Square Pegs: Adult Students and Their “Fit” In Postsecondary

Institutions

Linda Serra Hagedorn

Associate Professor
Associate Director- Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

Voice: (213) 740-6772; Fax (213) 740-2028

LSH@usc.edu

This paper includes analyses from the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community
College Students (TRUCCS). TRUCCS is currently funded by the Lumina Foundation
Grant #1415. Originally, TRUCCS was supported by the Field Initiated Studies Program
of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Institutional Research and Improvement
Grant No. R305T000154.
 Square Pegs: Adult Students and Their “Fit” In Postsecondary Institutions

Just like the proverbial “square peg” that meets resistance when forced to go through a

round hole, adult students often struggle while progressing through systems of higher education

that have been shaped to accommodate traditionally aged students. Figure 1 graphically displays

the metaphor of “square peg” adult students and their friction points at the “four corners” labeled

1) Access; 2) Success; 3) Retention; and 4) Institutional Receptivity.

----------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 About Here
----------------------------------
Adult, or older than the traditionally aged, college students are included in the mass of

postsecondary students in the “nontraditional” category; which comprises almost 75% of

undergraduates (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). While this paper promotes

inquiry focused for the benefit of older students, there is reason to believe that other non-

traditional students also experience resistance and misfit at their “corners.”

One of the reasons that adult students may have difficulty progressing through the

postsecondary system is that they are perceived as “out of sequence.” Societal norms establish

that formal education is designed for the young. Settersten and Lovegreen (1998) described the

“tri-partition” of the life cycle into three orthogonal and linear segments of, 1) education

followed by 2) work and subsequently followed by 3) the leisure of old age. While the linear

pattern may have been applicable in earlier decades, life styles today are moving away from

partitions and towards a more co-mingled life course. Adults frequently juxtapose education

with work and increasing numbers of older adults opt to co-mingle work with leisure well into

old age. Despite the rising number of nontraditional life paths, Sissel, Hansman, and Kasworm

(2001) suggest that most colleges have not redefined themselves to better serve adult students.

They clearly assert that college catalogs, web pages, admissions information, on-campus

1
newspapers, and administrative office hours remain geared toward the younger more traditional

student.

In this paper, I describe the “four corners of friction” (access, success, retention, and

institutional receptivity) and illustrate them using data from the Transfer and Retention of Urban

Community College Students Project (TRUCCS). TRUCCS is a five-year longitudinal study of

5,000 students from the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). Participants were

enrolled in classrooms selected in a stratified random fashion during the Spring of 2001.

Subsequently, questionnaire data has been routinely collected along with transcript information

detailing the sample’s total academic history at the LACCD. The unique nature of the TRUCCS

data collection allows us to view transcript information dating back to the student’s first

enrollment in the district regardless of how long ago that occurred. With this sample, the

transcript data goes back to 1974. Using the student’s reported date of birth, each course was

coded with the exact student age at the time of enrollment. This method provided a cross-

sectional look at all students during specific age spans (regardless of calendar year) as well as a

longitudinal look at students who enrolled in courses over long time periods (either contiguously

or sporadically). I coded enrollments occurring when students were 17 to 21 years as the

traditional students (round pegs); while “square pegs” enrollments occurring when students were

22 to 30 years old were coded as young adults, those 31 to 45 years coded as prime timers and

those 46 years and above coded as last chancers (see Figure 2).

------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 About Here
----------------------------------

2
 Corner 1: Access

Older adults return to school for a variety of reasons including: 1) keeping up with

technology; 2) a desire to change careers or advance in the current profession, and 3) to maintain

physical and mental alertness (Allen, 2002). Kasworm (2003) suggested that personal transitions,

proactive life planning, or a combination of the two, motivate adult college students. Whatever

the reasons for returning, adult student must determine how to fit education within the

boundaries of their lifestyles. Nontraditional students often enroll in programs that are easily

accessible, have relatively flexible course schedules, and are supportive of adult commitments

(Kasworm, 2003).

Students possessing more nontraditional traits, seek out more flexible programs, and are

more likely to enroll in distance education than other students (National Center for Education

Statistics, 2002). These types of programs may give some students greater access to programs

and more flexibility to schedule their coursework (Furst-Bowe & Dittmann, 2001).

Evidence from TRUCCS. Using the age step defined by age at first enrollment, I provide

Table 1 indicating students’ response to a seven-part Likert scale (1= very unimportant to 7=very

important) to questions asking reasons for first enrollment. Note that analysis of variance tests

(ANOVA) were performed and the results of post hoc tests against traditionally aged students for

all significant multivariate tests are indicated.

------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 About Here
----------------------------------
While the strongest reason to enroll was to get a degree, note that its importance does

slightly wane by age step. For all other items it is of note that the pattern is such that the

3
importance increases with each age step indicating that adult students are purposeful in their

enrollment.

A concern related to access is how institutions measure an individual’s potential as a

college student using earlier grade point averages and scores on standardized and placement tests.

With respect to differences in student age, these traditional measures of ability and suitability

may not be appropriate or equitable. It has been suggested that noncognitive variables, or those

factors that may be experiential and/or contextual, may be more appropriate to identify predictors

of nontraditional student success (Sedlacek, 2003).

Using the TRUCCS sample, Figure 3 provides the results of district placement tests for

determining the level of recommended placement in English and Mathematics by entering age

step. The highest score (3) is placement at the transfer level while a score of 2 represents one

course level below transfer and is the pre-requisite for level 3, etc. While these findings are

highly suggestive, it must be noted that not all students have taken the placement tests. Thus, on

average, older students are more frequently placed in lower levels of math and English. While

the findings for the Math placement for “last chancers” shows a slight deviation from the

downward slope associated with age, it must be noted that a smaller proportion of the total “last

chancers” took the placement test. The result of the placement tests indicate that (1) older

students are less able than their traditionally aged counterparts, (2) people lose their academic

skills with age, or (3) the tests are biased towards traditionally aged students. When comparing

the self-reported high school GPA of the same groups of students there was virtually no

difference. Thus the evidence suggests, if measured at the same age step (i.e., high school) for

this sample, academic performance regardless of when chronologically that occurred, was about

equal.

4
 ----------------------------------
Insert Figure 3 About Here
----------------------------------

Corner 2: Success

The term success in higher education may be open to interpretation, but from a student

achievement point of view, it is generally measured in grades. Over time there has been a debate

on whether or not older students can perform at the same levels as their younger counterparts. In

1979 Sikula reported that the failure rates of adult-returning students as high as 75% and

recommended that the costs of maintaining remedial programs for adults were too high and

should be discontinued. Six years later, Leppel (1984), comparing grades of returning adults,

contradicted earlier findings and reported that older students performed at a higher level.

Whisnant and colleagues (1992), studying specifically community college students confirmed

the findings that adults over the age of 25 years earned higher grades in both developmental and

transfer level courses. Grades are traditionally used in studies as a predictor of virtually all

postsecondary outcomes including retention (Hagedorn, Maxwell, & Hampton, 2002; Tinto

1993), adjustment to college (Cabrera et al, 1999), and teacher satisfaction (Howard & Maxwell,

1980) and others.

The View from TRUCCS. Using the TRUCCS data, I viewed and subsequently analyzed

grades in two ways. First, through the coding of every course that the sample took with the exact

age of the student at that time, I was able to create four groups of coursetaking behaviors based

on the age step of the student. For example, within the young adults group, one student may

have taken English 101 in 1975 at age 24, while another took the course in 1986 at age 25, while

another at age 29 took the course in 2000. Despite the difference in chronological time, the

5
indicators of success would be included in the young adult age step for the first set of analyses.

Table 2 provides the average GPA of the cross-sectional groups.

In the second view, I included ONLY those students who attended the LACCD over an

extended period of time crossing more than one age step. I then compared grades across age

steps within subjects allowing students to serve as their own comparison groups. In this way, if

“Student A” attended classes from age 18 to 42, her grades while a prime timer could be

compared to her grades while a young adult and traditional student. To compare students against

themselves, I found that 125 students had taken courses at the LACCD over at least three age

steps. Including only those students who attended the LACCD over at least three age steps

eliminated those students who were merely enrolled in the last semester of one step and the first

semester of the next age step. For the 125 students who fit this description, a general linear

model repeated measures revealed that the comparisons were significant (Wilks’ Lambda= .6ll;

F=39176; df=2, 123; p < .001). Table 3 indicates the cell means at each step. The sample tested

indicated that excellence can increase with age step. For this sample of long-term students, the

adage of getting better with age seems to apply.

----------------------------------------
Insert Tables 2 and 3 About Here
---------------------------------------

Corner 3: Retention

Retention rates have become increasingly important in higher education as a measure of

evaluating institutional effectiveness and/or accountability. This is due to increasing competition

for public resources and decreased funding at the state level (Summers, 2002). Measures of

retention may include three-year persistence rates, five-year persistence and degree attainment

rates. Some community colleges measure retention by the number of students that are enrolled

6
on the first census day of a semester divided by the number of students attending classes in the

last week of the semester (Institutional Research and Information, 2002).

Some measures of retention take into account the educational goal of students at the

beginning of their enrollment, but do not recognize when intentions change. It may be

misleading to consider nontraditional students who do not complete a program of study as

“dropouts.” Nontraditional students may have various reasons for leaving a program, such as

family issues or job requirements. However, they may also leave school because their personal

goals have been met or perhaps they have determined that completing the program is no longer a

goal for them. In fact, students who “stop out,” that is, they attend, withdraw, and return, one or

more times, is not atypical of nontraditional students and it may be misleading to consider them

as dropouts or non-persisters (Kerka, 1995). Further, with increasing numbers of students doing

a “shuffle” between various educational institutions and reverse transfer students enrolling in

community colleges after already obtaining credits at a four-year college, the issue becomes even

more clouded (LeBard, 1999; Maxwell, Hagedorn, Brocato,. Moon, & Perrakis, 2002).

While retention is typically measured longitudinally, adult student retention may be more

appropriately measured cross-sectionally in which student satisfaction and/or short-term

objectives are measured (Kerka, 1989). Course completion rates may be a helpful alternative to

measure student success. Course completion is measured by taking a ratio of the courses passed

to the courses completed for a given term or terms. This allows for a short-term indicator of

success which may be more appropriate for adult students.

TRUCCS Data and Retention. Similar to the analyses presented for the corner on success,

retention will be tested in two ways. First, looking cross-sectionally at course completion ratios

across the age steps regardless of chronological time and then within subjects who have

7
remained at the LACCD across age steps. Interestingly, the proportion of courses completed

increased with each age step. While 61% of the courses taken by students in the traditional age

step were completed, young adults completed 66%, prime timers completed 75%, and last

chancers completed the largest proportion (77%).

Using the 125 students who enrolled in courses across three age steps, a repeated

measures comparison also revealed significant differences (Wilks Lambda=.437; F=66.099; df=2,

170, p< .001). Course completion ratios steadily increased from 36% to 48% to 71% across the

three steps.

Corner 4: Institutional Receptivity

It has become increasingly important to understand the different needs of adult students

and design programs that more appropriately attract and support students fitting the

nontraditional heading (Kasworm, 2003). As indicated earlier, more flexible learning

opportunities including distance education (with training for those intimidated by technology)

and allowing students to enroll part-time and work at their own pace may also be helpful.

Further, institutions may be more receptive to adult students by designing classes that are

specifically for adult students. These courses may help to alleviate any anxiety about being

conspicuously older than their peers. Institutions that foster staff, faculty, and student

interactions that support the confidence and self-efficacy of adult students may also be very

important to retaining students and supporting success.

Hagedorn, Perrakis, and Maxwell (2002) identified ten “Positive Commandments,” for

community colleges that may improve student success. These commandments include providing

opportunities for increased faculty-student interactions; more financial aid and affordable

education; more flexible course offerings and class times; more 4-year college transfer centers;

8
increased numbers of expert faculty; on campus assistance in learning and study centers;

additional electronic resources for students; local campuses; more work study programs; and

career counseling.

Institutional Receptivity According to TRUCCS. To look at institutional receptivity for

adult students, I compared student responses to possible obstacles to obtaining academic goals as

stated by the sample via the TRUCCS follow-up survey (Spring 2002). Table 4 provides means

and standard deviations for selected obstacles displayed by the age of students during the time

they responded to the survey. Students rated problems on a five-part Likert scale (1= not a

problem to 5= very large problem). Results of the post hoc tests following a statistically

significant multivariate ANOVA are indicated. All comparisons are against traditionally aged

students.

As seen in Table 4, there are trends by age group. Prime timers appear to be the most

time crunched and report the highest levels of family responsibilities. Young Adults and Prime

timers report high levels of job responsibilities. Interestingly, there is no difference in getting

along with other students regardless of age step. Finally, last chancers report the lowest levels of

obstacle resulting from paying for college.

These comparisons do provide some insight into policies that may assist adult students to

successfully achieve their goals. As illustrated by the analyses related to the other three

“corners” there are differences in the reasons that adult students enroll in college. While in

college, adult students do not achieve academic success at lower levels than traditionally aged

students.

------------------------------
Insert Table 4 About Here
--------------------------------

9
 Institutions like the University of Phoenix and other for-profits have recognized the value

of convenience and support for adult students. These very expensive programs have not had a

problem in attracting nontraditional students to enroll. For this reason, the University of Phoenix

is now the largest undergraduate program in the country. Traditional colleges, especially

community college must acknowledge the population is aging. The 2000 Census reports that the

current median age is 35.3 years and rising and the largest 5-year age group is 35-to-39 year olds

(8.1 percent) followed by the 40-to-44 year olds (8.0 percent) (Meyer, 2001). Bash (2003)

recently sounded an alarm directed to members of the academy who prefer working with

traditionally aged students. He warned of the needs to include adults who will increasingly seek

lifelong learning. If colleges and universities are to compete with institutions like the for-profits,

they must become more receptive to adult student needs and expectations.

10
 References

Allen, D. (2002). For lifelong learners. Information Today, 19, 21-26.

Bash, L. (2003). Adult learners in the Academy. Anker Publishing, Williston, VT.

Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P.T., Pascarella, E. T., & Hagedorn, L.S. (1999) Campus
racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison between White
students and African American students. Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 134-202.

Furst-Bowe, J. & Dittmann, W. (2001). Identifying the needs of adult women in distance
learning programs. International Journal of Instructional Media, 28, 405-413.

Hagedorn, L. S., Maxwell, W., Hampton, P. (2002) Correlates of retention for African American
males in community colleges. Journal of College Student Retention Research, Theory,
and Practice, 3(3). 243-264.

Hagedorn, L.S., Perrakis, A, I., & Maxwell, W. (in press, Summer 2004). The Positive
Community College Commandments. Academic Exchange Quarterly.

Howard, G. S., & Maxwell, S. E. (1980). Correlation between student satisfaction and grades: A
case of mistaken causation? Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(6), 10-20.

Institutional Research and Information. (2002). Enrollment and student characteristics: Within-
semester retention. Retrieved October 5, 2003, from the Los Angeles Community
College District Web site: http://research.laccd.edu/research/

Kasworm, C. (2003). Adult meaning making in the undergraduate classroom. Adult Education
Quarterly, 53, 81-98.

Kerka, S. (1989). Retaining adult students in higher education. (ERIC Reproduction Service
No. ED308401).

Kerka, S. (1995). Adult learner retention revisited. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 389
880).

LeBard, C. (1999). Reverse transfers in the community college. (ERIC Reproduction Service
No. ED433871).

Leppel, K. (1984). The academic performance of returning and continuing college students: An
economic analysis. Journal of Economic Education, 15(1), 46-54.

Maxwell, W. B., Hagedorn, L.S., Cypers, S., Moon, H. S., Brocato, P. , Wahl, K. & Prather, G.
(2003) Community and Diversity in Urban Community Colleges: Coursetaking among
Entering Students. Community College Review. 30 (4), 21-46.

11
Meyer, J. (2001). Age: 2000. Census 2000 Brief. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C.
Available: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-12.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Enrollment in postsecondary institutions,

Fall 2000 and financial statistics, fiscal year 2000. (NCES 2002-212).

Sedlacek, W. E. (2003). Alternative admissions and scholarship selection measures in higher

education. Measurement and evaluation in counseling and development, 35, 263-272.

Settersten, R.A. & Lovegreen, L. D. (1998). Educational experiences throughout adult life: New
hopes or no hope life-course flexibility? Research on Aging, 20, 506-538.

Sikula, R. A. (1979). Can the academically underprepared adult complete university courses
successfully? College Student Journal, 13(1), 5-8.

Sissel, P., Hansman, C., & Kasworm, C. (Fall, 2001). The Politics of Neglect: Adult Learners in
Higher Education. In Hansman, C. and Sissel, P. (Eds.). Understanding and Negotiating
the Political Landscape of Adult Education, ( No. 91) , (pp.17-28). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Sedlacek, W. E. (2003). Alternative admissions and scholarship selection measures in higher

education. Measurement and evaluation in counseling and development, 35, 263-272.

Settersten, R.A. & Lovegreen, L. D. (1998). Educational experiences throughout adult life: New
hopes or no hope life-course flexibility? Research on Aging, 20, 506-538.

Summers, M. D. (2002). ERIC Review: Attrition research at community colleges. Community

College Review, 30, 64-84.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Whisnant, W. T., et al (1992). The “old” new resource for education – student age. Community
Services Catalyst, 22(3) 7-11.

12
FIGURE 1. Square Pegs.

13
 N=265
Step 3: Last Chancers
45 years and above
N=1140 Step 2: Prime Timers
Traditionally aged 31 to 45 years
Students
N=2089
N=2949 Step 1: Young Adults
22 to 30 years

Figure 2. Age Steps

14
Table 1. Importance of specific categories for first enrollment by age steps.

Why attend this college? Traditional Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Age Young Adults Prime Timers Last Chancers
Mean (s.d.) 22 to 30 years 31 to 45 years 45 and over
Mean (s.d.) Mean (s.d.) Mean (s.d.)
I couldn’t find a job 2.71 (2.00) 3.10 (2.16) *** 3.24 (2.19) *** 3.80 (2.43) ***
Close to home 5.33 (1.98) 5.42 (2.04) 5.56 (1.98) 5.69 (2.00)
I had nothing better to do 2.37 (1.76) 2.62 (1.90) *** 2.85 (2.00) *** 3.36 (2.27) ***
College close to work 3.72 (2.26) 4.15 (2.31) *** 4.00 (2.31) 4.44 (2.26*)
Special educational 4.18 (1.93) 4.50 (2.03) *** 4.69(2.00) *** 5.04 (1.92) ***
Programs
To get a degree 6.34 (1.41) 6.18 (1.69) 6.00 (1.85) *** 5.44 (2.11) ***
To learn English for work 3.10 (2.34) 3.92 (2.57) *** 4.24 (2.61) *** 4.54 (2.53) ***
Employer encouraged 2.12 (1.64) 2.44 (1.83)*** 2.59 (1.86)*** 3.05 (2.153)***
Degree/Certificate needed 4.03 (2.35) 4.71 (2.35)*** 5.14 (2.24)*** 5.27 (2.19)***
for work
Statistically significant differences from the traditionally aged students (Tukey posthoc
tests) are noted as follows: * p< .05, **p < .01, *** p<.001

Table 2 Age Steps and GPA

Age Steps GPA

(Standard Deviation)
Traditional Age (17-22; N=3052) 2.253 (0.890)
Step 1: Young Adults (22-30; N= 2,200) 2.526 (0.898)
Step2: Prime Timers (31-45; N= 1165) 2.783 (0.849)
Step 3: Last Chancers (46 and older; N= 273 2.840 (0.795)

Table 3. Average GPA per age step.

Step GPA

Age Step 1 GPA 1.79

Age Step 2 GPA 2.24
Age Step 3 GPA 2.64

15
Table 4. Means and standard deviations of obstacles by age step.

Traditional Age Step 1: Young Step 2: Prime Step 3: Last

Mean (s.d.) Adults Timers Chancers
Mean (s.d.) Mean (s.d.) Mean (s.d.)
Finding time for 2.05 (1.17) 2.31 (1.30)*** 2.57 (1.19) *** 2.44 (1.24) ***
college
Getting along 1.18 (.469) 1.17 (.497) 1.22 (.622) 1.26* (.767)
with students
Lack of 2.07 (1.25) 1.97 (1.16) 1.85 (1.18) *** 1.58 (.953) ***
information
about transfer
Family 1.74 (.997) 1.93 (1.23***) 2.44 (1.26) *** 2.05 (1.29) ***
responsibilities
Job 2.22 (1.20) 2.52 (1.34) *** 2.51 (1.31) *** 2.22 (1.28)
responsibilities
Paying for 2.45 (1.30) 2.60 (1.27)* 2.42 (1.34) 2.20 (1.40)**
college
Scheduling of 2.31 (1.20) 2.29 (1.31) 2.36 (1.24) 2.11 (1.20)*
classes
School related 2.76 (1.23) 2.76 (1.23) 2.59 (1.36)** 2.49 (1.23)**
costs

16
 1.6

1.4
1.4 3= Transfer Level
2=One level below transfer
1.2 1.17 1= Two levels below transfer
0=3 or more levels below transfer
0.99
1
Placement Score

0.84
0.77 English Score
0.8
Math Score
0.7

0.6
0.6

0.41
0.4

0.2

0
Traditional Age Young Adults Prime Timers Late Chancers
Age Category

17