Part 5 (1/2)
57. Kevin Carey, A Matter of Degrees: Improving Graduation Rates in Four-Year College and Universities (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: The Education Trust, 2004), 6a”7. See also William G. Bowen, Matthew M. Chingos, and Michael S. McPherson, Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at Americaas Public Universities (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).
58. Nicolas Lemann, The Big Test: The Secret History of the American Meritocracy (New York: Ferrar Straus and Giroux, 1999).
59. Research on secondary schools suggests that a cla.s.sroomas intellectual composition affects studentsa performance, particularly for those of lower ability. See Yehezkel Dar and Nura Resh, aCla.s.sroom Intellectual Composition and Academic Achievement,a American Educational Research Journal 23 (1986): 357a”74. Similarly, extensive research on tracking implies that more flexible and inclusive systems can increase overall achievement as well as decrease gaps across students from different tracks. See for example, Adam Gamoran, aThe Variable Effects of High School Tracking,a American Sociological Review 57 (1992): 812a”28.
60. John Bound, Michael Lovenheim, and Sarah E. Turner, aUnderstanding the Decrease in College Completion Rates and the Increased Time to the Baccalaureate Degree.a PSC Research Report No. 07-626 (Population Studies Center, University of Michigan, 2007).
61. Clifford Adelman, The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion from High School through College (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
62. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Community College Students: Goals, Academic Preparation, and Outcomes, NCES 2003-164 (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
63. Remarks of President Barack Obama, prepared to address the joint session of Congress, February 24, 2009 (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: White House Press Office).
64. Rosenbaum, Beyond College for All, 99.
65. Ibid., 102.
66. Ibid., 101.
67. Paul Attewell and David Lavin, Pa.s.sing the Torch: Does Higher Education for the Disadvantaged Pay Off Across the Generations? (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007).
68. For a description of the warehousing function of schooling, see Pamela Walters, aThe Limits of Growth: School Expansion and School Reform in Historical Perspectivea in Handbook of the Sociology of Education, ed. Maureen Hallinan (New York: Springer Publishers, 2006), 247a”48.
69. Collins, The Credential Society.
70. Samuel Lucas, aEffectively Maintained Inequality: Education Transitions, Track Mobility and Social Background Effects,a American Journal of Sociology 106 (2001): 1642a”90; and Theodore Gerber and Sin Yi Cheung, aHorizontal Stratification in Postsecondary Education: Forms, Explanations, and Implications,a Annual Review of Sociology 34 (2008): 299a”318.
71. As cited by Peter Schmidt, aFormer Top Official at Education Dept. Criticizes How it Approached College Access,a The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 9, 2009, chronicle.com/news/article/5767/former-top-official-at-education-dept-criticizes-how-it-approached-college-access.
72. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Descriptive Summary of 2003a” 2004 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Three Years Later, NCES 2008-174 (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2008).
73. Josipa Roksa et al., Policies for Promoting Gatekeeper Course Success for Students Needing Developmental Education in Virginiaas Community Colleges (New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2009).
74. HERI, The American College Teacher.
75. For examples see William Bowen and Derek Bok, The Shape of the River (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998); and William Bowen, Matthew Chingos, and Michael McPherson, Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at Americaas Public Universities (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009).
76. John Bound, Michael Lovenheim, and Sarah E. Turner, aWhy Have College Completion Rates Declined? An a.n.a.lysis of Changing Student Preparation and College Resources.a NBER working paper No. 15566 (Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009).
Chapter 3.
1. Mary Grigsby, College Life through the Eyes of Students (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009), 54.
2. Ibid., 55.
3. Chapter 4 provides an extended discussion of studentsa time use.
4. Alexander Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited (San Francisco: Jossey-Ba.s.s, 1993), 398.
5. Vincent Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 50.
6. Astin, What Matters in College, 410.
7. Tinto, Leaving College, 210.
8. For a recent example, see George D. Kuh et al., Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter (San Francisco: Jossey-Ba.s.s, 2005); and George D. Kuh et al., a.s.sessing Conditions to Enhance Educational Effectiveness: The Inventory for Student Engagement and Success (San Francisco: Jossey-Ba.s.s, 2005). Moreover, see the discussion of project DEEP (Doc.u.menting Effective Educational Practice) at: nsse.iub.edu/inst.i.tute/?view=deep/index.
9. Tinto, Leaving College, 132.
10. Astin, What Matters in College, 226a”28.
11. James Coleman, The Adolescent Society (New York: Free Press, 1961).
12. Mizuko Ito et al., Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project (Chicago: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 2008), 2.
13. Loren Pope, Colleges that Change Lives: 40 Schools that will Change the Way You Think about Colleges (New York: Penguin Books, 2006), 3.
14. Ibid., 6.
15. Ibid., 255.
16. Ibid., 228.
17. Tim Clydesdale, The First Year Out: Understanding American Teens after High School (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 162.
18. In the presented a.n.a.lyses, these measures are standardized with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.
19. See Astin, What Matters in College; and Tinto, Leaving College.
20. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Descriptive Summary of 2003a”04 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Three Years Later, NCES 2008-174 (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2008), 83a”84.
21. Young K. Kim and Linda J. Sax, aStudent-Faculty Interaction in Research Universities: Differences by Student Gender, Race, Social Cla.s.s, and First-Generation Status,a Research in Higher Education 50 (2009): 437a”59; and George D. Kuh and Shouping Hu, aThe Effects of Student-Faculty Interaction in the 1990s,a Review of Higher Education 24 (2001): 309a”32.
22. For an argument on the imperative of focusing on the highest ability students under oneas charge, see W. E. B. Du Bois, aThe Talented Tentha in The Negro Problem: A Series of Articles by Representative Negroes of To-day, ed. Booker T. Was.h.i.+ngton (New York: J. Pott & Company, 1903), 31a”74.
23. Specifically, our a.n.a.lyses control for studentsa gender, race / ethnicity, parental education, parental occupation, two-parent home, sibling size, region, urbanicity, high school racial composition, and academic preparation (including high school GPA, number of AP courses taken, and SAT / ACT scores).
24. Mark Davies and Denise B. Kandel, aParental and Peer Influences on Adolescentsa Educational Plans: Some Further Evidence,a American Journal of Sociology 87 (1981): 363a”87. Citing a review by Kenneth Spenner and David Featherman, aAchievement Ambition,a Annual Review of Sociology 4 (1978): 373a”420.
25. Maureen T. Hallinan and Richard A. Williams, aStudentsa Characteristics and the Peer-Influence Process,a Sociology of Education 63 (1990): 122a”32.
26. Barbara J. Banks, Ricky L. Slavings, and Bruce J. Biddle, aEffects of Peer, Faculty, and Parental Influences on Studentsa Persistence,a Sociology of Education 63 (1990): 208a”25.
27. Hallinan and Williams, aStudentsa Characteristics and the Peer-Influence Process,a 123.
28. Students were asked whether they agreed or disagreed (on a seven-point scale) with the statements. In the presented a.n.a.lyses, student responses are standardized to a scale with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.