence at the University of California? The aim of Research Question Ones was to delve into the relationship between work study and persistence rates of students at the University of California. Do students who hold work study positions take longer to complete their degree? Chi-square was used to test for significant differences between students who were not in work study positions and students who were in work study positions with respect to students’ 4- year graduation rate. The result in Table 7 shows that the proportions of students who were non- INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 61 work study compared to those who were in work-study did differ significantly in their time to degree (Χ² (1) = 27.69, p = 0.0001). Table 7 Comparison of Time to Degree between Groups Non-work study Work-study Graduation N (%) p-value In 4 years 3560 (81.0) 1546 (75.2) In 4+ years 838 (19.1) 509 (24.8) = 0.0001 There is a statistically significant difference between students who are work-study and non-work study because p value is less than .0001. These results reflect the following: 80% of students not in work study positions completed their degree in four years, while 20% finished in 4+ years; rather for work study students, 75% finished in 4 years, while 25% finished in 4+ years. Results and Analysis of Research Question 2 Research Question Two asked: What is the relationship of work study responsibilities on students’ academic and social integration at the University of California? The aim of this question is to further describe the intrinsic costs of work study positions. We know that the academic and social integration of students into the campus community are important components that positively influence persistence. Given that it takes work study students longer to graduate, can we hone in how their work study position impacts their academic and social integration in comparison to their peers not in work study positions—do their academics suffer, do they have less social connections to the community? There is no statistical significant difference in the academic engagement between work- study students and non-work study students (t (25,803) = 1.33, p = 0.1848). INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 62 While there is not a statistical difference in academic engagement between the two groups, there is a statistically significant difference in the academic disengagement between the two groups (t (25,791) = -4.06 p = .0001) as shown in Table 8. Work-study students are more academically disengaged than non-work study students. The combination of findings from research question one (it takes work study students longer to graduate) and this part of research question two (work study students are more academically disengaged) provides quantitative support for current thinking on persistence: academic engagement impacts persistence. Table 8 Academic Disengagement N Mean Standard Deviation Non-work study 19555 1.96 0.56 Work study 6238 1.99 0.56 There is no statistical significant difference in the social engagement between work-study students and non-work study students (t (28,233) = .96 p = .3401). On average, each student, regardless of work status, spends about 1-2 hours to 3-4 hours a week on each of the activities listed. In conclusion, the statistical tests performed reveal that there is no statistical significance between non-work study and work-study students in their level of academic and social engagement. However, there is a statistically significant difference between non-work study and work-study students in their level of academic disengagement. Work-study students are more academic disengaged than non-work study students. Results and Analysis of Research Question 3 Research Question Three asked: Does the work study position have an impact (negative or positive) on a students’ satisfaction with their experience at the University of California. This INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 63 inquiry served to investigate a work study students satisfaction with the value of their education, satisfaction with their GPA, satisfaction with the academic and social experience, and finally satisfaction with their overall college experience. The researcher is interested in the difference in self-reported satisfaction levels because this might further help understand the barriers (perceived or real) that work study students face at the institutions. In an attempt to assess the impact of work-study responsibilities on students’ overall satisfaction with their collegiate experience at the University of California, the researcher needed to define overall satisfaction and then compare non-work study students’ responses to work- study students’ responses. The first degree of satisfaction studied was satisfaction with the value of their education given how much it costs. There was a statistically significant difference between students who are work-study and non-work study (Χ² (1) = 53.55, p = .0001) (Table 9). If we interpret this difference, we conclude the following: 25% of students not in work study positions were dissatisfied with the value of their education while 75% were satisfied with the value of their education, however for work study students, 30% were dissatisfied with the value of their education, while 70% were satisfied with the value of their education. While a majority of work student students are satisfied with the value of their education, slightly more are likely to be dissatisfied (5% more likely to be dissatisfied) with the value of their education. Table 9 Satisfaction with the Value of Education Given how much it Costs Non-work study Work-study N (%) p-value Dissatisfied 4424 (24.8) 1682 (29.7) Satisfied 13407 (75.2) 3980 (70.3) = .0001 INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 64 The next analysis is a comparison of the two groups’ satisfaction with their GPA. There is a statistically significant difference between students who are work-study and students not in work study positions p value is less than .0001 (Χ² (1) = 95.78, p = .0001) (Table 9). If we interpret this difference, we conclude the following: 42% of students not in work study were dissatisfied with their grade point average, while 58% were satisfied with their grade point average. The results for work study students are different, 50% were dissatisfied with their grade point average, while 50% were satisfied with their grade point average. Thus, non-work study students were 8% more likely to be satisfied with their grade point average. Table 10 Satisfaction with GPA Non-work study Work-study N (%) p-value Dissatisfied 7568 (42.4) 2822 (49.9) Satisfied 10263 (57.6) 2838 (50.1) =.0001 The next analysis is a comparison of the two groups’ satisfaction with their academic experience. There is no statistically significant difference in regards to the overall satisfaction in the academic experience as reported by non-work study and work-study students (Χ² (1) = 6.02, p = 0.0141). Thus, the researcher cannot cite a difference in the students’ satisfaction with their academic experience because of their work status. Additionally, there is no statistically significant difference in regards to the level of satisfaction with their social experience as reported by non-work study and work study students (Χ² (1) = 8.29, p = 0.0040). No difference between the two groups can be reported in terms of their satisfaction with their social experience. Finally, there is no statistically significant difference in regards to the overall satisfaction in the overall UC experience as reported by non-work study and work-study students (Χ² (1) = INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 65 2.23, p = 0.1353). Thus, no difference between the two groups in overall satisfaction can be reported. In summary, findings from research question three demonstrate that the two differences in satisfaction between non-working and work study students is the satisfaction with GPA and the perceived value of the education students receive. Summary of Findings In conclusion, the data revealed the following four findings: first, there is a 5% difference in four-year graduation rates between non work study and work study students; second, work study students are more academically disengaged than non-work study students; third, there is a 8% difference in GPA between the two groups; and finally, there is a 5% difference in perceived value of the education between the two groups. Analysis also showed that there is no statistical difference between the two groups with their overall satisfaction with their college experience. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 66 Chapter 5: Conclusions The root of my professional experiences at the University of California is what brought me to asking the questions contained in this study. The main theme that has resonated in my research has been to understand what happens to “the student” when there is a chipping away at—if not the outright decline of—the notion of the public good. By public good, I mean the concept that individuals and groups come together for the good of our society, whether it’s to educate the next generation, maintain safe communities, take care of the sick, or honor the aging generation. It is a question for American society as a whole—how to distinguish between the “public good” versus the “private good”, and how to strike a balance between the two. In the last few decades (as evidenced in the continual increasing cost of attending a public institution like the University of California) a clear privatization trend has driven American policy in all segments of our society, and in this case, the privatization of higher education. As the cost of education has continually increased, what has been the impact on the student who relies on a work study position to support their educational expenses? Is this student’s level of satisfaction with their experience different than for a student that doesn’t rely on the work study program for support? For this specific case, evaluating the experience of work study students in comparison to non-work study students, we learn of differences that help us further understand the relationship between persistence and work, the relationship between work and academic and social engagement, and the relationship between work and satisfaction of the experience while enrolled at the University of California. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 67 The researcher asks these questions because one day in the very near future, the current students will be the supporters or detractors of the University of California. One of the personal and professional goals of this researcher is to use this study to enhance the quality of students’ experience. The researcher’s ultimate desire is to contribute to building a base of California residents that support public higher education so that the University of California remains a great accessible public higher education system. Summary of Findings The UC Undergraduate Experience Survey solicits student opinions on all aspects of the UC experience – academic and co-curricular involvement as well as interactions with academic departments and student services, and was the data source used to answer the researcher’s questions. The secondary analysis in this study compares the persistence and experience of two groups: students who hold work study positions while enrolled and student who do not have work study positions while enrolled. The act of comparing the two groups identified in this study produced four findings in response to the research questions: first, there is a significant difference in four-year graduation rates between non work study and work study students; second, work study students are more academically disengaged than non-work study students; third, there is a significant difference in satisfaction of GPA between the two groups; and finally, there is a significant difference in perceived value of the education between the two groups. The first finding in response to research question one, demonstrates that it there is a greater chance of a work study student taking longer to graduate. Students not in work study positions have a 5% greater chance of graduating in four years than those who hold work study positions. 80% of students not in work study positions complete their degree in four years, while INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 68 20% finish in 4+ years; rather for work study students, 75% finish in 4 years, while 25% finish in 4+ years. This finding answers the researcher’s first question—there is a relationship between persistence and work study. While Astin (1975) asserted there is a positive effect of the work study program on persistence, this result suggests not all aspects of the work study program have a positive effect on students; for students at the University of California their work study positions impact their time to degree taking them longer to complete their studies. Additionally, the overall weight of evidence presented in Chapter two, building off of Astin’s seminal work, suggested that work study assistance, net of student characteristics and other forms of financial aid, is positively related to persistence and degree completion. Results from this study call this understanding into question. Given these results, students and families need to further evaluate if the short-term wages earned by holding a work study position are worth the long-term costs of extended enrollment at the University; a cost-benefit analysis could assist the student in making decisions that are in the best interest of their financial situation. For practitioners, advising students on the costs (tuition and cost of living expenses) of extended study are real and need to be considered when counseling students on the total cost of attendance to earn their bachelor’s degree. For the institution, a review of the positions offered as work-study positions needs to be conducted to further understand what institutional barriers exists for work study students; supporting work study students toward timely degree completion is critical to the institutions commitment to students from financial backgrounds that need support to cover the costs of attendance. As a public institution, the University’s ability to remain financially accessible is a critical component of its mission and service to the citizens of the state of California. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 69 In answering the second research question, it was discovered that there is a statistically significant difference between non-work study and work-study students in their level of academic disengagement. Work-study students are more academically disengaged than non- work study students. Additionally, in answering the third research question, the third finding shows that work study students report higher levels of dissatisfaction with their GPA. Work- study students are 8% less likely to be satisfied with their grade point average. These two finds taken together provide quantitative support for second schema of Tinto’s Student Integration Model. The model describes four areas that account for student departure decisions: 1) background of characteristics of enrolled student, 2) integration level of students into the academic environment, 3) integration of students into the social environment, and 4) persistence toward the degree or goal commitment (Tinto, 1975). These quantitative results answer the researcher’s second question; there is a negative impact on work study students’ academic integration at the University of California as evidenced by a higher rate of academic disengagement and lower satisfaction with their GPA. This finding can assist faculty and practitioners to target specific interventions toward work study students to decrease their level of academic disengagement. Faculty need to be intentional in reaching out to work study students. Practitioners supervising work study students need to engage with the student to inquiry about class, and discuss ways in which their academic studies can have meaning in the work environment. The fourth finding, work study students are more critical of the value of the education they receive than non-work study students, suggests that work study students have a decreased appreciation for their degree and the experiences that came along with earning the degree. Given the responsibilities work study students have in contributing to cover their cost of education INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 70 leads to a decreased appreciation for their degree and the experiences that came along with earning the degree. This in turn may have an impact on the future financial support and support on ballot measures the individual provides the institution. These results partially answer the researcher’s third question: the work study position has a negative impact on the perceived value of the education received. However, the statistical tests performed do not demonstrate meaningful difference between the two groups’ social integration, and their overall rating of their satisfaction with the University of California. This too partially answers the researcher’s third question: there is no meaningful impact of the work study position on the student’s overall satisfaction with their experience as evidenced by their direct response to the satisfaction question and supported by no statistical significance between social integration between the two groups. The responsibilities work study students have in contributing to cover their cost of education may lead to a perceived value that their costs to attend University were not commiserate with their earnings and thus there is a decreased appreciation for their degree and the experiences that came along with earning the degree. This in turn may have an impact on the future support the individual provides to the institution. These final two points highlight a limitation of the study. Results from research question two and three provide conflicting evidence that make it difficult to draw conclusions in response to research question three: Does the work study position have an impact (negative or positive) on a students’ satisfaction with their experience at the University of California? There are many ways in which satisfaction can be quantified—through value of the educational experience, through connectedness one feels to the social community, through satisfaction with one’s GPA. A qualitative evaluation on satisfaction may better describe what aspects of the student’s INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 71 experience are found to be satisfying (and also what aspects are dissatisfying). This study is basic comparative research which is an approach good for the flexibility it offers, yet comparative analysis has a tendency for the research to lump things together in a seamless whole, as in the case of describing satisfaction of work study students. The next section of this paper describes further the limitations of the study. Limitations In 1975 Astin published research that found that work study programs could increase student persistence by 15%. He reported that these opportunities provide students with money, experience in the field, and, perhaps most important, networking capabilities for future employment and research possibilities. While these findings are counter to Astin’s seminal work, the researcher must acknowledge that the data analyzed was from a single cohort. Testing these questions on additional cohorts of students at the University of California in the recent past would help to further substantiate the findings or provide evidence of something else impacting the relationship between persistence and the work study program. Additionally, a deeper look into the relationships identified in this analysis is needed. If the findings are correct, then the implications for practice are focused solely on the work study program, as opposed to financial aid in general. The findings may be a false indicator of what is occurring in the life of a work study student. Three additional explanations are very plausible. First, there may be a stronger variable influencing the relationship (i.e., wealth, incoming GPA). Given there was no control for wealth and incoming GPA, the researcher cannot make recommendations for the work study program in this vacuum. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 72 Second, how we define work study today could differ from how Astin defined it in 1975 when he published his results. The work study program of today could be different than the work study program in the 1970s. To get at this complexity, a study of the students’ experience with the work study program needs to be conducted to further understand the experiences of students in the program. Astin describes the benefits of the program to provide students with experience in the field, networking capabilities for future employment and research opportunities. Do work study students today report these same benefits? The third additional explanation could be the effect of other components of the financial aid package a work study student relies on. If a student has a work study award, there is a high likelihood that they also are relying on grants and loans to funds their cost of education. Are the effects found in this analysis not because of the work study position but because of the loans a student takes out to cover their cost of education. The work study position is part of a financial aid package and it may be a proxy for the effect of something else in the financial aid package. Given that the work study award is smaller dollar amount than the dollar amount a student borrows, are the results found in this study actually an indication of the negative effect of loans on persistence? And finally, while the findings support Tinto’s Student Integration theory, it is important to note that the survey questions used to develop the academic integration composite score and the social integration composite score were note directly defined by Tinto, himself. The research made inferences to define engagement via a pre-developed survey. The effects described in this paper could be from items that represent something other than what Tinto defined as engagement. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 73 Implications for Practice While acknowledging the limitations of this study is a critical, a discussion on the implication of the results found is important. From the results, three implications emerged. The first implication surrounds the issues of budgeting for the student. There is a need for increased counseling and support provided to families as they consider how to finance the costs associated with enrolling in college. Given the results and analysis of research question one, students and families need to further evaluate if the short-term wages earned by holding a work study position are worth the long-term costs of extended enrollment at the University; a cost- benefit analysis could assist the student in making decisions that are in the best interest of their financial situation. For practitioners, advising students on the costs (tuition and cost of living expenses) of extended study are real and need to be considered when counseling students on the total cost of attendance to earn their bachelor’s degree. These implications take people-power and time-- resources directly tied to financial aid offices. Findings from a National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators survey, 2010 Administrative Burden Survey, released in March, 2011 provides insight on the challenges colleges and universities are facing to keep up with students’ financial needs. Two-thirds of responding aid professionals said their offices were experiencing either a "moderate" resource shortage, affecting peak aid-processing times, or a "severe" shortage, affecting day-to-day work. "Resource shortage" covers such things as insufficient budgets, staff, or technology, says Justin Draeger, the association's president. These shortages, aid administrators reported, cut into their efforts to help students. Of those who reported a shortage, nearly 61 percent say it had "some" effect on their ability to meet obligations to students, and about 27 percent say it had a "significant" impact. Face-to-face counseling, phone contact, outreach efforts, and e-mail contact INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 74 were among the areas the largest share of respondents said were affected. "The one thing that's been identified over and over again as having the most positive effect of keeping students out of excessive debt is one of the first things to be thrown out when a school is under administrative and regulatory burden.” Draeger said, (March, 2011). Second, there are real issues of budgeting for the institution and the state. A review of the policies and processes that determine the total cost of attending the University of California could lead to recommendations on how to stabilize costs for a certain number of years (i.e., one rate for two or four years); stabilizing costs for students (and their families) can assist in the budgeting process and can support the University’s budgeting process to control for costs over a longer period than each fiscal year. To stabilize the University’s budget, the state needs to be a reliable partner. Laws related to locking in a certain % of the State’s budget for education could assist public higher education in determining budgets and setting tuition costs. There is a direct impact to student fees when the state reduces its fiscal support to the University of California As a public institution, the University’s ability to remain financially accessible is a critical component of its mission and service to the citizens of the state of California. Helping students and families understand how to build the best financial aid package for the student is a critical and primary function of the university. Third, a review of the positions offered as work-study positions needs to be conducted to further understand what institutional barriers exists for work study students; supporting work study students toward timely degree completion is critical to the institutions commitment to students from financial backgrounds that need support to cover the costs of attendance. There is a statistically significant difference between non-work study and work-study students in their level of academic disengagement. Work-study students are more academic disengaged than non- INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 75 work study students. This finding can assist faculty and practitioners to target specific interventions toward work study students to decrease their level of academic disengagement. Faculty need to be intentional in reaching out to work study students. Practitioners supervising work study students need to engage with the student to inquiry about class, and discuss ways in which their academic studies can have meaning in the work environment. Future Research Relative to the data cited through this paper, what we are seeing in public higher education is not actually so much a turn to privatization, as it is a substantial reduction of public support. Public universities have always been a hybrid between public and private goods. There are private returns unique to the individuals who consume this particular good, and who pay a price representing a portion of the total. And there are also benefits that follow to the entire populous in the form of economic growth, cultural transmission, more democratic participation, health care, higher tax revenues, fewer incarcerations, and reduced welfare payments (to name a few). Public universities, the University of California being an excellent example of one, are hybrid goods that appropriately receive taxpayer support, and tuition support from students. That said, the key issue noted throughout this research, the balance between taxpayer support and tuition support has shifted and continues to shift toward a private good, thus impacting “the student”, the direct consumer of this good. The University does not have mechanisms in place on a systemwide basis to fully address the special needs of certain student populations. Examples include: - Independent students - Undocumented Students - Foster youth - Middle-income students whose parents are unwilling or unable to contribute their expected amount - Students from very low-income families who, in addition to financing INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 76 their own education, must contribute towards family expenses unrelated to their education - Students who lack knowledge about the financial aid available to them, or who lack many UC-bound role models, and hence do not apply for admission The cost pressures, if left unaddressed, will create further financial barriers for these students. Providing adequate financial support in the face of projected cost increases is directly related to the University’s ability to enroll an ethnically diverse student body. As shown in Table 1 underrepresented minority students are more likely than others to be from lower-income families and, hence, are keenly affected by the availability of need-based financial aid, and the experiences they have in work study positions. The University must anticipate and address these challenges to ensure that it can continue to fulfill the overarching goal articulated by The Regents and ultimately the California Master Plan The University conducts periodic student surveys in order to monitor students’ employment patterns. The most recent such survey was conducted in the spring of 2010. Many students at every income level do not work. This is consistent with the flexibility inherent in the Education Financing Model about how students actually cover their expected contribution. It also supports findings from a recent survey of parents of UC students, many of whom – at every income level – felt that it was their responsibility to cover their student’s expenses so that their son or daughter did not have to work. One reason why some parents perceive UC’s costs as burdensome may be that they are covering not only their expected share under the Education Financing Model but also the student’s expected contribution from work and borrowing. It is critical to continue to study the demographics of the students who do not work. The downturn in the economy, and the continuing increase in student fees, will press on students and families like never before. Closely monitoring this group is critical to further shaping financial aid policies INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 77 and programs in support of the ever growing group of students seeking financial assistance to cover the cost of their education. While it is critical to further study the population of students who do not work, it is just as important to study the group of students who work excessive hours (excessive as defined in the literature is 20 hours or more). Some students at every income level report working more than 20 hours per week, which is beyond the upper bound of the University’s manageable range. The relationship between students’ work patterns and the affordability of the University is complicated by several factors, and needs to be further studied. UC survey data indicate that students who work more than 20 hours per week also spend more, on average, on discretionary expense items than do other students. The causal relationship between these students’ expenses and their work habits is unclear: do they work more because they have higher expenses, or do they spend more because they have more discretionary income? The economy can affect the availability of student jobs and, hence, students’ work hours as well. In a weak labor market, it is unclear whether an observed, short-term decrease in student work hours indicates greater UC affordability (i.e., a reduced need to work) or greater difficulty for students seeking to finance some of their educational costs through work. These factors limit the conclusions that can be drawn from a single survey about the impact of the University’s cost or its financial aid programs on student work patterns. However, as the University becomes steadily less affordable for students, then one might expect to see a regular increase in the number of UC students who work and in the amount they work. Conclusions Colleges and universities have struggled for decades to improve retention rates and graduate students. Many higher education researchers have made their careers studying the INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 78 factors that lead to improved graduation rates. (Astin, 1997; Bean, 1983; Tinto, 1993). These researchers and their work have helped colleges and universities develop programs to increase the elusive retention rate. That said, despite decades of research, the higher education industry is not any closer to finding a fool-proof theory or program that will retain student until graduation. A one-stop approach will never be identified because our students are more dynamic than a one- size fits all approach. Braxton and Hirschy (2005) called the retention dilemma an “ill structured” problem requiring a combination of theories and interventions to improve student retention (p. 61). Since retention requires a combination of theories and interventions, universities and the practitioners that implement the support structures must acknowledge the various factors that influence retention. The factors include individual and institutional characteristics, such as student motivation, family background, and socioeconomic factions (the latter of focus for this study). Additionally, post-enrollment factors such as social and academic integration (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Tinto, 1993) are critical to supporting the student towards completion of their chosen program. Kuh et al. (2006) believed that pre-enrollment factors-those characteristics that student brought to college- were important characteristics in determining why certain students succeeded and other failed. However, post-matriculation experiences also impact students’ decisions to persist of withdraw (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). As Tinto (1993) has noted, even the most gifted and best-prepared students (like those enrolling at the University of California) can be negatively affected by post-enrollment experiences that might have non-academic roots. Bean (2005) believed that the degree of a student’s loyalty to an institution and the degree of social and/or academic integration are critical if students are to persist. Students’ integration into the social and academic fabric of an institution will determine how perceptions INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 79 of comfort or fit are formed. The successful retention programs are those that have the commitment of the institution and its practitioners to address the issues of retention directly (Tinto, 2005). The effective programs will provide students with supportive environments in both social and academic settings (Tinto, 1993, 2005). State budget constraints, the amount of information available to help students and their families make informed decisions, and the continual increases in fees have raised the stakes of retention by holding colleges and universities more accountable for educational outcomes. The public accounting of graduation rates of full-time, degree seeking college students have helped high school students and parents make more informed decisions about which college is right for them. In light of increased pressures for accountability of educational outcomes and reduced budgets, colleges and universities are under more pressure and scrutiny to make retention for all students a priority. Before we accept the reality that our public higher education systems are destined to receive minimal support from the state, we must reflect on what got us to this point: the California Master Plan. The state of California made an extraordinary compact in 1960. In return for financial support from taxpayers, the University of California agreed to keep tuition low and to provide access for students from a broad range of economic backgrounds. The state of California made this compact because it understood that a well-educated population is a necessary condition for broader economic prosperity, cultural growth, and an informed democracy. This compact has done its job—California has the eighth largest economy in the world (need citation), and the University enrolls students from all economic backgrounds (Table XX). Big initiatives like Pell Grants, the Work Study Program and the California Master Plan for higher education formalized massive government financial support for public universities. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 80 But the world (and the economy) is different now. California, along with twenty eight other states, has slashed funding for the public universities. Part of this can be explained by demographics. In the early 1960s (when the Master Plan was formalized), 57% of American families (US Census data, 2011) had children under the age of eighteen. Today that number hovers around 46% (US Census data, 2011). As the value of a college degree continues to grow, these degrees look like private goods to those who don’t have students in their families. But the abandonment of State support for public universities creates big problems, and ultimately, these problems have an impact on everyone in our society. The privatization that occurs because of abandonment creates a system of haves and have-nots and has distributional consequences among the consumers of education. Even with scholarships and grants, full pricing limits access for many families. When students from less affluent families do find ways to attend, their education suffers from the demands of part-time or full-time work, the pressure to graduate within 4-years, and the strain of growing student loan debt. In this analysis, we now know there is a 5% difference in four-year graduation rates between non work study and work study students at the University of California. The University of California’s service mission is to provide an excellent, affordable education to all qualified students. It educates the future leaders who drive the private sector, and it educates the future leaders who will reform the public one. In order to preserve this service mission, UC must be able to depend on a three part funding base—one of student-family contribution, private support, and State funding. Our state government should rededicate itself to supporting the university and in doing so it will demonstrate a public commitment to and understanding of the university’s societal value. The University of California is all of ours-- it is not just for the benefit of the students who pay to consume (one of) its resources. With our INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 81 collective ownership comes responsibility, and our responsibility is to leave the University of California better than we received it for future generations to access. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 82 References Aitken, N.D. (1982). College student performance, satisfaction, and retention. Journal of Higher Education, 53(1), 32-50. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888-918. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1972). Attitudes and normative beliefs as factors influencing behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(2), 1-9 Allen, D. (1994). The Iliad and the Odyssey of student attrition. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research, May 30, New Orleans, LA. Allen, W. (1991). Introduction. In W. Allen, E.G. Epps, & N.Z. Hannif, College in black and white (pp. 1-14). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. American Council on Education. (2004). Public accountability for student learning in higher education: A position paper from the business-higher education forum, Washington, D.C. Astin, A.W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Astin, A.W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Astin, A.W. (1982). Minorities in American higher education: recent trends, current prospects, and recommendations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308. Astin, A.W. (1985). Achieving academic excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A.W. (1990). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 83 Astin, A.W. (1997). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A.W. (1998). The changing American college student: The thirty-year trends 1966-1996. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2)115-135. Astin, A.W. (2004). To use graduation rates to measure excellence, you have to do your homework. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(9), B20. Astin, A.W. & Oseguera, L. (2005). Pre-college and institutional influences on degree attainment. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 245-276). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Bean, J. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187. Bean, J.P. (1982). Student attrition, intentions, and confidence. In R. Nada (Ed.), New Directions for Higher Education (pp. 291-320). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bean, J. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the student attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 12, 129-148. Bean, J.P. (1986). Assessing and reducing attrition. In D. Hossler (Ed.), Managing college enrollment (pp. 47-61). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bean, J.P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215-243). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Bean, J.P., and Eaton, S.B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In J.M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 84 Berger, J.B. & Lyon, S.C. (2005). Past to Present: A Historical Look at Retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 1-29). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.), Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp.189-207). London: Collier Macmillan. Boyer, E.L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Braunstein, A., McGrath, M., & Pescatrice, D. (2001). Measuring the impact of financial factors on college persistence. Journal of College Student Retention, 2(3), 191-203. Braxton, J.M., Duster, M., & Pascarella, E.T. (1988). Causal modeling and path analysis: An introduction and an illustration in student attrition research. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 263-272. Braxton, J.M. & Hirschy, A.S. (2005). Theoretical developments in the study of college student departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for success (pp. 61- 87). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Braxton, J.M. & Lee, S.D. (2005). Toward reliable knowledge about college student departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 107- 127). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Braxton, J.M., and Lien, L.A. (2000). The viability of academic integration at a central constructs in Tinto’s interactionalist theory of college student departure. In J.M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 11-28). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 85 Braxton, J.M., Sullivan, A.S., & Johnson, R. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student departure. In Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research, 12, (Ed.) J.S. Smart, 107-164. New York: Agathon. Breneman, D., Finney, J. (1997). The Changing Landscape: Higher Education Finance in the 1990s. In ASHE Reader on Finance in Higher Education, 11, (Ed.) J.L. Ratcliff, (pp. 161-178). Massachusetts: Pearson. Broughton, E.A., & Otto, S.K. (1999). On-campus student employment: Intentional learning outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 87-88. Brower, A.M. (1992). The “second half” of student integration: The effects of life ask predominance on student persistence. Journal of higher Education, 63(4), 441-462. Burd, S. (2003). Education department wants to create grant program linked to graduation rates. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved January 15, 2003, from http://chronicle .com. Cabrera, A.F., Burkum, K.R., & La Nasa, S.M. (2005). Pre-college and institutional influences on degree attainment. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 215-243). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Carnevale, A.P. (2000). Help Wanted…College Required. Leadership 2000 Series. Princeton, N.J: Educational Testing Service. Carroll, C.D. & Chan-Kopka T.L. (1988). College Students who work: 1980-1984 analysis findings from high school and beyond (NCES Report. CS 87-413). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Cermak, K., & Filkins, J. (2004). On-campus employment as a factor of student retention and graduation. Report for Academic Affairs and OIPR, University of DePaul, Chicago. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 86 Cheng, D.X. (2004). To work or not to Work: The impact of work on students’ college experience. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum. Choy, S.P. (2002). Findings from the Condition of Education 2002: Nontraditional undergraduates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Christal, M. (1998). State Survey on Performance Measures: 1996-1997. State Higher Education Executive Officers: Denver. College Board, (2004). Trends in Student Aid 2004. New York: College Board. Collison, M. (1988). Complex application form discourages many students from applying for federal financial aid. Chronicle of Higher Education, 34(43), A19. Cuccaro-Alamin, S., & Choy, S.P. (1998). Postsecondary financing strategies: How undergraduates combine work, borrowing, and attendance. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. DeBerard, M.S., Speilmans, G.I., & Julka, D.L (2004). Predictors of academic achievement and retention among college freshman: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38(1), 66-80. Dey, E.L. (1990). Evaluating college student retention: Comparative national data from the 1981-1984 entering freshman classes. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, M.A. Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. Translated by J.A. Spaulding and G. Simpson. Glencoe: The Free Press. Originally published as Le suicide: Etude de sociologie. Paris: Felix Alcan, 1897. Eaton, S.B., and Bean, J.P. (1995). An approach/avoidance behavioral model of college student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 36(6), 617-645. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 87 Education Trust. (2007). College Results online. Retrieved June, 2007, from The Education Trust Web Site: http://www.collegeresults.org/mainMenu.aspx. Ehrenberg, R. (2002). Tuition rising: Why college costs so much. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ehrenberg & Sherman. (1987). Employment while in college, academic achievement and post- college outcomes: A summary. Journal of Human Resources, 22, 1. Ehrlich, T. (2000). Measuring Up 2000. San Jose, CA and Washington D.C: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, pp. 177. Fernandez, Y.M., Whitlock, E.R., Maring, C. and VanEarden, K. (1998). Evaluation of a first- year pilot program for academically underrepresented students at a private liberal arts college. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. Fjortoft, N.F. (1995). College student employment: Opportunities or deterrent? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April 18-22, 1995. ERIC: HE 028-481. Forrest, A. (1982). Increasing student competence and persistence: The best case for general education. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program, National Center for the Advancement of Educational Practices. Furr, S.R., & Elling, T.W. (2000). The influence of work on college student development. NASPA Journal, 37, 454-470. Gardiner, L.F. (1994). Redesigning higher education: Producing dramatic gains in student learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 4. Washington, D.C: George Washington University. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 88 Geiger, R. (1999). American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political and economic challenges, (Ed.) Altbach, Berdahl, & Gumport, 38-65. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Guiffrida, D.A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto’s theory. Review of Higher Education, 29, 4, 451-472. Hagedorn, L.S. (2005). How to define retention: A new look at an old problem. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 89-105). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Hauptman, A., Krop, C. (1998). Federal Student Aid and the Growth in College Costs and Tuitions: Examining the Relationship. In J.L. Ratcliff (Ed.), ASHE Reader on Finance in Higher Education, 9 (pp. 127-142). Massachusetts: Pearson. Hearn, J. C. (1998). The Growing Loan Orientation in Federal Financial Aid Policy: A Historical Perspective. In J.L. Ratcliff (Ed.) ASHE Reader on Finance in Higher Education, 10 (pp. 143-160). Massachusetts: Pearson. Horn, L. (1998). Undergraduates who work. Postsecondary Ed: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Hossler, D. (1984). Enrollment management. New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Institute for Higher Education. (1999). The tuition puzzle: Putting the pieces together. Washington, D.C. Ishitani, T.T. & DesJardins, S.L. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of dropout from college in the United States. Journal of College Student Retention, 4(2), 173-201. Kamens, D.H. (1971). The college “charter” and college size: Effects on occupational choice and college attrition. Sociology of Education, 44 (Summer): 270-296. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 89 Kane, T. (1999). The price of admi$$ion: Rethinking how Americans pay for college. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Kims, M.M., Rhoades, G., & Woodard, D.B. (2003). Sponsored research versus graduating students: Intervening variables and unanticipated findings in public research universities. Research in Higher Education, 44(1), 51-81. King, J.E. (1999). Money Matters: The impact of race/ethnicity and gender and how students pay for college. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. King, J.E. (2002). Crucial Choices: How students’ financial decisions affect their academic success. Washington, DC: American Council on Education Center for Policy Analysis. King, J.E. (2003). Nontraditional attendance and persistence: The cost of students’ choices. New Directions for Higher Education, 121. King, P.M. & Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2005). A developmental perspective on learning. In M.E. Wilson & L.E. Wolf-Wendel (Eds.), ASHE reader on college student development theory (pp. 625-634). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing. King, T., & Bannon, E. (2002). At what cost? The price that working students pay for a college education. Washington, D.C.: United States Public Interest Research Group. Kuh, G. (1993). Assessing campus environments. In M.J. Barr & Associates (Eds.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 30-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J.A., Bridges, B.K., & Hayek, J.C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Washington, D.C: Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success, National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 90 Kuh, G.D. & Love, P.G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In J.M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle: New theory and research on college student retention (pp. 1996-2012). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Lang, M. (2001). Student retention in higher education: Some conceptual and programmatic perspectives. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(3), 217-229. Lau, L.K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education, 124(1), 126-136. Layzell, D. (1998). Linking Performance to Funding Outcomes for Public Institutions of Higher Education: The US Experience. In J.L. (Ed.), Ratcliff ASHE Reader on Finance in Higher Education, 13 (pp. 199-206). Massachusetts: Pearson. Light, R.J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lundberg, C.A. (2004). Working and learning: The role of involvement for employed students. NASPA Journal 41, 201-215. Mayo, D.T., Helms, M.M., & Codjoe, H.M. (2004). Reasons to remain in college: A comparison of high school and college students. The International Journal of Educational Management, 18(6), 360-367. McNeely, J.H. (1937). College student mortality. U.S. Office of Education, Bulletin 1937, no. 11. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. McPherson, M., Schapiro, M. (1998). The student aid game: Meeting need and rewarding talent in American higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mortenson, T.G. (2001). Trends in college participation by family income, 1970 to 1999. Postsecondary Education Opportunity, 106, 1-8. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 91 Mortenson, T. G. (2005). Measurements of persistence. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 31-87). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Noel, L. (1985). Increasing student retention: Effective programs and practices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nora, A., Barlow, E., & Crisp, G. (2005). Student persistence and degree attainment beyond the first year in college: the need for research. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for success (pp. 129-154). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Ormrod, J.E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5 th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Orszag, J.M., Orszag, P.R., Whitemore, D.M. (2001). Learning and earning: Working in college. Upromise, Inc. Pascarella, E.T., Bohr, L., Nora, A., Desler, M. & Zusman, B. (1994). Impacts of on-campus and off-campus work on first year cognitive outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 364-370. Pascarella, E., & Staver, J. (1985). The influence of on-campus work in science on science choice during college: A causal modeling approach. Review of Higher Education, 8, 229- 245. Pascarella, E.T. & Terrenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Pascarella, E.T. & Terrenzini, P.T. (1998). Studying college students in the 21 st century: Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 151-165. Pascarella, E.T. & Terrenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 92 Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Paulsen, M.B., & St. John, E.P., (1997). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial nexus between college choice and persistence. New Direction of Institutional Research, 95. Peltier, G.L., Laden, R., & Matranga, M. (1999). Student persistence in college: A review of the research. Journal of College Student Retention, 1, 357-376. Porter, S.R. (2003). Understanding retention outcomes: Using multiple data source to distinguish between dropouts, stopouts, and transfer-outs. Journal of College Student Retention, 5(1), 53-70. Price, J.L. & Mueller, C.W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543-565. Rendon, L.I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 33-51. Rendon, L.I. (1997). Access in a democracy: Narrowing the opportunity gap. Unpublished paper presented at the Policy Panel on Access, National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, Sept. 9, 1997. Rendon, L.I., Jalomo, R., Jr., and Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of minority student retention in higher education. In J.M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp127-156). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens: University of Georgia Press. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 93 Saupe, J.L., Smith, T.Y., and Xin, W. (1999). Institutional and student characteristics in student success: First term GPA, one-year retention and six-year graduation. Paper presented at the annual Association for Institutional Research Forum: Seattle, WA. Schlossberg, N., Lynch, A., & Chickering, A. (1989). Improving higher education environments for adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Seidman, A. (2005). College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success. American Council on Education and Praeger Publishers: Westport, CT. Shelton, D., et al (2995). Portrait of a working model for calculating student retention. Piedmont Technical College, SC. Paper presented at the Eighth Annual Assessment Conference of the South Carolina Higher Education Association, Myrtle Beach, SC, November 15-17, 1995. Spady, W. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64-85. St. John, E.P., & Nakata, Yoshi-Fumi. (1991) Paid Employment amoung U.S. College Students: Trends, Effects and Possible Causes. The Journal of Higher Education, 62(1), 25-43. St. John, E.P., & Tuttle, T.J. (2004). Financial aid and postsecondary opportunity for nontraditional-age, precollege students: The roles of information and the education delivery systems. Indianapolis: The Education Research Institute and The Lumina Foundation. Stage, F.K. (1989). Motivation, academic and social integration, and the early dropout. American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 385-402. Stoecker, J., Pascarella, E., & Wolfle, L. (1988). Persistence in higher education: A nine-year test of a theoretical model. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 196-209. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 94 Stampen, J., Layzell, D. (1997). Tuition and Student Aid in Public Higher Education: Searching for an Organizing Principle. In J.L. Ratcliff (Ed.), ASHE Reader on Finance in Higher Education, 16 (pp. 237-249). Massachusetts: Pearson. Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40. Summerskill, J. (1962). In The American college, (Ed.) N. Sanford, 627-657. New York: Wiley. Swail, W.S. (2004). The art of student retention: A handbook for practitioners and administrators. Paper presented at the meeting of the Educational Policy Institute: Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, 20 th Annual Recruitment and Retention Conference. Austin, TX. Swail, W.S. (2000). Preparing American’s disadvantaged for college: Programs that increase college opportunity. In A.F. Cabrera and S.M. LaNasa (Eds.), Understanding the college choice of disadvantaged student (pp. 85-101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Thelin, J.R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Thomas, G.E. (1986). The access and success of blacks and Latinos in U.S. graduate and professional education. Working paper. Washington, DC: National Research Council. Thomas, R.O. & Bean, J.P. (1988). Student retention at Liberal Arts Colleges: The development and test of a model. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education: St. Louis, MO. Tierney, W.G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603-618. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 95 Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention, 8(1), 1-19. Tinto, V. (2005). Introduction. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (pp. 1-29). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Tinto, V. (2005). Epilogue: Moving from Theory to Action. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 317-333). Tinto, V. (2002). Taking Student Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First Year of College. A speech presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, April 15, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Tinto, V. (1997). Colleges as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 599-623. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125. Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 687-700. Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student leaving. Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438-455. Tinto, V. (1989). Misconceptions and campus discussions of student retention. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 36(1), B2. Tinto, V. (1990). Principles of effective retention. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 2(1), 35-48. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 96 Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177. Tinto, V., Russo, P., & Kadel, S. (1994). Constructing educational communities: Increasing retention in challenging circumstances. Community College Journal, 64, 26-30. University of California, S.F.S. (2007). Options for Enhancing Financial Accessibility and Affordability for UC Undergraduates: A Preliminary Analysis. Oakland, CA. University of California. West, E. (1963). Financial aid to the undergraduate: Issues and implications. Washington DC: American Council on Education. Zajacova, A., Lynch, S.M. & Espenshade, T.J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677-706. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 97 Appendix A 2004 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey Q. Userid Userid ____________________ S. Welcome to University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey (UCUES) Protecting your privacy Your participation is voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate in the survey will not affect your grades or your relationship with your campus or the University of California. The main purpose of this survey project is to get a fuller understanding of the undergraduate experience at the University of California so that campus administrators can provide the best programs and services possible. To gain this understanding, survey responses will be matched to official campus information, for example, major, GPA, year in school, gender and ethnicity, and other background information. Please be assured that except to allow for this matching your identity will never be connected to your survey responses, your responses will be completely confidential, and the results of the study will be reported only as aggregate data. Your survey submission implies consent to these terms. S. 2004 University of California Undergraduate Experience Survey S. Time Allocation 1. During a typical week in this academic year, how many hours do you spend doing the following? 1. Attend class or labs 2. Study and other academic activities(*)outside of class (see below for a full description of activities included) 3. Work for pay on campus 4. Work for pay off campus  0  1-4  5-8  9-12  13-16  17-20  21-24  25-28  29-32  >32 INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 98 (*) Academic activities include: completing reading or writing assignments, conducting research on-line or in the library, doing homework or lab work, analyzing data, rehearsing, or other academic activities, preparing for class or tests 2. During a typical week in this academic year, how many hours do you spend doing the following? 1. Commute to school and to work 2. Fulfill family responsibilities 3. Perform community service or volunteer activities 4. Participate in physical exercise, fitness activities or recreational sports 5. Participate in student clubs or groups such as publications, cultural groups or student government 6. Attend movies, concerts, sports or other events 7. Party 8. Exchange email or visit online chat rooms 9. Other socializing, talk with friends 10. Play video or computer games, shop on-line, or surf the Internet (non- academic) 11. Watch TV 12. Spiritual activities (meditation, prayer, religious services)  0  <1  1-2  3-4  5-6  7-8  9-10  11-12  13-16  >17 3. During the regular academic year how many hours of sleep PER NIGHT do you average during the week (that is, not counting week-ends)?  0-2  3-4  5-6  7-8  9-10  11+ S. Co-Curricular Activities 4. During this academic year, have you been involved in any of the following activities or organizations (check all that apply)? 1. Student Government 2. Fraternity or sorority 3. University sponsored intercollegiate athletic team  Officer or Leader  Participant or Member INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 99 4. Other campus-based club or organization 5. Off-campus club or organization 6. Internship 5. During this academic year have you done community service work either on or off campus? If you have been involved in more than one form of community service, please select the response below that best reflects the largest time commitment for you.  No  Yes, for course credit (e.g., field studies credit for tutoring)  Yes, as part of a formal service program (AmeriCorps, VISTA, etc.)  Yes, for pay or a stipend as part of some other program  Yes, as a volunteer 6. Please describe the type of organization for which you did this community service (for example: K-12 school, campus service organization, religious organization, student government, youth services agency, environmental group, political party), and the kind of work you did. Type of organization ________________________________________________________________ _______ Work description ________________________________________________________________ _______ S. Goals and Values 7. People have different ideas about what they hope to achieve in college. Indicate how important each of the following goals is to YOU. 1. Establish meaningful friendships 2. Be in a position to give something back to my community after I finish my education 3. Acquire a well-rounded general education 4. Discover what kind of person I really want to be 5. Achieve a high GPA 6. Form romantic relationships 7. Prepare for graduate or professional school 8. Obtain the knowledge and skills I need to pursue my chosen career 9. Be in a position to make a lot of money after I finish my education 10. Enjoy my ''college years'' before  Not
important 1  Of little importance 2  Somewhat important 3  Important 4  Very important 5  Essential 6 INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 100 assuming adult responsibilities S. Skill Development 8. On a scale of 1 to 7, how would you rate your current level of proficiency in the following areas? 1. Ability to write clearly and effectively 2. Research skills 3. Oral presentation skills 4. Ability to effectively express my views in discussions with others 5. Analytical and critical thinking skills 6. Quantitative skills 7. Understanding of culturally diverse viewpoints 8. Interpersonal skills 9. Leadership skills 10. Understanding of a specific field of study 11. Being an informed citizen 12. Ability to appreciate the cultural arts 13. Internet skills 14. Desktop computer skills  Very poor 1  Poor 2  Fair 3  Good 4  Very good 5  Excellent 6  Expert 7 9. Thinking back, how would you rate your proficiency in the same areas when you started at UC? 1. Ability to write clearly and effectively 2. Research skills 3. Oral presentation skills 4. Ability to effectively express my views in discussions with others 5. Analytical and critical thinking skills 6. Quantitative skills 7. Understanding of culturally diverse viewpoints 8. Interpersonal skills 9. Leadership skills 10. Understanding of a specific field of study 11. Being an informed citizen 12. Ability to appreciate the cultural arts 13. Internet skills 14. Desktop computer skills  Very poor 1  Poor >2  Fair 3  Good 4  Very good 5  Excellent 6  Expert 7 INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 101 10. Some students experience difficulties while attending college. A few potentially difficult areas are listed below. To what extent, if any, have you experienced trouble in the following areas? 1. Time management 2. Managing finances 3. Maintaining good general health and fitness 4. Handling stress 5. Achieving a high enough GPA  No trouble 1  A little trouble 2  Some trouble 3  A lot of trouble 4 S. Research Activities 11. Being enrolled at a research university may provide research opportunities for undergraduates. How important is it to you to participate in research-related experiences such as conducting research under the direction of a faculty member?  Not important  Not very important  Somewhat important  Important  Very Important  Essential 12. How frequently have you engaged in these activities so far this academic year? 1. Had a lecture course with a faculty member who referred to his or her own research as part of the class 2. Taken a small research-oriented seminar from a faculty member 3. Enrolled in a service-learning course (these are courses in which a community-based public service activity was integrated with the academic content of the course) 4. Worked on a research project under the direction of a faculty member 5. Worked on a creative project under the direction of a faculty member, for example in the visual or performing arts  Never  Once  Twice  3-4 times  5-6 times  7 times or more INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 102 S. Academic Engagement 13. On average, how much of your assigned course reading did you complete this academic year?  0-9%  10-19%  20-29%  30-39%  40-49%  50-59%  60-69%  70-79%  80-89%  90-99%  All 14. Looking back, do you think you have spent about the right amount of time on your coursework this academic year?  No, I should have spent much MORE time  No, I should have spent somewhat MORE time  Yes, I have spent about the right amount of time  No, I should have spent somewhat LESS time  No, I should have spent much LESS time 15. Thinking back on this academic year, how often have you done each of the following? 1. Had a class in which the professor knows your name 2. Had a class in which the professor (rather than the teaching assistant) grades or evaluates your work 3. Found a course so interesting that you did more work than was required 4. Prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in 5. Written a paper longer than 5 pages 6. Turned in a course assignment late 7. Not turned in a course assignment at all 8. Taken an exam which required substantial written responses (more than short answers) 9. Met with faculty in person, for  Never 1  Rarely 2  Occasionally 3  Often 4  Very often 5 INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 103 example, during office hours 10. Met with teaching assistants in person, for example, during office hours 11. Exchanged email with a faculty member 12. Exchanged email with a teaching assistant 15a. Thinking back on this academic year, how often have you done each of the following? 1. Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class 2. Made a class presentation 3. Asked questions in class or contributed to a class discussion 4. Come to class without completing readings or assignments 5. Skipped class because of your work (paid employment) schedule 6. Skipped class because the lectures were available on-line or on the Web 7. Skipped class for other reasons 8. Gone to the library to do research 9. Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during class discussions 10. Developed your own point of view about an issue and used facts and examples to support your viewpoint 11. Examined how others gathered and interpreted data and assessed the soundness of their conclusions 12. Worked harder than you ever thought you could to meet an instructor's standards or expectations  Never 1  Rarely 2  Occasionally 3  Often 4  Very often 5 INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 104 S. News & Information Sources 16. How well-informed do you think you are about political and social issues at each of the following levels: 1. Campus issues and politics 2. Issues and politics in the community where I live while in school 3. California state issues and politics 4. National issues and politics 5. International issues and events  Very well-informed  Well informed  Not that well-informed  Not at all informed 17. Please indicate how often you use the following sources of news information: 1. National television news 2. Local television news 3. Public television 4. Public Radio 5. Talk radio 6. Weekly news magazines 7. Campus newspaper 8. Other daily newspaper 9. Internet (including online newspapers)  Everyday  Several times a week  Once a week  Less than once a week  Never 17a. If you use the internet everyday to obtain news information: Which website(s) do you usually use? Website(s): _______________________________________________________ S. Civic Engagement 18. Are you currently registered to vote?  No, because I'm not a citizen  No  Yes in the community where I live while in school  Yes in my parents' community or at my permanent address 19. Which of the following best characterizes your political views?  Far left  Liberal  Middle-of-the-road  Conservative  Far right INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 105 20. How strong are your political views?  Very strong  Strong  Weak  Very weak 21. Thinking back on this academic year, how often have you done each of the following? 1. Attended meetings or rallies related to local, state, or national politics 2. Engaged in protests or demonstrations 3. Performed work or service for a political campaign  Never 1  Rarely 2  Occasionally 3  Often 4  Very often 5 S. Engagement with Others 22. During this academic year, how often have you done each of the following? 1. Used an electronic medium (e.g., email, listserve,chat group) to communicate with classmates to discuss or complete an assignment 2. Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments (in person) 3. Studied for tests or exams with other students (in person) 4. Had in-depth conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than your own 5. Had in-depth conversations with students whose political opinions were very different from yours 6. Had in-depth conversations with students whose religious beliefs were very different from yours 7. Participated in a celebration of a cultural heritage other than your own 8. Talked with friends about current events or things you have heard about in the news  Never  Rarely  Occasionally  Often  Very often INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 106 S. Campus Climate 23. Indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements: 1. Students are respected here regardless of their political beliefs 2. Students are respected here regardless of their race or ethnicity 3. Students are respected here regardless of their religious beliefs 4. Students are respected here regardless of their sexual orientation 5. My undergraduate experience provides adequate opportunity for exploring my cultural identity 6. I feel I can express my political opinions on campus 7. I feel that I belong at this campus 8. Knowing what I know now, I would still choose to enroll at UC Berkeley  Strongly Disagree  Disagree  Somewhat Disagree  Somewhat Agree  Agree  Strongly Agree 24. Is your racial or ethnic identification multi-racial or multi-ethnic?  No  Yes 25. As a multi-racial or multi-ethnic student, which of the following would you prefer on the optional racial identification section on the University of California application form?  An opportunity to check more than one racial or ethnic category box  An opportunity to check a "Multi-racial/Multi-ethnic" box instead of individual racial or ethnic category boxes  No preference S. Student Services INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 107 26. We'd like to know how often you needed and used some of the various student services on your campus, EITHER IN PERSON OR ON-LINE, since enrolling at UC. 1. Bear Facts 2. Course registration service (Tele- Bears) 3. Career Center: Employment Services 4. Career Center: Graduate and professional school advising services for undergraduates 5. Cashier's office (CARS) 6. Financial aid office 7. Health services (Tang Center) 8. Psychological counseling services (Tang Center) 9. Library services provided by staff in person 10. Online library resources 11. Tutoring or other learning assistance (Student Learning Center) 12. New student orientation (CalSO) 13. Residential life programs 14. Personal safety program (Night Escort Service) 15. Personal safety program (Night Safety Shuttles) 16. Transportation services (Perimeter shuttle) 17. Transportation partnerships (AC Transit Class Pass) 18. Recreational facilities (RSF) 19. Recreational programs & services (Department of Recreational Sports) 20. Student life or programming office (Office of Student Life)  Didn't need  Needed and didn't use  Used it once  Used it occasionally  Used it often INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 108 26a. We'd like to know how often you needed and used some of the various student services on your campus, EITHER IN PERSON OR ON-LINE, since enrolling at UC. 1. Child care services 2. Education Abroad Program (EAP) 3. Emergency loan program 4. First-generation/low-income student services (EOP) 5. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender services (LGBT Services Office) 6. International student services 7. Judicial Affairs 8. Multi-cultural or cross-cultural services (Multicultural Center and Offices of African American Student Development, Chicano-Latino Academic Student Development, or Asian Pacific American Student Development) 9. Reentry student services (Reentry Student Center) 10. Services for students with disabilities (Disabled Student Program - DSP) 11. Student parent services (Student Parent Center) 12. Transfer student services (Transfer Student Center) 13. Women's programs and services (Gender and Equity Resource Center) 14. Undergraduate research program (URAP) 15. Student research office (Student surveys)  Didn't need  Needed and didn't use  Used it once  Used it occasionally  Used it often 27. If there is a particular service you needed and did not use, please tell us which service and why not? ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 109 28. Now we would like you to rate these same services on your campus. If you've used the service EITHER IN PERSON OR ON-LINE since enrolling at UC, please rate the level of services you have received. If you have NOT used the service, please rate your IMPRESSION of the level of services provided to undergraduates. 1. Bear Facts 2. Course registration service (Tele- Bears) 3. Career Center: Employment Services 4. Career Center: Graduate and professional school advising services for undergraduates 5. Cashier's office (CARS) 6. Financial aid office 7. Health services (Tang Center) 8. Psychological counseling services (Tang Center) 9. Library services provided by staff in person 10. Online library resources 11. Tutoring or other learning assistanc (Student Learning Center) 12. New student orientation (CalSO) 13. Residential life programs 14. Personal safety program (Night Escort Service) 15. Personal safety program (Night Safety Shuttles) 16. Transportation services (Perimeter shuttle) 17. Transportation partnerships (AC Transit Class Pass) 18. Recreational facilities (RSF) 19. Recreational programs & services (Department of Recreational Sports) 20. Student life or programming office (Office of Student Life)  Never heard of it  Heard of it but not enough to have an opinion  Poor  Fair  Good  Excellent INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 110 28a. Now we would like you to rate these same services on your campus. If you've used the service EITHER IN PERSON OR ON-LINE since enrolling at UC, please rate the level of services you have received. If you have NOT used the service, please rate your IMPRESSION of the level of services provided to undergraduates. 1. Child care services 2. Education Abroad Program (EAP) 3. Emergency loan program 4. First-generation/low-income student services (EOP) 5. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender services (LGBT Services Office) 6. International student services 7. Judicial Affairs 8. Multi-cultural or cross-cultural services (Multicultural Center and Offices of African American Student Development, Chicano-Latino Academic Student Development, or Asian Pacific American Student Development) 9. Reentry student services (Reentry Student Center) 10. Services for students with disabilities (Disabled Student Program - DSP) 11. Student parent services (Student Parent Center) 12. Transfer student services (Transfer Student Center) 13. Women's programs and services (Gender and Equity Resource Center) 14. Undergraduate research program (URAP) 15. Student research office (Student surveys)  Never heard of it  Heard of it but not enough to have an opinion  Poor  Fair  Good  Excellent 29. What services would you like the university to provide that are not currently available or need to be improved? ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ S. Satisfaction with Academic and Overall Experience INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 111 30. Have you formally declared a major?  Yes  No 31. How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of your major? (If you currently have declared more than one major, please respond for your favorite one) 1. Advising by faculty on academic matters (courses, requirements, etc.) 2. Advising by faculty on other matters (careers, life plans, etc.) 3. Advising by staff on academic matters (courses, requirements, etc.) 4. Advising by staff on other matters (careers, life plans, etc.) 5. Accessibility of faculty outside of class 6. Availability of courses needed for graduation 7. Access to small classes 8. Quality of faculty instruction 9. Quality of teaching by TA's  Very Dissatisfied  Dissatisfied  Somewhat Dissatisfied  Somewhat Satisfied  Satisfied  Very Satisfied 32. How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of your educational experience? 1. Advising by faculty on academic matters (courses, requirements, etc.) 2. Advising by faculty on other matters (careers, life plans, etc.) 3. Advising by staff on academic matters (courses, requirements, etc.) 4. Advising by staff on other matters (careers, life plans, etc.) 5. Accessibility of faculty outside of class 6. Availability of courses needed for graduation 7. Access to small classes 8. Overall quality of faculty instruction 9. Overall quality of teaching by TA's  Very Dissatisfied  Dissatisfied  Somewhat Dissatisfied  Somewhat Satisfied  Satisfied  Very Satisfied INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 112 33. How satisfied are you with each of the following aspects of your overall UC experience? 1. Value of the education you are getting given how much you have to pay for it 2. Availability of courses for general education or breadth requirements 3. Your overall UC GPA 4. Ability to get into a major that you want 5. Overall academic experience 6. Overall social experience 7. Overall UC experience  Very Dissatisfied  Dissatisfied  Somewhat Dissatisfied  Somewhat Satisfied  Satisfied  Very Satisfied S. Housing 34. Where do you live this academic term (quarter or semester)?  Home of a parent or other relative  University dormitory or residence hall  University apartment or house  Off-campus non-university apartment, house, residence or room you are renting  House you or your parents own or are buying  Fraternity or sorority  Co-op 35. How many people do you share a bedroom with?  0  1  2  3  4+ S. Summer Courses 36. Where, if anywhere, did you take courses last summer (check all that apply):  No academic courses taken last summer  Courses at this campus  Courses at community college  Courses at another UC campus  Courses at another four-year college or university INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 113 37. Where, if anywhere, do you plan to take courses this summer (check all that apply):  No plans to take academic courses this summer  Courses at this campus  Courses at community college  Courses at another UC campus  Courses at another four-year college or university  Not sure S. Education Finance 38. How did you deal with increase in UC fees in 2003-2004? Check all that apply.  Increase covered by scholarship or grant aid  Increase covered by your parents  Cut back on other expenses  Took out a loan or borrowed more to cover the increase  Worked more at a part-time job during the academic year  Worked more at a part-time or full-time job during the summer  Took fewer units so that you could work more at a part-time job  Took time off from school so that you could work more at a part-time or full-time job  Took more units so that you could graduate sooner  Attended in the summer or took more summer units so that you could graduate sooner  Transferred to another college  Other. Please specify ___________________________________ 39. It is likely that fees will increase again in 2004-05. How do you plan to deal with the increase? Check all that apply.  Increase covered by scholarship or grant aid  Increase covered by your parents  Cut back on other expenses  Take out a loan or borrow more to cover the increase  Work more at a part-time job during the academic year  Work more at a part-time or full-time job during the summer  Take fewer units so that you can work more at a part-time job  Take time off from school so that you can work more at a part-time or full- time job  Take more units so that you can graduate sooner  Attend in the summer or take more summer units so that you can graduate sooner  Transfer to another college  Other. Please specify ___________________________________ INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 114 40. When do you expect to graduate from UC? Please indicate both the term and the year.  Winter 2004  Spring 2004  Summer 2004  Fall 2004  Winter 2005  Spring 2005  Summer 2005  Fall 2005  Winter 2006  Spring 2006  Summer 2006  Fall 2006  Winter 2007  Spring 2007  Summer 2007  Fall 2007  Winter 2008  Spring 2008  Summer 2008  Fall 2008 or later  Don't expect to graduate from UC 41. What academic degrees and credentials do you plan to eventually earn? (check all that apply)  Bachelor's degree  Academic Master's (e.g., MA, MS)  Teaching credential  Professional Master's (e.g., MSW, MLS, MPP)  Business Master's (e.g., MBA)  MD  Other health-related degree (e.g., OD, DDS)  Law (e.g., LLB, JD)  Doctorate (e.g., Ph.D., Ed.D.) 42. What career do you hope to eventually have after you've completed your education?  Accountant  Advertising, Marketing or Public Relations Specialist  Architect or Landscape Architect  Banker, Investment Banker, Stockbroker or Financial Analyst  Biotechnology researcher  Business Executive or CEO  Business Owner or Proprietor INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 115  Business Sales/Buyer  College Professor or Instructor  Computer Programmer  Dentist  Educational Administrator  Educator (Early, Elementary or Secondary School, including special education and counseling)  Chemical Engineer or Chemist  Computer Software Developer or Engineer  Electrical Engineer  Mechanical Engineer  Other Engineer  Environmental Scientist  Foreign Service Officer or Diplomat  Graphic Artist or Web Designer  Human Resource Specialist or Career Counselor  Journalist or Photo-journalist  Judge  Law Enforcement/Criminologist  Lawyer  Broadcast Media Professional  Military Service (career)  Non-profit Administrator  Nurse or Medical Technician  Optometrist  Performer (Actor, Musician, Entertainer)  Pharmacist  Physical Therapist or Speech Pathologist  Physician  Politician  Producer/Filmmaker/Director  Psychiatrist  Psychologist  Public Servant  Social Scientist  Scientific Researcher  Social Worker  Veterinarian  Visual artist/ Photographer  Writer  I have no idea whatsoever  Other (please specify below) 42a. Other career Please specify: _______________________________________________________ INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 116 43. Which language(s) did you learn to speak first?  English only  English and another language  Another language 44. What was the language other than English that you learned?  Afrikaans  Amharic  American Sign Language  Arabic  Armenian  Assyrian  Asturian  Azerbaijani  Bahasa (Indonesia)  Basque  Bengali  Berber  Bikol  Bosnian  Breton  Bulgarian  Burmese  Cambodian (Khmer)  Cantonese (Chinese)  Catalan  Cherokee (Native American)  Creole  Croatian  Czech  Danish  Dutch  Estonian  Farsi (Persian)  Fijian  Finnish  French  Frisian  Gaelic (Irish)  Galician  Georgian  German  Greek  Gujarati  Hawaiian INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 117  Hebrew  Hindi  Hmong  Hokkien  Holooe  Hungarian  Ibo  Icelandic  Ido  Ilocano, Iloko  Indonesian  Interlingua  Irish  Italian  Japanese  Kannada  Khmer (Cambodian)  Konkani  Korean  Lao  Latvian  Lithuanian  Luganda  Malayalam  Malaysian  Mandarin (Chinese)  Marathi  Marshallese  Mien  Nahuati  Nepali  Norwegian  Occitan  Pangasinan  Polish  Portugese (Brazil)  Portugese (Portugal)  Punjabi  Quechua (Native American)  Romanian  Russian  Serbain  Serbian  Sesotho  Sindhi  Sinhala INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 118  Sioux (Native American)  Slovak  Slovenian  Somali  Spanish (Latin & South America)  Spanish (Spain)  Swahili  Swedish  Tagalog  Taiwanese  Tamil  Tatar  Telugu  Teochew (Chao Chow)  Thai  Tigrinya  Toisan  Turkish  Twi  Ukrainian  Urdu  Vietnamese  Visayan  Welsh  Xhosa  Yiddish  Yoruba  Zulu  Other (please specify below) 44a. Other language Please specify: ____________________ 45. When did you come to the United States to live?  I was born in the USA  1990 or earlier  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000 INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 119  2001 or later 46. Were your parents born in the United States?  Both mother and father born in US  Mother born in US, father not born in US  Father born in US, mother not born in US  Both mother and father NOT born in US 47. To the best of your knowledge, how many of your biological grandparents were born in the United States?  0  1  2  3  4 48. Which of the following best describes your social class when you were growing up?  Wealthy  Upper-middle or professional middle class  Middle-class  Working-class  Low income or poor 49. To the best of your knowledge, which category includes the total annual combined income of your parent(s) before taxes in 2003?  Less than 10,000  10,000-19,999  Less than 20,000  20,000 to 34,999  35,000 to 49,999  50,000 to 64,999  65,000 to 79,999  80,000 to 99,999  100,000 to 124,999  125,000 to 149,999  150,000 to 199,999  200,000 to 249,999  250,000+ INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 120 50. Thinking about all of the courses that you took this academic year, which one did you find to be the most valuable, and what made it so valuable? Please list the course name and number. (for example EDUC 100, Introduction to Education)? Please explain: _______________________________________________________ 51. What would you have done differently, if anything, to make your undergraduate experience better up to this point? Please explain: _______________________________________________________ 52. How could the University have made your undergraduate experience better up to this point? Please explain: _______________________________________________________ 53. Please provide any additional comments or questions you have? ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ S. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME Q. last lastq  lastchosen INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 121 Appendix B Pell Grant Recipients at UC and Selected Institutions, 2005-06 Institution # Pell Recipients % of Students With Pell University of California- Berkeley 7,394 32.6% University of California- Davis* 6,804 30.4% University of California- Irvine 5,303 27.4% University of California- Los Angeles 9,116 38.1% University of California- Merced* 335 40.1% University of California- Riverside 6,115 42.8% University of California- San Diego 6,455 32.0% University of California- Santa Barbara 4,496 25.5% University of California- Santa Cruz 3,375 25.0% UC Average 49,393 31.9% Public Comparison Institutions University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 4,697 15.9% U. of Michigan Ann Arbor 1,919 13.4% U. of Virginia 1,119 7.8% SUNY at Buffalo 28%** Private Comparison Institutions MIT 298 14.5% Stanford University 683 13.1% Yale University 437 10.1% Harvard University 544 8.4% Other Top-Ranked Private Institutions University of Southern California 2,956 19.1% *The Federal Pell Grant Reporting system used to obtain comparable figures for all institutions did not distinguish between Davis and Merced Pell Grants Recipients in 2005-2006. Figures for those institutions are based upon the ratio of Pell Grant recipients at those campuses according to the University's own financial aid databases. **Self-reported; the Federal reporting system reports a single figure for the entire SUNY system. INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 122 Appendix C Income Distribution of UC Freshman and California Families INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 123 Appendix D Income Distribution of UC Undergraduates, 2005-06 Constant Dollars INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 124 Appendix E Hours of Student Employment by Income, 2006 Cost of Attendance Survey INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 125 Appendix F Trends in Four-and Six-year Graduation Rates by Income and Academic Preparation INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 126 Appendix G Trends in the Manageability of Debt at Graduation by Parent Income: Percentage of Students’ Average Salary Required to Repay Student Loans INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 127 Appendix H Trends in Cumulative Debt at Graduation by Parent Income, Constant 2005-06 Dollars INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 128 Appendix I Projected Trends in the Funded Loan/Work Expectations with and Without Fee Increases INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 129 Appendix J Variation in Projected Loan/Work Expectation Association with Different Cost Increase Scenarios Increase in Non-Fee Costs 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-2012 2012-13 Assumed in Model (Based on Actual Average Increases Funded Loan/Work Expectations $9,950 $10,502 $11,009 $11,781 $12,421 Position in Manageable Range 52.4% 56.3% 59.1% 65.3% 69.1% 75% of Assumed Increases Funded Loan/Work Expectations $9,696 $9,944 $10,097 $10,456 $10,608 Position in Manageable Range 48.6% 48.1% 46.3% 47.2% 45.2% 125% of Assumed Increases Funded Loan/Work Expectations $10,208 $11,073 $11,964 $13,206 $14,422 Funded Loan/Work Expectations 56.3% 64.6% 72.6% 84.7% 95.5% INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 130 Appendix K Variation in Students' Actual In-School Wages, Starting Salaries, and Self-Reported Expenses In-Term Wage Rates and Post-Graduation Salaries Percentile 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Term-time hourly wage from part-time work* $6.25 $7.00 $8.50 $10.25 $14.00 Post-graduation annual starting salary** $21,008 $27,016 $33,930 $44,453 $56,896 *Based on 2000-01 Student Expenses & Resources Survey. **Based on 2001-2002 unemployment insurance data for UC 2000-01 baccalaureate degree recipients. Major Student Budget Expense Categories -- Students Living Off-Campus (based on 2005-2006 COAS) Books and Supplies Percentile Campus 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Berkeley $620 $845 $1,093 $1,413 $1,753 Davis $810 $1,013 $1,305 $1,703 $2,065 Irvine $758 $1,038 $1,378 $1,178 $2,300 Los Angeles $750 $1,028 $1,330 $1,753 $2,230 Riverside $838 $1,133 $1,503 $1,933 $2,483 San Diego $740 $995 $1,330 $1,693 $2,170 Santa Barbara $810 $1,013 $1,298 $1,663 $2,153 Santa Cruz $705 $875 $1,193 $1,538 $1,873 Living Percentile Campus 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Berkeley $6,390 $7,200 $8,314 $9,900 $12,060 Davis $1,490 $5,603 $6,863 $8,348 $9,720 Irvine $5,333 $6,120 $7,650 $9,608 $12,825 Los Angeles $5,895 $6,829 $8,325 $10,193 $12,690 Riverside $4,770 $5,963 $7,628 $9,563 $12,578 San Diego $5,895 $6,908 $8,370 $9,945 $11,970 Santa Barbara $6,233 $7,110 $8,258 $10,013 $11,723 Santa Cruz $6,300 $7,403 $8,798 $10,305 $12,038 Transportation Percentile Campus 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Berkeley $68 $203 $630 $1,232 $2,165 Davis $68 $473 $1,159 $1,935 $2,858 Irvine $360 $1,080 $1,913 $2,745 $3,600 Los Angeles $113 $405 $1,193 $2,138 $2,993 Riverside $473 $1,148 $1,879 $2,655 $3,375 San Diego $473 $1,148 $1,878 $2,655 $3,263 Santa Barbara $203 $540 $1,260 $2,048 $2,858 Santa Cruz $135 $485 $1,271 $2,183 $2,959 INTEGRATION AND RETENTION 131 Personal Percentile Campus 10th 25th 50th 75th 90th Berkeley $338 $675 $1,125 $1,800 $2,475 Davis $225 $675 $1,125 $2,025 $2,700 Irvine $375 $900 $1,575 $2,475 $3,375 Los Angeles $450 $900 $1,575 $2,250 $3,150 Riverside $450 $900 $1,575 $2,475 $3,600 San Diego $450 $900 $1,350 $2,025 $2,700 Santa Barbara $563 $900 $1,350 $2,250 $3,105 Santa Cruz $450 $675 $1,350 $2,025 $2,700

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Consistent increases to the educational costs to attend the University of California are the current climate students and families find themselves grappling with. The federal work study program is one program employed to support students and their families in financing the cost of education. In an effort to further enhance the professional literature on the relationship of work on the retention, academic and social integration of undergraduate students at multiple campuses within a highly selective state system, the purpose of this study is to ascertain to what degree work- study positions influences academic and social integration, 4-year graduation rates for work study students, and quantitatively describe work study students satisfaction with their experience at the University of California. ❧ In 1975 Astin published research that found that work study programs could increase student persistence by 15%. He reported that these opportunities provide students with money, experience in the field, and, perhaps most important, networking capabilities for future employment and research possibilities. Is this finding applicable to today’s undergraduate student at the University of California? And in light of the theoretical foundations published by Tinto on the importance of academic and social integration on a student’s persistence towards degree completion, is there a difference between the integration of work study students and students not in work study positions into the campus community? ❧ The secondary analysis in this study is comparative research and compares the persistence and experience of two groups: students who hold word study positions while enrolled (Group A) and student who do not have work study positions while enrolled (Group B). This act of comparing these two groups identifies if there is a positive or negative effect on students who hold work study positions on their time to degree, their academic and social engagement and satisfaction with their experience at the University of California. ❧ The data revealed the following four findings: first, there is a 5% difference in four-year graduation rates between non work study and work study students

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

The impact of student-faculty interaction on undergraduate international students' academic outcome

PDF

A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

PDF

The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

A case study on readmitted students: the impact of social and academic involvement on degree completion

PDF

Evaluating the effects of diversity courses and student diversity experiences on undergraduate students' democratic values at a private urban research institution

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

Exploring the undergraduate Latina/o experience: a case study of academically successful students at a research institution

PDF

The practice and effects of a school district's retention policies

PDF

Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates

PDF

Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of African American students at a highly selective four-year private institution

PDF

The impact of cultural capital on advancement via individual determination students from two southern California high schools

PDF

An exploration of the experiences of undergraduate adult learners in an adult degree program from the theoretical framework of self-authorship

PDF

Thriving in collegiate life: can fostering growth mindset move undergraduate students from surviving to thriving?

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

The impact of learning community involvement and campus climate on student satisfaction and the retention of Latino students at a highly selective private institution

PDF

And yet, still, they rise: a qualitative study on the persistence of Black undergraduate women at a predominantly White institution

PDF

Building leaders: the role of core faculty in student leadership development in an undergraduate business school

Asset Metadata

Creator Blandizzi, Maria Queta (author)

Core Title The impact of work study on the integration and retention of undergraduate students at the University of California

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/04/2013

Defense Date 01/21/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic integration,finanical aid,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,Social integration,undergraduate,Work,work study

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member), Seplow, Suzanne L. (committee member)

Creator Email mblandizzi@saonet.ucla.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-218563

Unique identifier UC11293913

Identifier usctheses-c3-218563 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BlandizziM-1426.pdf

Dmrecord 218563

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Blandizzi, Maria Queta

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA