Spring/Fall 2006
Research in Brief:
by Jessica Pelfrey, Tristam Aldridge, Steve Kudika & Amber Sibley
by Darris Means
Perspectives:
by Victor Wilson
by Jeanne Steffes
Writing Award:
by Crystal Sehlke
Effects of Pre-Arrival Services Provided by a Public, Research University
Upon College Choice: International Students’ Perspectives
Jessica Pelfrey, Tristam Aldridge, Steve Kudika
Clemson University
Amber Sibley
Ball State University
Following the events of September 11, 2001, the perception among foreign students from around the world is that the United States has become less welcoming to international students (Bollag, 2004a; Bollag, 2004b; Field, 2004). Given this negative perspective, institutions are scrambling to discover ways in which international student populations can be preserved. Most are “stepping up” recruitment efforts directed at foreign students by participating in overseas college fair tours and offering both merit and need-based scholarships (McMurtrie, 2005). Some universities have gone so far as to create international offices focused entirely on responding to foreign students’ inquiries (McMurtrie, 2005). However, little or no literature, apart from one study conducted in Australia (Gomes & Murphy, 2003), indicated the potential affects of services provided to international students prior to their arrival in the United States upon college choice.
Historically, international student populations at American universities have increased each year (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2005). This trend continued until the end of the 2001-2002 academic year when the number of international students began to steadily decrease (IIE, 2005). Currently, 565,039 (239,212 undergraduate; 264,410 graduate; 61,417 other) international students (down 1.3% from the previous year) are attending American universities (IIE, 2005).
In addition to fostering globalization and facilitating cross-cultural development, international education is big business for US colleges and universities. International students studying in the United States during the 2004-2005 academic year contributed approximately $13.29 billion (NAFSA, 2006a) to the US economy compared to $12.87 billion (NAFSA, 2006b) the previous year. Furthermore, if academic institutions in the United States are to fulfill their missions, it is critical that international student enrollments be preserved. Institutions tend to benefit from foreign students who serve as teaching and research assistants (Peterson, Briggs, Dreasher, Horner, & Nelson, 1999). These students contribute knowledge and expertise while creating a cross-cultural context that, in part, fulfills institutional cultural diversity goals (Peterson et al., 1999).
Services
Services are usually provided for the purpose of meeting anticipated or known needs. Munoz and Munoz (2000) contend that little is known about the needs of international students. Their review of literature identified six assessments which were conducted with the goal of identifying needs of international students. These studies (Selvadurai, 1991; Howard & Keele, 1991; Arubayi, 1980; Sandhu & Asrabadi, 1991; Eid & Jordan-Domschot, 1989; Deressa & Beavers, 1988, as cited in Munoz & Munoz, 2000) were published within the last two decades of the twentieth century. However, these studies only measured international students’ perspectives of enrolled services provided by institutions. None of the studies assessed pre-arrival services provided to international students and only one study (Arubayi, 1980, as cited in Munoz & Munoz, 2000) distinguished between undergraduate and graduate students.
Although some research on the needs of international students and the services provided to this student sub-group has been conducted, most of the research is insufficient and quite limited in scope (Zhai, 2002). Zhao, Kuh, and Carini (2005) argue that if more is known about international student experiences, appropriate interventions can be made which would ultimately enhance the quality of education received by all students. Moreover, by gaining this information, educators will be able to prepare incoming international students to better handle the pressures they are likely to encounter (Zhai, 2002).
The purpose of this study was to assess international students’ perspectives of pre-arrival services provided by a public, research university in the southeastern United States and to determine if these services influenced the students’ decision to attend the institution. Therefore, do pre-arrival services provided by this university significantly impact international students’ college decisions?
Method
Participants
This study focused on international students whose first semester of attendance at a public, research university located in the southeastern United States was the fall 2005. For the purpose of the study, international students were defined as any student indicating a country of citizenship other than the United States at the time the application for admission was submitted. Students currently possessing legal permanent residency in the United States were excluded. The student participants were identified using the university’s data warehouse. The population (N=191) included both undergraduate and graduate students. Transfer students, defined as students attending a college or university inside the United States immediately preceding the first semester of attendance at this institution, were also excluded from the study.
Ultimately, 34 students (64.71% male; 32.35% female; 2.94% unknown) participated in the study, yielding a 17.8% response rate. Though the majority of respondents were from India (47.06%), total participants represented 16 countries (Australia, Romania, Nigeria, Latvia, Zimbabwe, Thailand, Palestine, Spain, Vietnam, China, South Korea, Scotland, Canada, Germany, India, and Trinidad and Tobago). Most of the students possessed: F-1 (student) immigration status (76.47%); 17.65% were in J-1 (exchange student) status; 2.94% indicated an immigration status other than F-1, J-1, H-1 (temporary employment), H-4 (dependent of H-1), or L-2 (dependent of L-1); and 2.94% chose not to identify their current immigration status in the United States. The majority (76.47%) of participants were between the ages of 22 and 29 and slightly more than 76% (26) were graduate students. The top academic majors represented in the study were engineering (41.18%), business or economics (23.53%) and mathematics or science (11.76%).
Instrumentation
Participants were surveyed with a Web-based instrument created by the authors using Blackboard, the university’s course management system. The confidential survey identified students’ gender, age, immigration status, educational level, academic major and country of origin. Students were asked to respond to 20 items pertaining to pre-arrival services using a four-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (see Appendix A-1).
Procedures
One of the investigators, upon approval of the Institutional Review Board, created a work group in Blackboard using student user names. Students were sent an e-mail message requesting participation in the study. The e-mail explained the purpose of the study, assured students that responses were confidential and included instructions about accessing and completing the survey. Students only used their user name to access the survey. Though Blackboard allowed the investigator to identify students who completed the survey, the Web-based system did not allow responses to be connected to user names, thus ensuring the confidentiality of students’ responses. Access to the survey was not permitted after submission. This system function enabled only one survey submission per student user ID.
Students received an e-mail with the content noted above requesting participation in the study on five of the six days to which access to the survey was permitted. The e-mails on day two and each subsequent day thereafter included a note of thanks directed to those who had already submitted the survey. The final e-mail informed students of the deadline for completing the survey after which survey results were calculated. A follow-up e-mail was sent to express appreciation for students’ participation.
Results
As previously stated, a four-point Likert scale questionnaire containing 20 items assessed students’ satisfaction with pre-arrival services provided by the university. Percentages were calculated for each of the responses to the 20 items to determine students’ degree of satisfaction with each (see Appendix A-1). Categorically, responses measured nine areas: marketing, admissions, finances, immigration, housing, academics, orientation, travel and arrival.
Overall, the respondents were pleased with the admissions process. More than 85% indicated that information on the university’s Web site was easy to locate and over 88% believed the application process was clear and easy to follow. While students overwhelmingly felt university staff were knowledgeable about the admissions process (97.1%), fewer agreed that they received timely responses to their questions regarding the same process (73.6%). These issues of “timing” regarding admissions services were the only items with which students indicated some dissatisfaction in the admissions category (see Appendix A-1).
Timing was also an issue regarding immigration matters. Students agreed that immigration services staff provided timely responses to their immigration questions (82.4%). However, 38.2% did not believe that immigration documents were provided in a timely manner, particularly in comparison to the amount of time other colleges delivered the same documents.
Not surprisingly, given the recent focus of institutional recruitment strategies upon offering scholarships and financial aid to international students (McMurtrie, 2005), 44.1% wished more information about assistantships and other forms of financial aid had been provided. Nonetheless, over 70% agreed that they obtained information about payment of university tuition and fees prior to their arrival. This result is intriguing since 61.8% said no orientation to the university had been provided prior to their arrival.
Many respondents (58.9%) were also satisfied with travel information provided by the university. Over 82% expressed confidence about what to expect upon arrival at a United States port of entry. While 67.6% of students indicated that they were not greeted at the airport by a university representative (student/staff/faculty), the same percentage indicated that they knew where to go upon arrival on campus. However, 58.8% did not credit campus signage as the source which directed them to the appropriate location for check-in.
Approximately 59% of students did not believe they were adequately informed about the university’s academic system (terminology, class structure, curriculum requirements, English language requirements and methods of instruction). Overall, nearly 65% of respondents felt the services provided by the university successfully oriented them to the campus. Finally, the results of the study demonstrated that international students were, for the most part, satisfied with the pre-arrival services provided by the university. Regardless, a majority (53%) indicated their college decision was not significantly influenced by the services which were provided.
Discussion
Due to the absence of data assessing pre-arrival services provided to international students (Munoz & Munoz, 2000; Zhai, 2002), the authors chose not to formulate a working hypothesis to predict the outcomes of the assessment. In turn, one could have assumed due to the recent decline in international student enrollments and the increase in institutional recruitment efforts (McMurtrie, 2005) that the services provided to international students prior to their arrival could positively affect students’ college decisions. More than half of the participants (53%) in this study indicated that the services did not (see Appendix A-1). It is, however, likely that the results of this assessment could be used to improve the services provided to international students by this particular university as well as other institutions. Zhao, Kuh, & Carini (2005) seemed to agree by pointing out the importance of college administrators knowing more about this student sub-group population for the purpose of improving the quality of the educational experience for all students.
Clearly, limitations of this study prevent the results from being broadly applied. In fact, because only 34 students participated in the study (a return rate of 17.8%) and no comparative data of previous years exists, the results of this study cannot even be generalized to the institution in the study. The gender imbalance (64.71% male; 32.35% female; 2.94% unknown) in the study should also be controlled or accounted for in future studies. While 16 countries were represented in the study, students from India dominated responses. A broader representation is needed to identify potential factors unique to particular countries or regions of the world. Because most of the students possessing J-1 immigration status at this university tend to be non-degree, exchange students, the services provided to this category of students differs from those provided to students entering the United States in F-1 immigration status. Future investigators at this institution might wish to separate responses based upon immigration status to prevent skewed results.
Conclusion
Since the decline in international student enrollments at American universities is a recent phenomenon (IIE, 2005), it remains to be seen precisely how and the extent to which institutions will react. Regardless, it would be wise for international student offices to assess students’ satisfaction with the services provided to them prior to their arrival. If for no other reason, the information would provide clear evidence to guide changes and adjustments to institutional services being extended. Given the fiscal (NAFSA, 2006a; NAFSA 2006b), diversity (Peterson et al., 1999) and even national security benefits (Kless, 2004) of international education to the United States, failure to effectively service international students could render undesirable affects (NAFSA, 2003).
References
Bollag, B. (2004a). Enrollment of foreign students drops in US [Electronic version]. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(13), A1.
Bollag, B. (2004b). Wanted: Foreign students [Electronic version]. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 51(7), A37.
Field, K. (2004). Fixing the visa quagmire [Electronic version]. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 51(7), A40.
Gomes, L., & Murphy, J. (2003). An exploratory study of marketing international
education online. The International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3),
116-125.
Kless, S. H. (2004). We threaten national security by discouraging the best and brightest
students from abroad [Electronic version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(7),
B9.
Institute of International Education, Open Doors. (2005). Open doors 2005 fast facts.
Retrieved August 11, 2006, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/file_depot/0-
10000000/010000/3390/folder/48524/FastFacts2005.pdf
McMurtrie, B. (2005). American universities step up their sales pitch overseas
[Electronic version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(23), A8.
Munoz, M.D., & Munoz, M.A. (2000). Needs assessment in a higher education
environment: international student programs. (Report No. HE035431). University
of Louisville. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED470029)
NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2003, May 1). Toward and international
education policy for the United States: International education in an age of
globalism and terrorism. Retrieved November 13, 2005, from http://www.nafsa.org/
public_policy.sec/united_states_international/toward_an_international.
NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2006a). The economic benefits of
international education to the United States for the 2004-2005 academic year: A
statistical analysis. Retrieved January 28, 2006, from http://www.nafsa.org/
_/File/_/eis2005/usa.pdf
NAFSA: Association of International Educators. (2006b). The economic benefits of
international education to the United States for the 2003-2004 academic year: A
statistical analysis. Retrieved August 30, 2006, from http://www.nafsa.org/_/File/_/
usa.pdf
Peterson, D. M., Briggs, P., Dreasher, L., Horner, D. D., & Nelson, T. (1999).
Contributions of international students and programs to campus diversity. New
Directions for Student Services, 86, 67-77. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Zhai, L. (2002). Studying international students: adjustment issues and social support.
San Diego, CA: Office of International Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Services No. ED474481)
Zhao, C., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A comparison of international student and
American student engagement in effective educational practices. The Journal of Higher
Education, 76, 209-231.
The Racial Wall: An Evaluation of Social Interaction Between Whites and Blacks on a Predominantly White University Campus
Darris Means
Clemson University
Literature Review
According to Lennon (1988), Black students are now more integrated into the academic setting in American colleges and universities, but they still remain socially segregated in the higher education system. Although there have been many advancements by Blacks in our society, the higher education system continues to be one of the most segregated institutions in our society. I consider social segregation on college and university campuses to be a racial wall, a wall that continues to perpetuate racial tension in America. To begin to deconstruct the racial wall on college and university campuses, researchers need to consider several points.
First, college administrators are trying to implement a multicultural curriculum on American college and university campuses due to current and past racial tension in the country (Fisher & Hartmann, 1995). If researchers can identify the underlying factors for social segregation between White and Black students, then college administrators can create a multicultural curriculum to improve race relations on American college and university campuses.
Second, research on social segregation would create healthier communication between Blacks and Whites during college and in life. More research on social segregation on college campuses would improve the ability of researchers, college administrators, and students to identify subjects and problems that may create tension between Black and White students. Through this research, Black and White students can have healthier cross-dialogue conversations about racial matters.
Finally, research on social segregation could create a better social and educational experience for Blacks at predominantly White institutions. Based on Hemmon’s (1982) research, Black students on predominantly White campuses are more likely to have a hard time adjusting to college life and less likely to enjoy their college experience than Black students on predominantly Black campuses. If there is more research done on social segregation, then colleges and universities could begin to implement and emphasize programs that could improve the college experience for Blacks at predominantly White institutions of learning.
This section of the paper reviews two theoretical foundations that attempt to explain the influence of race on social interaction in American colleges and universities: college campus climate and racial identity theory. Additionally, it will examine studies related to each theoretical framework.
College Campus Climate Theory
Researchers suggest that the campus climate may influence the social segregation that exists on many college and university campuses (D’ Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Hurtado, 1992; McClelland & Auster, 1990; Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003). Campus climate has been defined as “how individuals perceive their college campus environment” (Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003, p. 264). Campus climate can include how students perceive their professors, the student activities, student organizations, racial matters, and general social life on a college campus. The theory suggests that if Black students perceive the campus and racial climate to be negative on their college or university, then they are more likely to segregate themselves and White students are more willing to accept the idea of Black students segregating themselves (McClelland & Auster, 1990 & Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003).
The research conducted from a campus climate perspective has led to unique findings about the relationship between race and campus climate. First, researchers have found that Black students perceive campus climate more negatively, which may result in social segregation between White and Black students (D’ Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; McClelland & Auster, 1990; Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003). Black students may perceive a more negative campus climate than White students because they must deal with discrimination and financial issues more than their White counterparts, which may lead to the segregation between Whites and Blacks on a college campus (D’ Augelli & Hershberger, 1993).
Second, race influences the pattern of social interaction among students. Researchers have found that Blacks are more likely to interact with White students than White students are to interact with Black students (Bennet, 1973; D’ Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; McClelland & Auster, 1990; Sigelman & Welch, 1993; Tuch, Sigelman, & MacDonald, 1999). This may be due to the fact that White students outnumber Black students on college campuses, so Black students are engaged with White students more on a voluntary and involuntary basis.
Racial Identity Theory
Theories on racial identity provide important insights of social segregation on American college and university campuses. Racial identity refers to a “psychological attachment to one of several social categories available to individuals when the category selected is based on race or skin color and/or a common history, particularly as it relates to oppression and discrimination due to skin color (Thompson, 2001, p. 155).” The concept of racial identity may influence how Black students at a predominantly White institution interact with other people in social settings. Researchers suggest that Black students and other minority students will notice race due to racial identity (Tatum, 2003; Thompson, 2001; Wilson & Constantine, 1999). In order to gain a better understanding of racial identity, Cross (1991) presents a five stage model of the process of racial awareness in his research:
1) Pre-encounter: Blacks absorb many beliefs from Whites
2) Encounter: An event occurs that makes Blacks acknowledge racism
3) Immersion/Emergence: Blacks become immersed in their own culture in order to learn
more about their identity
4) Internalization: Blacks learn about their own identity and are able to feel confident in
being Black
5) Internalization-Commitment: Blacks are now able to commit to being open minded
and more accepting of other cultures
During college, some Black Americans may begin to experience the Immersion/Emergence stage. During the Immersion/Emergence stage, Blacks’ perceptions and behaviors are constructed in a manner that resists the dominant thought, ideas, and behaviors of White students (Cross, 1991).
Due to the resistance of the dominant group, Black students and other minority students voluntarily segregate themselves socially from White students on college and university campuses. Fisher and Hartman (1995, p. 124) suggest that African American students do not desire more social group interaction with students of different races for three reasons:
1) African American students cope with social segregation on a predominantly White
campus by forming predominantly Black groups.
2) Forming an ethnic community within an institution helps minority students fight
problems related to race.
3) African American students find it a challenge to fit into a White campus and
community without feeling they have abandoned their heritage and culture.
Racial identity research suggests first that Black students are socially segregated from other students because they want to continue a strong sense of a racial group. Black students have a variety of behaviors and beliefs due to their racial group affiliation (Fisher & Hartman, 1995; Thompson, 2001). According to Fisher and Hartman (1995, p. 125), 27% of Black students consider it important to stick with their own race for security reasons and to maintain a sense of racial and ethnic identity.” Black students also experience racial discrimination more than White students. Forty-four percent of Black students and 7.5% of White students have experienced racial discrimination (Fisher & Hartmann, 1995). This significant gap between Black and White students’ responses may suggest that Black students want to remain socially segregated in order to create a sense of solidarity and security so they can organize when racial situations or incidents occur at their predominantly White institutions.
The review of the literature encourages a deeper analysis of social segregation on college and university campuses. Does the issue begin with Black students? According to research, Black students on college campuses segregate themselves to form a stronger sense of identity and to create a sense of solidarity on their college or university campus (Fisher & Hartmann, 1995; Johnson, Crosnoe, & Elder, 2001; Tatum, 2003; Thompson 2001). Does the issue begin with the college or university campus itself? The research has shown that social segregation occurs on college and university campuses where the climate is unstable towards positive interactions between Whites and Blacks (D’ Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; McClelland & Auster, 1990; Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003). Or does the issue begin with White students? Studies have shown that Blacks are more likely to interact with White students than White students are to interact with Black students; therefore one may ask whether White students are reaching out sufficiently to minority students on college and university campuses (Bennet, 1973, D’ Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; McClelland & Auster, 1990; Sigelman & Welch, 1993; Tuch et al., 1999). The goal of this research is to investigate social interaction between Whites and Blacks on a predominantly White college campus, examine perceptions of race relations, and to begin to understand where college administrators can begin to deconstruct the racial wall.
Hypotheses
The current research has identified independent and dependent variables. The variable of race will be used as my independent variable to explore the racial wall on college and university campuses. The research has two dependent variables: personal level of interaction with people outside one’s race and perception of race relations. The reasoning for two dependent variables is to analyze if there is a difference between what people say and do. In order to better understand how the independent variable is related to the dependent variables, there are two major hypotheses that are explored by this research:
H1: A Black student is more likely to have a negative perception of racial climate than a
White student
H2: A Black student is more likely to interact with people outside of one’s race than a
White student
Hypothesis one is based on research that states race relations on a college campus will influence the social interaction among races (Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003). Studies have also shown that Black students are more likely to have negative perceptions of race relations, so their perceptions will influence how they interact with students outside of their race (D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; McClelland & Auster, 1990; Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003). If people perceive racial relations to be positive, then people are more willing and comfortable to interact with people outside of their race.
Hypothesis two is based on the research done on social interaction on predominantly White college and university campuses. Furthermore, hypothesis two is a contradiction of hypothesis one. Although research has indicated that Blacks have a more negative attitude towards racial climate, researchers have found that Blacks are more likely to interact with White students than White students are to interact with Black students due to being outnumbered on college and university campuses (Bennet ,1973; D’ Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; McClelland & Auster, 1990; Sigelman & Welch, 1993; Tuch et al., 1999).
Methodology
Data were collected through surveys at a small-size, predominantly White, private university in the Southeast. The sample was selected in several ways. First, classes were purposely selected to participate in the survey in order to get a variety of students with different ages and racial backgrounds. If the class was selected, the professor of the class was contacted to arrange a time to conduct surveys during class. Since these selected classes did not enroll a sufficient number of Black students for research, three predominantly Black student organizations were contacted to complete the surveys. In the end, 184 participants completed the survey. Of those 184 participants, 132 were White, 45 were Black, and 7 were members of other ethnicities. Due to the focus of the research, these 7 participants were eliminated from the sample, bringing the sample size down to 177. The survey consisted of demographic questions and likert scales regarding perceptions of race relations, personal interaction with people outside one’s race, and factors that hinder and foster social interaction between Whites and Blacks.
Results
Race and Perception of Race Relations
Hypothesis one states: A Black student is more likely to have a negative perception of social race relations than a White student. Respondents were asked to complete a series of 5-point likert scale statements in order to measure their perceptions of racial climate on their college campus. A score of 1 on the likert scale indicated a strong positive view of racial climate on their college campus and a score of 5 indicated a strong negative view of racial climate on their college campus. The scores were added up for each participant, and they were given an average. A means difference test statistic was used to compare White and Black respondents’ average on the likert scales. The results supported the hypothesis (See Table 1). The data indicate that there is a gap between White and Black students regarding perceptions of racial climate on their college campus. The 42 Black students who responded to the likert scale averaged a 3.095 racial climate perception score, while the 118 White students who responded to the likert scale averaged a 2.788 racial climate perception score. The results were significant at the .05 level.
Table 1: Race and Racial Climate Perceptions of College Campus
RaceMeanN Standard Deviation
African Americans 3.0952 42 .65554
Critical Value= 2.17795
*Significant at the .05 Level
Race and Social Interaction
Hypothesis two states: A Black student is more likely than a White student to interact with someone outside of their race at a predominantly White college or university. To gain a better understanding of social interaction among races, the research examined social interaction during meals and during outside classroom activities.
The first question was related to interaction with people outside of one’s race during meals. Since social interaction occur on a daily basis in dining facilities, it is important to understand how much interaction there is among students of different races during meal time. The students were asked to estimate how often they eat a meal with someone outside of their race from a list of four categories: Less than 10%, 10%-25%, 26%-50%, and More than 50%. After collecting the data, the categories were divided into frequently (more than 50%), occasionally (10%-50%), and rarely (less than 10%). To analyze the data, a chi-square statistic was used for the data set. Using a chi-square statistic, the results show that there is a statistically significant difference between White and Black students regarding how often they eat a meal with someone outside of their race at the .05 level (See Table 2). Only 4.5% of the White respondents reported eating meals with someone outside of their race frequently, while 17.7% of Black respondents reported eating meals with someone outside of their race on a frequent basis. Furthermore, 44.4% of Black respondents reported rarely eating a meal with someone outside of their race, while 56.8% of White respondents reported rarely eating a meal with someone outside of their race. However, 53.7% of the students in the sample rarely eat meals with someone outside of their race.
Table 2: Race and Social Interaction in the Dining Halls
Frequently Eat Meals with People Outside of Race 17.8% 4.5% 7.9%
Occasionally Eat Meals with People Outside of Race 37.8% 38.7% 38.4%
Rarely Eat Meals with People Outside of Race 44.4% 56.8% 53.7%
*Significant at the .05 Level
The next question measuring social interaction with someone outside of one’s race was regarding out of classroom experiences. The respondents were asked to identify how often they interact with someone outside of their race during social events, including sporting events, cultural events, university-wide programming, and social gatherings using the following categories: Less than 10%, 10%-25%, 26%-50%, and More than 50%. After collecting the data, the categories were divided into frequently (more than 50%), occasionally (10%-50%), and rarely (less than 10%). To analyze the data, a chi-square statistic was used for the data set. Using a chi-square statistic, the results show that there is a statistically significant difference at the .1 level between White and Black students regarding social interaction (See Table 3). The results indicate that 17.8% of Black students frequently social interaction with people outside of their race compared to 7.7% of White students.
Table 3: Race and Social Interaction during Social Events
Frequently Interact with People Outside of Race Socially17.8% 7.7% 10.3%
Occasionally Interact with People Outside of Race Socially 33.3% 50.8% 46.3%
Rarely Interact with People Outside of Race Socially 48.9% 41.5% 43.4%
Chi-Square Statistic5.915
*Significant at the .1 Level
Discussion
The research concludes with many interesting insights. First, race continues to play a major role on predominantly White college and university campuses. One’s race does influence how he/she will perceive race relations on one’s college or university campus. In the research, the data indicated that Blacks were more likely to perceive race relations more negatively than Whites. Although Blacks perceive race relations more negatively than Whites, the data suggest that Black students are more likely to interact with people outside of race at a higher rate than their White counterparts.
This contradiction in the literature and research data leads me to want to investigate qualitative approaches in the future to understand why Blacks have a more negative attitude about race relations; however, they continue to interact with Whites at a high level. Is it because they are forced to interact with Whites because they are outnumbered and feel a need to assimilate with Whites at some degree to be successful? Or is it because some Blacks just want to interact with Whites but just have a better awareness about the problems with race relations on their campus? I think it is both. I believe that almost any person with a minority status will notice differences consciously and unconsciously. Therefore, you may have students of color who have mostly White friends, but they may notice differences in areas and subjects related to race on a conscious and unconscious level because they are in the position to understand what it is like to be a minority in our society. Furthermore, the basic idea to understand is that Blacks are outnumbered on many college and university campuses, so they will have more opportunities to come in contact with White students. Thus, Black students will interact more with their White counterparts than their White counterparts will interact with them.
Conclusion
There are several weaknesses in the current structure of this research project. First, data were only collected on 45 Black students, which may not be adequate in making general statements about Black students on a predominantly White university campus. For future research, there should be more Black students represented in the sample. Also, all the data have been collected at one university, so the results can not be generalized to race relations at all predominantly White colleges and universities. However, additional data will be collected at more predominantly White colleges and universities in the future in order to gain a better understanding of social interaction at these colleges and universities. Next, the voices of students from other racial and ethnic backgrounds should be represented in future research to include the voices of multicultural students who are not only Black. Finally, research questions in future surveys will be added to support validity of the questions and also more questions will be added to take a deeper look at social interaction between minority and majority students. Although there were weaknesses in the research, the research in this project has presented interesting and new insights on race relations on college campuses.
So, who is to blame for the social segregation between Whites and Blacks on college and university campuses? Is it the colleges and universities? Is it the Black students? Is it the White students? I would say everyone has a part in creating the racial wall that exists in our society and on college and university campus; however, we all can have a part in deconstructing that racial wall. This research is imperative in improving race relations in the United States. College administrators and students must understand this research as they continue to improve race relations on their college and university campuses. Administrators and student affairs professionals must continue to create programming and events that will give students the opportunity to interact with people outside of their race if we are to move forward in positive race relations.
References
Bennet, D. (1973). Segregation and Racial Interaction. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 63, 48-57.
Cross, W. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American Identity. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania: Temple University Press.
D’Augelli, A. & Hershberger, S. (1993). African American Undergraduates on a
Predominantly White Campus: Academic Factors, Social Networks, and Campus
Climate. The Journal of Negro Education, 62, 67-81.
Fisher, B. & Hartmann, D. (1995). The Impact of Race on Social Experiences Of College
Students at a Predominantly White University. Journal of Black Studies, 26, 117-33.
Hemmons, W.M. (1982). From the Halls of Hough and Halsted: A Comparison of Black
Students on Predominantly White and Predominantly Black Campuses. Journal of
Black Studies, 12, 383-402.
Hurtado, S. (1992). The Campus Racial Climate: Contexts of Conflict. The Journal Of
Higher Education, 63, 539-69.
Johnson, M. K., Crosnoe, R., & Elder G.H. (2001). Students’ Attachment and Academic
Engagement: The Role of Race and Ethnicity. Sociology of Education, 74, 318-40.
Lemmon, T. (1988). Frontline: Racism 101 [Film].
McClelland, K. E. & Auster, C.J. (1990). Public Platitudes and Hidden Tensions: Racial
Climate at Predominantly White Liberal Arts Colleges. The Journal of Higher
Education, 61, 607-42.
Reid, L. & Radhakrishnan, P. (2003). Race Matters: The Relation Between Race and
General Campus Climate. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9,
263-75.
Sigelman, L. & Welch, S. (1993). The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Black-White
Interaction and Positive Racial Attitudes. Social Forces, 71, 781-95.
Tatum, B. (2003). Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?. New
York, New York: Basic Books.
Thompson, V. L.S. (2001). The Complexity of African American Racial Identification.
Journal of Black Studies, 32:155-65.
Tuch, S., Sigelman, L., & MacDonald, J. (1999). Trends: Race Relations and American
Youth. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 109-148.
Wilson, J.W. & Constantine, M.G. (1999). Racial Identity Attitudes, Self-Concept, and
Perceived Family Cohesion in Black College Students. Journal of Black Studies, 29,
354-66.
Fostering Interracial Friendships on Campus: Taking it Up a Level
Victor Wilson
College of Charleston
There is probably little doubt we can all agree the amount of questions we receive during orientation/welcome week can be overwhelming at times. Even though our main purpose is to answer the questions of our new students and parents, the long list of questions typically asked of us leave our thoughts - most of the time - without much more consideration and just as quickly as they were asked. Conversely, the summer of 2005 was a little different for me. For the first time in my 25+ years associated with higher education, I had a parent ask a question that lingered with me long after orientation was over. As the Chief Student Affairs Officer for our campus, my welcoming talk to our parents entitled “How to be a Cougar Parent” rarely elicited deep challenging questions. Yet, this one starry-eyed and appropriately nervous mother from Washington, D.C. shook my foundation when she asked me, “What is it that the College of Charleston is doing to foster increased interracial friendships among your students on campus?” Of course, my “orientation rhetoric” went into overdrive, and I began to talk about all of our diversity efforts, the Multicultural Center, programming, etc. She stopped me quickly during this regurgitation of the often used facts and stated, “I know about all of that, but what is it that you all are actively doing to put people together of various races. I know all about the buildings, programs, and all the rest. But, how often are you encouraging students of different races to interact together in meaningful and long-term friendships?”
It was at that point I really began to hear what she was asking me, and her question stuck with me for quite some time. It was apparent to me my initial uncomfortable feelings were rooted in the fact I could not give her an answer. Eventually, it hit me that the mother’s point was evidently clear: we all have the cultural “Centers” on our campus; we put forth the diversity recruitment efforts; we create the various programs; and the list goes on. Yet, is it really valid that we might not intentionally and actively assist our students to create the interracial friendships we often dream about for them and strive to see? As higher education professionals, who would be better on our campuses to start this entire process of changing our institutions by actively putting students representing various races together with each other? In essence, ask yourself the same question I finally asked of myself. That is, “when is the last time I made an intentional effort to put students together of varying races?” Almost every one of us can claim we look to maintain certain representations of student diversity as well as stress the importance of having these students as a part of our staffs, programs, organizations, etc. However, the real and bigger question centers around one deeper and more probing issue: Do we, once we have these wonderfully diverse student groupings, foster long-lasting interracial friendships among them after their association with each other is over?
Taking this idea outside of the students we are directly working with, how often are we creating the same kind of relationships among other students on campus? Even more of a personal challenge, how are we in our own lives modeling these friendships for our students? In essence, are we walking the walk regarding our personal interracial friendships because students closely watch our actions more than they hear our words? I have often been asked to do Diversity/Multicultural Consulting. One of the strongest points I try to make is diversity is not about just saying comfortably, “I love everybody and I am open to everyone,” but it is more about putting words into action. Stepping out. Taking risks. Creating the world we see in our visions. There is no question our commitment has been strong, but there really needs to be more. Our campuses are the greatest “student learning laboratories” on the face of the earth, and we are in a unique and wonderful position to teach so many lessons to our students through action. This is not to say that we should force anyone to do anything. Obviously, that would not benefit any of us. Yet, we are distinctive in the role we play on campus. This is why we - and us alone - can be the first to create through our programs the much-desired special campus environment that will most assuredly and symbolically scream to all within earshot, “this place is serious about diversity and/or race relations.”
To share a more personal example, I often notice how little African-American and White men interact. It is my belief (and maybe mine alone) so many of our racial problems through the years would have been less of an issue if these men had taken time to dialog with each other by ignoring the fears that have, for the most part, kept them apart. I will admit there are increased numbers of these friendships today, but take a look around you. Many of our students work together within a particular club, team, or other group. Once done with their duties, they go their separate ways. Thus, after looking around closely, I still do not see the deep, rich, open, and supportive friendships between African-American and White men that are witnessed within most monocultural friendships. Reflecting back on that mother’s initial question and challenge to me, if this is such a passion of mine, why have I not taken the time to use what little power I have on this campus to bring these men together for nothing more than simple interaction if that is all that comes out of it? Maybe it is time for me to add to my personal diversity efforts by actively putting these men together. The funny part of this is sometimes in life our biggest challenges to personal growth come from the most obscure and unexpected places!
On many occasions, I am frequently known to tell my staff it is “time to take it up a notch to the next level” when we are discussing our work with and for our students because they always deserve better. On the other hand, am I taking it up to the next level in my desire to see more interracial friendships on my campus? Are you? I’m not sure of all the answers, but I do feel that most of us probably could be more intentional in bringing our diverse students together.
For those of you fostering these types of friendships on campus or for those finding yourself in this type of relationship, thank you and keep it up. But, I know as for me, I need to foster more of these friendships right here in my own back yard. In other words, I need to heed my own advice and “take it up a level.” My students and our world deserve no less.
Keynote Address - SCCPA Conference, April 2006
Jeanne Steffes
Syracuse University
Hello and good morning --It’s great to be back in the Palmetto State with you, my South Carolina CPA friends and colleagues!
I am very honored to be with you here today to serve as your keynote speaker. I would like to especially thank my wonderful hosts, SCCPA President Dr. Bob Hanley, Eric Fisher and Dr. Boyd Yarbrough – thank you. I also want to thank the entire conference planning committee. Would you please stand and be recognized. Thank you so much for the invitation to be with you today!
Speaking of conferences, many of us returned recently from the 2006 ACPA International Convention in Indianapolis and I’ve got to tell you more than ever before South Carolina was represented and visible on the national scene. I want to take a moment to recognize and honor those folks who served on the national planning committee- first – Dr. Boyd Yarbrough as convention chair, Jason Cassidy, Beau Seagraves, Linda Jamieson, Jeffrey Brown. Please stand so that we may recognize you now!
I also want to recognize Dr. Harry Shucker, VPSA, from The Furman University for Furman’s support and congratulate you on the national visibility and pride that Dr. Yarbrough and his staff brought to South Carolina and your institution. On behalf of a grateful association and President of ACPA- thank you!
I’d like to begin my remarks by walking you through what I consider some of the crucial tasks that are needed by us to Rethink Learning with New Structures and Partners. The point being is that how are we are able to actively engage and collaborate with our teaching and learning colleagues across the campus and beyond.
Some of the components that I would like to share with you to accomplish this necessary and critical task for all of us as college student educators includes:
1. Attitude Needed to Collaborate
2. Create a Realistic Vision - Mapping the Environment
3. Learning a New Language - that of Learning Outcomes
4. Assessment
5. Collaborations by/with Crossing Boundaries
6. Integrating Learning with Strategic Planning
7. Enhancing Professional Skill Development
1) The Attitude Needed to Collaborate -Attain and Maintain a Positive and Realistic Focus!
Optimist’s story
There is the story of identical twins. One was a hope-filled optimist. “Everything is coming up roses!” she would say. The other twin was a sad and hopeless pessimist. He thought that Murphy, as in “Murphy’s Law,” was an optimist. The worried parents of the kids brought them to the local psychologist. He suggested to the parents a plan to balance their personalities. “On their next birthday, put them in separate rooms to open their gifts. Give the pessimist the best toys you can afford, and give the optimist a box of manure.” The parents followed these instructions and carefully observed the results.
When they peeked in on the pessimist, they heard him audibly complaining, “I don’t like the color of this computer . . . I’ll bet this calculator will break . . . I don’t like the game . . . I know someone who’s got a bigger and better toy car than this . . .”
Tiptoeing across the corridor, the parents peeked in and saw their little optimist gleefully throwing the manure up in the air. She was giggling. “You can’t fool me! Where there’s this much manure, there’s gotta be a new pony!” here somewhere!
How can we set out to teach and show our students and younger staff members how to view and address the world unless we show them the way as roles models? What types of ways might we approach the world to seek out new partners across the campus in the same was as we also looked for the pony?
Too often I have been in situations where I was told as a young college student educator- here’s $100.00 just go and get more faculty involved in the residence halls and build a relationship with them because connecting with them leads to better retention for us and that is go for both them and us.
When we rethink learning we need to better understand our partners without some assumptions and stereotypes and for me that means have a better more realistic, framework on how this new relationship will help both of us grow as a university.
In order for our collaborations to be a success we need to create a realistic Vision to think about our next steps, a Plan and Make it Accountable (Become what You Want to Be)
Reverend Billy Graham tells of a time early in his ministry when he arrived in a small town to preach a sermon. Wanting to mail a letter, he asked a young girl where the post office was. When the girl had told him, Dr. Graham thanked him and said, “If you’ll come to the Baptist church this evening, you can hear me telling everyone how to get to heaven.”
“I don’t think I’ll be there,” the girl said. “You don’t even know your way to the post office.”
Part of plan to create road map to get to heaven or the post office is to be able to focus and think about your goals and set a vision to meet those goals.
2. Create a Realistic Vision-Mapping
I would like you to unravel the string from the paper clip contraption that you have before you. You need to put your personal stuff aside please. What I want you to do is to concentrate on making the string go clockwise, concentrate really concentrate and focus all of your energy on the paperclip. For some of you this will not be as successful, if that is the case please look on at your neighbor’s string and follow that. Continue to concentrate on the paperclip and now start to make the circle get bigger. There you go, now concentrate on stopping the paper clip and reversing the direction so it goes counterclockwise. Now make the string stop completely. Pretty cool huh?
What happened? Synapses commanded by your brain focused the muscle neurons down your arm into your hand and fingers to follow the commands of your brain.
Lessons from this example are that:
The first step in tapping and actualizing your potential as student educators and campus leaders is to define your goals and the qualities necessary to achieve them and into turn help your students achieve them.
Or Let Davidson said of this example:
1) you get what you focus on in life (great student service, great programs, good retention rate to graduation)
2) the creative process of change begins with a clear picture of the desired outcome
3) the most fundamental quality of effective leadership is clear vision
4) the clearer the more well-defined the vision or goal, the more you experience your ability to accomplish it.
5) Goals that are written, 50% believable and represent a stretch are most effective
6) Intention precedes method
That’s what setting a vision and making a plan and making it accountable can include! Now is the chance and the time to become what you want to be, but first you have to plan for it. Part of that plan is to be knowledgeable about your work.
What do you want out of a relationship or a new partnership with a faculty member in a specific college or with the boys and girls club, soup kitchen, etc. in the neighborhood next to the university?
Again, we are sometimes tasked to go out and do without the prep work to build a
3. Learning a New Language – Learning Outcomes
Before we go into the planning stages we need to be mindful of what we are planning for, to who and for what. We need a COMMON language to think about- learning outcomes.
Developing Learning Outcomes
Cognitive Complexity*
Knowledge Acquisition, Integration & Application
*Humanitarianism
*Civic Engagement
*Interpersonal &Intrapersonal
* Practical Competence
Outcome to Practice*Practice to Outcome
How to Develop Learning Outcomes/Examples
4. Assessment
Assessing Internal
Environments
Step by Step Assessment Process Based on Mission/Goals with Examples
5. Collaborations by/with Crossing Boundaries
• Start Small- small group with realistic impact, ride a bike, run a race one foot in front of the other
• Identify Allies – allies in the gym, committees, great teachers, freshman forums, univ 100 , student and the university course, alumni, community partners
• Initiate the Conversation – it will be us to make the call
• Evaluate the Outcomes- did it work? Why or why not, if it did work- time to let folks know across campus and beyond – alumni magazine
6. Integrating Learning with Strategic Planning
Aligning Structure, Resources, and Priorities with Accountability for Student Outcomes
7. Enhancing Professional Skill Development
Expanded and Enhanced Skill Sets to Maximize Opportunities (Collaboration, Leadership, Organizational Change)
Some Thoughts
Learning in this new structure and with these new partners is
*Generative, builds upon the knowledge before and after it
*Systemic, not isolated in a silo- college, student organization, residence hall
*Developmentally complex- linear and cyclical
*Mutual ownership for the learning and teaching experience part of a larger integrative life plan- student affairs doesn’t own student development and to my knowledge we aren’t seeking any patents but what it means is that we are give the tools to assist the building
Before we end I just wanted to share a few things with you please.
I’d like to end with part of an Irish blessing:
May the road rise to meet you.
May the wind always break at your back
May the sun shine warm upon your face
May the rain fall softly upon your fields
May god or your higher power hold you in the palm of their hand.
Please know that your contributions to higher education are invaluable and immeasurable, you help galvanize and maximize the wonderfully diverse student experiences on our campus. For your work today and tom., thank you from the bottom of my heart. There is no great passion or nobler profession than that of a being a student educator. I hope that you will grow old with me in this profession and in the association. I am so proud to be a part of this profession and so proud to call you colleagues and close friends.
AND finally…
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.
I hope to see you all in Orlando for the ACPA/NASPA Joint Meeting March 31- April 4, 2007. Thank you for the opportunity to spend time with you today.
Technology in Higher Education: Friend or Foe
Crystal Sehlke
University of Mary Washington
Technology has offered many new conveniences for today’s college students, such as a means to decide on which professor to take by reviewing other students’ comments on the internet site Pick-A-Prof. Students can also meet new friends that live across the country on “Face book.” Technology also has a down side: it reduces the need for face-to-face contact, which leads to depersonalization. Campuses all over the country are plagued with a ubiquitous sea of students walking through campus talking on cell phones with their heads down, avoiding personal interactions. Many proponents of the Internet would argue that visiting chat rooms increase the socialization of the user; however, using the Internet to socialize is also associated with negative outcomes. A high use of email to communicate is associated with depression (Kraut et al., 1998).
Psychological problems among college-age students have been increasing for the past 15 years (Young, 2003). The psychological problems have also heightened in severity, which resulted in students being prescribed psychotropic medications to enable them to attend class and function normally. Researchers from Kansas State University found from 1989 to 2001, that the number of students with depression doubled. The percentage of students taking psychiatric medication also increased from 10% to 25%. Harvard has also noticed an increase in students taking advantage of their counseling services. Harvard has increased their counseling staff by five full-time positions in the past four years, bringing the total to 23 (Young, 2003). Young also noted that the increase in college students’ psychological problems might be a result of normalizing depression and psychotropic medications like Prozac or other antidepressants. There are many explanations for increases in psychological problems in college-age students. One of the more plausible explanations is that psychological problems are related to recent availability of technology and technological advances, which has negatively affected students’ emotional and psychological states of mind.
The National College Health Assessment reported that depression diagnosis has steadily been on the rise, increasing 4.6 percentage points across the past four years (Hoover, 2004). The 2004 study, which included 47,000 students at 74 colleges, found that 14.9% of students reported being diagnosed with depression and 10% had considered suicide within the past year, compared to only 10.3% of students who reported having a depression diagnosis in 2000. The study also reported that in 2004, 38% of the students who had been diagnosed with depression were taking medication to control the symptoms, and 25.2% of the students reported that they were in therapy. Of the students who reported being diagnosed with depression, 50% of the females and 40% of the males stated that depression symptoms made it hard for them to function at school one or more times during the last academic year (Hoover, 2004). Thus, not only are psychological problems increasing in college students, the symptoms are becoming so intense that it interferes with students’ studies.
Kraut et al. (1998) conducted a longitudinal study on 169 participants in 73 households over a 12 to 24 month period in March 1995 or 1996, during the initial years of Internet use. Internet and email usage were recorded with the use of software that was loaded onto the computers. Participants completed a pre-test and a post-test that indicated their psychological well-being and social involvement. The results indicated that Internet use was statistically significant in a marked decline of social connectedness. Individuals who used the Internet had a smaller social group and diminished communication with their families.
The researchers also found that individuals who habitually used the Internet, experienced increased feelings of loneliness and depression (Kraut et al., 1998). Participants who reported feeling lonely initially, became even lonelier after using the Internet for the duration of the study. The participants self-reported more symptoms of depression in the post-test, even when initial feelings of depression were held constant. The study also examined the participants’ social circle and found individuals who scored high on social extraversion and had a large social circle used the computer less frequently. A small correlation was found between increased stressors and an increase in using the Internet among teenagers. Thus, if Internet usage has this negative effect on families, the implications for a college student, who is already physically isolated from their family network, could be disastrous.
The decline of psychological health in college students is disheartening to Student Affairs professionals. The goal of a Student Affairs practitioner is to ameliorate the whole student in every area and encourage the student to be actively engaged in activities that will do just that. College enrollment is expected to increase 20% by the year 2014 (Aronauer, 2005). The enrollment hike may compound the problem, as professors rely on technology to reach all of the students in some over crowed classrooms.
In 2003, the Current Population Survey reported that of the individuals between ages 20 to 24, 68% of White individuals, 44% of Black individuals, and 37% of Hispanic individuals reported using a computer in their homes (National Center, 2005). Individuals between the ages of 15 to 19 reported using an in home computer at even higher rates: 84% of White individuals, 51% of Black individuals, and 52% of Hispanic individuals. The results of the survey provide further evidence of technology availability and wide spread use.
The 1998 National Survey of Information Technology in Higher Education reported that only around eight percent of postsecondary schools used email in 1994. That number dramatically increased to 44% in 1998 (Flowers, Pascarella, & Pierson, 2000). The survey also reported that in 1998, almost 50% of all postsecondary institutions had implemented mandatory information technology fees. Thus, not only are college students taking advantage of the conveniences of technology, the American population as a whole are utilizing computers at an increased rate.
Over the past 35 years in the United States, Putnam (1995) found a sharp civic engagement decline; at the same time technology advances were soaring. He also found a decline in church attendance, organized dinner parties, and socializing with neighbors. Putnam suggested that social disengagement is related to a demoted psychological and physical health and a diminished quality of life. While this information is only a correlation, it introduces the idea that technology may have a negative effect on many aspects of an individual’s life.
Kraut et al. (1998) concluded that while the Internet is useful and entertaining, it also promotes disengagement from real life. The value of the Internet should be proportionately balanced with the emotional and societal costs. Kraut et al. also suggested that individuals should monitor for what activities they use the Internet to ensure they are not replacing all face to face contact with technology.
The increase in technological advances could be a devastating epidemic if professionals, especially in higher education, do not realize the impact the convenience of technology can have on the psychological health of individuals. Technology has similar attributes to an appealing drug in the eyes of a college student. Both offer excitement, both could create a no-holds-bared atmosphere, they are both relatively inexpensive to a college student, and they can both be used as a way to fit in with other students while maintaining anonymity. Technology is here to stay, so it is up to professors, administrators, and practitioners of higher education to monitor students’ engagement in technology, to ensure that not all face to face interaction is lost in and outside of the classroom.
References
Aronauer, R. (2005). College enrollments are expected to continue rising through 2014,
report sayes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved September 22, 2005,
from http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/09/2005091206n.htm
Flowers, L., Pascarella, T. E., & Pierson, T. C. (2000). Information technology use and
cognitive outcomes in the first year of college. [Electronic version]. Journal of Higher
Education, 71(6), 637-648.
Hoover, E. (2004). More college students report diagnoses of depression. [Electronic
version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(16), A28.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Vicki Lundmark, Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W.
(1998). Internet paradox. American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031. Retrieved
September 17, 2005, from PsycARTICLES database.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Youth indicators (Report No. NCES 2005-
050). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Putnam, R. (1995, January). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6, 65-78. Retrieved September 19, 2005, from Database Project Muse.
Young, R. J. (2003). Prozac campus. [Electronic version]. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 49(23), A37.
.gif){kind=small}
