Is There Still a Considerable Difference? Comparing Residential and Commuter Student Profile Characteristics at a Public, Research, Commuter University
The purpose of the study is to compare the student profile characteristics, which were categorized as demographic, prematriculation, and matriculation, between traditional residential and commuter students at a public, research, commuter university. Using status attainment as the theoretical framework, the researchers employed a discriminant function analysis to examine how the student profile characteristics were classified (or discriminated) between the two student groups. The results suggested that compared to their residential student peers, commuter students were more likely to be Hispanic and to be in-state students. Residential students were more likely to be African American, possess a higher socioeconomic status, have parents with a higher level of education, accumulate more grossed credits, and use higher amounts of financial aid in the forms of work study, grants, and loans. When comparing the academic success measures (i.e., GPA, retention, academic standing), there were no differences between residential and commuter students. As national student enrollments continue to evolve and commuter institutions continue to admit more diverse student populations, additional research is needed to examine these evolving multifaceted student characteristics. ********** Arthur Chickering's (1974) classic work is credited for bringing the residential-versus-commuter comparison into the national spotlight, and many empirical studies have built on his foundational work. When examining the collective body of research, the general underlying theme is that residential students have considerable advantages over commuter students, especially in academic success measures (e.g., Bowman & Partin, 1993; Pascarella, Bohr, Nora, Zusman, & Inman, 1992; Pascarella, 1985a; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Yet, the majority of the residential-versus-commuter empirical comparisons primarily consider students from residential institutions (Dugan, Garland, Jacoby, & Gasiorski, 2008; Weissberg, Owen, Jenkins, & Harburg, 2003). As national student enrollments continue to become more diverse (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), the diversity of students at public commuter institutions increase exponentially. This relationship can most likely be attributed to public urban institutions enrolling more diverse student populations than traditional private and/or rural institutions (e.g., ASHE-ERIC, 2004; Jacoby & Garland, 2004). With such dynamics, continual research is needed to examine these complex student characteristics, especially in regards to specific institutional types (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). This imbalance is particularly evident for single institution studies, where research on residential institutions is more prominent. Thus, there is a need to develop research that builds upon the residential-versus-commuter student comparison at commuter institutions. Therefore, this study will compare the student profile characteristics, categorized as demographic, prematriculation (precollege), and matriculation (college), between traditionally aged (18-24 years old) residential and commuter students at a large, public, research, commuter university located in the western United States. Review of Literature Residential and commuter students' dissimilarities begin with their living locations. Residential students are commonly defined as students living in institutionally owned or operated facilities on-campus, and commuter students are conversely defined as students living off-campus in non-institutionally owned or operated housing (Jacoby & Girrell, 1981; Jacoby, 1989). Yet, higher education literature suggests that the two student groups possess inherent differences that stretch beyond their living location. In general, commuter students are a more heterogeneous population who are viewed, although somewhat less as research progresses, as being "disadvantaged" to residential students because they lack the opportunities offered by the residential hall experience (e. …