The Journal of Continuing Higher Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujch20

Support for Working Students: Considerations for

Higher Education Institutions

Lauren Remenick & Matt Bergman

To cite this article: Lauren Remenick & Matt Bergman (2020): Support for Working Students:
Considerations for Higher Education Institutions, The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, DOI:
10.1080/07377363.2020.1777381

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2020.1777381

Published online: 02 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujch20
THE JOURNAL OF CONTINUING HIGHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2020.1777381

Support for Working Students: Considerations for Higher

Education Institutions
Lauren Remenick and Matt Bergman

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The majority of students enrolled in college today work at least part- Working students;
time. Although the benefits of working have been noted for years, nontraditional students;
institutions of higher education tend to operate under the assumption adult learners; student
support; policy
that students should prioritize their academic careers over their considerations
employment. First we review literature examining why students work,
the benefits and drawbacks of working, and the type of work that
yields the greatest benefit to students. Next we discuss policy recom-
mendations and practice considerations for higher education institu-
tions, including (a) removing or adjusting practices that dis-incentivize
working students, (b) developing policies that utilize students’ work
experience, (c) providing on-campus part-time employment opportu-
nities, and (d) establishing support systems that assist students in find-
ing employment that works for them. We conclude by summarizing
the state of higher education today, noting the inconsistencies
between students’ realities and institutional expectations, and recom-
mending ways in which institutions may more fully support their work-
ing students.

Introduction
The majority of students in the United States enrolled in college today work at least
part-time (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2018). The National Center
for Education Statistics (NCES) reported that in 2017, 81% of part-time students and
43% of full-time students at two-year and four-year public institutions in the United
States were employed (NCES, 2018). Students seek employment for a variety of reasons,
including financial, personal, or career-related reasons (Curtis & Shani, 2002; Hall,
2010; Perna, 2010; Scott-Clayton, 2012), and may be called “students who work” or
“employees who study” based on whether they are committed primarily to their studies
or employment (Berker et al., 2003; Horn, 1998).
These two groups—“students who work” and “employees who study”—each comprise
a different type of student population. Students who prioritize their studies tend to
work for the benefit of earning extra spending money or gaining experience in the
workforce (Furey, 2020). Alternately, students who prioritize their work tend to have
careers and possibly families to support. Often, their studies, and in turn their degrees,
are meant to supplement their careers (Furey, 2020). While some research has examined
the differences between these two groups (e.g., Alfano & Eduljee, 2013; Berker et al.,

CONTACT Lauren Remenick [email protected] Department of Educational Leadership and Higher

Education, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL 32816, USA.
ß 2020 Association for Continuing Higher Education
2 L. REMENICK AND M. BERGMAN

2003; Horn, 1998), much of the literature on working while enrolled in higher educa-
tion examines the effect that work has on one’s education without distinguishing
between the two types of student workers.
Furthermore, some may assume that students who work full-time are enrolled part-
time and students who work part-time are enrolled full-time. But to assume this would
ignore students who work and study full-time as well as those students who work and
study part-time. Very little research distinguishes between these groups. This article
seeks to explore the more prevalent literature on all working students, with a focus on
students at four-year institutions who work. Similar to other researchers, we have found
that more nuanced research is needed to understand the intricate differences in the
diversity of working students (Denning et al., 2018; Nu~ nez & Sansone, 2016).
Specifically, we found that further research is needed to understand (a) the detailed dif-
ferences between students who work and employees who study and (b) differences in
the groups of students who work full-time or part-time and study full-time or part-
time. Identifying the challenges for each group of students, as well as their similarities
and differences, would serve to provide clarity for practitioners and policymakers on
how to reduce the burdens of the various working student groups.

Purpose and Research Questions

Student employment allows students to gain skills they can use when they graduate and
enter the workforce (Billett, 2015; Billett et al., 2018). It has long been acknowledged
that (a) work experience is instrumental in gaining employment after graduation
(Power, 1992), (b) part-time work is necessary for many students who do not receive
scholarships or want to accrue student loans (Johnson, 1941), and (c) institutions
should help their students obtain funding for their education through part-time employ-
ment (Sharpe, 1932). Yet current university culture tends to operate under the assump-
tion that students have few obligations outside of their schoolwork (Bowl, 2001; Markle,
2015; Pelletier, 2010; Thompson-Ebanks, 2017; Tyson, 2012) and often aligns with lit-
erature and theories that suggest students immerse themselves in their studies and col-
lege life to be successful (Tyson, 2012; Zerquera et al., 2018). Reflecting universities’
prioritization of education over career, most policies serve full-time students (Rabourn
et al., 2018) and make few accommodations for part-time students or students with
other roles and obligations, such as working students (Bowl, 2001; Thon, 1984).
The purpose of this article is to review current research on working students and
explore policy implications for leaders of higher education institutions. Two overarching
questions are addressed: (a) What does research tell us about students who work? and
(b) How can institutions better serve their students who work?

Literature on the Working Student

Historical data show a steady increase in the number of students working while in col-
lege (Scott-Clayton, 2012). In 1959, 45% of students were employed, increasing to 56%
in 1986 (Stern & Nakata, 1991). Fourteen years later, in 2000, 74% of undergraduate
students reported working an average of 25.5 hours a week (National Postsecondary
 THE JOURNAL OF CONTINUING HIGHER EDUCATION 3

Student Aid Society [NPSAS], 2000). In 2012, 70% to 80% of students enrolled in post-
secondary education were working at least part-time. As of 2017, 81% of part-time stu-
dents and 43% of full-time students were employed (NCES, 2018).
As more and more students are working while enrolled in college, researchers
and policy leaders are asking questions such as (a) Why do students work? (b)
What are the benefits and drawbacks of working while enrolled in college?; and (c)
What type of work yields the most benefit to students? To answer these questions,
we examined research literature on working students. This literature review serves
to explore the first research question: What does research tell us about students
who work?

Why Do Students Work?

Students work for a variety of reasons. Some students work strictly for financial rea-
sons, as an increase in tuition may necessitate an increase in income (Hall, 2010;
Scott-Clayton, 2012), and employment may be part of a financial aid package, such as
the Federal Work-Study Program (Scott-Clayton, 2012). Other students work for per-
sonal benefit (Hall, 2010), to explore different careers (Perna, 2010), or to get ahead
in a competitive job market, as many employers are looking for graduates with work
experience (Curtis & Shani, 2002). Finally, more working adults are returning to col-
lege after some time in the workforce due to increased demand for a higher educa-
tion degree for promotion (Milheim, 2005). These adult students often have families
and may need to work in order to offset the financial burden of tuition (Gardner &
Gopaul, 2012), as the cost of attending college may be greater than the amount of
federal loans or aid a student can receive (Goldrick-Rab & Kendall, 2016). While
there has been an increase of students earning while learning, it is important to
understand the benefits and drawbacks of this trend.

What Are the Benefits and Drawbacks of Working?

Students perceive their work as having both positive and negative outcomes (Robotham,
2012). For example, students’ experiences at work provide a basis from which they may
further understand and apply the theoretical material they learn in class. However,
Hawkins et al. (2005) found that most students who work believe that their work inter-
feres with their studies, the consequences of which include missed classes, late school-
work, and lower grades (as did Curtis & Shani, 2002; Triventi, 2014). Yet research also
suggests that convenient and flexible course offerings offset the challenges of employ-
ment for many working learners (Bergman et al., 2014; Hammer et al., 1998; Nu~ nez &
Sansone, 2016). While competing responsibilities continue to present challenges for stu-
dents, colleges and universities have expanded access to working learners through
online, evening, and weekend courses for those who would have otherwise been unable
to engage in academics.
4 L. REMENICK AND M. BERGMAN

Academic Success
Grade point average (GPA) is the most studied factor affected by college students’
employment, and the leading definition of academic success (York et al., 2015). Yet
research on the impacts of employment on students’ GPA is conflicting. While some
researchers found that time spent working had no direct effect on students’ GPA
(Alfano & Eduljee, 2013; Mounsey et al., 2013; Nonis & Hudson, 2006), other research-
ers have found positive effects of work on students’ GPA. Students with less time to
study (Forbus et al., 2011; Strauss & Volkwein, 2002) and less time to socialize (Lang,
2012) were found to have higher GPAs than those students with more time to engage
in academic activities. The common thought with these findings is that the pressure to
add work to one’s schedule makes students more efficient with time management
(Hammes & Haller, 1983; Nu~ nez & Sansone, 2016), or that students prioritize their
coursework over their employment (Pereles, 2007). Indeed, Martinez et al. (2012) found
that students who were able to balance their coursework and employment demands had
a greater resiliency to persist toward graduation.
While a number of studies have found students’ employment to have a positive effect
or no effect on their GPA, other researchers found work to impede students’ GPA at
both two-year and four-year institutions (Hawkins et al., 2005; Kalenkoski & Pabilonia,
2010; Oettinger, 2005; Stinebrickner & Stinebrickner, 2003; Wenz & Yu, 2010). Wenz
and Yu (2010) found that for students who work, employment impacted students’ GPA
by 0.007 points per hour worked. This is concerning because low GPA was the greatest
reason for attrition in a study of undergraduate accounting students (Fortin et al.,
2016). A reduction in GPA may be due to increased stress and reduced social engage-
ment on campus (Dundes & Marx, 2006; Lang, 2012). More specifically, negative out-
comes of working while in college may include increased anxiety due to work pressures
(Mounsey et al., 2013), scheduling conflicts, and reduced class choice options (Orszag
et al., 2001). Therefore, while working has its benefits, students may need additional
support from their institution to increase the benefits of working and decrease
the drawbacks.

Professional Development
While students’ employment produces mixed results regarding their academic success,
their future job prospects are generally enhanced in a variety of ways (Darolia, 2014).
First, working while enrolled in school gives students a way to apply the materials they
have learned in class to real-life situations. Students gain valuable lessons through first-
hand experience, or experiential learning, which is well understood by universities to be
a valuable learning process. Second, students may develop soft skills at their workplace
(such as time management, organization, communication, or critical thinking) that is
integral for their academic and professional careers (Nu~ nez & Sansone, 2016; Sacova,
2016). If students already gained many soft skills in the classroom, then working gives
them an arena to practice and reinforce those skills. Third, students may make connec-
tions in the workplace that lead to job prospects when they graduate or that may allow
them to transition to higher paying jobs at the same company (Stern et al., 2012).
Fourth, working while in school allows students to try different fields to help determine
the major and career path that is right for them. Finally, many employers require prior
 THE JOURNAL OF CONTINUING HIGHER EDUCATION 5

work experience for entry-level jobs. Although working while enrolled in college may
create a strain on students’ academic engagement and success, it may also benefit stu-
dents by allowing them to gain the experience and professional connections needed for
many career opportunities (Curtis & Lucas, 2001).

Community Interactions and Relationship Building

A third benefit of working while learning is that students interact with more people and
build connections that they wouldn’t have without their employment (Curtis & Lucas,
2001), although this has generally been found to be greater for students working on
campus than off. Rossmann and Trolian (2020) found that students who worked on
campus had increased interactions with diverse peers, although working off campus
generally did not provide this benefit. Similarly, Nu~nez and Sansone (2016) found that
on-campus employment led to increased and enhanced relationships, a sense of belong-
ing on campus, and a sense of fulfillment for first-generation Latino students.

What Type of Work Yields the Most Benefit to Students?

Research has shown that the effects of employment on academic success vary by the
location of employment and number of hours employed.

Location of Employment
Working while enrolled in college has both benefits and drawbacks, but researchers
found that location matters: working on campus yields greater benefits than working off
campus (Dundes & Marx, 2006; Gilardi & Guglielmetti, 2011; Lang, 2012; Perna, 2010).
Lang (2012) found that students who worked on campus had higher grades than those
who worked off campus. He attributed this finding to students’ ability to engage in co-
curricular and social activities that relate to a more positive college experience when
working on campus. Furthermore, Gilardi and Guglielmetti (2011) found that students
who worked off campus were 1.5 times more likely to drop out. Yet in a study of low-
income, first-generation students, Martinez et al. (2012) found no differences in institu-
tional engagement for students who worked on campus versus off campus.

Hours Spent Working

In addition to the location of employment, the number of hours spent working also has
a strong relationship with academic success. Most studies showed that students obtained
greater benefits from working part-time rather than working full-time (Leveson et al.,
2013; Neyt et al., 2019). A number of researchers have found that fewer work hours
correlated with a slightly higher GPA, while greater perceived work interference was
correlated with a slightly lower GPA (Dundes & Marx, 2006; Hawkins et al., 2005;
Wenz & Yu, 2010). Working fewer than 15 to 19 hours per week has been associated
with an increased likelihood of graduating in four years, while working more than 15 to
19 hours per week increases the likelihood of delayed graduation (Dundes & Marx,
2006; King, 2002). It could be that for students who work for financial reasons, grades
6 L. REMENICK AND M. BERGMAN

and attendance often come secondary to their employment (Curtis & Lucas, 2001;
Curtis & Williams, 2002; Hall, 2010), as Berker et al. (2003) found that students who
work full-time tend to think of themselves as employees first and students second.
Overall, students work for a variety of reasons that may be financial, personal, or career-
related. While their employment has both benefits and drawbacks to their academic success,
researchers generally agree that part-time work on campus is most beneficial for students.
However, not all students can work in these “optimal” conditions, so university administra-
tors and policy leaders should consider how they can help all their students who work.

Policy Recommendations and Considerations

In general, working students need support because their employment is an integral
component of their lives, with both positive and negative effects on their education. To
explore the second overarching research question—how institutions can better serve
their students who work—this section reviews four ways that institutions can help
working students:

1. Remove or adjust policies and practices that dis-incentivize working students.

2. Develop policies that pair students’ work experience with their education.
3. Provide on-campus part-time employment opportunities.
4. Establish support systems that assist students in finding employment that works
for them.

Remove or Adjust Policies and Practices That Dis-Incentivize Working Students

To be more welcoming and accessible to working students, university leaders should
first examine their current policies and practices. Many policies support traditional stu-
dents but create barriers or disadvantages to working students (Bowl, 2001; Brock, 2010;
Kasworm, 1990; Thon, 1984). For example, students who work a full-time 9-to-5 job
have very few options regarding traditional course offerings (Goncalves & Trunk, 2014).
Most face-to-face classes are held during the 9-to-5 weekday, and very few are offered
in the evening or weekend (Fairchild, 2003). This leaves full-time working students with
few options at traditionally focused colleges and universities. Therefore, implementing
more flexibility in courses—such as online, evening, or weekend courses, or courses
offered at the location of employment—would allow full-time employed students to
have greater access to course options.
Similarly, student support services are also offered primarily in person during the 9-
to-5 weekday. Services that are typically offered to students on campus include tutoring
and writing centers, library services, advising, personal or career counseling, and student
clubs and organizations, but many working students are either too busy or too far from
campus to access them (Kasworm, 2010). One option is to offer campus services via
online delivery, where they are more easily accessible for all students (Quiggins et al.,
2016). If online implementation is not possible, simply holding office hours past
5:00 p.m. or during the weekend would serve to broaden the availability for work-
ing students.
 THE JOURNAL OF CONTINUING HIGHER EDUCATION 7

Develop Policies That Pair Students’ Work Experience With Their Education
A second way universities can be more open to and inclusive of working students is to
develop policies that accept students’ work experience in a way that recognizes their
skills and knowledge gained from their employment (Billett, 2015), such as prior learn-
ing assessments (Bergman & Herd, 2017). Prior learning assessment (PLA) is “a process
by which an individual’s experiential learning is assessed and evaluated for purposes of
granting college credit, certification, or advanced standing toward further education or
training” (Klein-Collins & Hudson, 2017, p. 2). A large-scale study of 48 institutions
found that students who earned credit through PLA were two and a half times more
likely to graduate than students who did not earn PLA credit (Klein-Collins & Hudson,
2017). Acknowledgment of college-level and credit-worthy learning from outside the
confines of the college walls creates greater levels of engagement and commitment to
their institution. As graduation rates become increasingly connected to performance-
based funding, credit for prior learning has been empirically proven to increase rate
and pace to graduation (Klein-Collins & Hudson, 2017).

Provide On-Campus Part-Time Employment Opportunities

Since part-time employment can be beneficial to students’ academic success (Leveson
et al., 2013) and working on campus removes some of the hurdles of juggling employ-
ment and coursework (Dundes & Marx, 2006; Perna, 2010), creating more part-time
jobs for students on campus would yield positive benefits for students and universities
alike (Rossmann & Trolian, 2020). For instance, Nu~ nez and Sansone (2016) found that
part-time on-campus work led to greater sense of community and belonging for first-
generation Latino students. The Federal Work-Study Program has fostered student
employment in colleges since 1964 and has been shown to increase the likelihood that
students will earn their bachelor’s degree and obtain employment when they graduate
by 3.2 and 2.4 percentage points, respectively (Scott-Clayton & Minaya, 2016).
However, the Federal Work-Study Program has been criticized, especially in recent
years, for not serving the students who need it most and for not developing appropri-
ately as students’ needs change over time (Scott-Clayton, 2017). Therefore, institutions
should promote their current employment opportunities to students and, if needed, cre-
ate opportunities that meet the needs of their student demographic.

Establish Support Systems That Assist Students in Finding Employment That

Works for Them
Part-time employment may yield the most benefits for students, but not all students can
afford to work part-time, such as nontraditional students with families and dependents.
Therefore, the fourth way that universities can help their working students succeed is
by providing advisors or counselors that are attuned to the needs of working students
(Neyt et al., 2019), who can help them find employment opportunities that work with
their class schedule, a suggestion that has been offered as far back as the 1890s
(Johnson, 1941; Sacova, 2016). While many, if not most, colleges and universities may
already have such a system or department in place, several studies have found that
8 L. REMENICK AND M. BERGMAN

students either don’t use them or don’t know of them, but need them nonetheless (Bohl
et al., 2017; Goncalves & Trunk, 2014).
If institutions find that their working students do not utilize their many resources,
the institution may need to reach out to those students. Anticipating and validating stu-
dents’ needs “is about making students stronger in terms of assisting them to believe in
their ability to learn, acquire self-worth, and increase their motivation to succeed”
(Rend on Linares & Mu~ noz, 2011, pp. 17–18). An institution’s student services unit or
career center may consider employing outreach programs to inform their working stu-
dents of the services and resources available to them.

Conclusion
This article examined research literature on working students and provided suggestions
for how institutions can help working students succeed. A majority of students today
work at least part-time while enrolled in college (NCES, 2018). Students work for finan-
cial reasons, personal reasons, and/or to increase their professional development (Curtis
& Shani, 2002; Hall, 2010; Perna, 2010; Scott-Clayton, 2012). Working while enrolled in
college has both benefits and drawbacks for students. While students’ employment may
interfere with their studies (Curtis & Shani, 2002; Hawkins et al., 2005; Triventi, 2014),
the research on the effect of employment on GPA is mixed. However, student employ-
ment increases their professional skills and enhances their interpersonal connections—
to their workplace off campus or to their campus community on campus (Curtis &
Lucas, 2001; Nu~ nez & Sansone, 2016; Rossmann & Trolian, 2020). On-campus and
part-time employment generally yields the most benefits for students (Dundes & Marx,
2006; King, 2002; Leveson et al., 2013; Neyt et al., 2019). Therefore, there are at least
four ways that institutions can support their working students. First, institutions can
adjust or remove policies that dis-incentivize working students. Second, institutions can
create policies that use students’ work experience to enhance their learning in the class-
room. Third, institutions can provide more part-time on-campus employment for stu-
dents to support the advantages of working while learning. Fourth, institutions could
provide student counselors that understand working students’ needs and help them find
employment that provides the most benefits for students while reducing the drawbacks.
There is much that institutions can do to ensure that their working students succeed.
With greater awareness and consideration, those institutions that best serve working
students will succeed in enrolling, retaining, and graduating a more diverse population
of students—a win for all involved in higher education.

Notes on Contributors
Lauren Remenick is a PhD student in the Higher Education and Policy Studies program at the
University of Central Florida. Her research focuses on nontraditional and working students and
adult learners.
Matt Bergman is a Program Director in the College of Education and Human Development at
the University of Louisville. Concurrently, he is an Assistant Professor in Organizational
Leadership and Learning in the College of Education and Human Development. Dr. Bergman’s
 THE JOURNAL OF CONTINUING HIGHER EDUCATION 9

research is focused on adult learner persistence, prior learning assessment, leadership, and degree
completion programs.

ORCID
Lauren Remenick http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2294-6767
Matt Bergman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9470-3641

References
Alfano, H., & Eduljee, N. (2013). Differences in work, levels of involvement, and academic per-
formance between residential and commuter students. College Student Journal, 47(2), 334–342.
Bergman, M., Gross, J. P. K., Berry, M., & Shuck, M. B. (2014). If life happened but a degree
didn’t: Examining factors that impact adult student persistence. The Journal of Continuing
Higher Education, 62(2), 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2014.915445
Bergman, M., & Herd, A. (2017). Proven leadership ¼ college credit: Enhancing employability of
transitioning military members through prior learning assessment. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 19(1), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316682949
Berker, A., Horn, L., & Carroll, C. D. (2003). Work first, study second: Adult undergraduates who
combine employment and postsecondary enrollment. U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, NCES-2003-167. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED482529.pdf
Billett, S. (2015). Integrating practice-based experiences into higher education (Vol. 13). Springer.
Billett, S., Cain, M., & Le, A. H. (2018). Augmenting higher education students’ work experien-
ces: Preferred purposes and processes. Studies in Higher Education, 43(7), 1279–1294. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2016.1250073
Bohl, A. J., Haak, B., & Shrestha, S. (2017). The experiences of nontraditional students: A qualita-
tive inquiry. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65(3), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.
1080/07377363.2017.1368663
Bowl, M. (2001). Experiencing the barriers: Non-traditional students entering higher education.
Research Papers in Education, 16(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520110037410
Brock, T. (2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to success. The
Future of Children, 20(1), 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.0.0040
Curtis, S., & Lucas, R. (2001). A coincidence of needs? Employers and full-time students.
Employee Relations, 23(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450110366264
Curtis, S., & Shani, N. (2002). The effect of taking paid employment during term-time on stu-
dents’ academic studies. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26(2), 129–138. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03098770220129406
Curtis, S., & Williams, J. (2002). The reluctant workforce: Undergraduates’ part-time employ-
ment. Education þ Training, 44(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910210416192
Darolia, R. (2014). Working (and studying) day and night: Heterogeneous effects of working on
the academic performance of full-time and part-time students. Economics of Education Review,
38, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.10.004
Denning, E. C., Brannan, D., Murphy, L. A., Losco, J. A., & Payne, D. N. (2018). Not all roles
are the same: An examination between work-family-school satisfaction, social integration, and
negative affect among college students. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 23(2),
166–178. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN23.2.166
Dundes, L., & Marx, J. (2006). Balancing work and academics in college: Why do students work-
ing 10 to 19 hours per week excel? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 8(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.2190/7UCU-8F9M-94QG-5WWQ
Fairchild, E. E. (2003). Multiple roles of adult learners. New Directions for Student Services,
2003(102), 11–16.
10 L. REMENICK AND M. BERGMAN

Forbus, P., Newbold, J. J., & Mehta, S. S. (2011). A study of non-traditional and traditional stu-
dents in terms of their time management behaviors, stress factors, and coping strategies.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(2011), 109–126.
Fortin, A., Sauve, L., Viger, C., & Landry, F. (2016). Nontraditional student withdrawal from
undergraduate accounting programmes: A holistic perspective. Accounting Education, 25(5),
437–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2016.1193034
Furey, B. (2020). Hustlers on the hilltop. The Georgetown Voice. https://georgetownvoice.com/
2020/01/31/hustlers-on-the-hilltop/
Gardner, S. K., & Gopaul, B. (2012). The part-time doctoral student experience. International
Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7(12), 63–78.
Gilardi, S., & Guglielmetti, C. (2011). University life of non-traditional students: Engagement
styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00221546.2011.11779084
Goldrick-Rab, S., & Kendall, N. (2016). The real price of college. The College Completion: Series:
Part Two. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/83631
Goncalves, S. A., & Trunk, D. (2014). Obstacles to success for the nontraditional student in
higher education. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 19(4), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.
24839/2164-8204.JN19.4.164
Hall, R. (2010). The work–study relationship: Experiences of full-time university students under-
taking part-time employment. Journal of Education and Work, 23(5), 439–449. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13639080.2010.515969
Hammer, L. B., Grigsby, T. D., & Woods, S. (1998). The conflicting demands of work, family,
and school among students at an urban university. The Journal of Psychology, 132(2), 220–226.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989809599161
Hammes, J. F., & Haller, E. J. (1983). Making ends meet: Some of the consequences of part-time
work for college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(6), 529–535. https://psycnet.
apa.org/record/1984-18866-001
Hawkins, C. A., Smith, M. L., Hawkins, Ii, R. C., & Grant, D. (2005). The relationships among
hours employed, perceived work interference, and grades as reported by undergraduate social
work students. Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.
2005.200202122
Horn, L. J. (1998). Undergraduates Who Work. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study 1996.
US Government Printing Office. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED421042
Johnson, D. G. (1941). Self-support in college style. The Journal of Higher Education, 12(4),
206–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1941.11773151
Kalenkoski, C. M., & Pabilonia, S. W. (2010). Parental transfers, student achievement, and the
labor supply of college students. Journal of Population Economics, 23(2), 469–496. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00148-008-0221-8
Kasworm, C. E. (1990). Adult undergraduates in higher education: A review of past research per-
spectives. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060
003345
Kasworm, C. (2010). Adult workers as undergraduate students. In L. W. Perna (Ed.),
Understanding the working college student: New research and its implications for policy and
practice (pp. 23–42). Stylus.
King, J. E. (2002). Crucial choices: How students’ financial decisions affect their academic success.
Washington DC: Center for Policy Analysis at the American Council on Education. www.ace-
net.edu
Klein-Collins, R., & Hudson, S. (2017). What happens when learning “counts”? Measuring the
benefits of prior learning assessment for the adult learner–A CAEL self-study of the academic
outcomes of Learning Counts students. A Report by the Council for Adult and Experiential
Learning. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED593475
Lang, K. B. (2012). The similarities and differences between working and non-working students
at a mid-sized American public university. College Student Journal, 46(2), 243–256.
 THE JOURNAL OF CONTINUING HIGHER EDUCATION 11

Leveson, L., McNeil, N., & Joiner, T. (2013). Persist or withdraw: The importance of external fac-
tors in students’ departure intentions. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(6),
932–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.806442
Markle, G. (2015). Factors influencing persistence among nontraditional university students.
Adult Education Quarterly, 65(3), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713615583085
Martinez, E. F., Bilges, D. C., Shabazz, S. T., Miller, R., & Morote, E. S. (2012). To work or not
to work: Student employment, resiliency, and institutional engagement of low-income, first-
generation college students. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 42(2), 28–39. https://ir.library.
louisville.edu/jsfa/vol42/iss1/3
Milheim, K. L. (2005). Identifying and addressing the needs of adult students in higher education.
Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 45(1), 119–128.
Mounsey, R., Vandehey, M., & Diekhoff, G. (2013). Working and non-working university stu-
dents: Anxiety, depression, and grade point average. College Student Journal, 47(2), 379–389.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2018). College student employment. The
Condition of Education 2017. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_ssa.pdf
National Postsecondary Student Aid Society (NPSAS). (2000). Contexts of postsecondary educa-
tion. Perceived impact of work on postsecondary learning. U.S. Department of Education.
Neyt, B., Omey, E., Verhaest, D., & Baert, S. (2019). Does student work really affect educational
outcomes? A review of the literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 33(3), 896–921. https://doi.
org/10.1111/joes.12301
Nonis, S. A., & Hudson, G. I. (2006). Academic performance of college students: Influence of
time spent studying and working. Journal of Education for Business, 81(3), 151–159. https://
doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.3.151-159
Nu~nez, A. M., & Sansone, V. A. (2016). Earning and learning: Exploring the meaning of work in
the experiences of first-generation Latino college students. The Review of Higher Education,
40(1), 91–116. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2016.0039
Oettinger, G. S. (2005). Parents’ financial support, students’ employment, and academic perform-
ance in college. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas.
Orszag, J. M., Orszag, P. R., Whitmore, D. M. (2001). Learning and earning: Working in college.
Report commissioned by Upromise Investments. http://www.upromise.com/corp/pressroom/
research/learnearn.html
Pelletier, S. G. (2010). Success for adult students. Public Purpose, 2010, 2–6.
Pereles, K. L. (2007). Are students who work and workers who go to school different?
Comparing organizational commitment. Journal of Individual Employment Rights, 12(4),
337–350. https://doi.org/10.2190/IE.12.4.f
Perna, L. W. (2010). Understanding the working college student. Academe, 96(4), 30.
Power, R. L. (1992). Supervised student employment in collegiate schools of business. Journal of
Education, 96(14), 372–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/002205742209601403
Quiggins, A., Ulmer, J., Hainline, M. S., Burris, S., Ritz, R., & Van Dusen, R. (2016). Motivations
and barriers of undergraduate nontraditional students in the College of Agricultural Sciences
and Natural Resources at Texas Tech University. NACTA Journal, 60(3), 272–281.
Rabourn, K. E., BrckaLorenz, A., & Shoup, R. (2018). Reimagining student engagement: How
nontraditional adult learners engage in traditional postsecondary environments. The Journal of
Continuing Higher Education, 66(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2018.1415635
Rend on Linares, L. I., & Mu~ noz, S. M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical founda-
tions, applications, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal, 2(1), 12–33.
Robotham, D. (2012). Student part-time employment: Characteristics and consequences.
Education þ Training, 54(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911211198904
Rossmann, P. D., & Trolian, T. L. (2020). Working with others: Student employment and interac-
tions with diversity in college. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 57(2), 182–196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2019.1643356
Sacova, M. (2016). Campus employment as a high impact practice: Relationship to academic suc-
cess and persistence of first-generation college students. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
12 L. REMENICK AND M. BERGMAN

Scott-Clayton, J. (2012). What explains trends in labor supply among U.S. undergraduates?
National Tax Journal, 65(1), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17744 https://doi.org/10.17310/
ntj.2012.1.07
Scott-Clayton, J. (2017). Federal work-study: Past its prime, or ripe for renewal? Economic Studies
at Brookings Evidence Speaks Report, 2(16), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.7916/D81N8CGR
Scott-Clayton, J., & Minaya, V. (2016). Should student employment be subsidized? Conditional
counterfactuals and the outcomes of work-study participation. Economics of Education Review,
52, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.06.006
Sharpe, R. (1932). The present problem of student employment. Bulletin of the American
Association of University Professors, 18(7), 502–504. https://doi.org/10.2307/40218909
Stern, D., Finkelstein, N., Stone, J. R., Latting, J., & Dornsife, C. (2012). School to work: Research
on programs in the United States. Routledge.
Stern, D., & Nakata, Y. F. (1991). Paid employment among U.S. college students: Trends, effects,
and possible causes. The Journal of Higher Education, 62(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00221546.1991.11774104
Stinebrickner, R., & Stinebrickner, T. R. (2003). Working during school and academic perform-
ance. Journal of Labor Economics, 21(2), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1086/345565
Strauss, L. C., & Volkwein, J. F. (2002). Comparing student performance and growth in 2-and 4-
year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 43(2), 133–161. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1014495823183
Thompson-Ebanks, V. (2017). Leaving college prematurely the experiences of nontraditional-age
college students with depression. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 18(4), 474–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115611395
Thon, A. J. (1984). Responding to the non-academic needs of adult students. NASPA Journal,
21(4), 28–35.https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1984.11071889
Triventi, M. (2014). Does working during higher education affect students’ academic progression?
Economics of Education Review, 41, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.03.006
Tyson, W. (2012). Negative impact of employment on engineering student time management, time
to degree, and retention: Faculty, administrator, and staff perspectives. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 13(4), 479–498. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.13.4.d
Wenz, M., & Yu, W. C. (2010). Term-time employment and the academic performance of under-
graduates. Journal of Education Finance, 35(4), 358–373. https://doi.org/10.1353/jef.0.0023
York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(5), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.7275/hz5x-tx03
Zerquera, D. D., Ziskin, M., & Torres, V. (2018). Faculty views of “nontraditional” students:
Aligning perspectives for student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 20(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025116645109