Part 6 (1/2)

79. Robert D. Manning, aLiving With Debt: A Life Stage a.n.a.lysis of Changing Att.i.tudes and Behaviorsa (Rochester, NY: Rochester Inst.i.tute of Technology, 2005), 32.

80. Brint and Rotondi, aStudent Debt,a 7.

81. Anya Kamenetz, Generation Debt: How Our Future Was Sold Out for Student Loans, Bad Jobs, No Benefits, and Tax Cuts for Rich Geezersa”And How to Fight Back (New York: Riverhead Books, 2006), 16.

82. Manning, aLiving with Debt,a 34.

83. Charles F. Manski, aIdentification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem,a Review of Economic Studies 60 (1993): 531a”42.

Chapter 4.

1. See for example, Charles Murray, Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing American Schools Back to Reality (New York: Crown Publis.h.i.+ng House, 2008).

2. Pitrim Sorokin, Social and Cultural Mobility (New York: Free Press, 1959), 188a”89.

3. Lowell C. Rose and Alec M. Gallup, The 35th Annual Phi Delta Kappa / Gallup Poll of the Publicas Att.i.tudes toward the Public Schools (Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International, 2003).

4. Adam Liptak, aOn the Bench and Off: The Eminently Quotable Justice Scalia,a New York Times, May 11, 2009, /2009/05/12/us/12bar.html.

5. William Bowen and Derek Bok, The Shape of the River (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998); William Bowen, Matthew M. Chingos, and Michael S. McPherson, Crossing the Finish Line: Completing College at Americaas Public Universities (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009); and Kevin Carey, A Matter of Degrees: Improving Graduation Rates in Four-Year Colleges and Universities (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: The Education Trust, 2004).

6. For recent reviews see, George D. Kuh et al., What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 2006); and George D. Kuh et al., Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter (San Francisco: Jossey-Ba.s.s, 2005).

7. Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini, How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research (San Francisco: Jossey-Ba.s.s, 2005), 602.

8. For an extensive recent review of the previous literature on the factors a.s.sociated with development of general skills in higher education, see Pascarella and Terenzini, How College Affects Students, 155a”212.

9. For clarity of presentation in this section, faculty and peer-climate variables are divided into three categories: ahigh,a which represents one or more standard deviations above the mean; alow,a which indicates one or more standard deviations below the mean, and amedium,a which represents values in between. Since the original variables were based on a 1a”7 scale and were not normally distributed, the three categories contain varying proportions of cases. All models predict 2007 CLA scores while con trolling for 2005 CLA scores, and thus in effect estimate the relations.h.i.+p between different variables of interest and growth in learning over time. As indicated, some models also control for studentsa sociodemographic / high school characteristics, academic preparation, and inst.i.tutions attended (fixed-effects model).

10. The correlation between studentsa perceptions of faculty expectations and standards is 0.637, p < 0.01,=”” and=”” between=”” studentsa=”” perceptions=”” of=”” faculty=”” expectations=”” and=”” being=”” approachable=”” is=”” 0.523,=”” p=””><>

11. William Sewell, Archibald Haller, and Alejandro Portes, aThe Educational and Early Occupational Attainment Process,a American Sociological Review 34 (1969): 82a”92.

12. Alexander Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited (San Francisco: Jossey-Ba.s.s, 1993), 217.

13. See for example, Robert M. Carini, George D. Kuh, and Stephen P. Klein, aStudent Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages,a Research in Higher Education 47 (2006): 1a”32.

14. The two variables (faculty expectations and reading / writing requirements) are related, but far from perfectly so. Even if both are entered in the model simultaneously (as will be the case in the final model), they remain statistically significant and of similar magnitude.

15. Alexander Astin, What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited (San Francisco: Jossey-Ba.s.s, 1993); Vincent Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).

16. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), Experiences that Matter: Enhancing Student Learning and Success (Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research, Indiana University Bloomington, 2007), 46.

17. 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), table 3.1.

18. Carini, Kuh, and Klein, aStudent Engagement and Student Learning,a table 2.

19. The three measures of peer climates are reasonably highly correlated, with Cronbachas alpha of 0.74. A summary measure combining the three questions is also not related to learning.

20. For a recent study illuminating which peer interactions have positive relations.h.i.+ps with learning, see Elizabeth J. Whitt et al., aInteractions with Peers and Objective and Self-Reported Cognitive Outcomes across 3 Years of College,a Journal of College Student Development 40 (1999): 61a”78.

21. Camille Charles et al., Taming the River: Negotiating the Academic, Financial, and Social Currents in Selective Colleges and Universities (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 82a”90.

22. Ibid., 84.

23. Steven Brint and Allison M. Cantwell, aUndergraduate Time Use and Academic Outcomes: Results from UCUES 2006.a Research and Occasional Paper Series (Center for Students in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, 2008).

24. Victor B. Saenz and Douglas S. Barrera, Findings from the 2005 College Student Survey (CSS): National Aggregates (Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Inst.i.tute, 2007), 6, 10.

25. NSSE, Experiences that Matter, 13.

26. To answer this question, we estimate several regression models that predict 2007 CLA scores while controlling for 2005 CLA scores. Some models also control for studentsa sociodemographic / high school characteristics, academic preparation, and inst.i.tutions attended (fixed-effects model), as indicated in the text.

27. Astin, What Matters in College, 376. For some recent examples of studies examining the relations.h.i.+p between studying and GPA, see Brint and Cantwell aUndergraduate Time Use and Academic Outcomesa; Charles et al., Taming the River; and Ralph Stinebrickner and Rodd R. Stinebrickner, aTime-Use and College Outcomes,a Journal of Econometrics 121 (2003): 243a”69.

28. There is no direct tradeoff between studying and partic.i.p.ation in extracurricular activities. The two measures are actually slightly positively correlated (r = 0.120, p < 0.01),=”” indicating=”” that=”” some=”” students=”” are=”” more=”” engaged,=”” both=”” in=”” their=”” studies=”” and=”” in=”” other=”” activities,=”” while=”” other=”” students=”” are=”” less=”” engaged=”” in=”” both=””>

29. For a review of research on the relations.h.i.+p between out-of-cla.s.s experiences and learning, see Patrick T. Terenzini, Ernest T. Pascarella, and Gregory S. Blimling, aStudentsa Out-of-Cla.s.s Experiences and Their Influence on Learning and Cognitive Development: A Literature Review,a Journal of College Student Development 40 (1999): 610a”23.

30. Astin, What Matters in College; Tinto, Leaving College.

31. Studies in the 1980s were mostly consistent in showing positive effects of on-campus work and negative effects of off-campus work, although recent studies have produced a more mixed set of results (see Pascarella and Terenzini, How College Affects Students, 1991; 2005).

32. There is a positive relations.h.i.+p between the two forms of studying: students who spend more time studying alone also spend more time studying with peers (r = 0.263, p <>

33. NCES, Descriptive Summary of 2003a”04 Beginning Postsecondary Students, table 3.11.

34. Robert B. Barr and John Tagg, aFrom Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education,a Change 27 (1995): 12a”25.

35. National Science Foundation (NSF), Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: NSF, 1996), es up to a certain threshold. Indeed, the square term is statistically significant. We have also tested a square term for hours spent working off campus. However, this second square term was not statistically significant and is thus not included in the models.

40. Our results for employment may be weaker than expected because students in our sample work less than the national average. This is not surprising given that we are relying on volunteers who are willing to spend a substantial amount of time completing the CLA a.s.sessment and a.s.sociated surveys. Indeed, very few students in our sample work more than twenty hours per week, and virtually none of them work full-time (i.e., thirty-five or more hours per week). In national samples, 13 percent of employed traditional-age students who entered four-year inst.i.tutions report working full-time (authorsa calculations based on the 2006 survey of the 2003a”04 cohort of the Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS) Longitudinal Study). However, students in our sample report working more hours than students at selective inst.i.tutions (see Charles et al., Taming the River, 84, 87). For recent national estimates of college-student employment, see National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Inst.i.tutions: 2003a”2004, NCES 2006-184 (Was.h.i.+ngton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2006), table 5.1.

41. See also recent research by Pascarella and colleagues, who have conducted some of the most extensive a.n.a.lyses of the relations.h.i.+p between employment and direct measures of student learning. Ernest T. Pascarella et al., aDoes Work Inhibit Cognitive Development During College?a Educational Evaluation and Policy a.n.a.lysis 20 (1998): 75a”93; and Ermest T. Pascarella et al., aImpacts of the On-Campus and Off-Campus Work on First-Year Cognitive Outcomes,a Journal of College Student Development 35 (1994): 364a”70.

42. Gary R. Pike, aThe Influence of Fraternity or Sorority Members.h.i.+p on Studentsa College Experiences and Cognitive Development,a Research in Higher Education 41 (2000): 117a”39. For an example of a study using objective measures of learning, see Ernest T. Pascarella et al., aCognitive Effects of Greek Affiliation during the First Year of College,a NASPA Journal 33 (1996): 242a”59.

43. In Grigsbyas study, for example, students reported that involvement in Greek organizations has provided some of their most valuable experiences in college, and that affiliation with and leaders.h.i.+p roles in these organizations have taught them responsibility and organizational skills. Mary Grigsby, College Life through the Eyes of Students (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2009).

44. For a recent review of the literature on the relations.h.i.+p between college major and cognitive development, see Pascarella and Terenzini, How College Affects Students, 174a”76.