Journal of
Student Affairs at
New York University
Volume II - 2006
New York, NY
ii - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Editorial Board
The Editorial Board of the Journal of Student Affairs at New York University consists of graduate students in the Higher Education/Student Personnel
Administration Program at New York University. The Board has been established to coordinate all editorial functions for the journal and to ensure the continuity of future publications.
Executive Board
Editor-in-Chief
Content Editor
Production Editor
Editorial Team Members
Abby Berenson, ‘06
April Catching, ‘07
Kelly Cuene, ‘07
Jaci Czarnecki, ‘06
Debra Diana, ‘07
Sarah Dougan, ‘07
Brian Dunn, ‘06
Amanda Gallocher, ‘07
Rana Hakami, ‘07
Faculty Advisor
Robert Teranishi
Adam “AJ” Haney, ‘06
Debbie Yunker, ‘06
Clifford Kim, ‘06
Staci Hersh, ‘07
Tom Kupferer, ‘07
Mark Nakamoto, ‘07
Chrissy Roth, ‘07
Ray Savage, ‘07
Russ Smith, ‘07
Lindsay Sutton, ‘06
Michael West, ‘07
Katie Winner, ‘06
Assistant Professor,
Higher Education Program
The editors of the Journal of Student Affairs at New York University promote the
submission of articles that address issues of critical interest to the NYU community and among higher education and student affairs professionals. Articles that
explore topical current issues, suggest innovative programming, and embark on
original research are encouraged. The opinion and attitudes expressed within
the journal do not necessarily reflect those of the Editorial Board.
Foreword - iii
Foreword
Professor Robert Teranishi
I am pleased to introduce the second volume of the Journal of Student Affairs at
New York University. The journal provides a venue for students, faculty, and
practitioners to engage in scholarly discussions about important issues related
to student affairs and the world of higher education. The contributors to this
volume include current students and alumni of the Higher Education Program,
as well as other student affairs professionals at New York University and
beyond. The range of peer-reviewed articles addresses many important issues
facing higher education today.
As a faculty member in the Higher Education Program and advisor to the journal, I am deeply proud of our students and their accomplishments. The journal
is an impressive, scholarly, and practical contribution to the field. I am confident
the journal will become a notable tradition for The Steinhardt School of
Education, the Division of Student Affairs, and the Higher Education Program
at New York University.
Table of Contents - 1
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
2
Editor’s Note
Adam “AJ” Haney
3
Australian and United States’ Systems of Student
Services in Higher Education: Learning through a
Study Tour Experience
Kristen Leigh Crutchfield & Avani Rana
College-Aged Women and Leadership: Understanding
the Variables Impacting College-Aged Women
Student Leaders
Maria Duckett
College Honors Programs: What Are We Really Doing
for Gifted College Students?
Kelly T. Radomski
(DIS)COURSE: A Method of Cross-Cultural
Communication
Samantha Shapses
5
13
21
29
Support Programs for First-Generation College
Students: A Review and a Call to Action
Allie Timberlake
37
NYU Division of Student Affairs
49
NYU Higher Education Administration Program
Guidelines for Authors
Also available online at
http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/alt/josa
47
50
2 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Acknowledgements
The Editorial Board would like to thank the following people and organizations
for their support of the second volume of the Journal of Student Affairs at New
York University:
New York University Division of Student Affairs
Marc Wais, Vice President of Student Affairs
Kristi Lonardo, Department of Residential Education
Brian Arao, Department of Residential Education
Steinhardt School of Education
Dean Mary Brabeck
Assistant Dean Lindsay Wright
E. James Ford
Higher Education Program
Dick Richardson
Frances King Stage
Ann Marcus
Teboho Moja
Robert Teranishi
Steven Hubbard
External Review Board
Bob Butler, New York University
Dean Patricia Carey, New York University
Nakeena Covington, New York University
Andrea “Dre” Domingue, New York University
Adam Ebnit, New York University
Beth Greenberg, Lehigh University
Brian Guerrero, New York University
Maribeth Johnson, New York University
Diane LeGree, University of California-Riverside
David Perez, New York University
Jessica Rosenzweig, New York University
Amy Sandler, University of Nevada-Las Vegas
Todd Smith, New York University
Elizabeth Buffy Stoll, New York University
Andrea Sturtevant, Columbia University
Lynne Thompson, New York University
Matthew Weigand, University at Buffalo
Association of Student Affairs Professionals (ASAP)
of New York University
All of the editorial teams, authors, and everyone who submitted articles.
Editor’s Note - 3
Editor’s Note
Adam “AJ” Haney
After the huge success of the inaugural volume of the journal, the editorial
board of Volume II was passionate about continuing to not only maintain but
also build on its scholarly, peer-reviewed nature. However, with such a solid
foundation already created, the challenge was making that a reality. I am
pleased of the many additions that this executive board has implemented. For
this volume, authors were required to submit abstracts prior to manuscript submission. This preliminary step allowed the editorial board to focus the direction
and concepts presented in the journal and to provide initial feedback to potential authors. We also recruited an external review board of student affairs colleagues from New York University and across the country. Their role was to
bring their diverse viewpoints to the blind review manuscript selection process.
These steps allowed for the Journal to develop a more comprehensive perspective of the critical topics in the field of student affairs. I am excited to release a
journal that is not only timely and relevant, but offers unique ideas to consider
for our individual student affairs practice.
For the second volume, the executive board felt that the overarching theme
should embody the spirit and values of the Higher Education/Student
Personnel Administration program at New York University. These include areas
such as: college student learning and development, international education,
access to higher education, diversity, research, leadership, and practical applications. Moreover, we aimed to include articles relevant to the current climate of
student affairs, articles that we felt would make significant contributions to the
field. Fortunately, we received several manuscripts that quite accurately reflect
many of these values. With articles ranging from issues facing academically gifted students to first generation student support programs, our contributing
authors both discuss these ideals and bring a fresh perspective to current conversations.
In closing, I am very proud of the content of this volume and I would like to
extend my utmost gratitude to the members of the executive board, the editorial teams, and all those who have supported and contributed to the journal. The
publication of this edition was only possible because of their time, energy and
undying commitment to student affairs practice at NYU, as well as a field
worldwide.
As you read through the articles that follow, my hope is that you find material
that is not only interesting, but also useful in your everyday practice of student
affairs. Our purpose, much like the program, is to educate as well as identify
implications for practical application today and in the future. Thank you for
reading and your ongoing support!
Crutchfield & Rana - 5
Australian and United States’ Systems of
Student Services in Higher Education:
Learning through a Study Tour Experience
Kristen Leigh Crutchfield & Avani Rana
After a brief description of the Australian higher education system,
the different styles of student services in Australia and the United
States will be examined and compared using examples from a study
tour experience. These differences will be explored through the subjects of admissions, “one-stop shopping,” and the demographics of
the students. Scholarly articles and personal conversations and
experiences will be examined to see how institutions in these two
countries provide their student services.
In 2005, the United States lost its ranking as the top destination for international students to Australia (Cohen, 2005). Also in 2005, a group of student services
graduate students and professionals from the United States visited universities
in Australia to compare systems of student services. The Australian higher education system has been in existence over 150 years and consists of nearly 40 institutions which are overseen by the Department of Education, Science, and
Training (DEST) as well as the federal and state governments of Australia. This
will be compared to America’s institutions which date back nearly 375 years and
number in the thousands with several types of governing bodies. Using examples from the tour, the styles of student services in Australia and America will
be examined and compared. The differences will be explored through admissions, through Australia’s centralized state-by-state admission process compared to the American college-by-college process; “one-stop shopping,” the new
Kristen Leigh Crutchfield graduated from Greensboro College in 2004 with a Bachelor of Arts in
Psychology. She is currently a second-year Master of Education degree candidate in the North
Carolina State University Higher Education Administration, Student Affairs Concentration program and is expected to graduate in the spring of 2006. Kristen is currently a graduate assistant
for the Women In Science and Engineering (WISE) Living-Learning Village at NC State and an
advisor to the Iota Iota Chapter of Alpha Xi Delta Fraternity at Greensboro College. She was a participant of the 2005 Australian Study Tour sponsored by NASPA, ACPA, and ACUI.
Avani Rana is currently the Assistant Director in the Office of Student Involvement and
Leadership at her alma mater, Douglass College at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. She
received her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Douglass College and graduated with her
Master of Arts in Higher Education Administration from New York University. Her research interests include women's leadership, Asian American students, and federal policies in relation to higher education.
6 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
trend in both systems of higher education that enables students to access multiple services in one office; and student demographics, between a lack of a “traditional” student in Australia and the existence of a “traditional” student in the
United States.
Overview of the Trip
NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, the Association
of College Unions International (ACUI), and ACPA – College Student Educators
International, combined their resources to arrange a trip to Australia for 40 professionals and graduate students in higher education. The trip was planned so
that participants could learn how student services are conducted in Australia
and subsequently, exchange ideas about what they learned.
While in Australia, the group visited eight universities: University of Sydney,
University of Newcastle, University of Wollongong, Latrobe University at
Bendigo, Monash University, University of Melbourne, Victoria University, and
RMIT University. At each institution, the main services that were discussed
included student unions, aboriginal centers, academic facilities, spiritual centers, residential living, financial aid, and sport facilities. These universities
included a mixture of “Sandstone Eight” institutions, similar to the Ivy League
institutions in the United States (Meadmore, 1998); higher education institutions, which offer undergraduate and graduate work only; and dual sector institutions, which have both Technical and Further Education (TAFE) and higher
education courses (PhillipsKPA, 2005).
Background of Australian Higher Education
To better understand the implications of the study tour that is the basis of this
article, it is important to know about the background of Australian higher education. Most of Australia’s major cities are along the coast, and 40% of the population live in Melbourne and Sydney (Potts, 2003), which are home to five universities visited on the tour. The Australian higher education system was originally established in the 1850s by the governments of New South Wales and
Victoria in Sydney and Melbourne, respectively, with a focus on classics, math,
and natural philosophy (Williams, 1992). The subjects were based on English
and American models of higher education. Later, the Australians found that
vocational and teacher education was needed. This led to the creation of a binary system of education, which consisted of TAFE and higher education, similar
to the focus on both traditional academic universities and the more vocationally oriented schools in the United States (Williams, 1992). The government
changed the binary system to a Unified National System in 1989 (Issues Paper,
n.d.), which eliminated the divide between TAFE and the higher education systems, merging them into one system and streamlining the governing of higher
education.
The Unified National System, comprised of the public institutions, was created
by state parliaments, and the legal ownership of the public universities is with-
Crutchfield & Rana - 7
in state government (Issues Paper, n.d.). The universities are authorized by legislation, but are self-governing. Much like the culture of higher education institutions in the United States, funding of the universities in Australia is often tied
to compliance with the federal regulations. One example in the United States is
compliance with the Higher Education Reauthorization Act, which indicates
regulations for institutions in order to receive federal funding. These regulations
include reporting crime statistics, voter registration, and campus-based aid
(Higher Education Act Reauthorization, 2005). The Australian and American
higher education systems are similar in the way that funds are distributed.
Research grants as well as federal student support loans that come from governmental funds are a source of revenue for both systems. For research grants, the
institutions receive the government money directly, while student loans are
given to the student to be paid to the institution. One difference in the funding
of Australian and U.S. higher education is in the way that loans are paid back.
The Australian student loan system, Higher Education Contributions Schema
(HECS), requires that loans are paid back based on income level after graduation and does not require students to pay interest on loans. In contrast, students
in the United States begin to accrue interest on loans as soon as enrollment in
higher education ends. Interest rates can be high depending on the source of the
loan, and repayment is required regardless of employment.
Current Australian System
The current Australian higher education system is based on a model established
after the 1989 reforms to a Unified National System. There are currently 39 universities in Australia, all of which are public with the exception of three private
universities (Potts, 2003). Higher education institutions in Australia are funded
by the federal government, the Commonwealth, and fees that students enrolled
in these universities must pay. One of the largest revenue generators that the
Australian higher education system currently has is the tuition paid by the large
number of international students, who pay full fees (Slaughter & Leslie, 1999).
There is a large demand for Australian higher education from Asian countries
(Cohen, 2005). International students do not qualify for the same financial aid
that the Australian students do, making it much more difficult for them to pay
for school (R. Jackson, personal communication, n.d.). Despite the higher cost,
international students still view Australia as a destination of choice. Since
September 11, 2001, the number of international students entering the United
States has decreased, leaving Australia as their top choice (Cohen, 2005; Mooney
& Neelakantan, 2004).
Issues Faced by the Systems of Higher Education
During the study tour, conversations with student services professionals on
every campus visited showed that many of the issues faced by the U.S. higher
education system are similar to those faced by our Australian counterparts.
Issues often focus on funding and student fees, especially in relation to student
unions.
8 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Declining funding is an issue that both Australian and U.S. universities have
recently faced. In 1989, students in Australia started paying fees for their education. Tuition ranges from Australian $3,000 to $6,000 ($2,190 to $4,385 American)
per year at the University of Wollongong, depending on the major chosen (UOW
Website, 2005). Comparable institutions in the United States tend to charge the
same tuition to all undergraduate students. For instance, North Carolina State
University charges all full-time, in-state resident students $2,184 for the spring
2006 semester (NCSU Cashier’s Office and Student Accounts website, 2005).
Australian institutions are looking for alternate ways to raise funds for their
schools. One method adopted from the U.S. system is to seek alumni donations.
Australian universities are also partnering with local businesses and corporations and transforming their student unions into companies. At Monash
University, for example, the student union is a separate company, MONYX, and
run by students and staff. All company profits are put toward school funding
(A. O’Brien, personal communication, May 26, 2005).
The government is considering legislation called the Voluntary Student Union
(VSU) legislation, that would cut some funding from universities and threaten
the elimination of many student services. The VSU legislation would eliminate
the mandatory student fee that all students currently pay for student services,
which include the college union, childcare and legal services, recreation, and
student organizations. The VSU legislation was an issue that was spoken about
at all the schools visited. The majority of the students and administrators do not
support the legislation and are concerned student services will not continue to
exist if the fee becomes voluntary because the schools would not have funding
to pay for them (R. Jackson, personal communication, n.d.). One argument in
favor of the legislation, however, is that the fee would bring the money back to
the students to use for the services they need or require. One student argued that
she should not have to pay for university childcare services if it is a service she
does not use. A Student Representative Council president spoke of an email
from a doctoral student who supported VSU because she takes courses online
from her home in Pennsylvania and could not access the student services.
Variation in Higher Education Systems
There are numerous variations between the U.S. university system and the
Australian university system. Four major differences are the admissions process,
the existence of “traditional” students and size of the commuter population, the
career focus of students, and the idea and practice of “one-stop shopping,”
which is the availability of all student services in one central location.
The Australian state-run admissions process centralizes the task of admitting
students. This program allows each student wishing to attend a university to
send one application for all schools in a particular state (Universities
Admissions Centre, 2005). Students interested in many institutions indicate
preference and may customize the application to the specific program at each
university. For example, John is allowed to apply to both his first preference in
Crutchfield & Rana - 9
economics and commerce at the University of Melbourne and his second choice,
law at Victoria University, with one application. University requirements and
preference lists from students then decide the admissions process, placing as
many students as possible. This differs from the American system where institutions individually decide who to admit.
Unlike in U.S. universities, where the traditional student is defined as 18 to 25
years of age and living on campus, in Australian universities there is no traditional student. This is partially due to the large percentage of commuter students, which allows for a variety of students of all ages to attend a university. In
certain cases, the delay in going to university is due to working to pay for their
living expenses and saving for university. Students typically attend the institution that is closest to their home and university housing staff state their main
focus is helping students find local rental houses or apartments (L. Arthur, personal communication, May 18, 2005). On campus, international students and out
of state students largely occupy residential facilities. All students use the student
union, which has services for students such as food, student activities, and legal
aid, and is funded by student fees. These amenities are especially important to
commuter students because they are essentially already paid for and these students would otherwise have to leave campus to obtain them.
There is currently legislation to eliminate the mandatory student fee that pays
for funding of the union, staff, and programs that take place within the union.
For example, the University of Sydney requires all students to pay a fee,
Australian $271 for full time students and Australian $109 for first year students
for the Building Fund (USU Online, n.d.). This is similar to the student fees paid
by American students at their institutions which allow for the students to pay
for recreation, sports, and exercise equipment.
Another difference between the two systems of higher education is the career
focus of most students in Australia. Although there is an active leadership program on certain campuses and the student unions are the center of campus life,
there is less of an emphasis to keep students on campus after hours but more
focus on academic learning. The students did have organizations that they were
a part of but it is more of a business model of making sure that students have
jobs and placement and less emphasis on holistic student development. They
strongly encourage mentoring programs, but there is little emphasis on the student’s holistic development through college.
A new area of concentration for university administrators in Australia is the concept of “one-stop shopping.” This refers to a centralized location where students
can acquire their email account and student identification card, register for
classes, pay tuition, and complete other steps to become fully registered.
Monash University’s Student Services Centre features one room for computer
access, study/lounge space, and access to several services including academic
transcripts, student identification cards, student forms, and the Internet.
Students can also speak with administrators about admissions, courses, exams,
fees, graduation, and scholarships (Monash University website, 2005). Students
10 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
can find answers to their questions in one place, eliminating the bureaucracy of
going to different offices for each service. In contrast, universities in the United
States tend to have separate offices for each function and offer the service of academic advisors, staff members who will discuss semester planning for the student for classes and considerations for future semesters based on career or academic aspirations. When study tour participants spoke of the American system
of different offices and advisors, Australian administrators did not understand
why students needed academic coaching. Unlike the American system that is
often seen as focusing on holistic student development, the Australian system
places an emphasis on creating college graduates who are well equipped to
obtain a job.
Conclusion
There are some fundamental themes that the students and faculty took away
from this trip. “One-stop shops,” where student services are all under one roof,
are effective in eliminating bureaucracy in the Australia system of higher education. Their model of self-service, which requires students to seek out their own
services without the advice of an advisor works for their institutions. The selfservice model works well for the population of students who are commuters
and are looking for an efficient way to complete their education.
However, these main themes cannot be stated without mentioning limitations of
the study tour observations on which this paper is based. Of the institutions visited while in Australia, all were public, thus comparisons with U.S. private institutions cannot be definite. Another limiting factor is the convenience sample of
institutions visited. All of these institutions had contact with a tour staff member before the study tour, and most had a working relationship with these professionals and were willing to meet with the group. Lastly, we were limited geographically to an area that was convenient to travel to within set time parameters.
With the growing international market of higher education, and as our global
world becomes smaller and smaller, it is important that American student services professionals learn about higher education institutions outside of the
United States. This can allow professionals in America to better assist their student clients who may not be from the U.S. as well as become more marketable
when applying for jobs in the internationalized field of higher education.
References
Crutchfield & Rana - 11
Cohen, D. (2005, October 28). Australia is foreign students’ favorite destination,
survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A61.
Higher education act reauthorization. (2005). The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved November 28, 2005, from http://chronicle.com/
indepth/hea
Issues paper: Commonwealth state responsibility on higher education. (n.d.). Retrieved
September 15, 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/
higher_education/policy_issues_reviews/key_issues/
commonwealth_state_responsibility_higher_ed.htm
Meadmore, D. (1998). Changing the culture: The governance of the Australian
pre-millennial university. International Studies in Sociology of Education,
8(1), 27-45.
Monash University website. (2005). Retrieved October 23, 2005, from
http://www.monash.edu.au
Mooney, P., & Neelakantan, S. (2004, October 8). No longer dreaming of
America. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A41.
North Carolina State University (NCSU) Cashier’s Office and Student Account
website. (2005). Retrieved November 15, 2005, from
http://www.fis.ncsu.edu/cashier/Tuition/ugtuition.asp
PhillipsKPA. (2005). Simplifying dual-sector reporting requirements final report.
Retrieved August 25, 2005, from http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/
edulibrary/public/highered/Final_Report_PDF_Aug05.pdf
Potts, A. (2003). From civic leaders and the university: State and municipal politicians’
perspectives on higher education in Australia. Bern: Peter Lang Publishing
Group.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the
entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
University Admissions Centre (UAC) for New South Wales and the Australian
Capital Territory. (2005). Retrieved September 13, 2005, from
http://www.uac.edu.au
USU Online: University of Sydney Union website. (n.d.). Retrieved October 29,
2005, from http://www.usydunion.com
12 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
University of Wollongong (UOW) website. (2005). Retrieved October 29, 2005,
from http://www.uow.edu.au/student/finances/
undergraduate.html
Williams, B. (1992). The rise and fall of binary systems in two countries and the
consequence for universities. Studies in Higher Education, 17(3), 281-293.
Duckett - 13
College-Aged Women and Leadership:
Understanding the Variables Impacting
College-Aged Women Student Leaders
Maria Duckett
Attending college offers many women the opportunity to take on a
variety of leadership positions. As women take on more leadership
roles today while in college, barriers inhibiting their involvement
still exist. The campus climate and societal expectations are two
such barriers that can deter women from taking on leadership positions. This paper examines the history and perpetuation of barriers
that exist for women student leaders in higher education settings.
How these barriers have changed and can continue to change in the
future in order to promote greater campus involvement and acceptance of women student leaders will also be discussed.
Recommendations addressing the specific needs of women student
leaders and suggestions for their leadership development will also be
addressed.
Throughout the 20th century, women fought to achieve equality with men in all
aspects of their lives. In certain arenas this fight continues into the present day.
This struggle for equality is not only true of women in the working world, but
also for those women on college campuses throughout the United States.
Women today are more likely to attend a coeducational institution because a
large number of formerly women’s colleges now open their doors to men.
Coeducational institutions of higher education often place men and women in
competition for the same leadership roles, similar to what they will face in the
working world. Although women are more likely to take on leadership roles
today than in the past, there are still barriers that deter women from taking on
leadership roles. This paper will examine the history of the barriers for women
leaders in higher education settings and how they are gradually being broken
down to allow more women to take on pivotal leadership positions on campuses throughout the United States. The campus climate and societal expectations
and their effects on women leaders, the leadership style of women, and the
unique needs of women that require attention and development will also be
addressed.
Maria Duckett graduated from Loyola College in Maryland in 2002 with a Bachelor of Arts in
Spanish and Secondary Education. Maria is a second-year Master of Arts candidate in the Higher
Education Administration program at New York University. She currently works as the graduate
assistant in the Office of Student Activities and Orientation at Pratt Institute.
14 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Women in Higher Education
In order to understand the perpetuation of barriers that still exist for women student leaders, it is necessary to look at the history of women in the realm of higher education and how the role of women has evolved over time. Only in the past
25 years have women attended college at the same rate as men. For example,
“…in 1950, 32% of college students were women; in 1978, half were women. By
1982, women received as many baccalaureate degrees as men” (Komives,
Woodard, & Associates, 2002, p. 47). However, equal enrollment with men has
not come without a cost. When looking at the struggle women have experienced
in their quest for rights and equality, it is not difficult to understand that despite
significant improvements, there is still much more to accomplish. Women are
succeeding in gaining respect in society as leaders, but it is important to keep in
mind that women did not even achieve the right to vote until 1920, only 86 years
ago.
Historically, colleges and universities were established for educating men of
higher social status. Eventually women’s colleges were established as the
demand for educating women rose. The most famous women’s colleges were
the “Seven Sisters”: Barnard, Bryn Mawr, Radcliffe, Smith, Vassar College,
Wellesley, and Mount Holyoke. These institutions were able to prosper as
women’s colleges, unlike their predecessors, “[w]hile about 50 women’s colleges had been founded between approximately 1836 and 1875, most were
unable to develop financial or organizational resources or academic programs of
high quality” (Harwarth, Maline & DeBra, 2005, ¶ 3). Each of these seven colleges created an academic curriculum that was similar to that of selective male
colleges. These schools stressed the importance of female leadership by hiring
women faculty and staff to serve as role models for the students.
Much has changed since the 19th century within the realm of higher education
for women. The enrollment in women’s colleges today has declined and more
women are choosing to be educated in coeducational institutions. The environment on college campuses today is one that needs to cater to the needs of both
men and women, and it is one that continues to be challenging, specifically for
women leaders.
Societal Pressures and Campus Climate
In order to completely understand the situation on campuses for student leaders, it is also important to recognize the role of women in society today, as this
inevitably plays a role on campus. Today, women throughout the United States
are still underrepresented in positions of authority; “[a]ccording to the most
recent U.S. Department of Labor Women’s Bureau Statistics (2002), women now
comprise 56.5% of the total United States workforce, but hold only 5% of the top
leadership positions in this country” (Boatwright & Egidio, 2003, p. 654). While
this statistic is staggering, it is a reality many women will face when they graduate. Obviously, work needs to be done to increase the representation of women
in leadership roles. Leadership experience gained in college can provide women
Duckett - 15
with skills and confidence that they can carry into the working world. However,
leading can be difficult due to many challenges that exist on the college campus,
such as societal pressures and perceived roles of women.
There are several factors why certain women are hesitant to consider leadership
as an option while attending institutions of higher education. The first of these
factors is the stereotypical view of women as mothers and homemakers, which
is a stereotype that has existed for centuries and still permeates society today.
Having a family and being a leader outside the home are often not considered
to go hand in hand. It is a societal pressure that women are the family caretakers (Boatwright & Egidio, 2003). This knowledge can deter women from pursuing leadership, because if they are expected to be homemakers, such an experience may be deemed unnecessary. Boatwright & Egidio (2003) write, “Because
the academy has not always supported female personnel who have opted to
have children, female college students are given the message that leadership
and childrearing roles cannot coexist” (p. 665). Although this thought process
may seem old-fashioned, it still exists today. Additionally, while society does not
expect women to be leaders, women are also not usually considered when a
leadership position arises within the work environment because they are often
“perceived as having less leadership potential than men ... or as being excessively ‘nice,’” (Boatwright & Egidio, 2003, p. 654). These societal expectations, or
lack thereof, not only lead to organizations failing to consider women for leadership positions, but they lead women to not consider themselves for leadership
positions.
Campus climate is also a contributor to women’s pursuit of leadership on campus. College is a time when many students are heavily influenced by their peers.
As Feldman and Newcomb (1969) determined, “…peer groups help students
achieve family independence… offer emotional support and meet needs not met
by faculty…offer another source of gratification if unsuccessful academically,
[and] affect a student’s leaving or staying in college…”(as cited in Evans,
Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 9). Therefore, as peer acceptance can be one
deterrent to women student leaders, it can also be seen that women are taking a
risk when they decide to pursue leadership due to peer reaction and “must be
willing to resist the standards of peer culture” (Romano, 1996, p. 677).
Understanding and recognizing the influence and pressure from peers is so
important for student affairs professionals, and it can help them better understand the influences that are affecting the female students.
Extensive research has been completed with regards to women in higher education and several studies have concluded that the overall college experience is not
necessarily positive. In fact, “women experience subtle forms of discrimination
such as not being taken seriously in the classroom, being discouraged from seeking help with academic concerns, using student services, or participating in
campus life” (Romano, 1996, p. 676). Several studies have shown that the college
environment is more beneficial to men than to women because “dissimilarities
between males and females in their psychological development and socialization lead many women students to experience the educational climate in a
16 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
harmful manner” (Forrest, Hotelling, & Kuk, 1984, p. 3, as cited in Romano,
1996, p. 676). It is somewhat startling to realize that men and women may have
completely different experiences on the same campus, but it is something that
student affairs professionals should recognize and address.
A final element that cannot be ignored is the “glass ceiling,” or the imaginary
boundary that suppresses women from gaining top positions of leadership, that
still exists. Although work has been done and will continue to be done to completely break through the glass ceiling, it is a barrier for many women today in
the professional world. It still exists on college campuses as well, where women
still struggle to have their voice heard, received, and valued as much as the voice
of men.
Understanding the Leadership Qualities of College-Aged Women
When there seems to be so much inhibiting women from taking on leadership
roles, it is interesting to look at what experiences draw certain college-aged
women to become student leaders in certain capacities. It is relevant for student
affairs professionals to examine the types of leadership roles women decide to
take on and their leadership style in order to appeal to this population.
Although women tend to make up the majority of the student body at many
coeducational institutions, it cannot be assumed that women feel welcomed,
comfortable, and respected on their respective campuses. When looking at the
misrepresentation of women in leadership roles throughout the country, an educator may ask the question, Why aren’t there more women leaders?
It is important to take into consideration how women lead so that campuses can
take steps to help cultivate and accept the leadership styles that are more common for women. Much research has been done in the past regarding the perception of women student leaders on college campuses. Researchers such as Astin
(1984), Leonard and Sigal (1989) and Baxter Magolda (1992) have looked extensively at the role of college-aged women and how they are affected by the college experience. Their research also notes that leadership is difficult for many
women to initiate. Collaboratively, their research also indicates that women may
have a hard time stepping up and leading on college campuses. Those women
who are leaders are often perceived negatively by their peers (Romano, 1996).
Many women view leadership as a means to make connections with others and
they seek out positions to cultivate these connections. Holland’s Theory of
Vocational Development (Holland, 1992) for both men and women identifies six
personality types that can be connected to leadership styles. Holland, Powell,
and Fritzsche (1994) found that, “women are more likely to be social types and
less likely to be realistic types, which are more likely to be men” (as cited in
Evans, Forney, and Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 238). Realistic types tend to be
“frank, practical, inflexible, uninsightful, and uninvolved…[while social types]
prefer activities that involve working with others in ways that educate, inform,
cure or enlighten” (Evans, et al., p. 229). Women more typically seek out interpersonal connections through leadership positions because they feel more com-
Duckett - 17
fortable and secure. It has been determined through numerous studies that
women who long to feel connected are more likely to seek out leadership positions because “their connectedness needs may actually instill within them a
desire to connect with and empower others through leadership roles”
(Boatwright & Egidio, 2003, p. 654).
As previously mentioned, peer acceptance is also very important to college-aged
students, and to woman student leaders this can be especially important in
order to facilitate more effective leadership and confidence. This is perhaps why
democratic leadership is often the preferred method for many women. Eagly
and Johnson (1990, as cited in Boatwright & Egidio, 2003) found that “results
from a meta-analysis of 370 leadership studies showed that female leaders
employ more relational and participative behaviors than male leaders, two traits
that characterize the democratic leadership style” (p. 653). Democratic leadership is becoming more effective and encouraged today, whereas hierarchical
leadership had been looked upon as superior in the past. As Boatwright and
Egidio (2003) point out, “forward thinking organizations have begun actively
seeking leaders who effectively incorporate democratic strategies (e.g., shared
power, collaboration, and teamwork) into their leadership styles more so than
the traditional hierarchical, stereotypically male leadership strategies” (p. 653).
Thus the leadership style most closely aligned with women is gaining larger
acceptance.
Implications for Student Affairs Professionals
It is important to look at how campuses can address potential woman student
leaders and encourage them to look at their leadership options. As it has been
pointed out, women are also psychologically and developmentally different
from men. These differences can be more widely recognized on campuses and
student affairs professionals can initiate programs to educate their students.
This section will look at ways campuses and student affairs professionals can
address the needs of woman student leaders.
Providing women students with a connection to a mentor such as a faculty or
staff member, or even an upper-class student leader, can be an excellent source
of support and encouragement. When strong female role models are present to
show young women that it is possible to have a leadership position and a family, these women are able to realize that they too can be successful in a position
of power. As Romano (1996) suggests, “whether working with students at
women’s colleges or those at coeducational institutions, student affairs professionals should regard themselves as role models for student leaders and exhibit leadership values they hope students will emulate” (p. 681). These role models can also serve as mentors to young women. These mentors can motivate
female students and their presence could make the difference in the life of a student leader. Due to the gradual change in attitudes and the increased acceptance
of women leaders, it is possible that more mentors for young women will
emerge in the future. However, this is currently an area of support that is lacking for many young women on college campuses.
18 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
College-aged women can be exposed to other women leaders through programs, such as a lecture series, that are comprised of various speakers who
either address the concerns of women or speak about how they have overcome
the stereotypes and barriers that society has imposed upon them. Such programs can provide a wider vision for women so that they can see where their
path can lead and they can start working toward a future goal while in the college environment.
Providing students with leadership workshops can also be beneficial to the
emerging leader. As mentioned, the democratic model that appeals largely to
women is often not as acceptable as the more traditional hierarchical model of
leadership. By providing students with leadership training and by demonstrating other methods of effective leadership, student affairs professionals can
encourage women to pursue their interests. Leadership workshops can show
women who might not be excited about leading that leading others is possible
and it can be done in different ways. Leadership training can also inform men of
the different leadership styles; therefore they can better receive women as leaders and understand that they may lead differently.
Providing women with campus student groups and organizations that specifically address their needs can also be a way to encourage their leadership development. Women are more likely to be leaders in groups when they feel comfortable and connected, and a group specifically targeting women can be an excellent setting to create this atmosphere. Research has demonstrated that the type
of student organizations students participate in depends on their ethnic backgrounds, and the same might be true for gender. Therefore, women will be more
involved in student organizations that address their concerns (Miller & Kraus,
2004, p. 424). As stated, other organizations and programs addressing certain
populations of students (e.g., queers, Latinos, and African Americans) have been
successful in increasing awareness about the needs of these populations and
they have created a safe place for these students. This type of programming for
women can be accomplished through a campus women’s center, which currently exists on many campuses. However, more colleges should strive to create
such programs and centers for women to help them create connections that can
contribute to their leadership development.
Looking to the Future
Just as the role of women has changed since women won the right to vote in
1920, it can be assumed that the role of women student leaders will evolve as we
look ahead. Studies have already begun to show that women’s views of leadership are beginning to change. Romano completed a study in 1996 that looked at
the holistic college experience of women student leaders in terms of how they
became student leaders and how they were received on campus as leaders.
Although her study was not comprehensive, it did present some interesting
findings. Romano (1996) states, “student leaders in this study felt comfortable
and confident in modeling themselves after other women…[c]ontrary to previous findings in the literature, the women in this study found leading… to be an
Duckett - 19
experience that enhanced their growth and development… (pp. 682-683). More
recent research conducted by Boatwright and Egidio in 2003 found that a more
holistic view of leadership was a more successful approach to use when developing leadership skills in women. In particular, they found that leadership
development should focus on “experiences that validate women’s relational
identities, [and] increase women’s awareness of how their relational strengths
may enhance their leadership effectiveness…” (Boatwright & Egidio, 2003, p.
668). This information is important so that student affairs professionals can be
aware of the most effective way to reach out to women who want to be leaders.
There is movement by women within the structure of higher education to
become leaders and hopefully this trend will continue and expand to a larger
population of woman students. More steps can be taken to decrease the inequalities that still exist between men and women. By increasing campus programming targeted specifically at women student leaders, women will feel more
comfortable on campus and can in turn leave school and use their skills in the
real world.
References
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Baxter Magolda, M. (1992). Knowing and reasoning in college: Gender-related
patterns in students’ intellectual development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boatwright, K. J., & Egidio, R. K. (2003). Psychological predictors of college
women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of College Student Development,
44(5), 653-669.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in
college: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college on students.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harwarth, I., Maline, M., & DeBra, E. (2005). Women’s colleges in the United States:
History, issues, and challenges. Retrieved April 20, 2005, from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/PLLI/webpeprt.html
Holland, J. L. (1992). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities
and work environments. (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
20 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Komives, S. R., Woodard, Jr., D. B. & Associates. (2003). Student services: A
handbook for the profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leonard, M. M., & Sigal, B. A. (1989). Empowering women student leaders: A
leadership development model. In C. S. Pearson, D. L. Shavlik, &
J. G. Touchton (Eds.). Educating the majority: Women challenge tradition in
higher education (pp. 230-249). New York: Macmillan.
Miller, C. D., & Kraus, M. (2004). Participating but not leading: Women’s under
representation in student government leadership positions. College
Student Journal, 38, 423-427.
Romano, C. R. (1996). A qualitative study of women student leaders. Journal of
College Student Development, 37(6), 676-683.
Radomski - 21
College Honors Programs: What Are We Really
Doing for Gifted College Students?
Kelly T. Radomski
Numerous colleges across the United States have honors programs
to attract and cater to gifted and talented students. These programs
include first-year experiences, advanced coursework, and special
international programs. Students who have benefited from the various gifted and talented programs in high schools arrive on campus
and carry their own unique challenges and developmental hurdles.
Issues such as grade anxiety, diversity, identity conflict, and career
development affect gifted students uniquely and require support
that differs from the resources available for the typical student population. This article cites the voids left by these programs and highlights guidelines along which improvements must be made in order
to effectively serve this important student subpopulation.
All students possess strengths, weaknesses, and gifts that make them unique.
Based on differences in age, race, ethnicity, personality, or geography, students
inherently bring different combinations of these characteristics to their educational careers. Educators are constantly challenged to assess and meet the needs
of this inherently diverse population. One subpopulation that is critical to identify and assist within the larger pool is that of gifted and talented students.
Who Are Gifted and Talented Students?
According to Gibson and Efinger (2001), gifted and talented students usually
perform in the top 3%–5% of their high school population and demonstrate high
ability, high task commitment, and high creativity. Haas (1992) described gifted
and talented college students as having “high school grade-point averages of at
least 3.5, high ACT or SAT scores, good writing skills, and a record of leadership
in both academic and a wide variety of extracurricular activities” (p. 14). In
Ross’s (1993) national report on higher education, he broadened the definition
of giftedness beyond the numbers, saying that “it is the existence of students’
unmet educational need in the local setting that defines who is judged to be gifted.” Whichever definition or exact measure one uses to identify these students,
Kelly Radomski received her Bachelor of Science in Education from Baldwin-Wallace College in
Berea, Ohio in 2004. Currently, she is a second-year student in the Master of Arts degree program
in Higher Education Administration at New York University. In addition to her studies, Kelly
works as a graduate assistant at the Gallatin School of Individualized Study and a program assistant at the Wasserman Center for Career Development.
22 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
it is obvious that they are indeed talented beyond their peers.
High school courses, which commonly only require the simple memorization
and recall of facts, do not help gifted and talented students develop the
increased critical thinking and reflective judgment skills they require in order to
achieve their full potential (Mack, 1996). To better serve these students at the
high school level, a number of programs have been created that blend the high
school and college experiences. The Transition School/Early Entrance Program
at the University of Washington, the Early Entrance Program at California State
University, Los Angeles, the Program for the Exceptionally Gifted at Mary
Baldwin College in Virginia, and Simon’s Rock College of Bard in Massachusetts
are examples of programs in which gifted students participate in curriculum
that includes college-level courses for the early part of the day and typical high
school courses for the afternoon (Robinson, 1997). These programs allow students to continue to interact with members of their age group while still benefiting from the critical-thinking skills introduced and developed in the college
courses that supplement and enhance their learning. Some of the coursework
can be applied towards a bachelor’s degree once these students begin their
undergraduate college experience.
Another genre of honors programs includes those that enable students to take
college-level courses within the physical high school setting. Two examples of
this type of program are the widely known Advanced Placement program and
the International Baccalaureate program (Robinson, 1997). Coursework in these
programs is more advanced than that which is provided in typical high school
subjects and provides the academic rigor and challenge these students need.
Colleges and universities should be eager to invest in programs that promote
the success of gifted students because of the talent they can bring to an institution. In addition, institutions that already participate in blended postsecondary
programs should continue to support these students with special programming
initiatives when they arrive on campus as college students. However, there is a
slight disconnect between the attention gifted students receive in high school
and what they experience upon entering higher education.
How Are Colleges and Universities Serving Gifted and Talented Students?
Many institutions have created honors programs to attempt to address the needs
of gifted and talented students. The majority of honors programs are academically focused, facilitated by one or more faculty members, and used as a recruitment tool for the university (Long, 2002). Some goals of a typical honors program are to offer smaller classes with more individualized attention, to enable
students to work more closely with faculty, to foster a stimulating learning environment, and to allow students to participate in self-selected research (Fischer,
1996).
Robinson (1997) described three types of honors programs. One variety offers
challenging introductory and general education courses during the first two
Radomski - 23
years and then relies on individual departments to offer challenging courses
with many of the same critical thinking and interdisciplinary ideas applied to
major-specific topics. Another model is an international honors semester that
brings together students from several institutions to take part in specialized
courses and perform fieldwork that culminates in an integrative research paper.
A third type of honors program is based on an honors contract, which allows
students to design and complete their own curriculum under the guidance of a
faculty member. All of these examples are focused on providing academic rigor
for honors students.
Honors programs are outstanding academic resources for students who are not
sufficiently challenged by mainstream course offerings; they compel students to
go beyond the course material and challenge their academic limits. Haas (1992)
praised the honors program system, saying that “those honors students who
have been bored by the ‘read, listen to the lecture on the readings, and repeat the
information on a test’ approach to teaching often respond very quickly to a
learning environment that provides an opportunity to explore and choose
among ideas” (p. 18). Mack (1996) described the goals of an honors program
through his work at the University of Maryland at College Park. He argues that
in order for an honors program to be successful, it must encourage students “[to]
reflect productively on different kinds of knowledge…[to] look outside the
ivory tower and examine the worldly consequences of what academic disciplines produce” (p. 37). He also stressed the importance of faculty members
adjusting their teaching methods to challenge gifted students while they interact with their peers.
In most cases, honors programs feature an interdisciplinary curriculum that
challenges the traditional boundaries of introductory level college courses. The
interdisciplinary aspects of honors programs are worth emphasizing because
they encourage students to look outside their preconceived notions of a subject
or topic area and help them to process information in a new, complex manner as
opposed to the traditional read-listen-reproduce dogma (Haas, 1992; Mack,
1996; Robinson, 1997).
What Is the Problem with This Honors Program Structure?
Honors programs have undoubtedly enhanced the classroom experiences of
gifted students. However, there are many factors that affect these students outside the academic environment. Noldon and Sedlacek (1998) found that
Traditional-aged college students tend to enter institutions of
higher education with a similar set of developmental issues,
such as establishing identity, seeking autonomy, and achieving competence regardless of academic talent … while academically talented students have similar academic and developmental needs and interests, an environment that is specifically designed for their needs is necessary. (p. 106)
24 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
While these specific students are not wholly different from their peers, an environment that meets their additional needs is necessary for their true success in
college.
Unfortunately, the structure of honors programs today minimally addresses the
nonacademic needs of gifted students. Haas (1992) referred to honors students
as “intellectually autonomous learners” (p. 15) and said that programs that
attempt to serve these students need to look at their specific developmental
needs and practice “educational responsive nurturing” (p. 15). Students do not
fully benefit strictly from an academic or curricular focus because they are left
without the proper support for their developmental needs as college students.
By not addressing developmental issues such as establishing identity and developing autonomy, an honors program is not truly serving the needs of its students.
Socially and developmentally, gifted students face unique adjustment challenges. Robinson (1997) lists several challenges and crises that confront these
students when starting college, including the following:
• A habit of being at the top of the class with very little effort
and therefore, poor study and time management skills
• “Culture shock” on encountering for the first time other
classmates of equal or even higher accomplishment and the
stress of coping with one’s first B grade
• Not yet having sorted out a clear picture of ultimate
strengths and preferences; having had successes in many
domains and consequently, maintaining an illusion of equal
potentials across the board
• Because of inexperience in ever having to ask for help, not
knowing how to frame questions effectively or whom to ask
for assistance or guidance
• Coming from a family or group outside the education mainstream without the tacit knowledge and skills needed to operate within the complex systems of undergraduate … education
• For some gifted students, especially those from minority
groups, dealing with issues of integrating their academic lives
with their social lives when their friends are not in college or
serious about their studies, as well as the negative effects of
racial stereotypes about academic promise. (p. 218)
Such a list suggests the potential voids within the current student support service offerings for these students.
Radomski - 25
One specific area in which universities are failing these gifted students is in
helping them develop healthy and reasonable expectations for success. Haas
(1992) found that honors students often have exaggerated grade anxiety, and
receiving B’s and C’s is equated with “failing” because they may have only
received A’s prior to college (p. 16). Professors often do not understand the
shock endured by and the consequent actions of an honors student after receiving a B. Haas (1992) further fears these students’ unrealistic expectations may
cause them to question their true abilities, thus stunting their development.
Without guidance to sufficiently understand the grading systems of higher education, these students are plagued with feelings of failure that can ultimately
prove detrimental to their overall college experience.
Gifted students may also be overlooked in the area of career counseling.
Robinson (1997) found that gifted students possess the skills necessary for
careers in more selective industries or at higher level positions. An in-depth
study conducted by Emmitt and Minor (1993) found several factors that contributed to problems in career development specifically for gifted students. The
primary factor they termed “multipotentiality,” highlighted that these students
possessed many abilities, talents, and interests not found in the student population at large, thereby giving them more potential career possibilities. However,
services to aid in exploring these possibilities, as well as information about these
opportunities, are rarely brought to the attention of these students. As concluded in their article in the Journal of College Student Development, Greer, Poe, and
Sugarman (1997) said that student affairs practitioners “believe in the development of the whole person—the vocational self as well as the intellectual self” (p.
304). With such a belief across the field, it is unacceptable to leave these students
without any support in an area as critical as career development.
How Does Giftedness Affect Students of Color?
Many researchers have specifically looked at the challenges gifted minority students face when integrating their academic lives with their social, ethnic and/or
cultural lives. One example cited by Noldon and Sedlacek (1998) is that academically talented women of color often feel that their academic success can be perceived as less attractive or even intimidating. Counseling or resources to address
such a conflict are seldom publicized to gifted students. Statistically, talented
women who are members of minority groups are more likely to fail in their academic endeavors than women who are not labeled academically talented. This
is just one example of a part of this population of brilliant minds being inadvertently harmed by the lack of support and understanding for their unique needs.
Part of the developmental process that occurs during college involves negotiating aspects of one’s identity and integrating them into a whole person ready to
enter the real world. Gifted and talented students who are members of a minority group not only deal with the integration of their identity as a gifted learner,
but also with issues of minority status. In the case of minority women,
Noldonand Sedlacek (1998) found that cultural and environmental factors are
extremely influential in the lives of women of color and the inability to success-
26 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
fully negotiate these factors may lead to their ultimate academic failure.
What Can Practitioners Do?
Additional services must be implemented to support gifted students if institutions are truly to foster the development of all students. Failing to address the
nonacademic needs of gifted students makes it difficult for them to reach their
full potential. Student affairs practitioners and institutional administrators can
implement the following suggestions to better serve this population.
It is critical for all students to be part of a supportive community in which they
are able to explore their developing identities. Establishing living-learning communities to facilitate interactions with peers may aid in this process of selfexploration. Indiana University of Pennsylvania houses 103 first-year honors
students in a residence hall that also contains faculty offices and guest rooms for
speakers and presenters. Such an arrangement allows students to engage in academic and social discussions with the faculty and speakers outside of the classroom. The University of Georgia also houses honors students together to
encourage classroom discussions to continue in an informal arena (Fischer,
1996). Both of these programs provide workshops and group meetings that discuss coping with the challenges of college life that occur both inside and outside
the classroom. This living-learning community model has proven effective in
both cases by providing students with a sense of community and support that
they may otherwise lack.
Student development theory can give professionals the knowledge to combat
the divide that exists between programs that are academically focused and those
that are focused on student development. As students enter college, they face
the challenges that come with any transition, which suggests the application of
Schlossberg’s Transition Theory. The “4 S’s” in Schlossberg’s theory of situation,
self, support, and strategies outline the appraisal process one uses when transitioning to college (Schlossberg, Waters & Goodman, 1995). Most pertinent in the
case of gifted and talented students is the support aspect. Students are aware of
their need for support during this difficult transition and institutions must be
ready to provide the resources students need to facilitate their successful adjustment. Support can take the form of providing resources, services, and programs
that aid in making a successful transition to college life.
Another student development theory that can be applied to gifted students is
Sanford’s theory of Challenge and Support, which holds that there are three
developmental conditions: readiness, challenge, and support (Sanford, 1962).
Gifted students have displayed behaviors that illustrate their readiness for college. With regard to the components of challenge and support, Sanford (1962)
believed that too much support prohibits a student from becoming autonomous
and can even foster apathy, while too much challenge discourages students by
confronting them with seemingly hopeless situations. Honors courses and the
difficulties of transitioning to college provide innate challenges for gifted and
talented students; however, without the proper support system and resources in
Radomski - 27
place, the challenges can be too great and compound problems for these students.
Both of these theories illustrate the critical need for student affairs professionals
to support the social, developmental, and emotional needs of gifted students.
Student affairs professionals can establish, maintain, and market programs that
help gifted students develop interpersonal skills, deal with academic expectations, learn about unique career opportunities, and negotiate conflicts between
academic success and identity issues of culture or race. As Schlossberg et al.
(1995) and Sanford (1962) both illustrate, without the support to accompany all
the challenges and transitional problems these students face, they will not
achieve their optimal level of success.
What Does All This Mean?
Robinson (1997) emphasized the high cost of failing these students, saying that
without proper support they
will fail to achieve at the high level of excellence and life satisfaction of which they are capable, too many will settle for
second best, and a substantial proportion will fall through the
cracks rather dramatically—at high cost not only to themselves but to the greater society as well…. Helping gifted students who are entering young adulthood to aspire to excellence, giving them the knowledge and skills they need, and
opening to them the doors that will enable them to bring their
talents to fruition can benefit us all. Even though such goals
are not easily reached, those of us who staff colleges and universities, those who pay for our services and those gifted students who study with us need to take seriously these tasks. (p.
236)
Such a statement cannot fall upon the deaf ears of student affairs professionals,
nor can it fail to initiate action. The current structure of these honors programs
only addresses the academic characteristics of honors students. As the preceding statistics and reports highlight, students who fall within the gifted and talented category are currently in need of expanded and specialized services that
are not being offered. Without support in their unique areas of need, these students are unable to develop to their full potential. Career choices are left unexplored, grade anxiety can jeopardize their performance, and students of color
are forced to negotiate their potentially conflicting identities on their own. Many
institutions are offering honors programs in various academic forms, but few
are truly meeting these needs at the student affairs support level. Through
assessment and collaboration of faculty and student affairs professionals, colleges and universities can move beyond this restricted scope and work to better
serve, support, and develop gifted and talented graduates.
28 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
References
Emmitt, J. D., & Minor, C. W. (1993). Career decision-making factors in gifted
young adults. The Career Development Quarterly, 41, 350-366.
Fischer, D. (1996). The new honors program. U.S. News & World Report, 121(1),
108-110.
Gibson, S., & Efinger, J. (2001). Revisiting the schoolwide enrichment model—
An approach to gifted programming. Teaching Exceptional Children
33(4), 48-53.
Greer, R. M., Poe, R. E., & Sugarman, R. (1997). A career education workshop for
honors students: A student affairs/academic affairs collaboration.
Journal of College Student Development, 38(3), 303-305.
Haas, P. F. (1992). Honors programs: Applying the reflective judgment model.
Liberal Education, 78(1), 14-19.
Long, B. T. (2002). Attracting the best: The use of honors programs to compete for
students. Chicago: Spencer Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED465355)
Mack, M., Jr. (1996). These things called honors programs. Liberal Education,
82(2), 34-39.
Noldon, D., & Sedlacek, E. (1998). Gender differences in attitudes, skills, and
behaviors among academically talented university freshmen. Roeper
Review, 21(2), 106-109.
Robinson, N. M. (1997). The role of universities and colleges in educating gifted
undergraduates. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 217-236.
Ross, P. O. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America’s talent.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
U.S. Department of Education.
Sanford, N. (1962). The American college. New York: J. Wiley Publications.
Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in
transition (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Shapses - 29
(DIS)COURSE: A Method of Cross-Cultural
Communication
Samantha Shapses
(DIS)COURSE, a small bi-monthly discussion group for undergraduates, was created in an effort to minimize the racial separatism
that pervades college campuses. (DIS)COURSE is designed to foster “real conversations” about race on a societal and personal level
for students of all racial backgrounds. With a small group dynamic,
students are able to express themselves in a safe environment, thereby deconstructing their differences and similarities and also allowing for a greater understanding of themselves, their community, and
their peers. This paper reviews the students’ perceptions of the racial
climate on college campuses and the effect that (DIS)COURSE has
on student participants in terms of addressing their thoughts and
feelings about this sensitive subject.
Large, private, urban institutions pride themselves on the diverse appearance of
their student body, and still students remain either quiet to or unaware of the
racial separatism that permeates their campus on a daily basis. College administrators are faced with the challenge of designing programs that will provide
safe spaces to deconstruct racial boundaries which are reinforced by subtly perpetuated stereotypes. It is imperative that members of the university community begin to design a curriculum that engages students of all races.
One such program, (DIS)COURSE, created at a large, private, urban institution,
is a small bi-monthly discussion group for undergraduates designed to foster
“real conversations” between students of all racial backgrounds. Through
(DIS)COURSE, students address issues of race on a societal and personal level,
while creating a group dynamic that enables trust. In this manner, students are
able to deconstruct their differences and similarities, allowing for a greater
understanding of diversity on their college campus.
(DIS)COURSE was created as a direct response to two major issues at this particular institution. The first impetus was the recognition that although there
were various cultural programs on campus, there was a lack of programs devoted to encouraging cross-cultural communication between students of color and
Samantha Shapses graduated from Washington University in St. Louis in 2001 with a Bachelor of
Arts in Comparative Arts and Women's Studies. She recently completed her Master of Arts in
Higher Education Administration at New York University in 2005. Samantha is currently the
Student Life Administrator at the Gallatin School of Individualized Study at New York University.
30 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
White students. The second, and perhaps more prominent motive, was that
although this institution is considered diverse, students of different racial
groups appeared to have little interaction with each other, especially in regard
to conversations about diversity. One (DIS)COURSE member gives an account
of her experience upon arriving at college:
To be perfectly honest, I had been exposed to very little, if any,
racial or ethnic diversity before arriving at [this institution] in
the fall of 2002… I came to [this institution] in an attempt to
shed my small town background and dive head first in the
rich cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity that characterizes
New York City… I feel, however, that I have never really been
given the opportunity to engage in an actual discussion of
race-related issues with a group of racially diverse students.
(Participant, personal communication, April 21, 2005)
The inability to have candid race-related conversations among a diverse group
of students became a common theme throughout conversations in
(DIS)COURSE.
Many students voiced their frustration concerning the racial separatism they
observed on campus. One student states, “What I perceive as one of the greatest
tragedies of our campus is that as a university, we are one of the most diverse in
the nation, yet racial separatism seems to be pervasive” (Participant, personal
communication, April 21, 2005). Another student further enforces this sentiment
by claiming, “I guess one of my major qualms is that [this institution] touts to be
a diverse campus. Granted, it is, there are tons of different ethnicities running
around… in their own packs” (Participant, personal communication, April 21,
2005). Although an emphasis is placed on diversity, these students find a distinct
racial and socio-economic separation amongst groups. Diversity is considered
an important value of this institution and has often been one of the factors that
attracted students to its campus. Upon arrival, however, some students who
wish to create a multicultural group of friends may feel that they have little
opportunity to do so. For instance, one student explains, “Though I had hoped
to develop a circle of friends from a wide range of social and racial backgrounds,
it somehow seemed that Asians hung out with other Asians, rich kids from Long
Island hung out with other rich kids from Long Island, and commuter students
hung out with other commuter students” (Participant, personal communication,
April 21, 2005). Many institutions may project a diverse image, however the
reality found on campus can be quite contrary.
Despite the claims of students who desire to socialize in groups that vary ethnically, socio-economically, and racially, some argue that racial separatism is not
an evil on campus. Oftentimes racial grouping can be used as a tool for development and growth. In her book, “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in
the Cafeteria?” and Other Conversations About Race, author Beverly Tatum (1997)
argues that the communities built by cultural groups on college campuses are
not only means of self-segregation, but also a method of strengthening cultural
Shapses - 31
identity and connection. In other words, college students segregate because they
feel comfortable in these microcosms. Therefore, racial separatism is not necessarily negative. In fact, in many instances it can be considered beneficial. As
Tatum (1997) illuminates, “Having a place to be rejuvenated and to feel
anchored in one’s cultural community increases the possibility that one will
have the energy to achieve academically as well as participate in the cross-group
dialogue and interaction many colleges want to encourage” (p. 80). One
(DIS)COURSE participant supports this statement by claiming, “I have found
that minority organizations such as HEOP (Higher Education Opportunity
Program), the multicultural office, and student clubs definitely provide a great
‘home base’ for minority students that may feel like outsiders to feel like they
belong at school” (Participant, personal communication, April 21, 2005). In this
manner, students of color find support and encouragement in spaces on campus
that cater to their needs.
One may ask, when do these enclaves transition from helpful to hurtful? The
problem occurs when a campus has become so racially segregated that the communities of culture become not only comfort zones, but barriers of communication as well. It is the challenge of student affairs professionals to respect the
value of these racial support groups while still promoting an open, neutral, and
safe space where conversations about racism and privilege can be held between
students of all racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Using the College Campus as a Vehicle for Awareness
Encouraging dialogue to educate college students is certainly one method of creating understanding. Student affairs professionals must learn how to interweave this awareness into programming and curriculum that pertains to diversity. The beauty of a program such as (DIS)COURSE is that although the administrator or professional is the one facilitating the conversation, the students are
the ones that do the educating. (DIS)COURSE participants learn about various
racial perspectives and experiences through peer exchange of ideas and knowledge. In this manner, students recognize the omnipresence of privilege and
racism in society through the testimonies of their peers.
Research supports that college is a good time to introduce diversity issues to students. According to Gifford, Rhoads, and Shelton (2001), “College is a significant
period of cultural and racial discovery and a good time to introduce education
in diversity” (p. 1). Literature also suggests that interpersonal environments
such as college campuses have the greatest effect in changes of values, attitudes,
beliefs, and actions (Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Terenzini & Nora, 2001). It is for
these reasons that the college campus is an opportune place to illuminate the
issues that a program like (DIS)COURSE confronts, ranging from religion to cultural and ethnic identity. College is the first time for many students that they are
taken out of their comfort zone and exposed to varying opinions and ideas. This
marks an important period of psychological growth. By enlightening college
students on systemic oppression within our society through frank conversations
about race and ethnicity, we hope that they will act consciously throughout their
32 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
college experience and reap the benefits of diversity programs that encourage a
multicultural campus and world.
Both student affairs professionals and faculty play an integral role in creating a
diverse atmosphere where students of all ethnicities can be exposed to the cultural differences and similarities of their peers. While faculty can tackle topics
pertaining to diversity in the classroom, student affairs professionals have consistently served as the advocates for human rights and multicultural initiatives
on campus (Gifford et al., 2001). Faculty and student affairs professionals can
work together to ensure that classroom discussions on race are reinforced by
extra-curricular programs that encourage a dialogue about the students’ reactions and feelings to this controversial topic. Student affairs professionals must
continue to work to develop and implement diversity programming within
institutions of higher education.
Assessing Student Readiness
It is important to assess whether or not the students are ready to process the
information they are about to receive. Although institutions of higher education
may be making diversity education one of its primary goals, the students may
not be in line with this mission. According to Whitt et al. (2001), many students
are reluctant to talk about diversity. Some students feel that they aren’t able to
speak candidly and must confine their statements to politically correct terms. In
an insecure environment, namely one that is not welcoming or conducive to
reciprocal sharing of ideas and thoughts, students are not open to discussing
diversity.
Whitt et al. (2001) conducted a study to determine the “Influences on Students’
Openness to Diversity and Challenge in the Second and Third Year of College.”
This study concentrated on students’ openness to diversity during their first
year experience. Whitt et al. (2001) found that the single most influential factor
determining student openness to diversity was their pre-college encounters;
namely, whether or not these students had been exposed to issues of diversity
before they arrived at college. While this may be something that is out of the
realm of student affairs professionals, other knowledge gathered in the study is
applicable towards creating effective diversity programs. One factor that was
found influential in determining students’ openness to diversity was a non-discriminatory environment. Students who perceived that their institutions created
multicultural environments were more likely to interact with and create relationships with students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds (Whitt et al.,
2001). Whitt et al. (2001) also discovered that personal interaction and student
acquaintances helped to foster openness to diversity. Lastly, participation in
racial or cultural awareness workshops proved to enhance students’ receptivity
to diversity.
Researcher Baxter Magolda (1997) suggests that the best way to make students
confront their racial identity is to engage them in conversations about their own
race. As Baxter Magolda (1997) states:
Shapses - 33
[it is] useful to convey that students would be validated as
knowers and that their right to have a perspective would be
valued. Granting them freedom in the discussion invites them
to bring in their own experience. Both of these dynamics [are]
useful because they offered the possibility that students
would express themselves and explore their perspectives. (p.
17)
As students discuss their own experiences, the facilitator of the conversation
should ask how their racial identity has shaped their lives. This dialogue allows
students to contemplate race and diversity on both a personal and a societal
level.
(DIS)COURSE
Processing race and diversity in a safe space is the main tenet and goal of
(DIS)COURSE. This program incorporates many of the factors mentioned in the
studies cited previously in order to create a place for cross-cultural communication. (DIS)COURSE is advertised to students as a program that encourages open
communication, while simultaneously offering an atmosphere that is accepting
of varying opinions and ideas. Therefore, the program provides a non-discriminatory environment where students are able to converse without the constraints
of politically correct language. The small group setting allows for a more intimate experience, thereby encouraging friendship and increasing personal interaction with students of various backgrounds. The program is named
(DIS)COURSE because it aims to “un-do” (DIS) the COURSE, or pattern of
learning, that we are subjected to as members of this society through dialogue
and discussion–-namely, discourse. As described in the brochure:
(DIS)COURSE is a small discussion group allowing undergraduate students at [this institution] to participate in real
conversations that address issues of race on a societal and personal level. (DIS)COURSE hopes to create a safe space where
students can ask questions of themselves and others, deconstructing our differences and similarities in an effort to minimize the racial separatism that permeates campus.
(DIS)COURSE is composed of approximately 8-12 female and male undergraduate students of all races, cultures, and backgrounds that meet for two hours
every other week throughout a single semester. This small number of students
provides a variety of perspectives, while still maintaining an intimate environment. (DIS)COURSE uses the small group format to build trust and honesty in
order to bridge communication. It is imperative that all students are committed
to attending the sessions throughout the semester so that the group dynamic
remains constant. For this reason, all (DIS)COURSE participants must fill out an
application that assesses their commitment to the group and topic of conversation.
34 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
(DIS)COURSE attracts students who are ready, willing, and curious. They are
students who desire to discuss diversity without conventional linguistic restrictions. Through bi-monthly, small group sessions, the students share their perceptions and personal experiences of race. Though the subject varies each week,
(DIS)COURSE never discusses race specifically unless it is addressed within the
construct of another conversation. The group spends most of its time conversing
about the media, music, family values, religion, and campus climate, among
other subjects. These topics are then utilized as a vehicle to illustrate that race is
a part of essentially everything we encounter. Through the dialogue, the students discover their own opinions, as well as the views of students who are ethnically and racially different from them. One (DIS)COURSE participant illustrates this by stating:
Discussing topics concerning all varieties of religions made
me more aware of the different factors and influences that an
individual has in shaping his or her own beliefs and convictions. And simply learning about each group member’s
beliefs and life history was interesting in itself. (Participant,
personal communication, April 21, 2005)
Through (DIS)COURSE, students are able to share their personal experiences,
simultaneously acting as both educators and learners.
Is (DIS)COURSE Effective?
(DIS)COURSE engages students in conversations that may otherwise not occur.
The conversations generally pertain to the interplay of race and ethnicity in their
personal lives, as well as on their college campus and greater society. However,
the extent to which students are affected varies greatly depending on their personal psychosocial and cognitive development, their attendance and investment
in the group dialogue, and their previous experiences regarding racism and
privilege. While some students found (DIS)COURSE to be a place where they
were able to “befriend people who I would never have imagined to acquaint” or
as “a forum to discuss racially charged issues in a safe environment where honesty was encouraged and it was not necessary to be afraid of offending someone,” (Participants, personal communication, April 21, 2005) others felt that conversation was still restricted by politically correct language and ethos. In an
evaluation, one student shared that “many of the conversations seemed a little
boring to me because I have discussed them already. The program should be
geared to people who really know nothing about other people besides themselves” (Participant, personal communication, April 21, 2005). This student
gives an important perspective. In an ideal situation, there would be several
tracks of (DIS)COURSE, each one pertaining to the amount of exposure the students in the group have had to conversations of this nature. In this manner, student affairs professionals could work on both creating conversations, as well as
continuing them. One common theme among these conversations is that students are tired of simply talking about these issues. After a certain point, students are interested in taking action. In a “level 2” (DIS)COURSE program, stu-
Shapses - 35
dents could engage in community activism together and then gather afterwards
to converse and reflect upon their experience.
Regardless, (DIS)COURSE does provide a forum to conduct meaningful conversations. Although some students commented that it took a little while for the
group to become acquainted and warm up to discussing challenging topics, the
participants agreed that (DIS)COURSE provided a space where students were
honest and willing to share their experiences. Students were able to “hear so
many things that I don’t think I would have thought about otherwise”
(Participant, personal communication, April 21, 2005). One participant commented that after (DIS)COURSE he/she, “came out with a feeling of fulfillment
and contentment. Because our group was a safe environment, I never felt like it
was hard to push a topic for discussion” (Participant, personal communication,
April 21, 2005). Overall, the students were pleased with both the environment
that (DIS)COURSE provided, as well as the breadth of insight they received into
their peers’ personal experience.
Conclusion
There will always be areas of diversity programming that can be improved;
however, (DIS)COURSE has accomplished its main goals. The program has provided a space at a large, private, urban institution, where racial separatism is
rampant, for students to engage in challenging conversations and voice their
personal experiences. The students who participated in (DIS)COURSE were able
to ask questions of their peers, and learn more about themselves, as well as the
experience of students from other cultures, races, ethnicities and backgrounds.
Student affairs practitioners and faculty should take note of the impact that programs such as (DIS)COURSE can provide. (DIS)COURSE is an excellent way of
creating a space where students can come together to discuss matters that are
personal, societal, and intellectual, thus connecting all of the major facets of a
college student’s life. (DIS)COURSE empowers administrators to educate students that have a desire to learn and make change. Although (DIS)COURSE provides a confidential environment, the lessons that the participants learn are then
translated to their classmates, friends, and living-learning communities. Best
put by the students themselves:
(DIS)COURSE exposed me to issues and experiences I had
never known about. Oftentimes, efforts at racial harmony,
especially in school systems, focus on sameness. The idea
seems to be that we are all alike and we can all get along. I’ve
come to find this pretty bogus. Everyone is different. Our
experiences are unique and they are shaped by our race, ethnicity, religion, gender, class, etc. The point is not that we are
the same, but that we are different, but that is no reason for us
not to get along. (Participant, personal communication, April
21, 2005)
This statement enforces the group consensus that in matters of diversity, not
36 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
everything is black and white. The more students explore the gray area of a
charged topic such as race, the closer they come to understanding each other as
peers, including the racial separatism that had kept them apart.
References
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1997). Facilitating meaningful dialogues about race.
About Campus, 2(5), 14-18.
Gifford, D. G., Rhoads, G. S., & Shelton, J. S. (2001). Impacting racial attitudes:
How do we determine success? College Student Affairs Journal, 20(2),
1-5.
Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?”
and other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.
Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A. (2001).
Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the
second and third years of college. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(2),
172-202.
Timberlake - 37
Support Programs for First-Generation College
Students: A Review and a Call to Action
Allie Timberlake
The recent increase in access to higher education has afforded many
more first-generation college (FGC) students the opportunity to
attend college. In many cases, these students are not properly served
by the colleges they attend, as the support programs that do exist on
college campuses typically require FGC students to be either economically or academically disadvantaged. In order to properly serve
all FGC students, it is necessary to examine their experiences from
a holistic view. By analyzing all components of their college experience, universities can begin to better serve FGC students through a
combination of internal support mechanisms and programming initiatives. A review of the literature on FGC students and programs
that serve them will be presented and implications for practice will
be explored.
By providing additional funding sources and targeted support programs, government incentives and summer bridge programs have recently allowed colleges and universities to open their doors to many more first-generation college
(FGC) students. These FGC students come to the college campus with expectations, needs, and goals that are different than their second-generation counterparts. Although colleges and universities welcome these students to their campuses and employ national, state, and institutional support programs that provide them with assistance, many institutions are not fully prepared to support
these students academically and socially. Student affairs practitioners must continue to strive to meet the individual needs of these first-generation students.
In order to understand the needs of this population, it is important to first
acknowledge who these first-generation students are. For the purposes of this
article, FGC students will be defined as those who are the first member of their
immediate family to attend college. Additionally, although many FGC students
hold both minority and low-income status, it is necessary to realize that not all
FGC students enter college from these nontraditional, disadvantaged backgrounds. Some students do enter with cultural capital, having come from a
household with a high socio-economic status or a family whose race or ethnici-
Allie Timberlake graduated from Loyola University New Orleans in 1998 with a Bachelor of
Science in Mathematics. She is pursuing a Master of Arts degree in Higher Education
Administration at New York University and will graduate in May 2006. Allie currently serves as
the Interim Assistant Director of Student Affairs at The Juilliard School.
38 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
ty is part of the majority. Multiple support programs currently exist on college
campuses for FGC students. For example, the federal TRIO program, New York
State’s Higher Educational Opportunity Program and Sam Houston State
University’s Project CONNECT all provide assistance to FGC students; however, most of them do not meet the needs of these non-minority FGC students.
Student affairs practitioners must also realize that outside influences attributed
to their backgrounds may affect non-minority FGC students’ educational experiences. When discussing non-minority FGC students, Orbe (2004) stated “the
privilege associated with being male, European American, middle/upper class,
and within the traditional age for college students enables FGC student status
to remain on the margin of their self concepts” (p. 144). These atypical FGC students may not realize that they are included in this FGC minority group and
may be at a disadvantage during college because of their privilege in other
aspects of their lives. These students still need assistance and should not be
overlooked as part of the FGC student population. Furthermore, student affairs
practitioners must make strides to ensure their inclusion in this group.
In order to understand all types of FGC students, student affairs practitioners
must do their best to examine these students’ backgrounds from a holistic point
of view. What knowledge about college life do they bring with them to campus?
What are their academic and non-academic experiences during college and how
do they differ from those of their second-generation counterparts? How do
these experiences affect their educational outcomes? The answers to these questions will allow us to better understand the college experience of a FGC student
and allow us to provide better resources for them on the college campus.
Existing Research on First-Generation College Students
Life Before College
York-Anderson and Bowman (1991) studied the differences in knowledge about
college between first and second-generation students. Their research suggests
that “second-generation college students perceived more support from their
families for attending college than did first-generation students” (p.120). With
this support, parents of second-generation students are also able to provide
information about college life to their children. Conversely, because first-generation students have not been able to receive this insight, they “may find college
more stressful than do second-generation college students” (p. 120) and they
may not be able to efficiently plan their educational goals because “they may
have less knowledge of or fewer experiences with college-related activities” (p.
120). Consequently, their perception of the college campus and activities associated with the college experience may differ from the perception of second-generation college students.
Life During College
It has been shown that FGC students arrive to college campuses with different
Timberlake - 39
histories and expectations than those of second-generation status. Once on campus, FGC students have been found to value aspects of college life differently
and, in turn, require different methods to aid in their college adjustment. For
example, Hertel (2002) found that intellectualism was the main factor in keeping FGC students engaged in and connected with the university during the first
year of college. However, Brooks-Terry (1988) found that second-generation college students perceive college as more of a social process and MacDermott et al.
(1987) found that second-generation college students place great value on
extracurricular activities in college (as cited in Hertel, 2002). To clarify, FGC students may utilize and learn more from academic pursuits and the activities associated with them, while second-generation students may benefit more from the
social aspects of college.
Continuing with this idea, Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak and Terenzini (2004) also
found that first-generation students academically benefited more from immersion in academic and classroom activities than second-generation students did.
After evaluating both FGC students and second-generation college students
during their second and third year of college, the researchers found that more
strides had been made by FGC students in areas such as critical thinking, writing skills, and openness to diversity. Pascarella et al. believe that this was found
to be true “because these [academic] experiences act in a compensatory manner
and thus contribute comparatively greater incremental increases in first-generation college students’ stock of cultural capital” (p. 280). Thus, through greater
participation in academic activities, FGC students begin to level the academic
playing field between themselves and second-generation students.
How Life Before and During College Affects Life After College
Hahs-Vaughn (2004) found that the college experiences of FGC students, both in
and out of the classroom have an influence on their educational outcomes
greater than their preconceived notions. In this case, preconceived notions about
college held more influence on the educational outcomes of second-generation
college students. Because FGC students may not enter college with as many
expectations for educational outcomes, they must rely on their actual college
experiences to push them toward success after college. “Likewise, for [second]generation students, the influence of a family that is familiar with postsecondary
study has a more substantial impact on their college outcomes than what happens within the college environment” (Hahs-Vaughn, 2004, p. 494). It is important to note these differences between the two groups of students because
although experiences in and out of the classroom during college are important
to both groups, FGC students’ success in college is significantly more dependent on these types of class experiences.
To further substantiate this argument, Pascarella et al. (2004) found that, though
they were less likely to be involved in extracurricular activities than second-generation students, FGC students greatly benefited from their college involvement. For FGC students, academic and cognitive development are influenced by
nonacademic experiences to an extent similar to the influence of academic and
40 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
course-related experiences. The research also revealed that through their
extracurricular involvement, FGC students achieved greater academic success
and higher order cognitive thinking as compared to second-generation students.
Pascarella et al. found that “the social capital gained through extracurricular and
peer involvement during college may be a particularly useful way for first-generation students to acquire the additional cultural capital that helps them succeed and benefit cognitively” (p. 278). Pascarella et al. were quick to point out
that not all extracurricular activities will create this effect for first-generation
students. Activities that take students off-campus, such as volunteer work,
employment, and intercollegiate athletics, negatively influenced the adjustment
of FGC students.
Many FGC students come to the college campus with little familial support and
understanding of the college experience. Once on campus, FGC students tend to
focus on, and benefit more from, their involvement in academic pursuits.
However, these students also benefit from the social aspects of college life. When
taking all of this into consideration, student affairs practitioners must remember
that the college experience has a greater effect on FGC students’ educational outcomes and success after college than on second-generation students. Colleges
and universities must begin to closely examine their campuses to ensure these
students have a meaningful college experience that enables them to be successful beyond their collegiate years. To begin, let us look at established academic
and financial support programs on university campuses.
Existing Support for First-Generation College Students
A number of formal programs exist at the national, state, and institutional levels to support FGC students at colleges and universities. However, to utilize the
services of these programs, FGC students must typically fulfill several demographic requirements. By including these specifications for participation, these
support programs omit a crucial part of the first-generation population, particularly those who do not have a low socioeconomic status or are not academically low-achieving students. Although many different programs exist, for the purposes of this paper, one program at each the national, state, and institutional
level, will be reviewed.
National Level - TRIO Program
The United States Department of Education created the TRIO program to
increase access to higher education for disadvantaged students. This plan
includes “six outreach and support programs targeted to serve and assist lowincome, FGC students, and students with disabilities to progress through the
academic pipeline from middle school to post baccalaureate programs” (United
States Department of Education, Federal TRIO Program, n.d.). Specifically, the
two programs in place for higher education programs are the Student Support
Services Program and the TRIO Dissemination Partnership Program. While the
Student Support Services Program focuses on the individual student, the
Dissemination Partnership Program provides support to “enable TRIO projects
Timberlake - 41
to work with other institutions and agencies, that are serving low-income, firstgeneration college students but that do not have TRIO grants” (United States
Department of Education, TRIO dissemination partnership, n.d.). Instead of
focusing on the individual student, the Dissemination Partnership Program provides support to “enable TRIO projects to work with other institutions and
agencies, that are serving low-income, first-generation college students but that
do not have TRIO grants” (United States Department of Education, TRIO dissemination partnership, n.d.). While both of these programs provide opportunities for a subpopulation of FGC students, those who are not low-income or lowachieving are not served by these programs.
State Level - HEOP Program
New York State created the Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP) to
meet the needs of disadvantaged students studying in New York. The HEOP
program targets students who typically fall in the lower half of their class’s academic rankings and score well below average on college entrance exams.
Initiatives used to assist these students in their transition to college include
“testing, pre-freshman summer programs, counseling, tutoring, coursework and
financial assistance” (New York State Education Department, 2004). In order to
participate in this program, a student must be a New York State resident, be educationally and economically disadvantaged, and be a high school graduate.
Again, although this program provides great services for those who qualify,
FGC students who are not academic low-achievers or economically disadvantaged are not able to participate in this program and, in turn, may not receive
adequate support in their transition to college.
Institutional Level - Project CONNECT
Project CONNECT (Creating Opportunities for Navigating and Easing through
College Transitions) is a program executed by Sam Houston State University, a
doctoral intensive university located in Huntsville, Texas. This program allows
low income, first-generation students to “realize the possibilities and opportunities of higher education” (Edmonson, Fisher & Christensen, 2003, p. 8). The
objectives of the program focus on persistence, academic performance, and
graduation. Research has shown that Project CONNECT “facilitate[s] a more
supportive climate of institutions for students and assist[s] students who would
like to pursue a career in education” (Edmonson, et al., 2003, p. 8). Those invited to participate in the program are targeted at the beginning of their enrollment
at Sam Houston State and are encouraged to partake in different services established throughout campus, including tutoring and mentoring services and discounted tickets to cultural events. Similar to the national- and state-level programs, this institutional-level program does not support non-minority FGC students who are neither low-income nor low-achieving.
Implications for Practice
Currently, there are several types of support programs in place for which FGC
42 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
students may qualify. Most of these programs are constructed to help only a subset of FGC students who are also disadvantaged in other aspects of their lives.
Such programs mandate that a recipient of support must also be from a low
socioeconomic status or be a low academic achiever. As a result, services such as
TRIO, HEOP and Project CONNECT do not assist the FGC students from an
otherwise non-disadvantaged background (i.e., those from the ethnic majority
or high socioeconomic status) who may need assistance and support learning
more about what college will be like and what experiences they should expect
to have during their time in college. Therefore, in order to reach all FGC students, student affairs professionals must learn from the research findings previously discussed. To address the needs of all FGC students beyond those with
minority status, students must first be supported in their transition to college in
order to effectively engage them in the life of the college.
On Campus Support for First-Generation College Students
The transition into college can be difficult for any student, but first-generation
students have less knowledge about the college experience than their secondgeneration peers (York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991) and therefore require even
more support and guidance throughout their adjustment period. Schlossberg,
Waters, and Goodman (1995) acknowledged this need for support in their transition theory which claimed that social support, consisting of intimate relationships, family units, networks of friends, and institutions and communities, was
among the four major factors that affect a person’s transition. Each of these factors helps to create a network of social support for those in transition. The
greater the stability of the support, the easier the transition is for the individual.
The research previously discussed has shown differences between first and second-generation students in social support relationships of family units and networks of friends (York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991). Hertel (2002) notes that second-generation college students have more on-campus social support and offcampus familial support during their transition into college than first-generation students. It is important to remember that these supportive relationships
differ greatly among first and second-generation college students and, in turn,
affect the transition for these groups differently. When addressing FGC students,
it may be necessary for student affairs practitioners to take on a greater supportive role.
Although these social support networks are important for FGC students, they
also need support from faculty, advisors, and peers to help them navigate college co-curricular activities. The one-on-one support that they can receive during college will substantiate their college experiences and lead to greater success
for them after college. Whether in residence life, student activities, or academic
advising, it is important for student affairs professionals to remember the positive effect they can have on students. A simple, casual conversation can provide
the necessary support a first-generation student needs on any given day.
Programming
Timberlake - 43
Although previous researchers have demonstrated that college adjustment differs between first and second-generation college students (Pascarella et al.,
2004), Hertel’s (2002) research details specific reasons for this differentiation. He
found that FGC students focused on intellectual life during their first year in college, while second-generation college students focused on socialization to aid in
their transition. Therefore, student affairs practitioners should consider both
first and second-generation college students’ needs and organize different programs, events, and support systems to most effectively foster their transition to
college.
Though FGC students value intellectualism in their college experience, it has
also been shown that their engagement in academic and social activities outside
of the classroom contributes to their college adjustment (Hahs-Vaughn, 2004). In
order to create beneficial and successful programs for first-generation students,
student affairs practitioners must provide students with a broad array of experiences so that all FGC students may have the opportunity to transition successfully to college. Pascarella et al. (2004) called on the collaboration of academic
and student affairs offices to address this issue. The researchers believed “the
implication [of their research] is for greater programmatic and structural integration and for broader thinking and greater collaboration across structural
boundaries when ‘learning experiences’ and policies are being developed”
(Pascarella et al., p. 279). By incorporating both academic and social ideas into
student programming, student affairs professionals will be able to address both
the wants (intellectualism) and the needs (social activities) of FGC students.
Based on suggestions from Pascarella et al. (2004) , it would be beneficial for
FGC students to attend social activities focused on academic ideas or events. In
addition to becoming involved in academic honor or professional organizations,
FGC students could participate in unique and creative extracurricular activities.
For example, bringing academic speakers to campus, hosting department
“social hours” and creating major-specific intramural sports teams will encourage the intermingling of first-generation students with others who have similar
academic interests. Such events may encourage first-generation students to
speak candidly about academic plans and educational outcomes in a relaxed
social setting and will also establish a greater connection between students with
similar academic interests. Programs such as these can be used to engage FGC
students by focusing on intellectualism while also creating a social outlet for
them to grow.
In addition, because the educational outcomes of first-generation students are so
strongly dependent on their academic and non-academic college experiences, it
is important to take a holistic approach to student affairs when working with
these students. It is necessary for student affairs practitioners to use their knowledge of all of the variables that these first-generation college students value in
order to most effectively create specific outlets for their involvement and integration into college life.
44 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Conclusion
In summary, it is important for student affairs practitioners to address the needs
of all types of FGC students and to recognize that all FGC students do not necessarily come from traditionally disadvantaged backgrounds. Support programs have been put into place on college and university campuses that afford
many FGC students the opportunity to excel academically. However, many of
these programs require a student to be either low-achieving or come from a low
income household, leaving out a portion of the FGC population. It is necessary
for informal support systems, such as those suggested earlier, to be in place on
college campuses in order to fully address the needs of this student sub-population. Additionally, within these support programs, efforts must be made to provide programming that combines academic and social activities, as research has
shown activities that include both are the most effective for FGC students. By
providing unique and creative programs, student affairs practitioners can successfully assist FGC students in their transition to college.
References
Edmonson, S., Fisher, A., & Christensen, J. (2003, April). Project CONNECT: A
university’s effort to close the gaps. Paper presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.
Hahs-Vaughn, D. (2004). The impact of parents’ education level on college
students: An analysis using the Beginning Postsecondary Students
Longitudinal Study 1990-92/94. Journal of College Student Development,
45(5), 483-500.
Hertel, J. B. (2002). College student generational status: Similarities,
differences, and factors in college adjustment. The Psychological Record,
52, 3-18.
New York State Education Department. (2004). HEOP works: Opportunities at
independent colleges and universities in New York State through the higher
education opportunity program [Brochure]. Albany, NY: Author.
Orbe, M. P. (2004). Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames: An
analysis of first-generation college students. Communication Education,
5(2), 131-149.
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First
generation college students: Additional evidence on college
experiences and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284.
Timberlake - 45
Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in
transition (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
United States Department of Education. (n.d.). Federal TRIO programs.
Retrieved November 3, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ope/trio/index.html
United States Department of Education. (n.d.). Student support services
program. Retrieved November 3, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/
programs/triostudsupp/index.html
United States Department of Education. (n.d.). TRIO dissemination
partnership program. Retrieved November 3, 2005, from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/triodissem/index.html
York-Anderson, D., & Bowman, S. (1991). Assessing the college knowledge of
first-generation and second-generation college students. Journal of
College Student Development, 32(2), 116-122.
Higher Education Administration Program - 47
Higher Education
Administration Program
at New York University
The faculty in Higher Education is dedicated to providing high quality
advanced graduate study for students working in or seeking to understand
issues related to urban and international higher education. The Higher
Education Administration Program offers a doctoral degree concentrating on
university administration, urban college and community college leadership,
global higher education, and higher education policy as well as a master’s
degree in higher education/student personnel administration. Issues and problems regarding urban higher education hold a particular focus for the program.
Program Description
The Program in Higher Education Administration prepares individuals for leadership and service in a variety of post secondary settings. The Master of Arts
Program focuses on entry- and mid-level positions in enrollment management,
financial aid, housing and residence life, student life, career services, and similar opportunities in student affairs. In the Doctoral Program, individuals develop competencies in such areas as urban college leadership, policy analysis, student affairs, institutional research, fiscal management, and international higher
education. Students benefit from strong links with two- and four-year institutions in the metropolitan New York area as well as the frequent and close interaction among students, faculty, and NYU administrators.
For more information visit http://education.nyu.edu/alt/highered/
Division of Student Affairs - 49
New York University
Division of Student Affairs
The mission of the Division of Student Affairs is twofold: 1) to complement and
support the University’s academic mission as an international center for scholarship, teaching, and research, and 2) to enhance the quality of life for students
both in and outside the classroom. We are guided in our endeavors by a set of
core principles. These are to provide students with a superior educational experience and to create an environment that fosters community, welcomes diversity in all its forms, values integrity, promotes overall well-being, and exemplifies
high quality service.
We view the purpose of a college education and our role in it broadly to include
not only the cognitive and intellectual growth of our students but also their personal, social, and moral development as well. This also means encouraging and
enabling students to realize their personal potential, providing them with a platform on which to build professional lives, and preparing them for responsible
citizenship. We seek to engage students in this process collaboratively as active
participants.
Within this framework, we provide a wide array of co-curricular programs and
services that offer students opportunities to be involved in college life, give general and specialized support and guidance, and collaborate with academic and
other administrative units in mutual support of these goals.
For more information visit http://www.nyu.edu/student.affairs/
50 - Journal of Student Affairs at New York University
Guidelines for Authors
The Journal of Student Affairs at New York University publishes articles dealing
with student development, professional development, administrative concerns,
and groundbreaking initiatives to improve student services. Manuscripts
should focus on original research; replication of research; reviews of
research/literature; essays on theoretical, organizational, or professional issues;
reviews of current literature relevant to the field; or practical reports of experiences from the field. All original research articles that use human subjects must
be approved by the NYU Institutional Review Board (www.nyu.edu/ucaihs)
prior to submission.
Abstract Submission Guidelines
Abstracts must be submitted to the Content Editor and are to be no longer than
100 words. Authors should provide the editorial team with an overview of the
proposed article that demonstrates interest level in the proposed topic and the
article’s relevance to higher education and student affairs. The following information must be included with the abstract: Name, Title, Address, E-Mail
Address, Year of Graduation from NYU Higher Education/Student Personnel
Administration Program if applicable.
Authors of selected abstracts will be requested to submit a first draft in order to
be considered for publication.
Style Guidelines
Manuscripts must be clear, concise, and interesting with a well-organized development of ideas. The Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association, Fifth Edition should be followed for reference style and general
guidelines.
° Double-space all material, including references, quotations,
tables, and figures. Leave extra space above and below subheadings and allow generous margins (at least one inch
margins).
° Because manuscripts are processed through an anonymous
review system, they should contain no indication to the
author’s identity or institutional affiliation (with the exception of a separate title page as outlined in the Publication
Manual of the American Psychological Association, Fifth
Edition). Where appropriate, institutional identification will
be inserted after acceptance of manuscript.
Guidelines for Authors - 51
° Research manuscripts should total no more than twelve (12)
double-spaced, typewritten pages (approximately 2,500
words) including references, figures, and tables. Shorter
articles are accepted and encouraged.
° Original research (literary, qualitative, or quantitative) is
encouraged. All such work should be applicable to the higher education and student affairs professions.
° Field reports should not exceed three (3) pages (approximately 600 words in length). They should briefly report on
or describe new practices, programs, or techniques.
° Dialogues and interviews should follow the manuscript
guidelines outlined in the Publication Manual, Fifth Edition
of the American Psychological Association. They should
take the form of verbatim exchange, oral or written,
between two or more people.
° Book reviews should not exceed five (5) pages in length
(approximately 1,000 words). Proposed title to be reviewed
should be approved by the Executive Board. Authors are
fully responsible for obtaining such texts. Additionally, it is
the author’s responsibility to secure permission to quote or
adapt text content. A copy of the publisher’s written permission must be provided to the Executive Board before any
manuscript can be published.
° Authors are responsible for the accuracy of all references,
quotations, tables, and figures. Authors should make every
effort to ensure that such items are complete and correct.
Submission Instructions
° Form and text content of manuscripts should comply with
the above style guidelines and the general guidelines of the
APA Publication Manual, Fifth Edition. Manuscripts that do
not conform to these guidelines cannot be considered.
° Manuscripts that have been previously published or are
being considered for publication should NEVER be submitted. Authors must sign a statement affirming nonduplication of submission prior to review of their manuscripts.
° Each submission should include the original (typed on
8 1/2” x 11” paper) and three copies of all material. Material
may also be submitted electronically.
° It is imperative for authors to adhere to all dates outlined
in the Call for Articles. Failure to do so could result in omission from the Journal.
° The Executive Board will be responsible for all publication
and editorial decisions.
Submissions and other inquiries should be directed to the Executive
Board of The Journal of Student Affairs at NYU at
[email protected].