Rural–Nonrural Differences in College Attendance Patterns

Abstract

Using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, this study documented college attendance patterns of rural youth in terms of the selectivity of first postsecondary institution of attendance, the timing of transition to postsecondary education, and the continuity of enrollment. The study also examined how these college attendance patterns among rural students differed from those among their nonrural counterparts and which factors explained these rural–nonrural differences. Results showed that rural youth were less likely than their nonrural counterparts to attend a selective institution. In addition, rural youth were more likely to delay entry to postsecondary education compared to their urban counterparts. Finally, rural students were less likely than their urban counterparts to be continuously enrolled in college. Much of these rural–nonrural disparities in college attendance patterns were explained by rural–nonrural differences in socioeconomic status and high school preparation. Policy implications, limitations of the study, and future research directions are also discussed.

Notes

Stopouts usually refer to discontinuous enrollment (e.g., missing an entire semester or academic year), which is different from dropouts from college (Goldrick-Rab, 2006).

Sample sizes throughout the article are rounded to the nearest 10 in compliance with NCES regulations for using restricted data.

The selectivity level of the institution was based on the selectivity cell cluster used in the Cooperative Institutional Research Project's 1992 publication The American Freshman (Adelman et al., 2003), which defines selectivity as the average composite SAT score of the entering class (low = nonselective, medium = selective, and high = highly selective) (Dey, Astin, Korn, & Riggs, 1992). Although open-door institutions typically refer to community colleges, unrated institutions include “specialized schools art/music/drama, theological seminaries, and nearly all sub-baccalaureate institutions awarding less than the associate's degree” (Adelman et al., 2003, p. 25).

The curriculum intensity variable was based on a weighted quintile distribution of NELS:88/00 students across 32 levels of academic curriculum intensity and quality (Adelman et al., 2003, p. 66). At the highest quintile, for example, students accumulated 3.75 or more Carnegie units of both English and mathematics; highest mathematics of either calculus, precalculus, or trigonometry; 2.5 or more Carnegie units of science or more than 2.0 Carnegie units of core laboratory science; more than 2.0 Carnegie units of both foreign languages and history and/or social studies; more than 1 AP course; and no remedial courses for both English and mathematics (Adelman, 2006, p. 27).

Note that we included the not-ratable category for analyses but do not present its results because they are of less interest.

Table 2 Coefficients and Standard Errors From Multinomial Regression of Selectivity of First Postsecondary Institutions of Attendance

Table

Our supplementary analysis suggests that more than half of the American Indian students (84 out of 156) included in NELS:88/2000 data attended rural high schools.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Soo-Yong Byun

Soo-yong Byun is Assistant Professor of Educational Theory and Policy at the Penn State University. His main fields of interest are sociology of education, international comparative education, educational policy analysis and program evaluation, and quantitative methods and statistics. He received a Ph.D. in Educational Policy and Administration from the University of Minnesota at Twin Cities with a specialization in Comparative and International Development Education.

Matthew J. Irvin

Matthew J. Irvin is an Assistant Professor of Educational Psychology and Research at the University of South Carolina. His research focuses on the learning and development of youth from rural areas and youth with disabilities.

Judith L. Meece

Judith L. Meece is Professor of Educational Psychology in the School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her primary areas of research are school- and classroom-related influences on motivation and educational outcomes of underserved youth. She received a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Michigan.