Commuter Students: Involvement and Identification with an Institution of Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Since the 1980's, many public universities in the United States have evolved from universities to supported universities. A state-assisted university is one that receives less than 50% of their budget from the state (Archibald and Feldman, 2004). In order to overcome this gap in resources, it is important for universities to become more marketing oriented. The traditional student of yesterday is rare in today's world. There are not many of the typical residential colleges in which a full-time student enters immediately after high school, lives in a dormitory, and rarely works because the parents are their source of support. Less than a quarter of today's undergraduate population fits the description of a traditional student (Attewell and Lavin, 2007). Approximately seventy-five percent of college students are commuters (Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 2006). A commuter student is defined as one who does not live on campus (Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 2006), but attends the university from local and surrounding areas (Schibrowsky and Peltier, 1993). In today's competitive environment, it is essential to understand the needs, attitudes and opinions of the large group of the commuter students who ultimately pay many of the school's bills. Understanding group differences between the commuters and non-commuters is critical, as the commuter population nationwide continues to increase and universities are forced to compete for the patronage of these commuter students. Commuting and non-commuting students may be differentiated among three basic dimensions: (1) socioeconomic and demographic differences; (2) academic differences; and (3) non-school obligations and activities. In general, the commuter student's average age and standard deviation of ages tend to be higher than non-commuters. Commuter students are more apt to come from blue collar families with less income and educational background. These commuter students are also more likely to be first generation college students and be less academically prepared for college (Schibrowsky and Peltier, 1993). Many of these commuting students are likely to cycle in and out of college. They may postpone re-enrolling in college and work more hours, so that they can afford the next semester's tuition. Conversely, they may discontinue enrollment in order to take care of their family needs and obligations. For many commuting students, a college degree is something that must be fit into the rest of their life and not the other way around (Attewell and Lavin, 2007). Understanding the commuter student is becoming more and more important. Yet, their lives are becoming increasingly complex. Universities need to consider whether it makes sense for the commuting student to pay fees for programs that they will almost certainly never use. The commuter student is less likely to use the recreational center or attend a sporting event, but they still pay the fees. It is important to understand what is significant to the commuting student from the standpoint of tuition and fees. Additional issues that may differentiate commuters and noncommuters include their motivation to attend college, their support groups, how they spend their time, their involvement in school, and their attitudes towards the university. With this growing trend in commuting students expected to continue into the future, understanding the commuter student allows universities to better meet their needs (which is exactly what the marketing concept is all about). LITERATURE REVIEW University education becomes more productive and complete as students develop relationships with their peers and faculty (Astin, 1993; Astin, 1999). Being involved in the university is thought to have a positive effect on the learning experience (Rubin, 2000). For a commuter student, these relationships on campus and involvement in activities may be more complicated. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".