Transfer student vs. traditional student

This week's Bean and Metzner reading, coupled with class discussion opened my eyes to something I'd never considered before: according to Dr. Wawrzynski, I am a marginalized, understudied student. This blew my mind. Dyslexic? Studied. Female? Studied. Transfer? Not so much.

My MSU orientation took place in January, 1997 and consisted of approximately three hours of map reading and standardized testing. I was placed in a dorm room space left unoccupied by a student who left the university to return home. I knew no one on my floor, or really at the university. When I think back on that first semester, it was the closest I ever came to dropping out of school.

I was socially isolated to 3 East Mayo Hall. I formed no lasting friendships, save the roommate I eventually lost touch with. I joined no clubs, couldn't find a job and had so poorly planned my classes that I was traveling 45 minutes on a bus to one class, four times per week. I returned, via Greyhound, to Kalamazoo every weekend.

I accept full responsibility for my relative unhappiness. Save for a few feeble attempts in the beginning, I did not reach out and explore. I have since learned that happiness and success are what you make them, and waiting for them to arrive is an exercise in futility. I was intimidated by what I saw as "living in the big city" and was frightened and alone.

Could a more robust orientation have helped in this regard? Perhaps, but that is not a certainty. Looking back, I wonder how many transfer students in SS97 felt the same way I did. How many of them persisted, and how many dropped or stopped out? Why did I persist? Was it fear of appearing incapable? Maybe. Perceptions of those around me? Definitely. Fear of failure? Absolutely. But what other factors were at play? I fear this is one of those deeply held, yet relatively intangible things about me that try as I might to comprehend or bring to closure I am unsure that I ever fully will.

Nontraditional Student Attrition

Bean and Metzner, in their article titled "A Conceptual Model of Nontraditional Undergraduate Student Attrition," speak to the factors why nontraditional students drop out of school. They write about the rise in the enrollments of nontraditional students, define the nontraditional student, and develop a model of attrition for these students. As I was reading and highlighting, I made notes in the margins at certain parts of the text.

On page 495, I made a note saying, "My time at OU as a commuter student." This note is in reference to the authors stating, "Commuters generally have fewer friends at college, less contact with faculty members outside of class, and less participation in extracurricular activities. Chickering and Kuper (1971), however, found little difference between residential and commuter students regarding academic activities, such as experiences in the classroom or time spent preparing assignments."

My time at Oakland University in Rochester Hills, Michigan encompassed my freshmen and sophomore years of post-secondary education. It was a compromise between my parents and myself for the lack money to attend my first choice of schools, Michigan State University. I lived at home, commuted to the campus every day (14 miles away), worked 25-30 hours a week, and took 15 credits a semester. I had two friends from high school that also attended OU and saw them often. However, I did not, to my recollection make any other friends in the 2 years that I attend the institution. How could I? I did not get involved with any student groups, although I contemplated rushing a sorority my first semester until I figured out it wasn't for me. My time between classes was spent studying in the campus student center or sleeping to make up for time lost at night to my job. I did however participate in some student culture in the form of parties in one of the 4 residence halls on campus. One of my above mentioned friends chose to live in the dorms instead of commute from her parents house in Madison Heights, so I would spend time with her on the weekends after work. Despite limited involvement in student activities outside of parties, I succeeded in getting good grades. At the same time that I attended OU, I took two classes at Macomb Community College, creative writing and algebra/trigonometry, to add to my credits. The entire time I was attending both institutions, I was preparing myself to transfer to Michigan State University. I did not declare a major. I cross-checked my credits with MSU's requirements each semester. I did not see an advisor. I felt like a temporary visitor for two years with no loyalty or desire to remain at Oakland University. I was just passing through.

"Several investigators (Chickering, 1974; Chickering & Kuper, 1971; Fenske & Scott, 1972) found that commuter students frequently possessed lower high school rank, grade averages , and scores on test of academic ability than residential students." (p.496) My note in the margin next to this quote taken from the section on High School Academic Performance said, "Not me." I was 30th in the high school class of 232 academically, graduated with a 3.7 G.P.A. and my ACT, although not great, was a 23. Again, I simply went to Oakland University because I had to for reasons outside of academic credentials or ability. My intent to leave was determined even before I set foot on campus in the fall of 1990.

Better Late Than Never

First, a big thank you to Jess for collaborating on this blog for our reflections on student development theory. Although my first reflection is a bit later than Jess and Patti, I have been sorting many thought in my head during the course of the readings from weeks 1 and 2 and now for the upcoming week 3 meeting.

Despite working with undergraduates for the better part of 13 years, my relationship to them has been in a work setting as their supervisor. In spite of this role, I have gotten to know many of them on a deep personal level. Many of them seeking me out for counsel on personal problems, career goals or conflict with co-workers. So while my role has not been as a tradition teacher, I have had many occasions to observe NCVs in students and reflect on how some of those variables are affecting student success and attrition. Why one student decides to live at home and commute for his senior year because of finances. Why another lives at home by really stays with his girlfriend because his dad can't afford to turn up the heat. How a sisters conflicted life and her dependence for advice on her "little" sister at MSU is a daily distraction . Or the bitterness of being the sibling who "does everything wrong" in his parents eyes despite being self-supporting and a 4.0 student brought one student to point of considering disowning his family.

My own self-concept throughout my academic career has been as fragile as an eggshell. Comparisons to others and how "easy" it must be for them while I struggled was the theme of my undergraduate years. For every hour my best friend had to study to get a 4.0 on a test, I had to study four hours to get a 3.5. My brain has to wrap itself around the information and relate it to concepts that resonate with "real life." I floated through my Master's program mostly because I was working full time, it took me 5 years to complete and my department changed it's name and focus 3 times. My self-concept was skewed because most people in the program were K-12 teachers and I worked at the university. I also had no connection to my classmates because my degree completion stretched out over so many year. And now, in the Ph.D. program, I have that great connection with the cohort, but still struggle with whether I am scholarly enough or academic enough to make it. I have always been a practitioner, better at showing people how to do things rather than putting it in writing.

NCVs and Me

The case studies in Tuesday's class got me thinking about noncognitive variables (NCVs) and where I fit. The NCVs according to Sedlacek are as follows:

1. Positive self-concept
2. Realistic self-appraisal
3. Successfully handling the system
4. Preference for long-term goals
5. Availability of a strong support person
6. Leadership experience
7. Community involvement
8. Knowledge acquired in a field

The variables I struggle with are #1 and #2. #3 - #8 I have in spades, with a supportive adviser and strong community ties. Additionally, I've worked at MSU for 10 years and was a student for three years before that, so navigating the system is not difficult for me. I do struggle with my positive self-concept from time to time, wondering if my work is up to the standards of a PhD-level program, always wondering if I'm thinking at a deep enough level, and wondering if I'm "cut out" to survive in academia with my silly disposition.

This self-concept also affects my ability to perform a realistic self-appraisal. I swing wildly between "I've got this covered and don't need help" to "Wow, I'm lost and am obviously failing every assignment and just don't know it yet." I understand that part of my struggle hinges on my own quirks, my desire for constant evolution of thinking and my competitive perfectionistic ways of thinking. I'm a bit nuts. But, I can't be the only one at MSU, even in this cohort, who feels this way can I?

Thinking of these things through the lens of admissions, specifically undergraduate admissions, it would seem that units implementing NCVs as a dimension for consideration would find themselves with a more grounded, confident student base from a variety of backgrounds, possessing a vast array of talents, motivations and goals. As the semester progresses, I plan to do more investigation into NCVs, thinking of them from a course design perspective.

The beginning

Several things struck me in the readings this week, the first being Lamkin's "seven characteristics that have been shown to reduce a student's chance of completing a college program." (2004) According to Lamkin, these characteristics are:

1. Delayed enrollment after high school graduation
2. Lack of a high school diploma
3. Part-time enrollment
4. Full-time work (at least 30 hours per week)
5. Financial independence from parents
6. Dependents other than a spouse
7. Single parenthood

I was surprised to discover that I have four of them. Dyslexic and growing up in a relatively homogeneous, smallish Southwest Michigan town, Lamkin might find the fact I've made it as far as this PhD program surprising, or an illustration of a system that worked. However, when I honestly reflect upon my undergraduate experience, I find that I finished the degree only because I feared what others would think if I didn't. I feared returning to my hometown to work an hourly wage job. I feared unemployment. As an undergraduate I cared less about learning and more about survival.

Contrary to Lamkin's article, my full-time work inspired me to pursue further education. Working in information technology opened my eyes to the possibilities in higher education and fostered my passion for a field that allowed me to be a "geek" and thrive. I've struggled a bit with gender, but sadly this is the nature of my field. Perhaps in the future I'll have the ability to affect change, and I am working to do so.

Another point of interest for me in the readings was contained in the Sedlacek book. In working with instructors I am a staunch proponent of authentic assessment, and assessing the whole student, not only their scores on multiple choice/standard exams. Personalities differ, and this affects how each student translates examination questions. I am sensitive to this because I am one of those students. Extroverted, I learn best from applying what I learn to those around me, and searching for additional resources that further inform my knowledge. I fare poorly on standardized tests because I look for additional meanings in each question.

Assessment is the trickiest part of my job, I look forward to additional knowledge in this area and hope this blog reflects growth in my thinking.

Let's hear it for teamwork!

First of all, thanks to Jess for letting me hop on her existing blog and my not having to create yet another one from scratch. ( I am notorious for orphaned blogs left wandering aimlessly in cyberspace - sure that someday that cyberkarma will catch up with me) I'm excited about the collaboration and discussion that this will hopefully afford and am looking forward to contributing my two cents.

As far as student development is concerned, my professional exposure has been relatively limited to the student experience in online environments. I am deeply committed to this though, as not only does my livelihood depend on trying to design quality experiences, but it's at the heart of why I do what I do. For whatever my contribution may or may not make a difference, I believe that education is a vehicle for anyone who wants to better themselves. Online education may not always be the ideal means to an end, but in some respects, it does provide access to those who might not otherwise be able to obtain it via traditional means. I hope to make an impact with the faculty development work I am engaged in. So with that, I will get off my soapbox. This semester I'm really hoping to broaden my perspective and better understand the students that the faculty I assist are teaching. Thanks again Jess, for the opportunity to collaborate.

Activity - Coming your way!

You'd think there would have been a lot to write about, what with starting a new PhD program and all. Thing is, there was. But it involved papers and more reading and research than I've ever seen in my life. Love means not having enough time to blog.

However this semester, two colleagues will be joining me on this adventure as we navigate our way through student development theory. Welcome, Terri and Patti! And, increasing our audience of zero by one, please welcome Dr. Wawrzynski. He alone will double the readership traffic of this blog.