Rural Community Colleges

Katsinas, Stephen G.; Hardy, David E.

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2950-6_10

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In his study on college completion and rural youth outmigration, Gibbs (1998) uses data from the 1979 National Longitudinal Study of Youth and reports that 33.1 percent of college‐goers from rural backgrounds had student debt in young adulthood, compared to 27 percent of nonrural college‐goers. More recent work finds that students attending rural community colleges are more likely to take on student debt in their first year than those attending nonrural community colleges (Hardy and Katsinas 2008; Katsinas and Hardy 2012). During the 2007–2008 academic year, Katsinas and Hardy (2012) report that 27 percent of first‐time students at rural community colleges incurred student debt, compared to 14 percent of students at suburban and urban community colleges.…”

Section: Student Debt and Geographic Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More recent work finds that students attending rural community colleges are more likely to take on student debt in their first year than those attending nonrural community colleges (Hardy and Katsinas 2008; Katsinas and Hardy 2012). During the 2007–2008 academic year, Katsinas and Hardy (2012) report that 27 percent of first‐time students at rural community colleges incurred student debt, compared to 14 percent of students at suburban and urban community colleges. While valuable, work to this point focuses on specific populations (e.g., community college students) or older cohorts who attended college before the most recent rise in student debt during the 2000s (Federal Reserve Bank of New York 2020).…”

Section: Student Debt and Geographic Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Student Debt and Geographic Disadvantage: Disparities by Rural, Suburban, and Urban Background*

Rhodes

2021

Rural Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American youth from rural backgrounds have made great strides to overcome challenges in college enrollment and completion since the 2000s. Yet little is known about how rural youth are financing these attainment increases—a pressing question in light of high college costs, rising student debt, and spatial inequality in the resources that students have to pay for college. This paper examines disparities in young adults' student debt by geographic background using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 Cohort. Regression analyses reveal that college‐goers from rural backgrounds accumulate more debt than those from suburban and urban backgrounds, adjusting for differences in sociodemographic characteristics. Rural college‐goers' higher debt can be partially attributed to differences in socioeconomic backgrounds and rates of inter‐county migration during college, and there is evidence that the additive influences of geographic background and gender contribute to particularly high debt among rural women. The findings suggest that longstanding spatial inequalities contribute to disparities in student debt and raise questions about the experiences of rural youth and communities in a debt‐based society.

show abstract

Section: Student Debt and Geographic Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Student Debt and Geographic Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student Debt and Geographic Disadvantage: Disparities by Rural, Suburban, and Urban Background*

Rhodes

2021

Rural Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Collectively, rural‐serving colleges enroll more than one‐third of public community college students. During the 2007–2008 academic school year, this equated to approximately 3.5 million students enrolled at 575 two‐year public college campuses nationwide (Katsinas and Hardy ). Rural colleges also benefit the wider community by functioning as engines for local economic development, hubs for cultural enrichment, centers of learning and workforce development, and employers themselves (Cavan ; Crookston and Hooks ; Siegfried, Sanderson, and McHenry ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Policymakers do not always consider these challenges in the creation and passage of education policy (Katsinas and Hardy ; Sipple and Brent ). The allocation of state funds based on enrollment numbers, for instance, is highly problematic for rural institutions since they typically enroll fewer students than suburban and urban colleges (Pennington et al ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lack of interest carries over into politics as well. The welfare of rural‐serving colleges has long been overlooked by legislators when policy is enacted (Katsinas and Hardy ; Sipple and Brent ). This oversight occurs to the detriment of many students, considering one‐third of those who attend a community college attend a rural‐serving institution (Katsinas and Hardy 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“The Panhandle is Different than the Peninsula”: How Rural Colleges in Florida Implemented Education Reform

Nix

Jones

2019

Rural Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When it comes to the creation of higher education policy, state legislators are challenged with addressing the diverse academic needs of college students enrolled across a spectrum of institutions. In this paper, we explore how 203 individuals at five rural‐serving colleges in Florida engaged in state‐wide developmental education (DE) reform using the theoretical framework of “situated cognition.” Specifically, we ask whether the colleges implemented DE reform in unique ways that may have differed from their non‐rural counterparts and what their rationale was for doing so. Our work indicates that institutional culture and capacity generated a combination of strengths and constraints in how reform played out in a rural context. In some ways, a rural‐serving identity made colleges more flexible and better able to adjust their advising and curricular structures to comply with the mandates of SB 1720. But in other ways, rural‐serving institutions lacked the resources necessary to adequately support students and campus personnel through this dramatic transition toward new ways of providing DE. In looking toward the passage and implementation of future education reform, we call upon policymakers to consider more deeply the design of policies to ensure they support rural and non‐rural colleges alike.

show abstract