An official website of the United States government
Existing research demonstrates gender- and race/ethnicity-based inequities in college outcomes. Separately, recent research suggests a relationship between time poverty and college outcomes for student parents and online students. However, to date, no studies have empirically explored whether differential access to time as a resource for college may explain differential outcomes by gender or race/ethnicity. To address this, this study explored the relationship between time poverty, gender or race/ethnicity, and college outcomes at a large urban public university with two and four year campuses. Time poverty explained a significant proportion of differential outcomes (retention and credit accumulation) by gender and race/ethnicity. More time-poor groups also dedicated a larger proportion of their (relatively limited) discretionary time to their education, suggesting that inequitable distributions of time may contribute to other negative outcomes (e.g., reduced time for sleep, exercise, healthcare). This suggests that time poverty is a significant but understudied equity issue in higher education.
more »
« less
Time Poverty and Parenthood: Who Has Time for College?
Student parents are among the least likely student groups to complete college. Regression models were run using 2003–2019 American Time Use Survey data to explore time poverty among college students. Results indicate that students with children under 13 years had significantly less discretionary time and free time, spent significantly less time on their education, enrolled part-time at significantly higher rates, and spent significantly more time studying while simultaneously caring for children, compared with students without children under 13 years. The strength of these relationships was strongest when children were younger. Parents with children under 6 years, and mothers of children of all age-groups, had significantly higher time poverty than other groups, yet spent significantly more time on education after controlling for discretionary time, at the cost of significantly less free time for themselves. Results suggest that improving college outcomes for student parents may require consideration of time poverty.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10244220
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- AERA Open
- Volume:
- 7
- ISSN:
- 2332-8584
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 233285842110116
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
First-generation (FG) and/or low-income (LI) engineering student populations are of particular interest in engineering education. However, these populations are not defined in a consistent manner across the literature or amongst stakeholders. The intersectional identities of these groups have also not been fully explored in most quantitative-based engineering education research. This research paper aims to answer the following three research questions: (RQ1) How do students’ demographic characteristics and college experiences differ depending on levels of parent educational attainment (which forms the basis of first-generation definitions) and family income? (RQ2) How do ‘first-generation’ and ‘low-income’ definitions impact results comparing to their continuing-generation and higher-income peers? (RQ3) How does considering first-generation and low-income identities through an intersectional lens deepen insight into the experiences of first-generation and low-income groups? Data were drawn from a nationally representative survey of engineering juniors and seniors (n = 6197 from 27 U.S. institutions). Statistical analyses were conducted to evaluate respondent differences in demographics (underrepresented racial/ethnic minority (URM), women, URM women), college experiences (internships/co-ops, having a job, conducting research, and study abroad), and engineering task self-efficacy (ETSE), based on various definitions of ‘first generation’ and ‘low income’ depending on levels of parental educational attainment and self-reported family income. Our results indicate that categorizing a first-generation student as someone whose parents have less than an associate’s degree versus less than a bachelor’s degree may lead to different understandings of their experiences (RQ1). For example, the proportion of URM students is higher among those whose parents have less than an associate’s degree than among their “associate’s degree or more” peers (26% vs 11.9%). However, differences in college experiences are most pronounced among students whose parents have less than a bachelor’s degree compared with their “bachelor’s degree or more” peers: having a job to help pay for college (55.4% vs 47.3%), research with faculty (22.7% vs 35.0%), and study abroad (9.0% vs 17.3%). With respect to differences by income levels, respondents are statistically different across income groups, with fewer URM students as family income level increases. As family income level increases, there are more women in aggregate, but fewer URM women. College experiences are different for the middle income or higher group (internship 48.4% low and lower-middle income vs 59.0% middle income or higher; study abroad 11.2% vs 16.4%; job 58.6% vs 46.8%). Despite these differences in demographic characteristics and college experiences depending on parental educational attainment and family income, our dataset indicates that the definition does not change the statistical significance when comparing between first-generation students and students who were continuing-generation by any definition (RQ2). First-generation and low-income statuses are often used as proxies for one another, and in this dataset, are highly correlated. However, there are unique patterns at the intersection of these two identities. For the purpose of our RQ3 analysis, we define ‘first-generation’ as students whose parents earned less than a bachelor’s degree and ‘low-income’ as low or lower-middle income. In this sample, 68 percent of students were neither FG nor LI while 11 percent were both (FG&LI). On no measure of demographics or college experience is the FG&LI group statistically similar to the advantaged group. Low-income students had the highest participation in working to pay for college, regardless of parental education, while first-generation students had the lower internship participation than low-income students. Furthermore, being FG&LI is associated with lower ETSE compared with all other groups. These results suggest that care is required when applying the labels “first-generation” and/or “low-income” when considering these groups in developing institutional support programs, in engineering education research, and in educational policy. Moreover, by considering first-generation and low-income students with an intersectional lens, we gain deeper insight into engineering student populations that may reveal potential opportunities and barriers to educational resources and experiences that are an important part of preparation for an engineering career.more » « less
-
Introduction Why do some students maintain their career expectations in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics), whereas others change their expectations? Using situated expectancy-value and social cognitive career theories, we sought to investigate the extent to which STEM support predicted changes in students' STEM career expectations during high school, and if these processes varied by whether the student had college educated or noncollege educated parents. Methods Using the nationally representative data set of the High School Longitudinal Study, we investigated the predictors of changes in US students' STEM career expectations from 9th to 11th grade (n = 13,100, 54% noncollege educated parents, 51% girls, 55% White, 21% Latinx, 12% Black). Results and Conclusions Students with noncollege educated parents were significantly more likely to change from STEM to non-STEM career expectations by 11th grade or to have stable non-STEM career expectations (compared to having stable STEM expectations or changing from non-STEM to STEM expectations). Additionally, students with noncollege educated parents were less likely to receive STEM support from parents and attend extracurricular activities compared to students with college educated parents. However, when examining the predictors among students with noncollege educated parents, students were more likely to maintain their expectations for a STEM career from 9th to 11th grade (compared to switching to a non-STEM career) if they had parental STEM support. Additionally, all students regardless of parents' level of education were more likely to maintain their expectations for a STEM career (vs. switching to a non-STEM career) through high school if they received teacher STEM support. Furthermore, students were more likely to develop STEM career expectations (vs. maintaining non-STEM career expectations) if they had parent STEM support. These findings highlight how parent and teacher STEM support may bolster STEM career expectations, particularly among students with noncollege educated parents.more » « less
-
Abstract Existing qualitative research in higher education on students’ work and family commitments already suggests that time as a resource for college is likely not distributed equitably by race/ethnicity or gender. However, the relationship between race/ethnicity, gender, and time as a resource for college has yet to be quantitatively measured in large-scale higher education research. This study explored whether gender or race/ethnicity correlated with differences in time as a resource for college; and further, the extent to which differences in time as a resource for college may be explained by other factors such as age, number of children, and access to childcare. Retrospective survey responses (n = 41,579) on self-reported time use were merged with institutional data records from students at the City University of New York (CUNY), a large diverse public university in the U.S. Women, Black, and Hispanic students were all significantly more time poor than male, White, or Asian students. Age accounted for significant portions of these differences, perhaps because it correlates with increased work and family responsibilities. Having children as well as a student’s access to childcare also explained a significant portion of inequitable distributions of time as a resource for college.more » « less
-
Abstract Infant sex ratios that differ from the biological norm provide a measure of gender status inequality that is not susceptible to social desirability bias. Ratios may become less biased with educational expansion through reduced preference for male children. Alternatively, bias could increase with education through more access to sex-selective medical technologies. Using National Vital Statistics data on the population of live births in the United States for 1969–2018, we examine trends in infant sex ratios by parental race/ethnicity, education, and birth parity over five decades. We find son-biased infant sex ratios among Chinese and Asian Indian births that have persisted in recent years, and regressions suggest son-biased ratios among births to Filipino and Japanese mothers with less than a high school education. Infant sex ratios are more balanced at higher levels of maternal education, particularly when both parents are college educated. Results suggest greater equality of gender status with higher education in the United States.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211011608
