The "new majority"? Have students who lived in residence at college or university *ever* been the majority?
When I was starting university about two decades ago, I remember being puzzled by all the media stories with advice for parents and students about managing one's life away from home. I didn't know *anybody* who lived on campus. Who could afford it then? Who can afford it now?
Twenty years ago, I lived on campus. All 4 years. Because my SLAC was in the middle of nowhere, the only available housing (if you didn't have a car) was on the campus proper.
That said, I'm curious as to where the stats come from. I read the article, and went to "Complete College America". The article cited from the NYTimes is about the need for remediation (which we already know about)--I'm not sure I agree with the way the stats are being used.
I teach in Fucktardia, which was one of the states that didn't give "CCA" any stats. I know our part-time grad rates are higher than what's quoted (and 40% of Fucktardia residents hold a college degree). But most of my students are traditional age (18-22). They live at home or on their own (we're a commuter campus). And our enrollments have risen every year for the past 5, despite declines in the number of traditional age students graduating from local high schools. The difference (for us) is made up in part by the simple fact that instead of going off to the WAY more expensive flagship school, students are completing their first two years with us before moving on (through guaranteed transfer) because we're "cheaper" than the 4-year campuses.
So I guess the point of my story is that I think that the Gawker piece is bullshit.
And while I'm at it, if more incoming college students need remediation in math and writing, shouldn't that lead us to ask WTF is going on in the secondary system? Like, hey, NCLB is fucktarded and needs to go...
On the one hand, this strikes me as intuitively true, certainly of my second-string state u, which is in the process of trying to transition from "commuter" to "residential." On the other hand, I, like Burnt Chrome, am suspicious of the numbers, and especially of an overly-simplistic division between "traditional" and "nontraditional," "residential" and "commuter," and the automatic mapping of other experiences onto those categories. We have commuter students who live at home and, thanks to the money saved, don't need to work during the school year; commuter students who live at home and work 40+ hours a week (at their own jobs or in a family business, which may or may not show up in official statistics),\; commuter students who live in luxury in just-off-campus apartments (or frat houses) paid for by their families,\; commuter students who have spouses, families, and professional jobs (but not quite a college degree); and everything in between. We also have students who live on campus and spend 40+ hours a week working *off* campus. And, of course, we have student-athletes who both live and "work" (for their scholarships) a ridiculous number of hours on campus (and at away games which often interfere with classes). That's more or less traditional, except that I strongly suspect that time commitments to both practice and "optional" training and travel for games have both risen significantly beyond what was, in fact, traditional.
The "new majority"? Have students who lived in residence at college or university *ever* been the majority?
ReplyDeleteWhen I was starting university about two decades ago, I remember being puzzled by all the media stories with advice for parents and students about managing one's life away from home. I didn't know *anybody* who lived on campus. Who could afford it then? Who can afford it now?
And I wonder what percentage of that 25% are international students?
ReplyDeleteTwenty years ago, I lived on campus. All 4 years. Because my SLAC was in the middle of nowhere, the only available housing (if you didn't have a car) was on the campus proper.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'm curious as to where the stats come from. I read the article, and went to "Complete College America". The article cited from the NYTimes is about the need for remediation (which we already know about)--I'm not sure I agree with the way the stats are being used.
I teach in Fucktardia, which was one of the states that didn't give "CCA" any stats. I know our part-time grad rates are higher than what's quoted (and 40% of Fucktardia residents hold a college degree). But most of my students are traditional age (18-22). They live at home or on their own (we're a commuter campus). And our enrollments have risen every year for the past 5, despite declines in the number of traditional age students graduating from local high schools. The difference (for us) is made up in part by the simple fact that instead of going off to the WAY more expensive flagship school, students are completing their first two years with us before moving on (through guaranteed transfer) because we're "cheaper" than the 4-year campuses.
So I guess the point of my story is that I think that the Gawker piece is bullshit.
And while I'm at it, if more incoming college students need remediation in math and writing, shouldn't that lead us to ask WTF is going on in the secondary system? Like, hey, NCLB is fucktarded and needs to go...
On the one hand, this strikes me as intuitively true, certainly of my second-string state u, which is in the process of trying to transition from "commuter" to "residential." On the other hand, I, like Burnt Chrome, am suspicious of the numbers, and especially of an overly-simplistic division between "traditional" and "nontraditional," "residential" and "commuter," and the automatic mapping of other experiences onto those categories. We have commuter students who live at home and, thanks to the money saved, don't need to work during the school year; commuter students who live at home and work 40+ hours a week (at their own jobs or in a family business, which may or may not show up in official statistics),\; commuter students who live in luxury in just-off-campus apartments (or frat houses) paid for by their families,\; commuter students who have spouses, families, and professional jobs (but not quite a college degree); and everything in between. We also have students who live on campus and spend 40+ hours a week working *off* campus. And, of course, we have student-athletes who both live and "work" (for their scholarships) a ridiculous number of hours on campus (and at away games which often interfere with classes). That's more or less traditional, except that I strongly suspect that time commitments to both practice and "optional" training and travel for games have both risen significantly beyond what was, in fact, traditional.
ReplyDelete