Factors That Influence the Persistence and Success of Black Men in Urban Public Universities

Abstract

Urban public universities play a critical role in the higher education enterprise. In this article, Strayhorn draws on Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and semi-structured interview data to provide a national portrait comparing predominantly White and historically Black public universities, as well as identifying factors that influence the persistence and success of Black men in urban public universities. Findings suggest the importance of background traits, academic readiness, and the ways that urban public universities provide access, support systems, and close connections with communities for students and society. Implications for practice, policy, and research are included.

Keywords

academic achievement Black males college access historically Black colleges minority academic success public higher education readiness

College access has increased dramatically over the past few decades. Access has opened for women and historically underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities (URMs) across the higher education enterprise, but participation rates have grown most significantly at public universities that serve a major access function (Duderstadt & Womack, 2003). For instance, consider that women outnumber men on most public campuses—a reversal of male predominance in college that was status quo just 20 years ago (Sax, 2008). URMs also represent a growing, sizable proportion of undergraduate students at public universities. African Americans constitute 2 million of over 21 million full- and part-time undergraduates enrolled at America’s more than 4,300 colleges and universities, the vast majority at public institutions. Consistent with national trends, Black women outnumber their same-race male counterparts by a margin of 2 to 1 (Cuyjet, 2006; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013).

Much has been written about the educational trajectories of Black men. For instance, K-12 education scholars have directed much-needed attention to the role that early childhood literacy, numeracy, and social-emotional learning play in Black male youth performance in school (Anderson, 2006; Davis, 2001, 2003; Kunjufu, 1986). Studies have revealed numerous correlates of Black male youth success or failure in schools; data show how reading and math deficits experienced early in the pipeline can accumulate over time and have deleterious effects on long-term outcomes (Kirkland, 2006; Tate, 1997; Tucker Blackwell, 2006). Consequently, Black males are more likely to be assigned to special education (Rawls, 2006), suspended (Lane, 2006), or expelled from school (Noguera, 2003).

Sociologists who use schools as a primary study site have contributed to our understanding of Black males’ academic experiences as well. For instance, Ferguson (2000) conducted an extensive study of Black and Latino male youth in a public school. She found that “bad boys” are not born, they are created, and bad boys of color are constructed and produced through unjust disciplinary processes within schools. Teacher expectations play a key role in influencing Black male’s experiences in K-12 urban schools (Ross & Jackson, 1991; Strayhorn, 2008e). For instance, Polite and Davis (1999) examined 115 Black males in high school and found that teachers and school counselors often fail to direct Black male youth to college preparatory opportunities such as summer camps, advanced math classes, and advanced placement (AP) courses.

Black male youth who persist through early childhood education, middle school years, and make it through high school have other outcomes. For instance, still today, only 50% of Black males graduate from high school in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). Half of those who complete high school and attempt higher education begin at 2-year public community colleges, although many Black male high school graduates never attempt higher education (Strayhorn, 2012b). A relatively small minority begin their postsecondary careers at 4-year colleges. And two thirds of Black men who start college drop out before completing their degree, the highest attrition rate among both sexes and all races (Strayhorn, 2010b).

What accounts for high attrition rates among Black males attending 4-year colleges and universities? Prior research suggests many factors that influence the persistence and success of Black males in college (Palmer, Wood, Dancy, & Strayhorn, 2014; Strayhorn, 2012a). One major conclusion from existing literature is that the experiences of individuals at public universities are qualitatively different from those of their counterparts at private institutions that, on average, can be geographically situated in the northeast region of the country, very well resourced, more or less diverse, and expensive to attend (Strayhorn, Tillman-Kelly, Suddeth, & Williams, 2012; Thelin, 2004; Volkwein & Parmley, 2000). For instance, institutional control, selectivity, campus racial composition, and ethos shape the nature of relationships on campus, which, in turn, can influence the experiences of Black students, faculty, and staff (Allen, 1992; Hirt, 2006). It is also true that 4-year public universities vary in terms of their geographic setting and Black male representation (Harper, 2006a). Urban public universities can be dramatically distinct from those in rural pastures (Thelin, 2004), although relatively little empirical research exists on Black males’ success at urban public universities with few exceptions (e.g., Holliday & Strange, 2013). For these reasons, the present study’s focus is limited to Black men at urban, public universities.

Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to identify factors that influence the persistence and success of Black men in urban public universities. To this end, data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database and informal, semi-structured interviews with Black men attending urban public universities were analyzed concurrently.

For the purposes of this study, persistence was defined operationally as continued enrollment or degree completion at any institution within the higher education enterprise (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013), allowing for movement between and within institutions (i.e., transfer, major change). Researchers distinguish persistence from retention, with retention typically defined as continued enrollment at the same institution where one began studies although we know that about one in nine students transfer institutions (National Student Clearinghouse, 2014). Success, on the other hand, was defined using a broader set of outcomes, namely, self-reported grades or perceived progress toward an academic or professional goal set by the student.

Before describing the methods used in the study, I briefly review the existing literature related to Black males’ persistence and success in college, especially prior research on Black males at urban, public universities.

Literature Review

As the study focused on Black males attending urban, public universities and factors influencing their retention and persistence, I found it necessary to review the existing literature on Black male college success and prior research about urban, public universities. The literature review is organized around these major categories.

Black males’ success in college has been linked to many correlates, ranging from academic preparation (Adelman, 2002) to involvement and social support. For instance, Harper (2003) analyzed data from 32 Black males and delineated the benefits that accrue from purposeful engagement in campus leadership activities such as practical skills and personal connections with senior leaders and staff. Other studies have demonstrated the importance of academic preparation and strong supportive relationships with faculty, staff, or peers. Strayhorn (2008d) analyzed College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) data from 231 Black males and found statistically significant associations between supportive relationships and satisfaction (not self-reported grades), over and beyond more traditional factors such as age, marital status, year in college, and parent’s education. Frequent and meaningfully supportive relationships with faculty and staff on campus at predominantly White institutions (PWIs) positively influenced Black males’ satisfaction with their college experience.

Prior research also lends some support to institutional differences in Black males’ experiences in college and subsequent success outcomes. For example, Strayhorn (2008c) analyzed federal data from a weighted sample of more than 84,000 low-income Black male collegians and found that 38% of them had dropped out of school just 6 years after initial enrollment. Age, educational aspirations, institutional selectivity, grade point average (GPA), and social integration (measured as the average of the frequency of their engagement in college activities) were significant predictors of the odds of persisting in college. Working together, Palmer and Strayhorn (2008) analyzed interview data from 11 Black males at a historically Black college and university (HBCU) and found that noncognitive factors also enable student success, including focus, personal responsibility, time management, and passion for one’s major or post-college plans. A good deal of research affirms these conclusions (e.g., Harper, 2006b; Palmer & Gasman, 2008).

Surprisingly, much of what we know about Black male collegians is based on research on their experiences generally or at HBCUs and PWIs specifically, with little attention given to the urbanicity or locale of the school in which they are enrolled. Prior research on urban, public universities has focused on faculty members (Daly & Dee, 2006); the distinctive character and mission of urban, public universities (Riposa, 2003); and the investment of urban, public universities in community development and revitalization (Duderstadt & Womack, 2003; Stukel, 1994). Urban universities spend approximately US$6 million per year on public service and other investments in the community.

Previous research on Black male students at urban public universities is largely descriptive (Harper, 2006a) or qualitative (Holliday & Strange, 2013). For instance, Holliday and Strange conducted a phenomenological study with 18 Black male participants and found that college choice factors, role models, K-12 experiences, and support systems play a role in student decisions to pursue higher education, as well as their experiences after matriculation. We also know that a significant majority (upward of 65%) of students attending urban universities hail from the local metropolitan area where their university is located. Ethnic minority student experiences at urban colleges can differ dramatically from majority students attending residential, rural and/or bucolic campuses (Torres, 2006).

While useful, there are noticeable gaps in the current literature on Black male collegians such as few studies that focus on geographically segregated public colleges and students at urban public universities, especially studies that disaggregate findings based on campus racial composition (i.e., HBCU vs. PWI). The present study was designed with these gaps in mind.

Method

This study employed a blended design using secondary analysis of existing data through the IPEDS and analysis of informal, interviews with Black male collegians who met the sampling criteria. Drawing from a set of larger studies (Strayhorn, 2008b, 2008d, 2012a), these data were analyzed to answer questions related to the experiences of Black men attending urban public universities.

Samples

The IPEDS sample was restricted to include Title IV participating, 4-year public universities that were degree-granting only. In terms of urbanicity, the institutional sample was further restricted according to locale codes that identify the geographic status of institutions ranging from large city to rural based on the school’s physical address, a methodology developed by the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Division in 2005. The analytic institutional sample was restricted to urban universities only including those located within a principal city with a population of small (less than 100,000), mid-sized or medium (≥100,000 but <250,000), and large (250,000 or more). This does not include public universities located in suburban (i.e., outside a principal city but inside urbanized area), town (i.e., inside an urban cluster but 10-35 miles from urbanized area), or rural (i.e., outside both principal city and urbanized area) locale codes. Thus, the final institutional sample for the IPEDS analysis included 332 urban public institutions, including schools such as Alabama A&M University, University of California–Berkeley, San Diego State University, University of Georgia, Wayne State University, Norfolk State University, and North Carolina State University, to name a few.

The interview sample was comprised of a relatively small convenience sample. All participants were Black or African American males attending large, urban public universities. Table 1 presents a descriptive summary of the interview sample.

Table 1.

Summary Description of Interview Participants.

Characteristic	M or %
Age (years)	20
STEM major	15
Athlete	3
Multiracial	40

Note. STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.

Data Collection

IPEDS data were collected by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. Data are collected annually from institutions that participate in any of the federal student aid programs authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. IPEDS consists of nine interrelated survey components (e.g., completions, student aid, academic libraries, enrollment), collected over three time periods (i.e., fall, winter, spring) each year. More than 7,500 institutions complete IPEDS each year, including non-degree-granting technical institutes and beauty schools.

Interview data were collected through informal, semi-structured one-on-one interviews with willing participants. The interview protocol included questions about students’ academic and social experiences in college, major challenges, and successes, as well as factors that enabled their success. All interviews were conducted by the principal investigator or a member of his research team. Interviews were digitally recorded and later transcribed by a professional. Interviews lasted, on average, approximately 45 to 60 min.

Measures

As the IPEDS analysis was largely descriptive, a full description of each variable or measure is not included in this report of results. Several measures can be defined by information from the IPEDS survey components or reports.

Retention was operationally defined in IPEDS as the first-year retention rate or percentage of first-year students who had persisted in or completed their educational program a year after initial enrollment. This measure is consistent with prior research and theory on student retention (Tinto, 1993).

Graduation was operationally defined in IPEDS as the total number of individuals who completed their degree within 150% of normal time divided by the revised adjusted cohort. This measure is consistent with prior research on student persistence, college graduation, and more recent completion goals (Astin, 2005-2006; Cabrera, Burkum, & La Nasa, 2005; Russell, 2011).

HBCU is defined according to the Higher Education Act of 1965 as any historically Black institution established prior to 1964 whose principal purpose was, and is, the education of Black Americans. This information is consistent with prior research on HBCUs (Gasman, 2008; Strayhorn, 2008a).

Data Analysis

IPEDS data were analyzed using an IPEDS analysis tool in the public domain, provided by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, the universe of IPEDS institutions was restricted to only those that met the sampling criteria described in the previous section. Then, variables of interest were identified that provided information about students enrolled at urban, public universities. Means and frequencies were computed for each variable. Tests of group differences (i.e., z tests) were used to estimate differences between the proportions for independent groups such as retention rates at urban, public HBCUs compared with those at similarly situated non-HBCUs/PWIs, in light of prior literature (Strayhorn, 2008a).

Interview data were analyzed using a version of the constant comparison method made popular by Strauss and Corbin (1998). Essentially, transcripts were read and reread to ascertain the essence of what participants’ experiences were in college. A stepwise process of thematic coding was used to make meaning of Black male participants’ stories. This process combined related themes or codes into a single category while leaving intact those that stood apart as independent units.

Results

The IPEDS Study

For IPEDS analysis, it is important to note that the institutional sample (N = 332) was divided into two groups based on results from prior research about the differences of Black students at HBCUs versus PWIs (Allen, 1992; Flowers, 2002; Harvey & Williams, 1996; Strayhorn, 2008a): urban, public HBCUs (n = 22) and similarly situated non-HBCUs, mostly PWIs (n = 310).

To examine the college readiness levels of students enrolling at urban, public universities, multiple aggregate IPEDS measures were used, including American College Test (ACT) and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores. On average, students’ ACT and SAT scores at non-HBCU/PWI urban, public universities are higher than students’ college entrance exam scores at HBCU urban, public universities. For instance, the average 75th percentile score on the ACT (composite) was 25 for non-HBCU/PWI students, compared with 19 for HBCU students at urban, public universities. Table 2 presents additional results and comparisons.

Table 2.

Average ACT and SAT Scores for Students at Urban Public Universities.

Variable	HBCU urban public universities	X/Y	Non-HBCU/PWI urban public universities
ACT composite 25th percentile	16	<	20
ACT composite 75th percentile	19	<	25
SAT reading 25th percentile	395	<	471
SAT reading 75th percentile	481	<	580
SAT math 25th percentile	396	<	490
SAT math 75th percentile	491	<	601

Note. ACT = American College Test; SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test; HBCU = historically Black college and university; PWI = predominantly White institution.

On average, students pay less in terms of total price to attend HBCU urban, public universities, compared with those that are non-HBCUs/PWIs. The total price for in-state students living on campus at HBCU urban, public universities during the 2013-2014 year averaged US$18,874, while the total price for such students at non-HBCU/PWI urban, public universities averaged US$22,224. Table 3 presents additional results.

Table 3.

Average Total Price for In- and Out-of-State Students at Urban Public Universities 2013-2014.

Variable	Average
HBCU
Total price for in-state living on campus	18,874
Total price for out-of-state living on campus	27,196
Total price for in-state living off-campus (not with family)	19,855
Non-HBCU/PWI
Total price for in-state living on campus	22,224
Total price for out-of-state living on campus	33,932
Total price for in-state living off-campus (not with family)	22,127

Note. HBCU = historically Black college and university; PWI = predominantly White institution.

Differences in cost of attendance are related to patterns in student enrollment. Total enrollment at HBCU urban, public universities was 5,947, compared with 16,283 at non-HBCU/PWI urban, public universities. In both cases, the vast majority of students were full-time (79% at urban, public HBCUs; 74% at urban, public non-HBCUs/PWIs). Women represent 63% of total enrollment at urban, public HBCUs and 55% of total enrollment at urban, public non-HBCUs/PWIs. Interestingly, while Black/African American students constitute 79% of total enrollment at urban, public HBCUs, they represent only 10% of total enrollment at comparable PWIs; Black student share of HBCU enrollments declines as their options to attend other non-HBCU schools expand (Strayhorn, 2010a).

Disaggregating total enrollment by level shows differences in enrollment status. Of the 5,004 undergraduates enrolled at urban, public HBCUs, 83% were full-time and 847 were part-time. Of the 13,190 undergraduates enrolled at urban, public non-HBCUs/PWIs, 77% were full-time, and 3,039 were part-time. Table 4 presents a summary of these results.

Table 4.

Student Enrollment at Urban Public Universities 2013-2014.

Variable	HBCU urban public universities	X/Y	Non-HBCU/PWI urban public universities
Total enrollment	5,947		16,283
Full-time	4,713 (79%)	>	12,009 (74%)
Part-time	1,234 (21%)	<	4,273 (23%)
%Women	63	>	55
%Black	79	>	10
Undergraduate enrollment	5,004		13,190
Full-time	4,157 (83%)	>	10,150 (77%)
Part-time	847 (17%)	<	3,039 (23%)

Note. HBCU = historically Black college and university; PWI = predominantly White institution.

Beyond enrollment, results suggest varying success rates for students at urban, public universities, in terms of retention and graduation rates. The full-time retention rate for students at urban, public HBCUs was 65%, compared with 77% for students at similarly situated non-HBCUs/PWIs. The part-time retention rate was 40% at HBCUs, compared with 52% at similarly situated non-HBCUs/PWIs. The total cohort graduation rate at urban public HBCUs was 29%, compared with 47% at similarly situated non-HBCUs/PWIs. Women graduated at higher rates than men at both types of institutions (33% vs. 24% at HBCUs and 50% vs. 44% at non-HBCUs/PWIs). Blacks graduated at the lowest rate, among all races, at both types of institutions: 29% at HBCUs and 38% at non-HBCUs/PWIs. Table 5 presents a summary of these results and additional comparisons.

Table 5.

Retention and Graduation Rates for Students at Urban Public Universities.

Variable	HBCU urban public universities	X/Y	Non-HBCU/PWI urban public universities
Full-time retention rate^a	65	<	77
Part-time retention rate^b	40	<	52
Graduation rate, total cohort	29	<	47
Graduation rate, men	24	<	44
Graduation rate, women	33	<	50
Graduation rate, Black^c	29	<	38
Graduation rate, White	32	<	49
Graduation rate, Asian	33	<	52

Note. HBCU = historically Black college and university; PWI = predominantly White institution.

z = −14.78, p < .01.

z = −6.16, p < .01.

z = −6.75, p < .01.

The Interview Study

Interview data were analyzed using the stepwise process outlined above. Three major themes were identified: access to college, availability of support systems, and close connection to the community. Each of these themes is best characterized by a single quote from a participant within the study that echoed the overall sentiments of others, including access (i.e., “gave me a chance to go to college”), support systems (i.e., “people helped show me the way”), and community connections (i.e., “it’s like living and learning in the same space”). Each theme is described, along with illustrative quotes from participants, before turning to discussion of findings.

Access to College

Most Black male interview participants stressed that the urban, public university that they attended provided access to college and, in most cases, the institution was the only 4-year option reasonably available to them. Decisions about the possibility of attending the institution were based on at least two factors: college readiness or students’ academic performance prior to college (e.g., high school grades, test scores) and the cost of attendance (i.e., total price less any aid); in most cases, participants felt that they could attend a 2-year community college or the 4-year urban, public university under study. Interestingly, most Black male interview participants hailed from the local metropolitan, urban area where their university was located. In one case, a participant, Khalil, thought providing college access was part of his institution’s mission and purpose. Consider the following quote:

I probably can’t really say that I chose this institution (laughing). It chose me. I mean, I know it’s for a purpose . . . well, it was like on purpose [emphasis added]. You know what I mean? I probably wouldn’t have been accepted by any other school, except like a community college or something. My grades weren’t bad in high school but I definitely wasn’t always the smartest one. [Interviewer: How were your ACT/SAT scores?] I don’t do well on tests like that so, yeah, they were lower. But this school took a chance on me and gave me a chance to go to college. I think that’s what it’s known for doing. (Khalil)

Despite lower scores on college entrance exams, on average, Black males in the interview sample gained admission to an urban public university in their local area and enrolled full-time upon graduation from high school. By and large, participants saw the institution as a high-quality avenue or option for accessing higher education and held a good deal of gratitude for the institution giving them a chance.

Availability of Strong Support Systems

Once enrolled, Black male interview participants found the campus environment generally supportive despite off-campus encounters that challenged their academic and personal safety. When asked about the factors or conditions to which they attribute their success, a majority of Black males in the interview study talked extensively about the availability of strong support systems, including on-campus services (e.g., counseling, writing, tutoring), faculty and staff, and peer networks, to name a few. For instance, Colin, a sophomore, talked about how he benefited from weekly academic support provided by supplemental instruction staff in math and tutoring in biology. Consider the following excerpt:

My first year wasn’t so bad . . . it was basically all the pre-reqs [“prerequisites”] and electives. I tried to put off math and science but my major requires me to get them behind me. So I took them both this year. BIG mistake [emphasis added]. It’s a lot of work. But I’m not doing too bad . . . I’m getting like B’s and C’s mostly. My math teachers help when I go in for extra help every week . . . it’s like a program or something that they run through (the student success center) [unique name blinded]. And the TA [teaching assistant] gives us sections for tutoring every week after lecture so I go to that. It’s a lot of work but also a lot of help here for you if you take it. (Colin)

Beyond support provided through campus services and offices, Black males in the interview sample also stressed the role that faculty and staff play at urban, public universities, especially those attending HBCUs. Participants used words and phrases such as “go[ing] beyond the call of duty” or “going out of their way” to describe the extent to which faculty and staff would work to provide additional support to students. For example, one guy talked about how his work and school schedule conflicted after his supervisor at the local department store where he worked changed the calendar (i.e., staffing pattern) mid-semester without notice. When he explained what happened at work to his instructor, the professor allowed him to remain enrolled in his current section of the course but physically attend another section that fit his work hours better; the professor also tailored his assignments and exams accordingly. Here is an excerpt where the student explains a bit further:

Like I said, there are many benefits of coming here for college. I feel like they really [emphasis added] care about me . . . well, us (laughing) here. I know that a lot of faculty here really try to help students and I don’t think you get that everywhere. A few months ago, my supervisor, man [shaking head], she switched the schedule on me and was like hard core cold about it. She said that I had to come in or I would lose my job and I got to work. So I told my professor and he really went out his way to help me. He let me stay in the class but told me I could show up for the other one. They’re kind of the same but a little different. But he still let me do my assignments for the other one and turn them in during the one that fit my schedule. (Wil)

Beyond supportive faculty, peers were also identified as a major source of support for Black males attending urban, public universities, especially those enrolled at non-HBCUs or PWIs that tend to enroll smaller numbers of Black or ethnic minority students. Forming close relationships with same-race peers at PWIs provided the social connections and outlets that many interview participants needed to make friends, hang out, party, and feel a sense of belonging on campus. Social bonds with peers also enabled Black men in the interview study to endure some hostile, unwelcoming experiences on- and off-campus at PWIs, as well as off-campus at HBCUs. For instance, Renaldo talked about being pulled over by a policeman during his interview:

All I really remember is it was late . . . very late . . . on a weekend. Me and my homie [roommate] were leaving from a party. We know [sic] we didn’t have nothing to drink at the crib [house] so we stopped by the store, grabbed some juice, chips, and stuff, then left. Few seconds later, it’s all lights and sirens . . . whrrrr, whrrrr [imitating sirens] . . . and the cop called like two other cars. They came up and did the usual. License, registration, hands so I can see them . . . . We weren’t drunk, weren’t speeding, nothing and he was like “Oh, ok, I’ll let you go this time . . . we’re looking into a home invasion in this area.” But we didn’t do anything and he never mentioned a description. We was profiled [sic]. That’s all.

Renaldo went on to say that he appreciated having other Black men or ethnic minorities on campus with whom he could share this story. When he shared the story with same-race or minority peers on campus, they generally empathized, affirmed his experience, and either experienced something similar or had no problem believing that it was true. Indeed, the availability of strong support systems was a major factor contributing to the success of Black males attending urban, public universities, both HBCUs and non-HBCUs/PWIs.

University’s Close Connection to the Community

A third theme identified during the stepwise analysis of interview transcripts referred to the location and proximity of the university to the local community. Interestingly, a number of participants referenced the close connections between the university and its surrounding community. Proximity and close connections also seemed to make it difficult for participants to mark off the boundaries of the university and community; several participants remarked that the university “is part of the community” and vice versa.

Close connections and clear commitments to the local community also seemed to shape Black male interview participants’ reasons for choosing to attend the urban, public university in which they were enrolled. In some cases, Black males with whom I spoke aspired to public service offices, community leadership roles, or other avenues to gainful employment that required a personal investment of time and energy to the needs of the local community in which they lived (and in which many were born). For example, Donté, a political science major, who switched out of a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) major after his first year, shared his thoughts:

I’ve always wanted to give back to the community because I grew up here and this is what I know. When I got here, I thought I was going to do it through engineering . . . something like environmental that would let me fix the air and conditions but I’m now majoring in poli sci [political science] so I can go into politics.

To succeed in politics, Donté, and others like him, believed that it was important to attend a university that affirmed public service, engaged in public affairs, and provided ways to become involved in community issues, civic debate, and grassroots organizing.

Similar to findings reported in my study of Black males at religiously affiliated colleges and universities (Strayhorn et al., 2012), Black men at urban, public universities with whom I spoke stressed the important role that location and involvement in the local community played in their decision to enroll at the college they attended. Several participants held deep pride in the “place,” “neighborhood,” or “community” in which they were born. Taking pride in their community or neighborhood of origin kept some participants “bound to the [major urban city in which their school was located] because it was close to [their] parents” or family. While this often limited the number of institutions that he considered after high school, it deepened the bonds and commitments between the student, university, and community. Several who were STEM majors highlighted how proximity to the local community enhanced their ability to engage in service learning projects and mutually rewarding outreach activities. It also catalyzed synergistic schooling experiences where the university, community, and student were one and vice versa.

Results from the present study converge on the relationship between the university and local community as a significant factor shaping Black males’ experiences at urban public universities, although it is less clear whether this is unique to urban universities, religiously affiliated institutions with a public service commitment (Strayhorn et al., 2012), or both. Nevertheless, it is clear that institutional context matters when it comes to Black male success in higher education, especially for those attending urban public universities. Findings from the study are discussed within the context of existing literature in the next section.

Discussion

The purpose of this research was to understand factors associated with the retention, persistence, and general success of Black males at urban, public universities. For this purpose, data from two sources—IPEDS and in-depth interviews—were analyzed using appropriate techniques. Results suggest several major conclusions.

First, results suggest that academic preparation matters, and there are differences in aggregate ACT/SAT scores between students at HBCU urban, public universities and similarly situated students at non-HBCU/PWI urban, publics. The importance of academic preparation for college affirms previous conclusions (Adelman, 2002), but the present study provides evidence that ACT/SAT scores are generally higher at non-HBCU/PWI urban, publics compared with HBCU urban, public universities. Differences observed between HBCUs and non-HBCU/PWI urban publics extend more general statements distinguishing HBCUs from PWIs (Allen, 1992) using a subset of urban, public universities only. A main take-away from this study is that we must work, programmatically and policy-wise, to increase the college readiness of all students, especially Black students who are more likely to graduate from high school with lower scores on traditional readiness measures such as the SAT and ACT. It might also be wise to develop new or revise existing measures that assess college readiness in less traditional domains where historically underrepresented minorities perform better such as cultural competence, efficacy, and grit for instance.

Second, finances have long since been identified as a factor influencing retention and persistence of students in general (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1992; Geraghty, 1997; St. John & Asker, 2001), Black males at public universities (Strayhorn, 2008c), and even students at urban universities (St. John, Hu, & Tuttle, 2000). Results from the present study indicate that the same is true for Black males at urban public universities and that, generally speaking, the total price of college is greater at non-HBCU/PWI urban, public universities compared with HBCU urban, publics such as Norfolk State University. Black males at urban public universities, like others, also consider finances (i.e., total price, aid, work) when making decisions about pursuing higher education, enrolling in college, or what they may even study or declare as a major. Efforts designed to control college costs and to eliminate price differentials may also work to increase access, balance college choice options for Black male students, and enable their ability to stay enrolled after matriculation.

Third, results from this study offer a statistical profile of sorts for students at urban public universities using data from IPEDS, disaggregated by campus racial composition into HBCUs and PWIs. Generally, total enrollment tends to be smaller at HBCU urban public universities, yet gender gaps are more pronounced with 63% of students being women and racial gaps are more significant with 79% of students being Black or African American. While the proportion of undergraduates who enroll full-time at HBCU urban public institutions is greater (83%), the proportion of part-time undergraduates at similarly situated non-HBCUs/PWIs is greater (23%). Taken together, results from the present study add to what is known about Black males at public flagship institutions (Harper, 2006b) and metropolitan urban universities (Glover, Combes, Walker, Allen, & Cowen, 2003; Stukel, 1994). Results also reveal new questions that deserve scholarly attention such as the experiences of part-time students at urban, public universities or gender disparities among part-time students at urban, public HBCUs, to name a few.

Finally, several points emerge from this study related to student retention and persistence at urban, public universities. For instance, retention rates are generally higher at non-HBCU/PWI urban, public universities across all groups, including first-year students, men, women, White, Black, and Asian students. Interviews led to identification of three factors related to Black males’ success at urban, public universities, including college access and pre-college preparation, strong support networks, and close connections with the community.

Academic preparation has already been addressed, but strong supportive networks are a fairly consistent thread in the literature on Black males’ college success. That Black males at urban, public universities attributed their success to the availability of strong supportive relationships with faculty, staff, and peers on campus affirms prior studies (Cuyjet, 2006; Harper, 2003; Strayhorn, 2008d) but extends the spread of our knowledge to include Black men at urban publics. This conclusion has theoretical significance as it confirms the necessary balance between challenges (that college affords) and supports (provided by those on- and off-campus), in keeping with very early work (Sanford, 1966) and more recent findings (Strayhorn, 2012a). Results also generally simplify the social integration literature on college student retention (Tinto, 1993) but offer nuances to the story by showing that the same holds true for Black men at urban, public institutions and the ways in which faculty provide such support through extra help, mentoring, and flexibility with scheduling.

Faculty and staff support for Black males is important (Strayhorn, 2008d), but so too is peer support. Interview data in this study provide elaborate details about the role that same-race peer support plays in Black males’ experiences, as well as the ways in which Black men benefit (or not) from cross-racial peer support. For instance, on average, Black men felt as if they could turn to their same-race peers for support when they experienced overt racism; same-race peers tended to offer empathy, understanding, and reflections about their own encounters with racism, discrimination, or harassment, as explored in prior research on Blacks or ethnic minorities (Feagin, Vera, & Imani, 1996; Tatum, 1997). Unfortunately as many participants shared and prior research has shown to be true, this has not always been the case when interacting cross-racially. Sometimes, people from other races and backgrounds respond differently to racism and discrimination on campus. Rather than affirming, some question the truth of such racist claims, while others argue that the perpetrator had good intentions and meant no harm. Sharing empathy, cultural experiences, and building trusting connections with peers lead to the supportive friendships that engender belonging and foster college success.

Close connections with the local community were important for Black males at urban public universities in this study. Some took great pride in the neighborhood or area in which they were born and expected to use their college education to improve neighborhood conditions, ameliorate problems that stymie community growth, or assume leadership positions through local politics. In light of previous research on noncognitive factors (Palmer & Strayhorn, 2008), the theme of close connections between university and community may also relate to the motivating role that passion for one’s major or post-life opportunities for employment play in Black males’ college success. Tying passion to achievement of one’s personal and professional goals also reflects the essence of grit (Duckworth, Peterson, Matthews, & Kelly, 2007) and its role in Black males’ college success (Strayhorn, 2014).

The potential applications of this research to practice are many. For instance, college admissions staff might consider these results when working to establish thresholds for evaluating the admissibility of students at urban, public institutions, especially HBCU urban, publics. Information from this study provides a useful statistical profile of current students at urban public universities, differences in aggregate measures of urban, public college students’ readiness and success, as well as insights about accessing college. Institutional research staff and faculty may benefit from study of these figures.

Campus administrators, faculty, and staff who form close, meaningful bonds with Black male collegians might also benefit from the results of this study. Consistent with research demonstrating the benefits of strong supportive relations (Strayhorn, 2008d), this study found that supportive relationships with faculty, staff, and peers inspired and sustained Black males’ academic success at urban public universities. Findings justify the investment of time, energy, and resources to the academic success of Black males at urban publics; individuals and directors of Black Male Initiatives or programs like Student African American Brotherhood (SAAB) may consult this study when working with others.

Results from this study have significant implications for policy. For instance, the general sway of higher education policy today is toward more selectivity, expanding options, and shifting cost to students and families due to prevailing beliefs about the private benefits of higher education. The consequences of these policy shifts are nontrivial: Some students cannot access some segments of the higher education enterprise, some options are reserved for a select few, and many cannot afford to attend college. Not only are policy alternatives that preserve access and affordability sorely needed, but federal and state higher education policies must also take into account results from studies of this kind. For instance, most performance funding models reward institutions financially based on their outputs—usually retention and graduation rates—as if their inputs are the same or at least similar. Results from this study demonstrate both these points—that inputs are not equal (e.g., average ACT at urban public HBCUs is 6 points lower than PWIs) and, consequently, outputs are not equal either (e.g., 29% total cohort graduation rate at HBCUs). How might higher education finance policies account for such differences and reward institutions equitably versus perpetuating a system that rewards the “well off” and discourages helping those without? And how can U.S. higher education continue to strive toward excellence (usually measured by achievement scores) while maintaining its commitment to access and affordability? These are tough questions that deserve our very best ideas.

The study is significant in terms of future research and theory. In terms of research, much more information is needed about the experiences of Black men and other ethnic minorities at urban, public universities. Additional mining and analysis of federal databases is warranted. For instance, future researchers are encouraged to combine IPEDS data with federal data at the student level (e.g., NCES’ Education Longitudinal Study [ELS]) to examine the influence of institutional conditions at urban publics on student choices and trajectories using multi-level modeling techniques. It might also be useful to test directly the theories of challenge and support, grit, sense of belonging, retention, and persistence on Black males at urban, public universities. A related study might examine students’ experiences at urban, public institutions and the factors or conditions that engender success. Lastly, there is tremendous wisdom in talking about students, especially Black men, about their college experiences, K-12 preparation, and post-college plans. What a survey cannot detect—especially when dealing with small sample sizes—can be shared through spoken word, facial expressions, or mere silence. Well-designed qualitative studies are needed in this area.

Conclusion

Public universities produce 62% of the nation’s academic research and a large majority of scientists, engineers, and first-time professionals (70%). Public universities, especially urban publics, are committed to public service in every domain of human endeavor (McPherson & Schulenberger, 2009). And public universities provide the capacity and diversity needed to meet the nation’s needs for democracy (Duderstadt, 2009). Since the Morrill Act of 1862, public universities have shifted from educating the elite for political leadership to mass education and broadening opportunities for education to the working class (Duderstadt, 2009). Results from this study extend what we know about higher education generally, urban public universities specifically, and students who attend them. Armed with this information and other resources, steps can be taken to improve educational outcomes for similarly situated students.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Terrell L. Strayhorn, PhD, is professor and director of the Center for Higher Education Enterprise (CHEE) at The Ohio State University, where he holds faculty appointments in the College of Education and Human Ecology, Engineering Education, Sexuality Studies, Black Studies, Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race & Ethnicity, among others. He is an internationally-recognized expert on college student success, equity and diversity, race, and public higher education. He is editor of Spectrum: A Journal on Black Men.

References

Adelman

(2002). The relationship between urbanicity and educational outcomes. In Tierney

W. G.

Hagedorn

L. S.

(Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 35-63). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Allen

W. R.

(1992). The color of success: African American college students outcomes at predominantly White and historically Black public colleges and universities. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 26-44.

Anderson

A. C.

(2006). Singin’ in a strange land: An ethnographic inquiry of academic disidentification among African-American male elementary students in the urban public school. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(07A), 237.

Astin

A. W.

(2005-2006). Making sense out of degree completion rates. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 7, 5-18.

Cabrera

A. F.

Burkum

K. R.

La Nasa

S. M.

(2005). Pathways to a four-year degree: Determinants of transfer and degree completion. In Seidman

(Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 155-214). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Cabrera

A. F.

Nora

Castaneda

M. B.

(1992). The role of finances in the persistence process: A structural model. Research in Higher Education, 33, 571-593.

Cuyjet

M. J.

(2006). Helping African American men matriculate: Ideas and suggestions. In Cuyjet

M. J.

Associates (Eds.), African American men in college (pp. 237-250). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Daly

C. J.

Dee

J. R.

(2006). Greener pastures: Faculty turnover intent in urban public universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 776-803.

Davis

J. E.

(2001). Black boys at school: Negotiating masculinities and race. In Majors

(Ed.), Educating our Black children: New directions and radical approaches (pp. 169-182). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

10.

Davis

J. E.

(2003). Early schooling and academic achievement of African American males. Urban Education, 38, 515-537.

11.

Duckworth

A. L.

Peterson

Matthews

M. D.

Kelly

D. R.

(2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087-1101.

12.

Duderstadt

J. J.

(2009). Aligning American higher education with a 21st century public agenda. Higher Education in Europe, 34, 347-366.

13.

Duderstadt

J. J.

Womack

F. W.

(2003). The future of the public university in America: Beyond the crossroads. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

14.

Feagin

J. R.

Vera

Imani

(1996). The agony of education: Black students at White colleges and universities. New York, NY: Routledge.

15.

Ferguson

A. A.

(2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black male masculinity. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

16.

Flowers

L. A.

(2002). The impact of college racial composition on African American students’ academic and social gains: Additional evidence. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 403-410.

17.

Gasman

(2008). Minority-serving institutions: A historical backdrop. In Gasman

Baez

Turner

C. S. V.

(Eds.), Understanding minority-serving institutions (pp. 18-27). Albany: State University of New York Press.

18.

Geraghty

(1997). Finances are becoming more crucial in students’ college choice, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 43, A41.

19.

Glover

J. G.

Combes

B. H.

Walker

Allen

D. D.

Cowen

(2003, March). Increasing diversity in a college of education: A mentoring program to attract underrepresented populations. Metropolitan Universities, 14(1), 107-117.

20.

Harper

S. R.

(2003). Most likely to succeed: The self-perceived impact of involvement on the experiences of high-achieving African American undergraduate men at predominantly White universities. Dissertation Abstracts International, A64(6), 1995.

21.

Harper

S. R.

(2006a). Black male students at public universities in the U.S.: Status, trends and implications for policy and practice. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

22.

Harper

S. R.

(2006b). Peer support for African American male college achievement: Beyond internalized racism and the burden of “acting White.” The Journal of Men’s Studies, 14, 337-358.

23.

Harvey

W. B.

Williams

L. E.

(1996). Historically Black colleges and universities: Models for increasing minority representation. In Turner

C. S.

Garcia

Nora

Rendon

L. I.

(Eds.), ASHE Reader Series. Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education (pp. 233-240). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.

24.

Hirt

J. B.

(2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administration at different types of institutions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

25.

Holliday

Strange

N. Y.

(2013). The lived experiences of African American males in an urban university setting. In Plakhotnik

M. S.

Nielsen

S. M.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Annual South Florida Education Research Conference (pp. 116-123). Miami: Florida International University.

26.

Kirkland

D. E.

(2006). The boys in the hood: Exploring literacy in the social lives of six urban adolescent African American males. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(10A), 204.

27.

Kunjufu

(1986). Countering the conspiracy to destroy Black boys. Chicago, IL: African American Images.

28.

Lane

L. S. B.

(2006). Black in the red zone: A study of disproportionate suspension of African American males. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(1A), 55.

29.

McPherson

Schulenberger

(2009). Competitiveness of public research universities and consequences for the country: Recommendations for change. Washington, DC: Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities.

30.

National Student Clearinghouse. (2014). Snapshot report: Persistence-retention. Retrieved from http://nscresearchcenter.org/snapshotreport-persistenceretention14/

31.

Noguera

P. A.

(2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of environmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban Education, 38, 431-459.

32.

Palmer

R. T.

Gasman

M. B.

(2008). “It takes a village to raise a child”: The role of social capital in promoting academic success of African American men at a Black college. Journal of College Student Development, 49(1), 52-70.

33.

Palmer

R. T.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2008). Mastering one’s own fate: Non-cognitive factors associated with the success of African American males at an HBCU. National Association of Student Affairs Professionals Journal, 11(1), 126-143.

34.

Palmer

R. T.

Wood

J. L.

Dancy

T. E.

III Strayhorn

T. L.

(2014). Black male collegians: Increasing access, retention, and persistence in higher education (Vol. 40). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Polite

V. C.

Davis

J. E.

(Eds.). (1999). African American males in school and society. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

36.

Rawls

Jr. (2006). School identification: How young African American males in an urban elementary school come to identify with school. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(07A), 135.

37.

Riposa

(2003). Urban universities: Meeting the needs of students. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585, 51-65.

38.

Ross

S. I.

Jackson

J. M.

(1991). Teachers’ expectations for Black males’ and Black females’ academic achievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 78-82.

39.

Russell

(Producer). (2011, October). A guide to major U.S. college completion initiatives (AASCU Higher Education Policy Brief). Retrieved from http://www.aascu.org/policy/publications/policymatters/2011/collegecompletion.pdf

40.

Sanford

(1966). Self and society: Social change and individual development. New York, NY: Atherton.

41.

Sax

L. J.

(2008). Gender gap in college: Maximizing the developmental potential of women and men. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

42.

St. John

E. P.

Asker

E. H.

(2001). The role of finances in student choice: A review of theory and research. In Paulsen

M. B.

Smart

J. C.

(Eds.), The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy, and practice (pp. 419-438). New York, NY: Agathon Press.

43.

St. John

E. P.

Tuttle

(2000). Persistence by undergraduates in an urban public university: Understanding the effects of financial aid. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 30(2), 23-37.

44.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

45.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2008a). Influences on labor market outcomes of African American college graduates: A national study. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(1), 29-57.

46.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2008b). Investigating the critical junctures: Broadening participation in STEM fields among minority males. National Science Foundation.

47.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2008c). The invisible man: Factors affecting the retention of low-income African American males. National Association of Student Affairs Professionals Journal, 11(1), 66-87.

48.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2008d). The role of supportive relationships in facilitating African American males’ success in college. NASPA Journal, 45, 26-48.

49.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2008e). Teachers’ expectations and urban Black males’ success in school: Implications for academic leaders. Academic Leadership Journal, 6(2). Retrieved from http://www.academicleadership.org/emprical_research/Teacher_Expectations_and_Urban_Black_Males_Success_in_School_Implications_for_Academic_Leaders.shtml

50.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2010a). Majority as temporary minority: Examining the influence of faculty-student relationships on satisfaction among White undergraduates at historically Black colleges and universities. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 509-524.

51.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2010b). When race and gender collide: The impact of social and cultural capital on the academic achievement of African American and Latino males. The Review of Higher Education, 33, 307-332.

52.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2012a). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success. New York, NY: Routledge.

53.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2012b). Satisfaction and retention among African American men at 2-year community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36, 358-375.

54.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2014). What role does grit play in the academic success of Black male collegians at predominantly White institutions? Journal of African American Studies, 18(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1007/s12111-012-9243-0

55.

Strayhorn

T. L.

Tillman-Kelly

D. L.

Suddeth

T. M.

Williams

M. S.

(2012). Black men at religiously affiliated colleges and universities: An exploratory glance. In Hilton

A. A.

Wood

J. L.

Lewis

C. W.

(Eds.), Black males in postsecondary education: Examining their experiences in diverse institutional contexts (pp. 107-123). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

56.

Stukel

J. J.

(1994). Urban and metropolitan universities: Leaders of the 21st century. Metropolitan Universities, 5(2), 87-92.

57.

Tate

W. T.

(1997). Why the gap between Black and White performance in school? A report on the effects of race on student achievement in the St. Louis public schools. Journal of Negro Education, 66, 320-329.

58.

Tatum

B. D.

(1997). Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race. New York, NY: Basic Books.

59.

Thelin

J. R.

(2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

60.

Tinto

(1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

61.

Torres

(2006). A mixed method study testing data-model fit of a retention model for Latino/a students at urban universities. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 299-318.

62.

Tucker Blackwell

V. G.

(2006). Factors which influence the academic motivation and disengagement of adolescent, African American males within a social-historical and psychological context. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(05A), 286.

63.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The condition of education 2013. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

64.

Volkwein

J. F.

Parmley

(2000). Comparing administrative satisfaction in public and private universities. Research in Higher Education, 41, 95-116.