Deconstructing Traditionalism to Support Non-Traditional Students

While definitions vary, the term “non-traditional student” functions as coded language for students who are over the age of 24, have children, enroll part-time or in non-degree programs, or work full-time. Like many “traditional” college students, the prospect of pursuing more fulfilling careers and greater lifetime wages is a primary goal of many “non-traditional” students (Kim & Baker, 2015). However, many “non-traditional” students encounter obstacles to accomplishing this goal. While not unique to “non-traditional” students, these obstacles include paying for college, making time in otherwise full schedules, and finding adequate campus resources. Student affairs professionals, particularly those of us at four-year institutions, need to be knowledgeable of these obstacles and prepared to support “non-traditional” students. Three issues I would like to explore are linguistic exclusion, deficits in resources, and financial stress.

Linguistic exclusion:  Some of us, myself included, sometimes forget about “non-traditional” students as part of the larger campus community. The term “non-traditional” itself reinforces the implicit message that “traditional” is normal and “non-traditional” is something else. “Non-traditional” students experience language that, while perhaps well-intentioned, reinforces “othering.” For example, student veterans are often asked if they killed anyone in the line of duty and students with children are often given unsolicited parenting advice. Student affairs professionals can model the language we hope to ‘hear’ from students. Recognizing that over three-quarters of college students meet one or more characteristics of “nontraditional” status (NCES, 2015), we should refer to “nontraditional” students as “new traditional” students (Jenkins, 2012) or 21^st century learners (Merisotis, 2010).  A key question I now ask is how can I normalize the experiences of new traditional students in the forms, policies, and procedures in my everyday practice?

Deficits in resources:  For a variety of reasons, some new traditional students cannot take advantage of special orientations designed for them. Consequently, many returning adult students, student veterans, student parents, etc., arrive on campus with inadequate introductions to helpful campus resources and without the benefit of structured time to build connections with faculty and staff members. This problem becomes compounded when resources physically do not exist on campuses. For example, students who need child care while attending class scramble to find assistance upon learning that child care services are not readily available on their campus (Carlson, 2015). One strategy student affairs professionals can employ to mitigate issues like these is greater attention in the meeting scheduling process. While it can often be difficult for student affairs professionals to fix institutional deficits in resources, being flexible in the time of day and the medium through which you meet (face-to-face, Skype, phone, etc.) may mean a world of difference to students who otherwise might not be able to accommodate a meeting (Capps, 2012). Student affairs professionals may also tailor orientations to specific student populations. Many colleges and universities already host week-long New Student Orientations at the beginning of semesters, so it would stand to reason that a part of those orientation programs could more directly schedule and connect with new traditional students to answer questions, provide resources and just be present.

Financial stress: New traditional students are also disproportionately at risk of stopping out of institutions due to financial struggles. Returning adult students leave college when institutions cannot offer the financial aid they need. Limited financial aid frequently forces returning adult students to return to work full-time (Steele and Erisman (2016). These stories are not unique to just returning adult students. Students who attend college part-time, non-degree seeking students, students with childcare needs, and many student veterans report similar experiences. These experiences illustrate a clear need for student affairs professionals to provide specialized admissions and financial aid counseling and to create more welcoming communities for new traditional students to enter. Student affairs professionals can make intentional efforts to more clearly show that institutions are committed to supporting a wider range of students than just those who are single, degree-seeking 18-24 year olds living on campus. Using institutional websites advantageously may indeed help to normalize the physical presence of new traditional students and to more holistically incorporate the voices and perspectives of new traditional students on an institutional level (Ihme et al., 2014).

References

Capps, R. (2012). Supporting adult-student persistence in community colleges. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(2), 38-44. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2012.655218

Carlson, S. (2015, May 18). Campus child care, a 'critical student benefit,' is disappearing. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/Campus-Child-Care-Is/230135

Ihme, T. A., Sonnenberg, K., Barbarino, M., Fisseler, B., & Stürmer, S. (2016). How university websites' emphasis on age diversity influences prospective students' perception of person-organization fit and student recruitment. Research in Higher Education, 57(8), 1010-1030. doi: 10.1007/s11162-016-9415-1

Jenkins (2012) - http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-New-Traditional-on/135012/?cid=cc

Kim, K., & Baker, R. M. (2015). The assumed benefits and hidden costs of adult learners' college enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 56(5), 510-533. doi: 10.1007/s11162-014-9351-x

Merisotis - https://www.luminafoundation.org/news-and-views/serving-the-21st-century-student

NCES - http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015025.pdf

Steele, P., & Erisman, W. (2016). Addressing the college attainment gap for working adults with prior college credit. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48(2), 46-53. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2016.1167566