Does Part-Time Job Affect College Students’ Satisfaction and Academic Performance (GPA)? The Case of a Mid-Sized Public University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the effect of work (number of working hours) on college students’ satisfaction and GPA first by grouping the respondents into two categories: working and non-working. The findings show that the average satisfaction and GPA of those students who did not work were found to be slightly higher than those who did work. However, examining the effect of work on satisfaction and GPA by grouping college students as working and non-working may lead to unrealistic conclusions. Hence, we examined the effect of work on satisfaction and GPA by grouping students into 5 categories: those who worked for 0 hours (unemployed), 1- 10 hours, 11-15 hours, 16-20, 21-30, and 31 hours or more. An interesting finding of the current study is that work has positive effect on both satisfaction and GPA, when students did work fewer than 10 hours. Thus, part-job may not always be detrimental to students’ satisfaction. However, when students work for more than 11 hours a week, students’ satisfaction and GPA were found to decline for each additional category of work, although the change is very small. Both theoretical and practical implications of these findings and future research directions are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".