a shifting paradigm in the recruitment and retention of underrepresented graduate students

8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students

1/14

J. COLLEGE STUDENT RETENTION, Vol. 9(2) 169-181, 2007-2008

A SHIFTING PARADIGM IN THE RECRUITMENT

ANDRETENTIONOFUNDERREPRESENTED

GRADUATESTUDENTS

MICHAEL C. POOCK

East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina

ABSTRACT

Efforts to recruit and retain a diverse graduate population at colleges and

universities are undergoing a paradigm shift. Diversity has traditionally

been operationalized as racial minority, yet recent court decisions have

indicated that such a definition is legally problematic. As a result, institu-

tional leaders are moving toward defining diversity in terms of under-

represented. However, little is known about the specific activities insti-

tutions are undertaking to attract and retain underrepresented graduate

students. This study presents theresultsof a nationalsurvey of membersof the

National Association of Graduate Admission Professionals on the efforts theirinstitutions are undertaking to attract and retain underrepresented graduate

students as well as their perceived effectiveness of such activities.

Many authors have addressed the importance of creating a diverse student body

on campuses (e.g., Baez, 2004; Lewis, Ginsberg, Davies, & Smith, 2004). These

studies focused on a variety of issues, from recruitment to admission to degree

completion. However, much of this research on recruiting and retaining a diverse

student population has focused on undergraduate students (Fenske, Porter, &

DuBrock, 2000; Jenkins, Harburg, Weissberg, & Donnelly, 2004; Taylor &

Miller, 2002). Over the past decade the importance of diversity in graduate

education has received the level of attention generally reserved for undergraduates

(e.g., Council of Graduate Schools, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c; Jenkins & Thomas,

169

2007, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: 10.2190/CS.9.2.c

http://baywood.com


2/14

2002; Poock, 1999, 2000). While the volume has increased recently, this topic

has been identified as a need for many years. For example, 20 years ago Cowell

argued, if part of the value of graduate education derives from interactions

with other students, the diversity of the student community may well be as

crucial a measure as quality (Cowell, 1985, p. 27). While diversity is crucial, it

nevertheless remains complex. The Council of Graduate Schools has argued

that recruiting underrepresented minorities is a challenge throughout graduate

education (Council of Graduate Schools, 2003b, p. 4).

The need to recruit and retain a diverse graduate student body is clear. An

inclusive campus enhances the academic environment, promotes student success

in an increasingly global society, and has a positive impact on the curriculum

(Council of Graduate Schools, 2003a). In short, graduate schools in general, and

academic programs in particular, should strive toward an inclusive graduatestudent body because, . . . in an inclusive environment everyone wins. Benefits

accrue, for both majority and minority students, in the quality of the educational

experience and in the care and treatment of graduate students overall (Council

of Graduate Schools, 2003a, p. 13).

However, perhaps the most significant current challenge to recruiting a diverse

student body results from the recent Supreme Court decisions involving the

University of Michigans undergraduate admissions (Gratz et al. v. Bollinger

et al., 2002) and law school admissions (Grutter v. Bollinger et al., 2002). The

Supreme Court held for the plaintiff in Gratz,citing in part the universitys use of

points for race was not narrowly tailored in the aim to achieve diversity. However,

the court sided with the University of Michigan in Grutter, yet suggested that

the use of racial preferences will not be held legal in perpetuity. Indeed, the

Courts majority slip opinion stated that it expects that 25 years from now, the

use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest

approved today (Grutter v. Bollinger et al., 2002, p. 5). On the importance of

race alternative methods the Court noted that:

Universities in California, Florida, and Washington State, where racial prefer-

ences in admissions are prohibited by state law, are currently engaged in

experimenting with a wide variety of alternative approaches. Universities in

other States can and should draw on the most promising aspects of these race-

neutral alternatives as they develop (Grutter v. Bollinger et al., 2002, p. 35).

In short, race may be a variable, but only when utilized in a narrow manner.

Even then, the opportunity of using race in admissions is limited in time and it

is not clear when the use of race will be permissible in the future (Lauren, 2003).In the wake of the Michigan cases, many institutions with race-based summer

enrichment programs have embraced the notion of underrepresented rather than

using race as a standard for acceptance. These include Princeton, Yale, Harvard,

and Delaware (Schmidt, 2004). Specifically, Schmidt stated, colleges are

dropping the word minority from the titles of scholarships and fellowshipsas

170 / POOCK


3/14

well as recruitment, orientation, and academic enrichment programsand

opening them to populations that they had excluded (p. A17).

The aforementioned Supreme Court rulings and corresponding changes by

universities strongly suggests that there is a shift in the diversity preference

paradigm: from racial minority to underrepresented. This paradigm shift

can clearly be seen at the graduate level. For example, the Council of Graduate

Schools offers grants to institutions that support the creation of programs that

promote inclusiveness based not on race but on underrepresentiveness (Council

of Graduate Schools, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). The Council of Graduate Schools

states that underrepresented includes first generation students as well as those

from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Institutions such as the Uni-

versity of Georgia, offer diversity assistantships available to all graduate students

from underrepresented populations. These assistantships are available to womenin male-dominated fields and students from low socio-economic backgrounds

or who are first generation graduate students. In short, the movement toward

inclusiveness is not merely re-labeling existing efforts to attract and retain students

based on their race; rather, it is a fundamental change in the target population,

namely graduate students who are underrepresented on campus in general and

in academic fields in specific.

Therefore, although race may be easy to define (but still problematic

for students from multi-racial backgrounds), underrepresented remains an

amorphous term. Given this paradigm shift, an important question is: what

are universities doing to ensure an inclusive and diverse student body without

relying on race? The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine the activities

graduate admission professionals across the country are conducting to attract

and retain underrepresented students.

CURRENT LITERATURE

The research addressing recruitment and retention issues of graduate students

has focused on a variety of methodologies. Cowell (1985) used secondary data,

including U.S. Census and the Ford Foundations Commission on the Higher

Education of Minorities. She argued against lower standards or a strong

emphasis on promotiona1 efforts, but strategically providing information to

those seeking it at the appropriate time. Cowell argued that graduate schools

do not need to give away free T-shirts, hold scholarship lotteries and sponsor

admissions office bounty hunters to recruit a diverse student population (p. 28).

Rather, she suggested providing information to the appropriate (i.e., under-represented) people at the appropriate time, and offered that the three best

bases for effective retention were personal contact, follow-up, and consistency in

implementing practices.

Focusing on graduate students, Jenkins and Thomas (2002) conducted a

national survey on practices related to graduate student recruitment by

A SHIFTING PARADIGM / 171


4/14


5/14

who are socially, economically, or educationally disadvantaged, or those

who possess a uniquely diverse background that can add to their academic

discipline. Participants were asked to limit their answers to masters and

doctoral students, not students in first professional degrees such as J.D., M.D,

and D.D.S.

Participants

Members of NAGAP were the participants in this study. In instances where

an institution had more than one member, the ranking member was identified.

These individuals were sent a personal e-mail asking for their participation and

directing them to an online questionnaire. A follow-up e-mail was sent approxi-

mately three weeks later requesting that those individuals who had not yet

participated do so by a specific date.

Procedure

The questionnaire was developed by consulting with literature for common

recruitment and retention activities. Additionally, 12 graduate admission pro-

fessionals at institutions with varying Carnegie Classifications provided the

researcher with lists of all their recruitment and retention activities. The items on

the questionnaire were developed from both these sources of information. Face

and content validity were established by having graduate admissions professionals

(those not involved in the creation of the instrument) review the questionnaire.

Following this a pilot study was conducted with yet another group of graduateadmission professionals.

RESULTS

Of the 884 member organizations listed in the NAGAP membership directory,

121 were excluded because they were duplicate listings of educational institu-

tions (e.g., one institution listed twice) or they were not educational institutions

but were commercial enterprises. Ten educational institutions were excluded

because e-mails were returned as undeliverable and the researcher could not

locate the appropriate person on the institutions Web site. These exclusions

resulted in 753 possible participants. A total of 93 participants completed the

questionnaire yielding a response rate of 12%.Thirty percent of the participants were from doctoral/research universities

extensive institutions, 19% from doctoral/research universitiesintensive

institutions, and 28% and 8% from masters colleges and universities I and

masters colleges and universities II institutions, respectively. Fifteen percent

of the participants did not know the Carnegie Classification of their institution.



6/14

Recruitment

The vast majority of participants (77%) indicated that they engage in recruit-

ment activities for underrepresented populations, but only 26% set specific goals

in this area. Also, only 34% of the participants indicated that there is a single

employee at the institution directly responsible for the recruitment of under-

represented graduate students.

Of those institutions with a person responsible for recruitment activities, only

four had a person dedicated full-time toward these activities. These individuals

held the title of director or coordinator, but there was wide variance in the

percentage of time individuals with these titles dedicate to recruitment, ranging

from the previously stated 100% to just 25%. Those individuals with the title

of assistant dean or associate dean dedicated only 25% of their time torecruitment of underrepresented groups.

Regardless of who was responsible for recruitment, two-thirds of the

participants collaborated with others on campus. This collaboration included

current students, faculty, and institutional staff and administration. Less than

one-third collaborated with alumni.

Approximately two-thirds of the participants did not allocate funds specifically

for recruitment activities, and less than half offered assistantships or fellow-

ships for underrepresented individuals. The number of awards was small;

73% offered no more than five awards, and these awards were quite modest

(fewer than $1000). Only seven participants indicated that they award assistant-

ships or fellowships worth $5000 or greater.

Despite the limited funds, participants did engage in various recruitment

activities, each with varying ranges of perceived effectiveness. Table 1 contains

the activities in which these professionals engage. These activities are numerous,

but only one activity was perceived as somewhat effective. Offering assistant-

ships, with a mean of 3.53 (on a 5-point Likert scale) was the lone activity with a

mean above 3.00. All other activities pursued by recruitment staff were viewed

as ineffective by the same individuals.

The limited sample size resulted in empty cells and necessitated collapsing the

institutions into two groups based on size so that t-test could be performed.

Approximately three-fourths of the doctoral/research universities had a graduate

student enrollment of over 1000, and more than half of the masters institu-

tions had a graduate enrollment of 1000 or fewer. Therefore, doctoral/research

universityextensive and intensive were collapsed into one group, and masters

colleges and universities I and II were collapsed into the other group.As Table 2 indicates, participants at doctoral/research universities viewed

numerous recruitment activities as more effective than did participants at masters

institutions. Assistantships and other funding opportunities were viewed as the

most effective activity with a mean of 4.39. The effectiveness of an institutions

Web site was also viewed as effective, with a mean of 3.52. The other activities

174 / POOCK


7/14


Table 1. Recruitment Activities and Their Perceived

Effectiveness

Activity Meana SD

Available assistantships, grants, and scholarships

Web site

Correspondence by e-mail

Visitation days/open house

Graduate school recruitment days

Career fairs-off campus

Graduate preparatory programs (e.g., McNair)

Correspondence by mail

Campus tours

Summer research programs

Career fairs-on campus

Information meetings

Use of on-campus student organizations

Brochures for specific populations

Sending speakers to undergraduate classes

Office of minority students

Alumni contact

Advertisement on Internet site

Undergraduate to graduate bridge program

Outreach programs to businesses and organizations

Advertisement (radio/TV/newspaper)

Internet virtual open house

Internet chat rooms

GRE mailing list

Internet blogging

3.53

2.95

2.86

2.83

2.75

2.62

2.59

2.52

2.51

2.41

2.39

2.37

2.29

2.27

2.22

2.15

2.13

2.13

2.11

2.10

2.01

1.68

1.62

1.55

1.47

2.64

2.01

1.75

1.86

1.70

1.50

1.99

1.60

1.90

2.26

1.55

1.80

1.78

1.85

1.69

1.64

1.70

1.61

1.76

1.64

1.40

1.27

1.24

1.10

1.00

aOn a 5-point Likert scale: 5 = most effective and 1 = least effective.


8/14

viewed as effective by participants at doctoral/research universities involved the

prospective student being on campus. Visitation days, recruitment days, summer

research programs, campus tours, and on-campus career fairs all required a

physical presence on campus.

Retention

In examining retention activities, two-thirds of the participants indicated that

they did not provide programs to assist this population with integrating in theirinstitution. Of those offering programs, the most common programs are orien-

tation, using faculty and peer mentors, offering social receptions, and professional

development activities (see Table 3). With the exception of orientation, with a

mean of 3.92, participants rated retention activities as fairly ineffective with

means well below 2.00.

176 / POOCK

Table 2. Significant Difference of Recruitment Activity Effectiveness,

Group by Institution Classification

Doctorala Mastersb

Mc SD Mc SD t df

Assistantships/funding

Web site

Preparatory programs

Visitation days/open house

Career fairs-off campus

Recruitment days

Summer research programs

Correspondence by e-mail

Campus tours

Career fairs-on campus

On-campus student organizations

Information meetings

Speakers to undergraduate class

Alumni contact

4.39*

3.52*

3.48*

3.43*

3.28*

3.26*

3.24*

3.17*

3.15*

3.13*

2.83*

2.67*

2.61*

2.52*

2.60

2.00

2.01

1.89

1.53

1.87

2.63

1.74

2.00

1.57

1.96

1.90

1.81

1.75

2.79

2.24

1.55

2.03

1.91

2.27

1.30

2.30

1.73

1.48

1.73

1.85

1.70

1.64

2.45

1.82

1.23

1.55

1.10

1.35

0.92

1.69

1.49

0.88

1.42

1.54

1.40

1.56

2.80

2.96

5.20

3.63

4.64

2.73

4.62

2.23

3.62

5.94

2.90

2.13

2.52

2.37

72

73

75

75

77

77

59

70

77

73

77

76

76

73

aDoctoral = Doctoral/Research UnivExtensive and Doctoral/Research UnivIntensive.

b

Masters = Masters Colleges and Univ I and Masters Colleges and Univ II.cOn a 5-point Likert scale: 5 = most effective and 1 = least effective.

*p .05.


9/14

As with recruitment activities, t-tests were performed between doctoral and

masters institutions (see Table 4). Doctoral institutions rated the following reten-

tion activities significantly more important than did masters institutions: using

peer and faculty mentors, receptions, and professional development activities.

While significant differences existed between the institutions, the results were

not meaningful as the greatest mean was less than 2.00.

Given the option of responding to an open-ended question about other activities

in which participants engaged, six indicated that they provide social oppor-

tunities for underrepresented students. An equal number also provided specialized

mentoring for this population, both by students and faculty. Without exception,

each of the six participants indicated that these activities were effective, which

is inconsistent with the quantitative results (the option of other retention

activities reflects an overall mean of just 1.14).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study appear to parallel the amorphous nature of under-

represented students. Graduate admission professionals engage in activities

to recruit underrepresented graduate students. This fact suggests that they are

viewed as important. As the perceived ineffectiveness of such activities by

those conducting them indicated that recruiting such students is problematic(that is, graduate admission professionals understand that developing a diverse

student body is important, but the effective means to that end are not clear), they

engage in traditional recruitment activities, but those activities are admittedly

lacking. Aside from offering assistantships, these admissions professionals see

their efforts as largely ineffective.


Table 3. Retention Activities and Their Perceived Effectiveness

Activity Mean SD

New student orientation

Peer mentors

Professional development opportunities

Faculty mentors

On-campus visitations

Receptions

Other

3.92

1.55

1.54

1.53

1.38

1.34

1.14

0.90

1.21

1.78

1.21

0.86

0.77

0.64

Note: On a 5-point Likert scale: 5 = most effective and 1 = least effective.


10/14

Doctoral institutions with a greater graduate student enrollment have admission

professionals who view many of their activities as effective relative to their

counterparts at small, masters level institutions. In addition to the effectiveness of

assistantships and other aid, professionals at research institutions believe that their

Web sites, preparatory programs, and activities designed to bring prospective

underrepresented students to campus are generally effective recruitment activities.

A possible explanation for this difference is the nature of students at each type

of institution. It is likely that research institutions draw from a larger, more

geographically diverse population of potential students, whereas masters insti-

tutions tend to draw students who are geographically restricted to that region.

If this is indeed the case, then potential students would be familiar with the

institution and thus would not need visitation days, campus tours, or an effective

Web site, and may not participate in preparatory or summer research programs.

While recruitment activities are assumed to be important, retention activities

specifically designed for underrepresented students are not. The vast majority of

institutions do not offer programs designed to assist underrepresented students

with their transition to graduate education. Those that do offer programs viewthem as ineffective. Unlike recruitment activities, there are no meaningful differ-

ences between doctoral and masters institutions. It is possible that graduate

admission professionals view their role as focusing on recruitment and admis-

sion, and not on retention. This view would account for the overall lack of

programs. Moreover, while it can be argued that recruitment and admissions are

178 / POOCK

Table 4. Retention Activity Effectiveness, Grouped by

Institution Classification

Doctorala Mastersb

Mc SD Mc SD t df

New student orientation

Peer mentors

Professional development opp.

Faculty mentors

On-campus visitations

Receptions

Other

3.84

1.91*

1.91*

1.78*

1.54

1.54*

1.17

0.90

1.47

1.41

1.41

1.00

0.91

0.74

4.14

1.19

1.17

1.28

1.21

1.15

1.11

0.90

0.74

0.73

0.93

0.66

0.55

0.52

0.76

2.99

3.20

2.05

1.89

2.53

0.51

24

91

91

91

91

91

91

aDoctoral = Doctoral/Research UnivExtensive and Doctoral/Research UnivIntensive.

bMasters = Masters Colleges and Univ I and Masters Colleges and Univ II.

cOn a 5-point Likert scale: 5 = most effective and 1 = least effective.

*p .05.


11/14

the responsibility of many individuals at an institution, there is a clear admission

process at institutions, but most institutions do not have a retention process. There

may be retention activities, but the individual(s) responsible may be as a varied as

the number of institutions that offer such programs. It is also possible that

institutions offer various retention activities for all graduate students, a portion

of which are underrepresented students. Thus, it is possible that institutional

leaders view this need as being met and do not need separate programs specifically

for underrepresented students.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH

If the perceptions of the participants in the study are validnamely, that

current efforts are not effectivethen the most obvious topic for future research

focuses on recruitment and retention activities thatareeffective. Indeed, one may

postulate that current recruitment and retention activities are not data-driven;

that is, the activities are not selected based on their effectiveness. Thus, under-

standing what activities are effective in the recruitment and retention of under-

represented graduate students would have a profound impact for institutional

leaders attempting to increase the participation of this population.

When developing the instrument used in this study, graduate admission profes-

sionals indicated that most of their attention was directed toward recruitment,

and not retention, activities. This point is supported by comments provided by

participants, many of whom indicated that they focus little, if any, attention to

retention. Jack Maguire, Chairman of the enrollment management consulting

Maguire Associates (in Helms, 2003), argues that effective enrollment manage-

ment is an integrated effort with attention given to retention activities, not just

recruitment and admission activities (Helms, 2003). Therefore, developing an

effective enrollment management model for underrepresented graduate students

that incorporates effective and recruitment efforts appears to be desperately

needed in higher education.

LIMITATIONS

There are limitations within this study needing acknowledgment. First, the

response rate was fairly low. This limits the generalizability of the results. Second,not all institutions have a centralized graduate school and/or admissions profes-

sionals that are members of NAGAP. Additionally, institutions may employ

academic advisors, faculty, and other professionals tasked with recruiting and

retaining a diverse student body. Therefore, it is possible that effective recruitment

and retention activities are occurring that were not captured in this study.



12/14

CONCLUSION

The recruitment and retention of a diverse graduate student body has received

considerable attention in the academic press and on college campuses, but the

definition of diverse has undergone a paradigm shift. Recent Supreme Court

decisions have significantly changed the diversity landscape so that institutions

are now defining diversity in terms of underrepresented.

As institutions are moving away from race-based recruitment and retention

activities and toward activities that address the needs of underrepresented

students, it is important to understand recruitment and retention activities and

their level of effectiveness. This study addressed this need through a national

survey of graduate admission professionals. The results indicate a variety of

activities with varying degrees of perceived effectiveness. As the activitiesdesigned to meet the needs of underrepresented students evolve, so too will

the need to understand effective means to reach this end.

REFERENCES

Baez, B. (2004). The study of diversity.The Journal of HigherEducation, 75(3), 285-306.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2003a). Achieving an inclusive graduate community

(Inclusiveness Series, Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2003b). Recruiting for success (Inclusiveness Series,

Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

Council of Graduate Schools. (2003c). Ensuring Success (Inclusiveness Series, Vol. 3).

Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.

Cowell, P. (1985). Recruitment and retention for graduate student diversity. The Journal

of College Admissions, 109,27-31.

Fenske, R. H., Porter, J. D., & DuBrock, C. P. (2000). Tracking financial aid and

persistence of women, minority, and needy students in science, engineering, and

mathematics. Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 67-94.

Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. (2002). Retrieved April 15, 2005, from:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html

Grutter v. Bollinger et al. (2002). Retrieved April 15, 2005, from:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/opinions.html

Helms, R. M. (2003). Interview with John (Jack) Maguire Chairman, Maguire Associates.

College and University Journal, 79(1), 33-38.

Jenkins, A. H., Harburg, E., Weissberg, N. C., & Donnelly, T. (2004). The influence

of minority group cultural models on persistence in college. The Journal of Negro

Education, 73(1), 69-80.

Jenkins, J. O., & Thomas, C. L. (2002). A national survey of graduate student recruitment

practices.Unpublished manuscript.

Lauren, B. (2003). Affirmative action dodges a bullet: What may be permissible? Whats

next? College and University Journal, 79 (1), 3-8.

Lewis, C. W., Ginsberg, R., Davies, T., & Smith, K. (2004). The experiences of African

American Ph.D. students at a predominantly White Carnegie 1-Research institution.

College Student Journal, 38(2), 231-245.

180 / POOCK


13/14

Poock, M. C. (1999). Students of color and doctoral programs: Factors influencing the

application decision in higher education administration. College and University

Journal, 74(3), 2-7.

Poock, M. C. (2000). African American students and the decision to attend doctoral

programs in higher education administration. College Student Affairs Journal, 19(2),

51-60.

Schmidt, P. (2004, March 19). Not just for minority students anymore.Chronicle of Higher

Education,pp. A17-A20.

Taylor, J. D., & Miller, T. K. (2002). Necessary components for evaluating minority

retention program.NASPA Journal, 39(3), 266-282.

Direct reprint requests to:

Michael C. Poock, Ph.D.

Dept. of Educational Leadership

East Carolina University

203 Ragsdale Hall

Greenville, NC 27858

e-mail: [email protected]



14/14

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

a shifting paradigm in the recruitment and retention of underrepresented graduate students

Documents