Rachel Morgan

Ms. Grant
UWRT1103
23 October 2014
Is Commuting or Living on Campus Better for Students Retention?
My topic of interest is the benefits of being a residential student on a college
campus compared with that of a commuter student. Commuter students are members of a college
community that typically take a form of transportation from their local home to college and back
in order to attend classes. Students that live off of campus make up over eighty- five percent of
todays college enrollments (Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. Volume 45, Issue
2, Pages 454-482.) Residential students live in dormitories that are directly on the college
campus. They therefore have a greater convenience when it comes to distance to classes and
resources to help them do well in their academic studies. I believe that students will discover that
no matter if they are commuting or residing on a campus, that if they try their best, they can
make it through college despite what their living situations are. Students success in college is
determined by their desire to further their education and their efforts to study and make the
grades necessary to return every year until they achieve the ultimate goal of graduation.
The typical consensus for the comparison as to which living arrangement benefits a
students ability to learn and retain information is that residential students retain information
better. Residential students are able to access information and network better than commuter
students due to the increase in interactivity with professors and fellow classmates as they
typically spend more time on campus. They are also not typically expected to hold off campus
1

jobs or attend to responsibilities in the home such as commuter students might have to. It was
also said however, that this proximity to classmates and ability to attend extra-curricular events
is also a distraction. The ability to walk from a dorm room to a campus event is short and allows
for easier ways to procrastinate and put off studying for class the next day. However, the
proximity of some commuters homes or apartments off of campus could allow for a similar
experience.
Commuter students were found to have a lower retention rate which was excused by the
time it takes to travel from school to home, as well as other responsibilities outside of school.
These responsibilities tended to be familial and financial. Commuter students were expected to
do chores at home and most held jobs outside of campus if they had one. These students did not
have the ability to take a quick and easy trip back to campus whenever they needed help in a
class. They had to allot extra time around classes to take care of their needs, such as tutoring or
academic counseling. Attending a class is not an option for most commuter students either. If the
commuter student lives with their family that is helping to fund the furthering of their education,
the family will be less likely to let the student stay home from going to class. This is different
from residential students, in that residential students have to be responsible and attend class of
their own volition.
The general findings were that neither commuting nor being a residential student is
better. The students personal preferences determine if being a residential or commuter student
is more beneficial to them. Students have the ability to make either commuting or residing on
campus work for them as long as they continue to further their education to the best of their
ability. Students have the power to use the resources available to them through the university

whether they are residential or commuter students; their decision to utilize these resources is
completely their decision and has little to do with where they live.
This paper is going to prove that students have the ability to make the most out of this
educational experience no matter where they live or what responsibilities they may have. The
majority of this research so far has been conducted using online resources from reputable
websites. This paper will demonstrate students ability to determine whether they will be
successful despite where they reside while attending college.
In Alexander Astins Student Involvement: A developmental theory for higher education,
he states that student involvement is key to success in learning and staying interested in learning
subjects. On page 523, he states that there is a positive relation between living on campus and
retention rates. Students that are involved in campus organizations are less likely to become
college dropouts than commuter students. It is also said that having a part- time job on campus
helps to reinforce retention as opposed to the assumption that it would take time away from the
students ability to study. This is due to the students access to other students and professors that
they may come in contact with by spending so much time on campus. The students will also
form a stronger attachment with the school through the many hours they spend on campus. On
page 524, Astin says that students working off campus at a full-time job have quite the opposite
experience of those students working on campus. Students working off campus do not have near
as many opportunities to form connections with other students and their professors or to form an
attachment with their school. This attachment allows them to become more determined to
complete their college education in order to strengthen this bond theyve created.
In the University of California, Irvines paper, The Impact of Living On or Off Campus
in the Freshman Year, it is stated that students who live on campus versus those that commute
3

were typically similar in gender, ethnicity, had the same types of goals for college, similar SAT
scores, quarterly GPAs and self-reported academic gains. However, they were different in
several major ways, such as, commuter students tended to be first generation college students
and come from a low income household. Commuter students typically had a job off campus to
help pay for school or to help their families, whereas, residential students typically had oncampus jobs and were more likely to be engaged with other students outside of class. However,
commuter students reported using the library for studying and were less likely to skip class. This
research showed that overall, residential students had a better involvement and were shown to be
more persistent to make it to the next year of college. Residential students were closer to all of
the resources available to them, faculty and their peers, which most likely contributed to this
finding.
Tintos model hypothesizes that socially involved students are more likely to become
more committed to the institution and graduate (Tinto, 1975). More than 30 years of research has
identified many variables found to contribute undergraduate retention. Braxton, Hirschy, and
McClendon (2004) evaluated Tintos retention model (1993) identified studies that have shown a
statistically significant relationship between constructs of Tintos model. They found a very
strong connection between social integration and retention. (College Student Retention: Formula
for Student Success. 2005. Chapter 8. John P. Bean.) The most often cited variables include
academic preparation, academic engagement, social engagement, financing college, and
demographic characteristics (Integration, Motivation, Strengths and Optimism: Retention
Theories Past, Present and Future. Cynthia Demetriou, Undergraduate Education. Amy SchmitzSciborski, Counseling & Wellness Services. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.)

All of these variables have very wide ranging differences for every single student that attends
college, whether a commuter or residential student.
In Laura J. Horns and Jennifer Berktolds, Commuter Students- Commuter Student
Challenges, commuter students were found to have lower retention rates than residential
students. An article by Victor Tinto from 1987 referenced by this article states that students that
have a higher interaction with their universities academic and social systems are more likely to
work harder to make it to that next year of college. Since commuter students do not have as
many opportunities to make connections as do residential students, they are at a higher risk of
dropping out and making less of a commitment to the school itself. Commuter students potential
responsibilities outside of school may also play a role here. The expectations to help out around
the house and hold a job off campus may put time restraints on a students ability to socialize and
bond with the college community.
Creating friendships with peers and connections to professors and other faculty members
have been determined as important for student integration. Becoming integrated into a college
community has shown to be a cumulative process, so it is essential that it be done early on in a
students academic career (Swail, Watson Scott. The art of student retention. A handbook for
practitioners and administrators. The 20th Annual Recruitment and Retention Conference,
Austin. 2004).
In Ray Gasser, Ph.D.s, White Paper: Educational and Retention Benefits of Residential
Hall Living (2008), studies showed that GPAs were in fact higher in residential students than
commuter students, as were retention and matriculation rates as well. Students that live on
campus are more likely to have higher grade point averages and greater scores on standardized
tests than commuter students. Living- learning communities are also found to be a great way for
5

students to tie together academics and living with the opportunity to participate in out-of-class
activities that create greater interaction between faculty and students. Current research shows
positive effects of living- learning communities and their impact on student learning as well as
effects from faculty-student interaction (Schroeder and Berry, 1997). These students obtains
much more time in close contact with like- minded peers and specially trained faculty members
in order to get the best education possible for their chosen major.
In B. Lauren Youngs, Commuter and Residential Students: Attitudes, Expectations, And
Their Influences on Integration and Persistence, it is stated that students who lived on or near
campus have a better persistence to obtaining a degree than do students that are commuters.
Commuters are more likely to have roles outside of school that would prevent them from
becoming as involved in the campus as residential students as well as preventing them from
focusing solely on academics when at home. Students who were commuters were more likely to
persist in college due in part to a parents wish or the desire to make more money, as opposed to
those who decided to attend a college due to the low tuition rate. Commuters typically did not
think that general education classes were important and therefore rarely pursued a six year
degree. These students dismissal of the general education classes as important shows that they
were attending college for a degree and not their love of learning which is why they rarely made
the decision to draw out their education to achieve one of the more extensive degrees.
This study has shown that in most cases, students retention is based on what their
personality and background enable them to flourish in certain types of environments. Students
financial background tends to determine whether an on-campus living situation is attainable.
Students need to make the most of the resources offered by the college they are attending
whether they live on campus or are commuters. Becoming involved in the college community,
6

including its faculty and other students is vital to making connections. These connections enable
students to bond with the school itself and inspire them to continue to work to the furthering of
their education. However, students still need to spend time studying in order for this goal to be
reached and cannot focus solely on the social opportunities college provides. Students also need
to be wary of the effect that jobs and obligations outside of school, such as family, are having on
their ability to learn. These things can have a great influence on whether the student is able to
continue learning to the best of their ability and graduate. Having a support system is important
for a students ability to focus on learning so that they do not feel too overwhelmed and decide
that they cannot bear to continue their education. These support systems come from friends and
family both on campus and off as well.

Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. Volume 45, Issue 2, Pages 454482

Alexander Astins Student Involvement: A developmental theory for higher

education Pages 523-524

University of California, Irvines paper, The Impact of Living On or Off Campus

in the Freshman Year

Tinto (1975)

Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon (2004)

Tinto (1993)

College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success (2005) Chapter 8. John
P. Bean

Integration, Motivation, Strengths and Optimism: Retention Theories Past,

Present and Future. Cynthia Demetriou, Undergraduate Education. Amy SchmitzSciborski, Counseling & Wellness Services. The University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.

Laura J. Horns and Jennifer Berktolds, Commuter Students- Commuter Student

Challenges

Tinto (1987)

Swail, Watson Scott. The art of student retention. A handbook for practitioners
and administrators. The 20th Annual Recruitment and Retention Conference,
Austin. (2004)

Ray Gasser, Ph.D.s, White Paper: Educational and Retention Benefits of

Residential Hall Living (2008)
8

Schroeder and Berry (1997)

B. Lauren Youngs, Commuter and Residential Students: Attitudes, Expectations,

And Their Influences on Integration and Persistence