1. The Impact of Non-Traditional Students on Student Needs
Confounding the Data

2. Origins 4-year, State College in the University System of Georgia
Authorized by GA Legislature in May 2005
President hired in September 2005
Campus opened with 118 students and 10 faculty in August 2006

3. Current Status Students: Faculty Degree Programs
Fall Enrollment: 118
Fall Enrollment: 787
Fall Enrollment: 5380
Faculty
Fall Total: 11 – all FT
Fall Total: 333 (196FT; 137PT)
Degree Programs
Fall 2006: BBA Business; BS Biology, Psychology
Fall 2007: BBA Business; BS Biology, Psychology, Information Technology
Fall 2010: BBA Business; BS Biology, Psychology, Information Technology, Mathematics; BA English, History, Political Science; BSEd: Early Childhood Ed, Special Ed

4. Basic Demographics Four Year Trend
Variable
Fall 2010
Fall 2009
Fall 2008
Fall 2007
Age (First Time – First Year [FTFY])
M=19.33 (2.53)
97%<=24
M=19.52 (3.06)
97% <=24
M=19.47 (3.51)
M=19.10 (2.44)
98% <=24
Gender (FTFY)
53.4% Female
50.9% Female
51.1% Female
48.7% Female
Ethnicity (FTFY)
41.9% White
41.8% White
58.6% White
53.1% White
Percentage First Generation (FTFY)
41.6%
36.2%
39.2%
39.6%
Percentage Transfer Students
27.54%
39.9%
45.0%
47.1%
Age (Transfer)
M=25.55 (7.45)
26.32 (8.07)
25.56 (8.70)
25.85 (7.93)
Gender (Transfer)
56.3% Female
47.0% Female
53.1% Female
Ethnicity (Transfer)
40.5% White
54.0% White
60.9% White
Pell Grant eligibility (All)
47.6%
33.2%
22.4%
N/A

5. Short Lit Review

6. The Questions
Is ‘Transfer Student’ synonymous with ‘Non-traditional Student’ on our campus?
Do non-traditional students have identifiably different perspectives and needs from those of traditional students?
Do those differences rest only in the transfer population or do they apply equally to older students beginning college for the first time?

7. The Analysis Data Sources FoE survey conducted in Fall 2009
Participants were students who had entered GGC in Fall 2008
Transfer student survey conducted Summer 2010
Participants were new transfer students attending orientation sessions

8. The Analysis, cont. Recoded all age data into a binary variable
Age <=24 is Traditional Student
Age >=25 is Non-traditional Student
As appropriate to data type, tested for statistical difference between the two groups

9. Results NT rate themselves higher on time management
NT less likely to get involved in traditional activities
NT perceive the institution as providing more information about how college helps with life
NT perceive instructor feedback as timely more than T
NT report working more hours per week
NT less likely to live with family
NT more likely to have clear intent for next year enrollment
NT less likely to have a parent with a college degree (probably GGC specific)

10. Conclusions T and NT may not be a different as we all assume
Student Affairs programming needs to move beyond traditional activities if you want to involve NT students
NTs may make good partners in helping their T aged colleagues understand the value of the classroom experience or of college in general
FY programming – if engagement is a goal – needs to be different for NT and T students
NT students may engage academically more easily (infer from reporting that faculty/staff/college have helped them understand how college helps, etc), but engage socially less easily (or at least in different ways)

11. Next Steps