Confounding the DataThe Impact of Non-Traditional Students on Student Needs

4-year, State College in the University System of Georgia

Authorized by GA Legislature in May 2005

President hired in September 2005 Campus opened with 118 students

and 10 faculty in August 2006

Origins

Students: Fall 2006 Enrollment: 118 Fall 2007 Enrollment: 787 Fall 2010 Enrollment: 5380

Faculty Fall 2006 Total: 11 – all FT Fall 2010 Total: 333 (196FT; 137PT)

Degree Programs Fall 2006: BBA Business; BS Biology, Psychology Fall 2007: BBA Business; BS Biology, Psychology, Information

Technology Fall 2010: BBA Business; BS Biology, Psychology, Information

Technology, Mathematics; BA English, History, Political Science; BSEd: Early Childhood Ed, Special Ed

Current Status

Basic Demographics Four Year Trend

Variable Fall 2010 Fall 2009 Fall 2008 Fall 2007

Age (First Time – First Year [FTFY])

M=19.33 (2.53)97%<=24

M=19.52 (3.06)97% <=24

M=19.47 (3.51)97% <=24

M=19.10 (2.44)98% <=24

Gender (FTFY) 53.4% Female

50.9% Female 51.1% Female 48.7% Female

Ethnicity (FTFY) 41.9% White

41.8% White 58.6% White 53.1% White

Percentage First Generation (FTFY)

41.6% 36.2% 39.2% 39.6%

Percentage Transfer Students

27.54% 39.9% 45.0% 47.1%

Age (Transfer) M=25.55 (7.45)

26.32 (8.07) 25.56 (8.70) 25.85 (7.93)

Gender (Transfer) 53.4% Female

56.3% Female 47.0% Female 53.1% Female

Ethnicity (Transfer) 41.9% White

40.5% White 54.0% White 60.9% White

Pell Grant eligibility (All)

47.6% 33.2% 22.4% N/A

Short Lit Review

The Questions

1. Is ‘Transfer Student’ synonymous with ‘Non-traditional Student’ on our campus?

2. Do non-traditional students have identifiably different perspectives and needs from those of traditional students?

3. Do those differences rest only in the transfer population or do they apply equally to older students beginning college for the first time?

The Analysis

Data Sources FoE survey conducted in Fall 2009▪ Participants were students who had entered

GGC in Fall 2008 Transfer student survey conducted

Summer 2010▪ Participants were new transfer students

attending orientation sessions

The Analysis, cont.

Recoded all age data into a binary variable Age <=24 is Traditional Student Age >=25 is Non-traditional Student

As appropriate to data type, tested for statistical difference between the two groups

Results

NT rate themselves higher on time management NT less likely to get involved in traditional

activities NT perceive the institution as providing more

information about how college helps with life NT perceive instructor feedback as timely more

than T NT report working more hours per week NT less likely to live with family NT more likely to have clear intent for next year

enrollment NT less likely to have a parent with a college

degree (probably GGC specific)

Conclusions

T and NT may not be a different as we all assume Student Affairs programming needs to move beyond

traditional activities if you want to involve NT students NTs may make good partners in helping their T aged

colleagues understand the value of the classroom experience or of college in general

FY programming – if engagement is a goal – needs to be different for NT and T students

NT students may engage academically more easily (infer from reporting that faculty/staff/college have helped them understand how college helps, etc), but engage socially less easily (or at least in different ways)

Next Steps