Social Capital and Residential Decision Making Among Rural and Nonrural College Graduates

Abstract

Due to the low demand for highly educated workers in rural areas, high-achieving rural students have been portrayed as having to pick between staying close to home and facing limited economic opportunities or leaving to pursue higher education and socioeconomic advancement. But what of those who want both-college degree and return to rural living? Comparing the experiences of rural graduates who returned to rural locales with those who out-migrated and nonrural graduates across one predominantly rural state, this study explores how social capital matters in the residential decision-making process. Proximity to work and family were the primary factors determining adult residence. Sense of place-but not attachment to a specific community-also mattered, especially for rural graduates. Family, school, and community social capital were more likely to play a role in career development for rural students, as career aspirations during adolescence followed by career-driven college choices created pathways for rural return. Findings underscore the importance of analyzing rural return from a regional lens, as respondents reframed lifestyle elements researchers tend to portray as mutually exclusive-rural lifestyle, proximity to family, and professional career-as compatible by employing broad and flexible definitions of proximity and place.

Inequality in the Extracurriculum: How Class, Race, and Gender Shape College Involvement1

“…Perhaps the most prominent benefit of extracurricular involvement is its ability to foster inclusion and feelings of belonging among new students, contributing to retention and graduation (Bean 2005; Chambliss and Takacs 2014; Nelson 2019). These insights are often traced to the scholarship of sociologist Vincent Tinto (1987), who argued that social integration directly influenced students’ intentions to persist in higher education.…”

“…Yet, in recent years, scholars have extended their attention to understanding inequality in the extracurricular realm of college (Arum et al 2018). Involvement in formal and informal settings beyond the classroom is linked to a range of positive outcomes (Deil‐Amen 2011; Stuber 2009); perhaps the most notable of these is an increased sense of inclusion or belonging, which can facilitate retention (Hausman et al 2007; Nelson 2019; Nunn forthcoming). Research makes clear, however, that not all students find inclusion in extracurricular outlets (Armstrong and Hamilton 2013; McCabe 2009).…”

Gendering a New Marker of Adulthood: Home Ownership in Southwest China

“…Yet the conventional markers of adulthood may hold different meanings in the "Majority World," where most of the world's population live (Dannefer 2003). In addition, life course literature generally does not engage with theories of gender (Nelson 2019;Risman 2018;Settersten et al 2015;Sp eder and Murink o 2014), assuming instead a unisex transition to adulthood (Sp eder and Murink o 2014). As a result, this research misses one important way the transition to adulthood shapes and is shaped by inequality.…”

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

“…Yet place of residence is also an important factor that shapes socioeconomic inequalities over the life course (Brown and Lee 1999; Elder, King, and Conger 1996; Galster and Sharkey 2017). In particular, a large spatial inequality literature demonstrates that growing up in a rural, suburban, or urban context is associated with variation in parental socioeconomic resources (Jensen and Ely 2017; Lobao 2004; Roscigno et al 2006; Thiede et al 2018), as well as differential migration (Carr and Kefalas 2009; Garasky 2002; Nelson 2019) and college enrollment patterns (Byun et al 2015).…”

“…While the development of online distance learning has the potential to increase rural students' postsecondary access, unequal access to high speed Internet across the rural–urban continuum means that geographic isolation from a physical campus remains a formidable obstacle for rural college‐goers (Rosenboom and Blagg 2018). As a result of this isolation, rural youth are more likely to tie educational aspirations to migration than urban and suburban youth (Carr and Kefalas 2009; Elder et al 1996; Garasky 2002; Nelson 2019).…”