Download - 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
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
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
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
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
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
4/14
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
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.
A SHIFTING PARADIGM / 173
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
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
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
7/14
A SHIFTING PARADIGM / 175
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.
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
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.
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
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.
A SHIFTING PARADIGM / 177
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.
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
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.
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
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.
A SHIFTING PARADIGM / 179
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
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
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
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]
A SHIFTING PARADIGM / 181
-
8/13/2019 A Shifting Paradigm in the Recruitment and Retention of Underrepresented Graduate Students
14/14
Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.