IR Applications Linking Student Precollege Characteristics to College Development Outcomes : The Search for a Meaningful Way to Inform Institutional Practice and Policy

Using a typological schema derived from freshman survey data and other empirical measures, this study examines the link between students’ traits upon entry to college and their college academic performance and skill development in various areas as measured at the exit point. The findings indicate the typological schema is predictive of student outcomes in terms of self-reported gains and future plans, validating the definitions of student types to a significant extent. Also, the findings help institutional leaders reflect upon questions of alignment between institutional mission focus on the one hand and student interests and aptitudes on the other: How well do various aspects of our programs meet the distinctive needs of diverse students? Whom do we serve well, and whom less well, and in what ways? Introduction In trying to gain a better understanding of student attitudes, values, and expectations of college and develop stronger service programs to maximize student college experiences, a growing number of student typologies have been developed in the past decades (Astin, 1993; Clark & Trow, 1966; Hackman & Tabor, 1976; Horowitz, 1987; Katchadourian & Boli, 1985; Keniston, 1965; Kuh, Hu, & Vesper, 2000; Newcomb, Koenig, Flacks, & Warwick, 1967). As noted by Astin (1993), however, earlier researchbased typologies, although occasionally discussed in the literature, have seldom been used to guide institutional practice or decision-making. In order to render their studies more applicable in educational research and practice, higher education researchers have recently begun to use longitudinal, multiinstitution data sets and apply private marketing methodologies to illuminate student interests and aptitudes. For example, using data from the Cooperative Institutional Volume 7, November 3, 2005 Jiali Luo and David Jamieson-Drake, Duke University Research Program (CIRP)’s annual survey of entering firstyear students, Astin (1993) developed via factor analysis an empirical typology based on a national sample of 2,595 students in the 1971 entering cohort who responded to 60 questions on the CIRP Freshman Survey that provided information on students’ values, self-concept, behaviors, attitudes, and expectations. In a more recent study, Kuh et al. (2000) used a sample of 51,155 full-time undergraduate students from 128 institutions who responded to the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) between 1990 and 1997 and developed a typology based on student patterns of engagement in college activities. While contributing to our understanding of college student characteristics, these studies, as with other typologies and educational research, do have some limitations. In his study, Astin (1993) relied on factor analysis for his typology. As a result, he left 39 percent of students unclassified in his sample. Also, the “uncommitted” type in Astin’s study was created with student expectations for college rather than actual student behaviors during college. Although Kuh et al. (2000) used cluster analysis for their typology of college students according to the patterns of engagement in college activities and associated student types with college outcomes, their study did not examine students’ traits upon entering college and thus missed an important link in predicting student achievement at college. In addition, these two studies both failed to examine factors that might have influenced students’ decision to go to college in the first place. As students’ beliefs and attitudes tend to affect student behaviors (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991), we believe that linking student precollege characteristics to college outcomes may shed light on the nature of student achievement. The purpose of this study is to explore the link between IR Applications, Number 7, Linking Student Precollege. 2 students’ traits upon entering college and their college development outcomes in various areas as measured at the exit point. Using a typological schema and other empirical measures, this study seeks to examine relationships between how students may appear on their admissions applications and how they have achieved in, and contributed to, their college experience. Two broad questions guide this study: (a) What typological characteristics do students have at college entry? and (b) How do students’ typological profiles relate to their choice of college, patterns of engagement in college activities, academic achievement, educational satisfaction, career aspirations, and life goals? Review of Related Student Typologies Since 1960, three lines of inquiry have examined student attitudes, values, and experiences for a better understanding of personal and social factors that are likely to affect student behaviors (see Table 1). Guided by conceptual models of student subcultures, the first line of research chiefly examines the “fit” between the characteristics of students and the characteristics of an institution. Three studies along this line were notable: Clark and Trow (1966), Newcomb et al. (1967), and Katchadourian and Boli (1987). Using data collected in the late 1950s and early 1960s from students at the University of California, Berkeley, Clark and Trow (1966) categorized students on a two-dimensional scheme: identification with the college and involvement with ideas. As a result, they identified four distinctive student subcultures: (a) Collegiate, (b) Vocational, (c) Academic, and (d) Nonconformist. Students in the collegiate group showed high identification with the college and low involvement with ideas. Students in the vocational group displayed low identification with the college and low involvement with ideas, while students in the academic group scored high on both dimensions. Although ranking low in institutional identification, the nonconformists were highly interested in intellectual matters and issues related to art, literature, and politics. Similarly, in their study of enrolled students at Bennington College, Vermont, Newcomb et al. (1967) used two clusters of norms (i.e., individualism and intellectualism) to guide their typology, which led to their identification of six dominant student groups: (a) Creative Individualists, (b) Wild Ones, (c) Scholars, (d) the Social Group, (e) Leaders, and (f) Political Activists. With strong beliefs in principles and commitment to creative pursuits, Creative Individualists ranked high on both individualism and intellectuality. Students in the Wild group displayed high individualism but low intellectuality. They loved wild parties but cared little about academic work. In contrast to the Wild group, Scholars focused on their academic work but ignored other things in life. With sole interest in social life and having fun, the Social group ranked low on both dimensions. Leaders participated actively in the student government and were popular among major student groups, while Political Activists were interested in public affairs, civil rights, campus politics, and social conditions. With the apparent increase of student interest in mere preparation for a career rather than in the intrinsic and intellectual benefits derived from the learning process, Katchadourian and Boli (1985) examined one cohort of Stanford students from their freshman year to graduation and classified them on a two-dimensional scheme of intellectualism and careerism. The interplay of the two dimensions resulted in four types of students: (a) Careerists, (b) Intellectuals, (c) Strivers, and (d) Unconnected. By definition, Careerists viewed higher education mainly as getting training for a career, while Intellectuals aspired to extend their knowledge and enjoy the learning process. Strivers attempted to excel in their studies and at the same time get prepared for a successful career of their choice, whereas the Unconnected scored low on both dimensions and failed to engage in college. The second line of research on student typologies