Running Head: AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S.

COLLEGE HONORS PROGRAMS

1

An Overdue Overview & Analysis of U.S. College Honors Programs

Aaron Carlson
Northern Illinois University
 2

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

Introduction

As a member of the Loyola University Chicago Honors Program during my

undergraduate career, I would vouch for the benefits and unique resources enrolling in an honors

program provides students; however, I also can also see some of the disadvantages and elements

of inequity in these programs. Over the last half-century, honors programs have evolved to

become prominent programs at colleges and universities across the country. According to

Cosgrove (2014), there are nearly 1,000 honors programs operating at public and private colleges

and universities in the U.S. These programs attract high-ability students and provide benefits

such as small classes, increased faculty interaction, research and independent study

opportunities, an enriched curriculum, special honors advising, and optional honors housing

(Austin, 1991, chap. 1). Thinking into the future, the questions we must ask when evaluating

honors programs are: what is the current structure of honors programs, how do they create

benefit, how do they create and support inequity, and how can we change them to lessen the

divide between these two outcomes?

Current State of Knowledge

Bastedo and Gumport (2003) ask the question, “access to what?”, to make readers digest

the debate between funding and supporting well-prepared versus under-advantaged students and

programs. There is not a single, definitive answer to the questions posed in the introduction

above. One of the major problems facing higher education funding, budgeting, and staffing has

been, and will continue to be, who to give the resources to. There is a scale that students and

programs reside on, ranging from the very poor and resource insufficient schools, to the resource

and funding bloated elites, such as many top-tier honors programs that attract donor and

corporate foundation dollars in addition to their institution’s contributions. No single person or

 3

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

organization can proclaim fact on where the resources and dollars ought to be assigned, and this

is simply due to the matter being based in opinion. Every institution, President, scholar, and

state board or legislature will have a different opinion on the matter, which is why having a

detailed and diverse body of literature on the matter is so imperative to our system’s success.

The body of knowledge we have today is lackluster and void of longitudinal data. Few

studies have been completed on honors programs, especially within the last decade. Further,

there is little research into who gets access to honors programs, the institutions where they are

housed, and what barriers might be taken down to help spread access ability to students from low

socioeconomic classes, resource-poor high school systems, rurally isolated areas, and diverse

ethnic/racial backgrounds. Even one of the industry’s top governing boards, The American

Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU), has “introduced an initiative based on the

concept of “inclusive excellence” to guide a national movement and campus efforts to make the

success of diverse students a focal point” of national recruitment and retention efforts (Locks et

al., 2008). What has been seen though is that enrollment and persistence rates of low-income

students, African American, Latino, Native American, and students with disabilities continue to

trail behind White and Asian students (Gonzales 1996; Gonzalez and Szecsy 2002; Harvey 2001;

Swail 2003) (Kuh et al., 2006). Bastedo and Gumport argue that student access to the system as

a whole does not mean access to the whole system. Therefore, literature must examine levels of

access to specific population segments and honors programs. A top priority for state boards and

legislatures is to “collect data on the demographics of students enrolled in honors programs on

public campuses” (Bastedo & Gumport, 2015). The piece most needed in the literature, detailed

and accurate data on honors program participation, does not currently exist. Several studies

referenced in the proceeding sections have aimed to collect it at state levels, but even then, data
 4

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

has been underreported, withheld, or incorrectly categorized. Finally, a need exists at the

national level to collect data on effective remedial education practices. This is at the opposite

end of the offering scale from honors programs, but these efforts would be wholly important in

informing policy and forcing industry and state leaders to consider the effects of resource and

“mission differentiation” of programs and schools on the stratification of students in different

academic programs (Bastedo & Gumport, 2015).

Admission

Admission is perhaps one of the only and most studied elements of an honors program.

Most honors programs base their initial admission decisions on high school grades, high school

class rank, standardized test scores, essays, and interviews (Brown, 2001). There are two general

methods of honors program selection processes. The first, known as skimming, is when students

are invited or receive communication that they are eligible to apply based on “some combination

of SAT/ACT and GPA/rank, [and wherein] intake may be limited by fixed program capacity

(starting downward from the “top student” until offer capacity is reached) or by fixed entry

criteria (all applicants with the specified criteria are offered honors admission)” (Stoller, 2004).

The alternative method of selection is known as free-standing, in which prospective students

apply via a separate application for the honors program. The free-standing method is said to be

more holistic, as it likely will include essays, resume consideration, and possibly an interview.

One of the most contentious issues up for debate in the literature is to what extent High school

GPA (HSGPA) should play in the selection process for admitting new students. Despite large

fluctuations in the data that has been collected over recent decades, popular perception seems to

be consistently stay the same, and that is that “HSGPA is a fairly effective predictor of collegiate

GPA and honors retention rates while standardized tests like the SAT and ACT are far less
 5

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

reliable” (Mould & DeLoach, 2017). Andrews (2007) agrees with population perception when

he notes that “high school GPA may seem the most reliable predictor of academic success based

on some research studies, and even on anecdotal evidence” (p. 24). There is a real sense in the

honors program community that HSGPA is a safe, effective criterion that will not face backlash

and will fairly consistently deliver students to the program who will succeed in the end. Green

and Kimbrough (2008) argue for use of HSGPA because they “needed to ensure that students

could get through the first year before those other outcome variables became relevant” (p. 56).

In a world of social justice and service-based learning, honors program directors are increasingly

pressured by the public to deliver exceptional, innovative program components for diverse and

creative students to become well-rounded and socially active citizens; yet, they also face

mounting pressure from institutional administrators to attract and retain more students, even if

that means simplifying offerings and lowing admission standards. Either way, based off review

of the literature and expert opinion, HSGPA will remain an influential, if not the most heavily

weight criterion, for honors programs admission for years to come.

One of the glaring issues with admission to honors programs is that they might be

considered inequitable. Special attention should be given to applicants who are from a

disadvantaged individual or community background. Access to honors programs at the more

expensive private institutions they are generally housed in often proves to be exclusionary.

Many students who tend to be overlooked by elite private institutions might be best suited by a

public institution honors program, which is often more affordable and less strict on admission

criteria. Stoller (2004) describes how “most schools do not cast a very wide net—hence the

often-noted paradox that high-achieving students from disadvantaged backgrounds generally find

it hard to get into elite private institution”. Programs can engage in with campus multicultural
 6

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

groups to implement strategies for increasing effective minority recruitment. Institutions can also

“attract international and non-traditional students (who are often missed by honors programs

during their initial campus enrollment) to their programs by extending personalized, individual

invitations to join the honors program to students who perform well during their first semester of

college (rather than basing eligibility solely on college entrance criteria)” (Lucas et al., 1995).

Lucas et al. (1995) also researched the demographics of honors students at William

Rainey Harper College. When compared to the “general student body”, the students in the

honors program tended to be younger and less likely to belong to a minority group. The

percentage of African Americans and Hispanic honors students was less than half the percentage

of these groups present in the college at large. Studies like this are sparse but represent the

inequitable admission policies of honors programs. Murray Sperber, professor of English and

American Studies at Indiana University, argues in a 2000 article in the Chronicle of Higher

Education that “honors programs remove the best students and professors from the general

classroom where their contributions would enrich the educational experiences of all students.

Additionally, critics assert that honors programs redirect scarce resources from programs that

serve the neediest of students and place them in programs serving the most able students

(VanPoolen-Larsen, 1991)” (Seifert et al., 2007).

Benefits

There is a long list of claimed benefits that honors programs yield for students and

institutions. These include increased student retention (Austin, 1986; Schuman, 1999), enriched

academic experiences (Ory & Braskamp, 1988; Tacha, 1986), increased graduation rates (Astin,

1993), greater institution prestige and fundraising capacity, improved ability to attract and retain

high-quality faculty, and as one spillover of these and other factors, honors programs purportedly
 7

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

raise intellectual standards across the campus (Austin, 1986). Most of these alleged benefits,

however, are based upon descriptive, single-institution studies or anecdotal evidence rather than

multi-site empirical data (Bulakowski & Townsend, 1995; Coursol & Wagner, 1986; DeHart,

1993; Outcalt, 1999). It is commonly agreed among higher education and student affairs

professionals that the first semester of college is a crucial time for student development and

setting students up for successful long-term persistence. Perceived social cohesion (Bollen &

Hoyle, 1990), more commonly known as “sense of belonging” in the college literature, “has been

identified as a key outcome of college students’ experiences with academic and social integration

on campus” (Locks et al.). Admittance into an honors program can create an immediate

community and sense of belonging because the student has a peer group that is united around a

similar set of courses, activities, and goals. This is crucial to student persistence because a sense

of belonging will also affect a student’s intention and ability to persist (Hausmann, Schofield, &

Woods, 2007). Honors programs play a unique role in creating community and supporting

student success because of this relationship to persistence and belonging.

Individualized academic advising and counseling is another benefit students often receive

for participating in an honors program. Identification of students at risk for poor academic

performance is key to helping students who may not have been prepped or ready to take on an

honors course load. A commonly recommended measure to take in assisting students is to

examine the mid-term grades of all honors students and to provide tutoring or counseling

services if needed. Honors faculty should report students who are performing poorly in their

classes so that intervention measures can be discussed and implemented by the honors advisors

earlier in the semester rather than later (Campbell & Fuqua, 2007). With honors-cohorts

generally being smaller than regular cohorts assigned to academic advisors, honors students have
 8

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

the potential to received more direct and tailored advising with an advisor who is specially

trained in their program track.

One element unique to honors programs and a well-known, high-impact practice is

honors living learning communities. While dated, DeCoster (1966) found that “high-ability

students who lived in proximity with students of similar academic ability had a lower college

withdrawal rate than similar students who lived elsewhere”. In a more recent study, 58% of the

107 students who began college living in the honors residence hall completed an honors award,

while only 32% of the 229 students who did not live in honors housing completed awards. The

benefits of living on-campus and with a cohort of students are tremendous, proven time after

time with data and student feedback. Schreiner (2013) noted that Living-Learning Communities

“enhance the development of positive relationships and represent a high-impact educational

practice advocated by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) (Kuh,

2008) and other professional organizations (p. 49). Additionally, a diverse student group can

come together to meet with faculty, engage in programming, and work as a community to meet

mutualistic goals. While not all honors programs have an honors-themed learning community or

living-learning community, literature shows that these are high-impact practices and can be one

of the most impactful resources for student growth and success in honors programs.

Outcomes of Honors Programs

The outcomes and benefits of honors programs are very subjective and unclear, even

today after decades of institutions engaging with the practice. It will take grit, complex

coordination, and funding to encourage a generation of scholars to complete longitudinal studies

and data tracking of programs, not just at a single institution, but across regions and the entire

county. A study that examined honors programs in three Pennsylvania universities reported a
 9

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

combined honors-degree completion rate of 27% (Cosgrove, 2004b). The honors completion

literature primarily focuses on pre-entry variables rather than early college measures (McDonald

& Gawkoski, 1979; Roufagalas, 1993, 1994). Some of the non-completers may have become

ineligible throughout their time in college by failing to meet the minimum GPA requirements

(3.25 for freshmen, 3.37 for sophomores, 3.37 for juniors, and 3.50 for seniors).

In the summary of his longitudinal work on college persistence, Astin (1984) states that

the findings of his study “suggest that honors participation enhances faculty-student relationships

but may isolate students from their peers” (p. 303). Such isolation can produce feelings of

resentment from non-honors students—a finding from the research of Bulkowski and Townsend

(1995). Shushok (2002, 2006) compares matched groups of honors and non-honors students,

with his data revealing that honors students reported a GPA advantage in their first year, but that

then disappeared by the fourth year. In addition, he found that honors students were more likely

to meet with faculty members, discuss career plans with faculty members, and discuss

social/political issues with other students outside of class. The problem with measuring outcomes

in future studies is that there are both tangible and intangible outcomes: GPA and graduation

rates are objective and can be tracked, but the mental and well-being improvements that can

come out of honors program participation are more internal and difficult to quantify. In a time

when data and numbers mean everything, the collection and analysis of subjective outcomes can

become a daunting and expensive task for scholars and program directors.

Financing

Some of the most pressing challenges higher education faces as an industry are priority

determination and allocation of a shrinking resource pool (Campbell, 2005). Honors programs
 10

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

can provide added value for institutions which spark interest from donors and organizations that

want to support high-talent groups of students. For example, two-thirds of the $300 million

pledged to the University of Arkansas by the Walton family, which was the “largest gift ever

promised to a public institution of higher education”, was used to develop and institutional

honors program (Pulley, 2002, p. 1). Further, “the colleges that choose to allocate substantial

resources to honors programs do so because they see the value of the programs to serve not only

students but also the institutions themselves. One example is the University of Minnesota,

which, although confronted with economic challenges, is currently considering a plan to add an

honors college, closing two other longstanding colleges in the process (its General College,

which provides services to students who need remedial assistance, and its College of Human

Ecology). This plan is intended to help the university better focus its resources, compete for top

students and faculty, and improve its status as a top research institution (Hebel, 2005).

Campell (2015) points out that “substantial funds are required for honors programs to

offer benefits such as small classes, special honors advising, and honors housing”, and that,

along with annual funding, various resources, such as physical space and teaching staff, are

needed to successfully run an honors program. While funding for honors programs is often

ample and in surplus, many proponents argue that where each dollar flows into honors programs

a dollar is being removed from a remedial or underprivileged program or student. Few studies

exist on institutional funding for honors programs and donor giving to these programs, with the

exception of a few cases of extreme donor giving to form a program. What can be researched

though is national trends of financial aid that might help students attend schools where honors

programs are located. Again, honors programs are not located at every institution, so many

students either need to relocate to attend or have to attend top-tier schools that may be more
 11

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

expensive, both issues of access and equity that lead to increased financial burden on the student

and their family. Data suggests that need-based aid has been significantly cut over the past

decade. Bettinger (2015) notes that the general consensus is that financial aid and the

corresponding college costs affect students’ enrollment decisions (Ehrenberg & Sherman,

1984; Kane, 1999; Leslie & Brinkman, 1987) and that, in terms of measuring the effects of aid

on college outcomes, the literature generally finds that student aid improves graduation and

retention rates (e.g., Bettinger, 2004; Castleman & Long, 2013; Dynarski, 2008; Goldrick-Rab et

al., 2013). This is where retention and persistence become a financial topic in addition to a

numbers game for institutional rankings. A study by Lucas, Hull, and Brantley (1995) done at

William Rainey Harper College in Illinois determined that the effect of completing at least one

honors course was a higher graduation rate than students who participated and completed no

honors courses (37% versus 31%). Further, a 2002 completion rate report published by St.

Cloud State University in Minnesota shows that “students who participated in their honors

program had higher completion (graduation) rates than did the rest of the student body: the six-

year completion rate of honors students was 72%, while that of the university at large was 39%”.

Even Astin (1975) found early on that “participation in honors programs is uniformly associated

with improved chances of college completion” (p. 103).

An argument can be made for resource investment into honors programs and divestment

from programs that show lesser impact on retention and persistence. However, the allocation of

scare resources cannot only go to these programs, and that is because honors programs can only

support a small fraction of the total student population at any given institution. With an increase

in the size of any honors program comes an increase in the costs and resources needed to grow

and maintain the high-level of quality in that program. Further, an equal or even greater increase
 12

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

in costs that is needed, and that gets passed on to the student through tuition and fee increases.

These funneling of funds into honors programs and the subsequent divestment of funds from

other programs leads to even greater stratification of the honors program from other institutional

programs. This reaffirms what the literature tells us- honors programs are not just an issue of

funding, they are an issue of equal access and fair treatment towards all student applicants.

Assessment

Despite industry consensus on the many benefits of honors programs (Achterberg;

Cosgrove; Hartleroad; Park & Maisto; Ross & Roman; Seifert, Pascarella, Colangelo, &

Assouline; Shushok), “some members of the national community of honors educators remain

resistant to the concept of assessing their programs” (Driscoll 2011). A somewhat dated but

respected report comes from Pascarella and Terenzini (1991). In their comprehensive book

concerning the impact of college on students, they synthesized over 2,600 empirical studies from

a 20-year period. None of the cited studies focuses on honors program experiences” (Driscoll,

2011). Additionally, “honors programs are most heavily concentrated at public four-year

institutions; only six percent of public two-year colleges have honors programs” (Seifert, 2007).

Assessment of methods and outcomes should be focused on the heavier representation from four-

year institutions; however, most of the literature on honors program assessment success has

focused on two-year programs. Greater review and assessment of programs at four-year

institutions is needed in order to close the literature gap and best serve the honors populations

that exist and operate today.

Mould and DeLoach (2017) describe how “studies of predictive factors for success in

honors [programs] have been increasingly creative and expansive on what these factors might

include, they have rarely challenged the dominant, virtually monolithic definitions of success.
 13

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

The majority of studies measure success either by collegiate grade point averages (GPAs) or

retention rates in honors”. Mould and DeLoach make a convincing argument for expanding and

diversifying how we assess and define success from honors program outcomes. These can

include measures such as local and national awards, recognition by and membership in external

honors societies, presentations and awards accepted at industry conferences, journals published

in peer-reviewed journals, rates of continuance into graduate school, research undertakings by

undergraduate honors students and faculty mentors, and rates of job placement upon graduation

and completion of the program. While none of these measures are necessarily new, most if not

all are not being used to assess honors programs. High school GPA and college GPA are not the

only tools institutions can use to predict and measure the success of students, so encouraging

directors and assessment committees to broaden the scope of their indicator use would benefit

both institutions and students who would see where the true positive outcomes originate from

within programs.

Another method that can be utilized to assess program success is to get feedback from the

students the programs serve. For example, honors students at Elon University point out in their

assessments of the program that they wish there were more diversity of different types within

their classes, especially as it relates to gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. This is

because many of the students are female, white, and middleclass (Mould and DeLoach).

Incorporating feedback about the program beyond a basic survey is important to getting deeper

insights out of students. These methods could include end-of-year reflection essays,

presentations, or informal debrief meetings with the program Director.

Access

Honors programs seem to join the elitist ranks of university partners like athletics,
 14

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

business programs, medicine programs, and executive education certification programs.

Something that has been little researched on honors programs is access issues related to student

participation in honors programs. What has been seen at many institutions is a widening of the

resource distribution gap, with more financial and academic resources going to the “best”

students in groups like honor programs, paired with a reduction in financial and administrative

support for remedial programs and non-honors track programs. One example of this occurred in

2000 when The Massachusetts Board of Higher Education proposed turning the honors program

at the University of Massachusetts Amherst into a newly founded “Commonwealth College”

(Bastedo & Gumport, 2003). The Commonwealth College acts as the state’s premier, flagship

college that attracts the top honors students into the state’s higher education system. Many

community stakeholders view the new college as elitist and resource diverting, while some argue

it increases the quality at the flagship campus and throughout the entire higher education system

in the state (Healy 2000). The University of Massachusetts Amherst Office of Institutional

Research though found in 2001 that “Latino students are enrolled at less than half of their rates in

the general undergraduate population”, leading many to criticize the program and wonder

whether or not resource allocation to the top-tier students is best, or if students from lesser

privileged backgrounds and schools should receive the funding.

One issue with access to honors programs is that issues related to access start to form

early on in a student’s secondary education career. Kuh et al. notes in a 1999 National Research

Council report that “family [socioeconomic status] determines the kind of school and classroom

environment to which the student has access (Reynolds and Walberg 1992), because nearly half

of all public-school funding comes from property taxes, the most important determinant of

school financing”. This illustrates how access issues to certain institutions and programs is a
 15

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

systemic issue that forms early and is perpetuated by systems of oppression and inequality that

further stratify and divide student populations. Research is still needed today on what effect SES

has on honors program application and admittance rates.

Implications & Recommendations

In the future, the questions we must ask when evaluating honors programs are: what is

the current structure of honors programs, how do they create benefit, how do they create or

support inequity, and how can we change them to lessen the divide between these two outcomes?

Campbell (2005) argues the most important question to ask is, “are honors programs important

enough to be considered priorities that receive institutional funding and other resources”? The

answer to this lies with each individual University President and Honors Program Coordinator.

For honors programs as a whole, more research must be done that looks across institutions to see

what is working where and what populations are reaping the benefit. For starters, each

institution needs to review and evaluate their honors program. Data collection and analysis is

key to finding trends and meaningful findings that can be communicated and expressed to

institutional stakeholders, Presidents, and Boards of Directors to sell the programs in a time of

program termination and deep budget cuts from both state and federal legislators. Additionally,

honors programs should unite with campus partners to craft ways in which honors programs can

increase access and help support students from low socioeconomic classes, resource-poor high

school systems, rurally isolated areas, and diverse ethnic/racial backgrounds. There are many

campus units that work to attract these students, provide academic/social support, and provide

them a sense of well-being on campus. More and more there are specific scholarships and

programs geared towards delivering more funds of full ride scholarships for students that

demonstrate need. Partnering with these groups within institutions to better combine resource
 16

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

ability and to give enhanced access to the lesser privileged applicant pool will not only

strengthen the impact honors programs have on institutional effectiveness and student success,

but will also create greater buy in and support from those who may advocate against honors

programs due to their elitist, isolationist structures. Honors program directors can even attract

international students and adult learners to their programs “by extending personalized, individual

invitations to join the honors program to students who perform well during their first semester of

college (rather than basing eligibility solely on college entrance criteria)” (Campbell, 2015). The

last recommendation is to increase internal and external marketing related to honors programs.

“Gifted” students are often guided through the pipeline into honors programs by high school

counselors who have strong relationships with honors program directors. What we see in the

admission process and marketing college today is that “consumerism colors virtually all aspects

of the college experience, with many colleges and universities “marketizing” their admissions

approach to recruit the right “customers”—those who are best prepared for college and can pay

their way” (Fallows et al. 2003). This means that many community and high school stakeholders

do not even know honors programs are an option when applying for college. Increased external

awareness and early-intervention marketing that takes place during a student’s freshman and

sophomore years in high school could set some students on a different course. Teaching students

early that they could have the unique goal of honors program admittance in mind when working

to boost college readiness could attract a wider range of students and increase student interest in

the programs. Additionally, internal awareness of honors programs is crucial to selling the

importance of the programs to the school community. Student achievements, research, thesis

papers, and service-learning experiences should be highlighted and shared to give the community

pride. If the honors program is to be a benchmark for student learning and engagement, then the
 17

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

community must be made aware of what that realistically looks like.

Conclusion

Honors programs are an extremely strategic educational practice and are relatively new in

the history of higher education. Its structures, admission procedures, and program expectations

must be fluid and adapted to meet the needs of each institution, while also becoming aligned

with the overall institutional mission and values. With honors programs creating some of the

country’s greatest leaders and scholars, we must recognize that the time to expand these

programs and to make room for more students is now. The AAUC calls for there to be no “one-

size-fits-all” design for learning, and further proclaims that “the diversity that characterizes

American higher education remains a source of vitality and strength” (p. 4). Honors programs in

American higher education deliver on this call to action through providing students with

advanced learning opportunities, unique engagement activities, and peer networks that support

students throughout their education. Honors programs, while not perfect, do have the potential

to nurture a cohort of very educated and supported students. Institutions need to be aware

though of the balance that must be reached between advanced and remedial programs. In the

future, gathering more detailed data on what is known about honors programs and proposing new

research that fills our literature void will be crucial in creating greater benefits for a more diverse

body of students.
 18

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

References

AAUC. (2007). College Learning for the New Global Century. The National Leadership Council

for Liberal Education and America’s Promise. 4.

Andrews, Larry 2007 “Grades, Scores, and Honors: A Numbers Game?” Journal of the National

Collegiate Honors Council. Online Archive: 41.

Astin, A. W. (1975) Preventing Students from Dropping Out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. The

Journal of College Student Personnel. 25(4), 297-308.

Austin, C. G. (1991). Honors programs: Development, review, and revitalization. Charleston,

IL: National Collegiate Honors Council.

Bastedo, M.N. & Gumport, P.J. Higher Education (2003) 46: 341.https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102\

5374011204

Bettinger, Eric. (2015. Need-Based Aid and College Persistence: The Effects of the Ohio College

Opportunity Grant. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Vol 37(1) 102S-119S.

Bollen, K. A., & Hoyle, R. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical

examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479–504.


Bulakowski, C. and B.K. Townsend (1995). Evaluation of a community college honors program:

problems and possibilities. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 19(6),

485-499.
 19

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

Campbell, Celeste. (2005). Allocation of Resources: Should Honors Programs Take Priority?

Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council. Online Archive. 167.


Campbell, Celeste. (2005b, October). Exploring predictors of persistence in honors. Paper

presented at the annual conference of the National Collegiate Honors Council, St. Louis,

Missouri.

Campbell, Celeste., & Fuqua, Dale. (2008). Factors predictive of student completion in a

collegiate honors program. Journal of College Student Retention. Vol. 10(2) 129-153.

Cosgrove, John. (2004). Impact of Honors Programs on Undergraduate Academic Performance,

Retention, and Graduation. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council. Online

Archive. 137.


DeCoster, D. A. (1966). Housing assignments for high ability students. Journal of College

Student Personnel, 7, 19-22.

Driscoll, Marsha. (2011). National Survey of College and University Honors Programs

Assessment Protocols. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council. Online

Archive. 303.


Fallows, J., Bakke, D., Ganeshananthan, V. V., & Johnson, C. (2003). The New College Chaos.

Atlantic Monthly, 292(4): 106-114.


Green, Raymond J , and Sandy Kimbrough 2008 “Honors Admissions Criteria: How Important

Are Standardized Tests?” Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council—Online

Archive: 69
 20

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

Hausmann, L. R. M., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor

of intentions to persist among African American and White first- year college students.

Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 803–839.

Healy, P. (2000, September 24). 'For some, honors college is no honor: Charges of elitism greet

new school on UMass campus', Boston Globe, A1.

Kuh, G. D. (2006). Built to Engage: Liberal Arts Colleges and Effective Educational Practice. In

Liberal Arts Colleges in American Higher Education (ACLS Occasional Paper), edited

by F. Oakely, 122- 150. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.

Locks, A. M. & Hurtado, S. & Bowman, N. A. & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending Notions of

Campus Climate and Diversity to Students' Transition to College. The Review of Higher

Education 31(3), 257-285. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lucas, J. A., Hull, E., & Brantley, F. (1995). Follow-up study of students taking honors courses,

1990-1995, XXIV(10). Palatine, IL: William Rainey Harper College Office of Planning

and Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397904)

Mould, Tom and DeLoach, Stephen B., "Moving Beyond GPA: Alternative Measures of Success

and Predictive Factors in Honors Programs" (2017). Journal of the National Collegiate

Honors Council. 552.

National Research Council. (1999). Equity & Adequacy in Education Finance: Issues and

Perspectives. Washington, DC: National Research Council Committee on Education

Finance.
 21

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

Ory, J. C., and L.A. Braskamp. (1988). Involvement and growth of students in three academic

programs. Research in Higher Education, 28(2), 116-129.

Pascarella, E.T. and P.T. Terenzini (1991). How College Affects Students. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Pulley, J. L. (2002, April 26). U. of Arkansas receives $300-million pledge, the largest ever to a

public college. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com

Schreiner, Laurie. (2013). Thriving in College. New Directions for Student Services. 143(1).

DOI: 10.1002/ss.20059

Schuman, S. (2004). Honors scholarship and Forum for Honors. Journal of the National

Collegiate Honors Council, 5(1), 19–23.


Shushok, F. (2002). Educating the best and the brightest: Collegiate Honors programs and the

intellectual, social and psychological development of students. Ph.D. Dissertation.

University of Maryland, College Park.

Slavin, Charlie; Coladarci, Theodore; & Pratt, Phillip A. (2008). Is Student Participation in an

Honors Program Related to Retention and Graduation Rates. Journal of the National

Collegiate Honors Council. Online Archive. 66.

Sperber, Murray. (2000, Oct. 20). End the mediocrity of our public universities. Chronicle of

Higher Education. B24.

Sperber, Murray. (2000). Beer and Circus: How Big-Time College Sports Is Crippling

Undergraduate Education. New York: Henry Holt.

 22

AN OVERDUE OVERVIEW OF U.S. COLLEGE HONORS PRGORAMS

St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, MN, Office of Institutional Research. (2002, Summer).

2002 program completion rate report. Retrieved October 19, 2002, from the St. Cloud

State University web site: http://irp.stcloudstate.edu/reports/historical/completion.html

Stoller, Richard. (2004). Honors Selection Processes: A Typology And Some Reactions. Journal

of the National Collegiate Honors Council. Online Archive. 142.