Are Student Veterans a Traditional, Nontraditional, or Special Population? A Study of Veterans on the Auburn University Campus by Stephen Prescott Pattillo A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama August 6, 2011 Keywords: student veterans, nonveteran students, special populations, PTSD, worries and concerns, respect Copyright 2011 by Stephen Prescott Pattillo Approved by William I. Sauser, Jr., Chair, Professor of Management, and Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology Margaret E. Ross, Associate Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology David C. DiRamio, Associate Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology James E. Groccia, Associate Professor of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology ii Abstract This non-experimental study used, with the Educational Testing Service?s permission, an updated 1946 Student Opinion Questionnaire (originally designed to compare WWII veterans and nonveterans) to collect data regarding student backgrounds, attitudes and motives, worries and concerns, use of time, and perceptions of respect concerning nonveterans, professors, the administration, and the campus? veteran-friendliness. The study?s purpose was to uncover insights into the characteristics of and to understand better the uniquenesses of veterans on the Auburn University (AU) campus, a land-grant institution in Auburn, Alabama. The study occurred during the spring 2011 semester. At that time, the known AU student veteran population (210) comprised 0.89% of the enrolled student population. The final analysis included 48 veterans and 78 nonveterans. This study reports descriptive statistics characterizing the representative AU student veteran. The researcher?s central research question was ?What are the defining characteristics of AU?s enrolled student veterans?? To answer this question, five subquestions were employed: 1) What demographic characteristics define AU veterans? 2) How do AU veterans spend their time? 3) What worries and concerns do AU veterans have or experience? 4) How do AU?s veterans perceive respect from fellow veterans, and AU nonveterans, professors, iii and administrators, and 5) How do AU veterans perceive AU?s veteran- friendliness? The researcher concluded these veterans and their distinctive characteristics mark them as an atypical sub-element of the student body. Specifically, the study found 58.3% of AU veterans were still serving in the military; 38% of AU nonveterans claimed not to know an AU student veteran; female AU veterans felt more disrespect from male AU veterans (37.5%) than from male AU nonveterans (25.0%) while male AU veterans felt little disrespect from male AU veterans (2.6%) and some disrespect from AU nonveterans (15.8%); female AU veterans (12.5%) felt more disrespect from professors than male AU veterans (5.2%) felt from their professors; 70% of veterans felt the AU campus was veteran-friendly; and 31.2% of AU veterans were planning to take longer than the normal time to complete their academic programs. iv Acknowledgments My God was beside me during the many ups and downs, trials and advancements, and personal hurts during my doctoral studies and this dissertation period and process. To my many friends in my Sunday school class and the Singles Group at Auburn United Methodist Church, thank you for your many prayers of support and encouragement. It has been my great pleasure to work with a dedicated and enthusiastic dissertation committee. Thank you all for your input, time, and devotion. I extend my grateful appreciation and admiration to my Chair, Dr. William Sauser. Bill, thank you for all you have done for me over the past two and a half years. Your interest in my success and in me personally was extremely obvious. Thank you for your time and availability, your endurance and staying power, and your coaching and counseling. Thank you for being my sounding board and for keeping me focused. Thank you Dr. Margaret Ross. Betsy, as my statistician, I could not have completed my analysis without your tutoring, coaching, and guidance. Thank you Dr. David DiRamio. David, your knowledge of veterans? issues contributed greatly to my work. Thank you Dr. James Groccia. Jim, our discussions concerning the professoriate and your guidance were greatly encouraging and eased much of my apprehension. v I would like to express thanks to James Halliday, Copyright Administrator at the Educational Testing Service (ETS) for his quick assistance, positive cooperation, and tolerable patience in granting me a copyright license to update and modify ETS? 1946 student opinion survey. A very special thanks to Ms. Monika Sanders for jostling me with gentle pushes (shoves really) and the impetus I needed to complete this document. Thanks for your time proofreading and editing. Hopefully, your eye doctor can uncross your eyes. Lastly, to my Mother, Mary Anne Pattillo. Mom, you were always so courageously bigheaded and very proud of all my achievements. A son could not have had a more vocal supporter, fan, and cheerleader. I am truly sorry you cannot physically be here to witness this latest accomplishment. Nevertheless, I can feel your spirit in and around me. Mom, I miss you! I dedicate this manuscript to you. vi Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................. ii Acknowledgments ................................................................................................ iv List of Tables ....................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ..................................................................................................... xiii List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................... xiv Chapter I. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1 Chapter II. Review of Literature .......................................................................... 18 Chapter III. Methods ........................................................................................... 63 Chapter IV. Analysis of Findings ......................................................................... 84 Chapter V. Conclusions, Recommendations, and Implications ........................ 181 References ....................................................................................................... 219 Appendix A. Auburn University, IRB Approval Notice ....................................... 243 Appendix B. Licensing Agreement, The Educational Testing Service .............. 245 Appendix C. Final Questionnaire Design .......................................................... 247 Appendix D. ASVA Email Recruiting Announcement ....................................... 267 Appendix E. ASVA Facebook Page Recruiting Announcement........................ 269 Appendix F. AU Student Center Survey Recruiting Script ................................ 271 vii List of Tables Table 1 Auburn University?s spring 2011 adjusted student population ............ 68 Table 2 Stratifying the spring 2011 adjusted student population ..................... 69 Table 3 Survey Question 3: What is your gender? .......................................... 86 Table 4 Survey Question 4: What is your age? ............................................... 87 Table 5 Survey Question 5: What is your race? .............................................. 87 Table 6 Survey Question 6: What is your ethnicity? ........................................ 88 Table 7 Survey Question 7: Are you an Alabama resident? ............................ 89 Table 8 Survey Question 8: How large was the community in which your home was located during the time you were in high school? .............. 90 Table 9 Survey Question 9: Are you an undergraduate or graduate student? .............................................................................................. 91 Table 10 Survey Question 10: Where are you living at the present time? ......... 92 Table 11 Survey Question 11: How many hours do you work each week for pay? .............................................................................................. 94 Table 12 Survey Question 12: In what branch of the armed forces did you serve? ................................................................................................. 96 Table 13 Survey Question 13: What was the length of your time in the armed forces? .................................................................................... 97 Table 14 Survey Question 13: Are you still serving in the armed forces? ......... 98 Table 15 Survey Question 15: What was the highest pay grade you held in the armed forces? ........................................................................... 99 Table 16 Survey Question 16a: Did you serve outside the 50 United States? ............................................................................................. 100 viii Table 17 Survey Question 16b: Did you serve outside the 50 United States? ............................................................................................. 101 Table 18 Survey Question 17a: In how many foreign countries did you serve? ............................................................................................... 102 Table 19 Survey Question 17b: How many months did you serve in foreign countries? ............................................................................. 103 Table 20 Survey Question 17c: Did you serve in Iraq or Afghanistan? ........... 104 Table 21 Survey Question 18: Had you applied to any college or university for admission before you entered military service? .......... 105 Table 22 Survey Question 19: If you started attending college before you entered military service, how many terms of college did you complete before leaving for military service? .................................... 108 Table 23 Survey Question 20: Regardless of how you felt about going to college when you left high school, do you think you actually would have gone to college if you hadn?t entered military service? ............................................................................................ 110 Table 24 Survey Question 21: Are you now drawing (or have you applied for) veterans education benefits from the Veterans Administration? ................................................................................. 112 Table 25 Survey Question 22: Do you think you would have come to college after completing your military service if the financial aid provided by veterans? benefits had not been available to you? ........ 114 Table 26 Survey Question 23: On the whole, would you say that your military experience while in service made you more or less eager to go to college? ..................................................................... 115 Table 27 Survey Question 24: On the whole, how would you say your military experience, or the fact of having been in service, has affected your ability to do good scholastic work in college? ............. 116 Table 28 Survey Question 25: How many children do you have? ................... 117 Table 29 Survey Question 26: What is your marital status? ............................ 118 Table 30 Survey Question 27: How long have you been married? .................. 120 Table 31 Survey Question 31: What was your ACT score? ............................ 121 ix Table 32 Survey Question 32: In what college are you enrolled? .................... 123 Table 33 Survey Question 33: What is your current GPA? ............................. 125 Table 34 Survey Question 34: At the end of the fall 2010 Semester, how many credit hours had you completed? ............................................ 127 Table 35 Survey Question 35: How many credits are you taking during the spring 2011 semester? ............................................................... 128 Table 36 Survey Question 36: What would you say were the 3 chief reasons for your coming to college (all veterans)? ........................... 130 Table 37 Survey Question 36: What would you say were the 3 chief reasons for your coming to college (male veterans)? ....................... 133 Table 38 Survey Question 36: What would you say were the 3 chief reasons for your coming to college (female veterans)? .................... 134 Table 39 Survey Question 37: Is the academic department, school, or division (e.g., Arts, Engineering) in which you are now studying your first choice or would you prefer to major in some other academic department? ..................................................................... 136 Table 40 Survey Question 38: In general, did you enjoy your studies during the fall 2010 semester as much as you had expected? ......... 137 Table 41 Survey Question 39: Did you find it more or less difficult to keep up in your work during the fall 2010 semester than you had expected it to be? ............................................................................. 138 Table 42 Survey Question 40: How would you rate, as teachers, the faculty members who taught you during the fall 2010 semester? ..... 139 Table 43 Survey Question 41: Are you planning to complete your degree in less than the usual amount of time spent? ................................... 140 Table 44 Survey Question 42: During the past week, how many hours did you spend at each of the following activities? ................................... 143 Table 45 Survey Question 43: If you could be admitted to (and could get housing at) any other university you might choose, do you think you would still want to attend Auburn University? ............................ 144 x Table 46 Survey Question 44: When you first enrolled at Auburn University, how well do you feel you were prepared, by virtue of your previous education and experience, for getting the most out of your courses? ......................................................................... 145 Table 47 Survey Question 45: In general, do you have a satisfactory place to study, one that is free from noise and distraction and is reasonably comfortable? .................................................................. 147 Table 48 Survey Question 46: In general, would you say you usually exert strong effort to do good work in your courses, or do you tend to do just enough to get by? ................................................................. 148 Table 49 Survey Question 47: In general, how well do you keep up to date in your study assignments? ...................................................... 149 Table 50 Survey Question 48: Of the courses you are now taking, how many would you say you are really interested in? ............................ 151 Table 51 Survey Question 49: On the whole, how well satisfied are you with the kind of education you are getting? ...................................... 152 Table 52 Survey Question 50: Do you ever feel that the things you are studying at Auburn are not really worth the time spent on them? ..... 153 Table 53 Survey Question 51: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset? ................................................................................... 155 Table 54 Survey Question 52a: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about making ends meet financially? ........................... 156 Table 55: Survey Question 52b: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about lack of adequate housing accommodations? ..... 157 Table 56 Survey Question 52c: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about an illness or death in your family?...................... 158 Table 57 Survey Question 52d: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about nervousness? .................................................... 159 Table 58: Survey Question 52e: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about health problems? ............................................... 160 Table 59 Survey Question 52f: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about getting accustomed to college study? ................ 161 xi Table 60 Survey Question 52g: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about being unable to concentrate? ............................ 162 Table 61: Survey Question 52h: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about legal issues? ...................................................... 163 Table 62 Survey Question 52i: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about strained personal relations with close relatives or friends? .......................................................................... 164 Table 63 Survey Question 52j: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about being unable to concentrate? ............................ 165 Table 64 Survey Question 52k: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about feelings of inferiority, inability to compete with others, or to live up to your own standards? ............................. 166 Table 65 Survey Question 52l: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about trying to decide what course of study to follow? .............................................................................................. 167 Table 66 Survey Question 52m: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about trying to make up a deficiency in preparation for some course? .............................................................................. 168 Table 67 Survey Question 52n: Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about relations with members of the opposite sex? ..... 169 Table 68 Survey Question 54: How much would you say that any of the problems mentioned in the previous two questions have interfered with your college work in the past six months? ................. 171 Table 69 Survey Question 55: In general, do you feel respected by your fellow nonveterans?.......................................................................... 172 Table 70 Survey Question 56: In general, do you feel respected by your fellow veterans? ............................................................................... 174 Table 71 Survey Question 57: In general, do you feel respected by your professors? ....................................................................................... 175 Table 72 Survey Question 58: In general, do you feel respected by the AU administration? ........................................................................... 177 Table 73 Survey Question 59: In your opinion, is AU a veteran-friendly campus? ........................................................................................... 178 xii Table 74 Activities on which the representative female veteran spent more time. ........................................................................................ 192 Table 75 Activities on which the representative male veteran spent more time. .................................................................................................. 192 Table 76 Worries that bothered the representative veteran the most. ............. 194 Table 77 Worries that bothered the representative veteran the least. ............. 195 Table 78 Worries that bothered the representative male veteran the most. .... 196 Table 79 Worries that bothered the representative male veteran the least. .... 197 Table 80 Worries that bothered the representative female veteran the most. ................................................................................................. 198 Table 81 Worries that bothered the representative female veteran the least. ................................................................................................. 199 xiii List of Figures Figure 1 Boxplot analysis for student veteran and nonveteran student age outliers ......................................................................................... 77 xiv List of Abbreviations and Acronyms AC Active Component ACE American Council on Education ACT American College Testing AFQT Armed Forces Qualifying Test AGRI Agriculture ANG Air National Guard ARCH Architecture, Design, and Construction ARNG Army National Guard ASVA Auburn University Student Veterans Association AU Auburn University AVF All-Volunteer Force AY Academic Year BCT Brigade Combat Team BOG:Dwell Boots on Ground:Dwell BUSI Business DA Department of the Army DANTES Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support DMZ Demilitarized Zone DOD Department of Defense xv EBSCO Elton B Stevens Company ED Department of Education (NOTE: DOE is the official acronym for the US Department of Energy). EDUC Education ENGR Engineering ETS Educational Testing Service FY Fiscal Year GPA Grade Point Average HUSC Human Sciences HVE High Veteran Enrollment IED Improvised Explosive Device IRB Institutional Review Board LART Liberal Arts LD Learning Disability or Learning Disabilities LVE Low Veteran Enrollment MGIB-AD Montgomery GI Bill ? Active Duty MGIB-SR Montgomery GI Bill ? Selective Reserve MOS Military Occupational Specialty MST Military Sexual Trauma MVE Moderate Veteran Enrollment NCES National Center for Education Statistics NURS Nursing OEF Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) OIF Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) xvi OIRA Office of Institutional Research and Assessment OND Operation New Dawn (Iraq) PI Principal Investigator PTSD Posttraumatic Stress Disorder RC Reserve Component REAP Reserve Education Assistance Program ROTC Reserve Officer Training Corps SCMH Science and Mathematics SOC Servicemembers Opportunity College SVA Student Veterans of America TA Tuition Assistance TBI Traumatic Brain Injury US United States USAF United States Air Force USAR United States Army Reserve USAFR United States Air Force Reserve USMC United States Marine Corps USMCR United States Marine Corps Reserve USNR United States Navy Reserve VA US Department of Veterans Affairs; Department of Veterans Affairs; Veterans Affairs VFW Veterans of Foreign Wars VP Vice President VREP Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program xvii WWI World War I WWII World War II 1 Chapter I: Introduction ?Today?s veterans face tremendous obstacles in their path of attaining a college degree. These challenges range from a missing sense of camaraderie to a lack of understanding by university faculty and peers. When coupled with the visible and invisible wounds of war, a college degree seems to be an elusive goal for men and women returning from military service.? --- Student Veterans of America (2011) "We value the fact the federal government is paying for us to go to school because of our service to our country, and every college campus should value those individuals." --- Dustin McMillan, chapter president, Student Veterans of America, California State University Sacramento (Sabo, 2010, p. 1) Introduction Are student veterans and nonveteran students on today?s college and university campuses different from one another? If so, how should universities and colleges classify today?s military veterans?as traditional students, nontraditional students, or as a special or unique population? The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-270, 2006, para. 3(29)) better known as Perkins IV defined special populations as: ? Individuals with disabilities; ? Individuals and foster children from economically disadvantaged families; ? Individuals preparing for nontraditional fields; ? Single parents, including single pregnant women; 2 ? Displaced homemakers; ? And, individuals with limited English proficiency. Yet, the Perkins IV definition ignores today?s (no draft since 1973) volunteer veterans? uniquenesses: military and combat experience, educational histories, greater maturity, increased levels of discipline, stale or rusty scholastic abilities, marital status, and physical and mental health status (e.g., Posttraumatic1 Stress Disorder [PTSD], Traumatic Brain Injury [TBI], or Learning Disabilities [LD]). The United States (US) Department of Education?s (ED) National Center for Education Statistics? (NCES) (2002a) definition of nontraditional student ?is not a precise one, although age?? and ?delays [in] enrollment (i.e., not entering postsecondary education in the same calendar year that s/he finished high school) are common defining characteristics? (p. 1). Certainly, by this definition, student veterans attending institutions of higher education are nontraditional students. Adam Fountain, US Marine Corps Sergeant, Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) Assistant Marine Officer Instructor, and current Academic Year (AY) 2010-2011 Auburn University (AU) Student Veterans Association2 (ASVA) President, at ASVA?s 5 October 2010 monthly meeting stated, ?Auburn doesn?t consider student veterans to be a special population; we are considered nontraditional students.? AU?s Vice President (VP) for Student Affairs, Dr. Ainsley Carry3 (personal communication, November 17, 2010) supports Sergeant 1 Spelling is from the US Department of Veterans Affairs, National Center for PTSD?s homepage. 2 The AU Student Government Association Senate voted the ASVA permanent student organization status on 25 February 2011. 3 Dr. Carry is AU?s first ever VP for Student Affairs. 3 Fountain?s assertion by stating, ?I am not aware of a list of ?special populations.? I do not think there is any such formal list of ?special populations.?" Further supporting Sergeant Fountain?s claim is Dr. Johnny Green, AU?s former Dean of Students4 and current Services Coordinator, AU Student Veterans and Transfer Student Resource Center. Dr. Green (personal communication, December 10, 2010) concedes, ?The only ?list of special populations? at Auburn are the same ethnic and gender groups that are captured by most institutions serving the public?race (native American, Caucasian, etc.), gender, and such.? A major difference between Vietnam era veterans and today?s Iraq and Afghanistan veterans was the threat of the draft. America?s military has been an All-Volunteer Force (AVF) since 1973 (Niesen, 2006). [Veterans of Foreign Wars] VFW Magazine (2010, p. 8) points out, ?Only a tiny sliver of Americans bear the whole burden of war while 99% of the public remains totally disengaged.? Robert Ackerman and David DiRamio (editors of Creating a Veteran-Friendly Campus: Strategies for Transition and Success) and Regina L. Garza wrote in Transitions: Combat Veterans as College Students (Ackerman, DiRamio, & Garza, 2009), ?The experience of war makes those who fight a special group within the general population? (p. 5). So, to restate the first sentence of this chapter, are student veterans different from their fellow traditional nonveteran students and as such a unique and special population? Or, are student veterans just a recognized and ?labeled? community within the larger student body? 4 Dr. Green was AU?s last Dean of Students before AU converted that position to VP for Student Affairs. 4 Statement of the problem Student veterans bring a background of experiences often having no counterpart in the backgrounds of nonveteran students (Frederiksen & Schrader, 1951). Data and information on student veterans are scattered, not easily accessible, and difficult to find (Sargent, 2009). Information and data concerning student veterans are even less available on individual college and university campuses. At AU, the exact number of enrolled student veterans is unknown, since AU?s Admissions Office prior to the fall 2010 semester did not collect veteran status information on enrollment applications (S. Bernard, personal communication, October 18, 2010). Steven Bernard, AU?s Veterans Affairs (VA) Certifying Official (personal communication, February 14, 2011) stated, ?210 enrolled student veterans (179 males and 31 females) currently use VA educational benefits.? Yet, student veterans?such as the Principal Investigator (PI)?whose VA education benefits have been totally used and/or have expired, are invisible to the AU administration and therefore, are not counted or included. Simply calculating the percent of known student veterans (210) to the general student population (23,5335) (AU Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, 2011) revealed student veterans make up 0.89% of AU?s spring 2011 enrollment. Such a small number suggests AU?s student veterans are indeed a special population. However, are student veterans truly different from nonveteran students? In 1947, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) conducted a study comparing 10,000 World War II (WWII) student veterans and nonveterans and concluded 5 Includes all enrolled students including those under age 19 and nonresident aliens. 5 WWII student veterans and nonveteran students?if age were ignored?were more similar than different (Frederiksen & Schrader, 1951, p. 27). In the years immediately following WWII, college and university faculties and administrations were concerned about the effects of combat and wartime service upon student veterans? adjustment to a college life typically designed for a less widely experienced student body (Frederiksen & Schrader, 1951). Today, it is not the university or college faculties or administrations raising concerns about student veterans, but the student veterans themselves as evidenced by the establishment and rapid growth of the national organization Student Veterans of America6 (SVA), a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization founded in 2008 in Washington DC and the rapid growth of its chapter network7. Student veterans themselves are seeking answers to important questions regarding their integration into academic life, their academic progress, their adjustment issues, and other aspects of their academic experiences. Purpose of the research The primary purpose of this study was to determine what differences exist between AU student veterans and AU nonveteran students in their: ? Descriptive characteristics. ? Academic performance. ? Reasons for coming to college. ? Use of their time. 6 ASVA became an official SVA chapter on 8 September 2010. 7 As of 24 June 2011, SVA had 371 chapters. 6 ? Worries, concerns, and anxieties. ? Feelings of respect from fellow veteran students, fellow nonveteran students, faculty, and the administration. A secondary purpose was to determine those characteristics defining AU?s student veteran population, as well as uncover any differences between male and female AU student veterans on campus. Specifically: ? What were their attitudes regarding college attendance? ? Were there social, cultural, or academic differences? ? What were their military experiences? ? How did AU student veterans perceive the veteran-friendliness of the AU campus? Significance of the study Knowing and understanding the distinctiveness of AU?s student veterans may have implications for administrative action. Due to recent increases in VA educational benefits (specifically, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 and the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act of 2010), many speculate veterans may choose to attend more prestigious colleges and universities over less expensive community colleges. Staff planning for assisting student veterans in their quests to achieve their educational objectives and goals becomes important. Planning considerations8 may include determining: 8 This list of considerations is not all-inclusive. 7 ? How would student veterans? marital status and family responsibilities affect housing and residence hall projections? ? Should the administration expand student psychological and psychiatric counseling and services to address student veterans? PTSD, major depression, TBI, and LD issues? ? How would academic counselors and advisors adapt or adjust current programs to meet student veterans? needs? ? How would academic advisors and counselors utilize the American Council on Education (ACE) Guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experiences in the Armed Services to evaluate military training and experiences and how should they award credits and credit hours for that learned knowledge? ? How would academic advisors and counselors evaluate credentialing and/or licensing awarded by the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES)? ? How would academic advisors and counselors evaluate student veterans? transfer credits earned through Department of Defense (DOD) programs such as: o The Servicemembers Opportunity College (SOC). ? SOC Army (SOCAD) ? SOC Navy (SOCNAV) ? SOC Marine Corps (SOCMAR) ? SOC Coast Guard (SOCCOAST) 8 o The Community College of the Air Force9. o The College of the American Soldier. o The Navy College Program for Afloat College Education. o The Marine Deployed Education Program. o The United Services Military Apprenticeship Program. o The Veterans Upward Bound Program. ? How would academic advisors and counselors assess student veterans? scholastic ability levels (i.e., rusty and/or eroded study skills) and possible LD and when should they establish and/or recommend refresher or remedial courses? ? How would the library staff assist and instruct student veterans in adapting to a more computerized and electronic library environment? ? How should academic advisors and counselors arbitrate student veterans? attitudes toward the established curriculums and the possible establishment of programs for those student veterans desiring to accelerate their academic pursuits? ? How would academic advisors and counselors appraise student veterans? abilities to perform college level work if they have not completed the usual prerequisites, if they have had an extended period since taking prerequisites, or if they possess an LD? 9 The US Air Force (USAF) does not have a SOC-specific program. However, the USAF is a SOC program member. 9 ? Should administrators, professors, staff, and other faculty consider student veterans' characteristics when developing curriculum, programs, policies, standards, etc. This study explored AU student veterans? attitudes, backgrounds, feelings of respect, concerns and worries, motivations, and utilization of time. Such information may provide an understanding of the dynamics that play into student veteran and nonveteran academic success (or failure). Organization of this dissertation This dissertation is organized and segmented into five chapters and various appendices. Chapter I states the problem, identifies the study?s purpose, explains the study?s significance, describes the study?s organization, identifies assumptions, explains the study?s limitations, presents the research questions, and defines the unique terms found within this report. Chapter II includes a brief history of AU?s association with the military, broad-scan literature review, a focused literature review providing the reader a relevant knowledge base, and a comprehensive literature review bearing directly on this study?s subject areas. Chapter III describes the research design and rationale; lists the research subquestions; explains the various student populations and samples; details the survey instrument; reviews the pilot testing and concerns for content validity; explains the data collection process; illustrates the data analysis; addresses ethical concerns; describes validity, reliability, and generalizability concerns; and points out the study?s methodology limitations. Chapter IV provides descriptive 10 statistics and narratives describing the study?s findings. Chapter V presents the study?s conclusions and recommendations. Following chapter V is a bibliography of references for all the citations the PI named within this document. Appendices include the AU Institutional Review Board (IRB) letter approving this study; the ETS licensing agreement; the final survey questionnaire, and participant recruitment flyers and announcements. Assumptions Prejudices, likes and dislikes, passions, education, and comfort and interest levels may contribute to the unintentional preordination of research findings and conclusions. After all, our interactions with our environments generate most research questions. Since this study investigated student veterans on the AU campus, and since the PI is himself a retired Army veteran with more than 22 years of active federal service and an AU doctoral candidate, the PI assumed he successfully accounted for and controlled any and all his biases, prejudices, and the preordination of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The PI further assumed: ? The online questionnaire and the questions therein did not bias the participants? responses. ? All data collected during this study were correct as presented. ? Since the participants self-reported the data collected, they provided accurate and truthful representations of their unique situations. 11 ? All participants were 19 years of age or older, and while possible, no underage students completed the study simply to enter the incentive drawing for the four available $25 Visa gift cards. Research question and subquestions This study incorporated a nonexperimental design. That is, the PI could not randomly assign participants to a group since all participants entered the study already a student veteran or a nonveteran student. For this reason, hypotheses or null hypotheses are not necessary or essential. In cases like this research study, Creswell (2003) suggests writing one or two central research questions followed by no more than five to seven subquestions. For this study, the central research question is, ?What are the defining characteristics of AU?s enrolled student veterans?? Student veterans will encounter many of the same issues and concerns10 facing nonveteran students (family concerns; finding adequate housing; establishing peer and social connections; feelings of nervousness; inability to concentrate; developing or reacquiring study skills; financial worries; transfer of college credits; and faculty issues). Yet, many student veterans will experience unique issues and worries11 (transition from warrior to student; transition from war zone to campus; nonveteran students? perceptions of the better-known Iraq and Afghanistan wars and of other lesser- known conflicts [e.g., Bosnia-Herzegovina]; differences in life experiences; physical and psychological disabilities; and the transferability of military skills and 10 The issues and concerns listed here are not all-inclusive. 11 The issues and worries listed here are not all-inclusive. 12 education to college credits). Since the central research question has the potential to cover vast areas of interest, the researcher employed five research subquestions to narrow this study?s focus. 1. What demographic characteristics define AU student veterans and AU nonveteran students? 2. How do AU student veterans spend their time compared to AU nonveteran students? 3. What worries and concerns do AU student veterans and AU nonveteran students have or experience? 4. How do AU student veterans and AU nonveteran students perceive respect: a. From fellow AU student veterans? b. From fellow AU nonveteran students? c. From AU professors? d. From the AU administration? 5. How do AU student veterans and AU nonveteran students perceive the veteran-friendliness of the AU campus? Limitations of the study According to Robert Griffin (2006), no survey can address every possible perception of a population?s members. This study has the following limitations. 13 1. Since the PI used nonprobability or convenience sampling instead of strict random sampling, the study cannot generalize findings and conclusions to AU?s general student population or to the AU nonveteran population. 2. Since 22.9% (48/210) of AU?s student veterans participated, the study does allow generalizing the findings to the AU student veteran population. 3. Since AU?s student veteran population is unique to AU, it may not be possible to transfer these findings to other institutions of higher education. Definitions of Terms A list of the abbreviations and acronyms used in this dissertation begins on page xiv. The unique terms (and their definitions) the PI used in this study are listed below. Academic Year (AY). The period beginning on the first day of the fall semester in August and ending on the last day of the summer semester in the following calendar year (e.g., 18 Aug 2010 ? 6 Aug 2011). Active Component (AC). The US military?s active duty forces (e.g., Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force) (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, 2009). For this study, the PI considered the US Coast Guard an AC force. Active Duty. Full-time duty in an active US military unit. This includes members of the Reserve Components (RC) serving on active duty or full-time training duty, but does not include full-time National Guard duty. (About.com, 2011). 14 Boots on Ground:Dwell (BOG:Dwell) Time. Boots on Ground (BOG) time is the time a Soldier or a Brigade Combat Team (BCT) spends deployed overseas in a combat environment while dwell time is the time between deployments a Solider or a BCT spends at home station or home base (Dabkowski, Kwinn, Miller & Zais, 2009, p. 11). Concurrent, mixed methods approach. This approach is one in which the PI gathers quantitative and qualitative data at the same time in the project and the implementation is simultaneous (Creswell, 2003, p. 212). Descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics provide a means of summarizing data without making inferences. Ethnicity. See Race/Ethnicity. Faculty member. The teaching and administrative staff and those members of the administration having academic rank [instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor] in an educational institution (Merriam-Webster, 2011). Learning Disabilities (LD): LD refers to a number of disorders that may affect the acquisition, organization, retention, and understanding or use of verbal or nonverbal information (Duquette & Fullarton, 2009). ?According to Wong (1996), ?a person with LD has average to above average intelligence, but generally experiences lower academic performance and possible social and emotional problems? (p. 51, as cited in Duquette & Fullarton, 2009). Nonresident alien: A person who is not a US citizen, who is in this country on a temporary basis, and who does not have the right to remain indefinitely 15 (NCES, 2002b, p. 299). A nonresident alien cannot be a US military veteran or nonveteran. Nontraditional student. The NCES (2002b, pg 26) gives a broad definition of a nontraditional student as anyone who: ? Delays enrollment (does not enter postsecondary education in the same calendar year that s/he finished high school). ? Attends [school] part-time for at least part of the Academic Year (AY). ? Works full-time (35 hours or more per week) while enrolled [in school]. ? Is considered financially independent for purposes of determining eligibility for financial aid. ? Has dependants other than a spouse (usually children, but sometimes others). ? Is a single parent (either not married or married but separated). ? Does not have a high school diploma (completed high school with a General Educational Development (GED) or other high school completion certificate or did not finish high school). Nonveteran. Someone who has never served in the US armed forces. Race/Ethnicity. The categories used to describe groups to which individuals belong, identify with, or belong in the eyes of the community. The categories do not denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins. The US Office of Management and Budget developed the current methodology of reporting race and ethnicity in 1997. Individuals first designate their ethnicity as either Hispanic or Latino or not Hispanic or not Latino. Then the individuals 16 indicate their one or more races that apply (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White). (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, n.d.). Reserve Component (RC). The US Reserve forces of the US armed forces (Army or Air National Guard; and Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard Reserves) (USLegal.com, 2011). Skip logic. A programming technique that directs a survey participant along a path within the survey based on the participant?s response to a previous question (SurveyMonkey, 2010a). Stratification. According to Creswell (2003, p. 156), ?Specific characteristics of individuals (e.g., both females and males) are represented in the sample?.? Traditional student. A person who graduated from high school in the same year s/he started postsecondary education, was enrolled full time in a four-year college or university, and was working towards a bachelor?s degree. Veteran. A person (male or female) who has served in or is serving in the active US military, National Guard, or Reserve units. For this study, the PI does not consider ROTC cadets veterans unless they have served in an AC or RC unit. For this study, the PI did not consider AU?s nonresident aliens (international students) veterans. Veteran-friendly, veteran-neutral, or veteran-unfriendly: Refers to marked efforts made by individual campuses to identify and remove barriers to the educational goals of student veterans, to create smooth transitions from military 17 life to college life, and to provide information about available benefits and services (Lokken, Pfeffer, McAuley, & Strong, 2009). Yellow Ribbon Program. The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) established the Yellow Ribbon Program. The Yellow Ribbon Program allows US institutions of higher learning (degree-granting schools) to enter voluntarily into individual agreements with the VA to fund tuition expenses exceeding the highest public in-state undergraduate tuition rate. The institution can contribute up to 50% of those expenses and the VA will match the same amount as the institution (Department of Veterans Affairs, What is the Yellow Ribbon Program? section, para. 1 2009). 18 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW "Sometimes I wonder if the majority of the people, those without sons in the army or services, fully understand the task which lies before us to complete this war and then the problems which will have to be solved later.... I have given the thought of returning to school much consideration, but it is a very difficult task to decide because there has been such a great break of time and much has been lost." --- Sergeant Gerald Maynard, in a 13 March 1945 Letter to North Carolina State University professor Monroe E Gardner (North Carolina State University Libraries, 2004). ?By the time we get out of the military and go to college, we are much older than the kids coming right out of high school and we have a much different perspective on life. It is hard to relate to peers that are that much younger and who have never served in combat.? --- Sergeant Adam Fountain, US Marine and President, Auburn University Student Veterans Association (AU Office of Communications and Marketing, 2010). ?Imagine: scholarship recipients, athletes, and other special-interest groups have a tailored orientation program to welcome them to a university, but veterans?many who have fought for their own country?aren?t give the same courtesy.? --- Jeff Memmer, Navy student veteran at Indiana University-Bloomington (Stringer, 2007, para. 16). Introduction Vietnam veterans?while individually performing honorable service within the US Army, the US Navy, the US Marine Corps, the US Air Force, and the US Coast Guard during the Vietnam War era?were treated by many war protestors and nonveteran students with scorn, hostility, and disrespect (Allen, 2009). Many 19 veterans returned to overly hostile or nonsupportive friends, relatives, or communities (Lipkin, Scurfield & Blank, 1983). Stever (1996) wrote: Some antiwar activists treated veterans as the unfortunate victims of war and organized reeducation sessions for them. For many Vietnam veterans, the price of membership in the new campus society was their renunciation of their service. Many who refused to be reeducated faced scorn and hostility, endured verbal and physical abuse? (p. 43). On campus, Vietnam veterans responded by deleting their military service from their resumes and remaining silent about their military service in order to gain entry onto campus (Stever, 1996). John Pidgeon (VFW Magazine, 2010) wrote, ?Emotionally destructive treatment from the media translated into campus rejection/harassment and outright discrimination? (p. 6). The 5 May 2005 Investor?s Business Daily editorial (VFW Magazine, 2009) opined: The student radicals who demonstrated against [the] Vietnam [War] and were notably unsympathetic to American troops did not go away. They made their long march through opinion-forming institutions such as higher education.... Some tenured faculty, the ?Woodstock generation? of anti-war students who morphed into professors are now part of a vocal minority? ? (p. 4). Yet, with US Congressional protections through the 1974 Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act and the accompanying US Code 38 that extended ?protected class? status to veterans (Stever, 1996), veterans could not gain positions within higher education. According to Stever (1996), those faculty?who believed veterans had been traumatized by their service and that soldiers in general and combat veterans in particular could never be campus role models? found it difficult to grant tenure or promote veterans to responsible positions. Stever (1996) reported, ?? veterans could do little in the seventies and eighties to 20 seek redress? (p. 44). Donald A Downs, a political science major at the University of Wisconsin at Madison (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2011) wrote: The relationship between colleges and the military has long been uneasy. At their cores, the institutions represent fundamentally different cultures and serve sometimes competing purposes. While the military emphasizes obedience, colleges endorse freedom of expression; while officers train soldiers to kill, many professors teach peaceful resolutions to conflict. Still the cultures managed to coexist on campus for many decades despite their differences (p. A17). Due in part to the disgraceful treatment of Vietnam veterans?the inability to separate the war from the warrior?Americans today go out of their way to honor veterans. Waiting passengers at many airports often applaud groups of servicemen and servicewomen as they disembark into the concourse. Now, average citizens routinely tell servicemembers and veterans ?thank you for your service.? The Lifetime Network during the spring 2011 season broadcasted Coming Home, a weekly series reliving the emotional reunions of military families; the Ellen DeGeneres Show in cooperation with Home and Garden Television has remodel a Fort Hood soldier?s home; and ESPN has televised sports programs from US military bases in Afghanistan. A major difference between Vietnam-era veterans and today?s Iraq and Afghanistan veterans was the threat of the draft. America?s military has been an AVF since 1973 (Niesen, 2006). VFW Magazine (2010, p. 8) points out, ?Only a tiny sliver of Americans bear the whole burden of war while 99% of the public remains totally disengaged.? Transitioning from military life to civilian life is inevitable for most servicemembers, yet transitioning successfully is not (Black, Westwood & Sordal, 2007). Heller (2006) wrote ??f or some veterans the 21 transition has been fairly smooth and for others it can be quite difficult? (p. 14). Many have predicted the number of veterans seeking a college education will increase due to the Post-9/11 GI Bill (Ackerman & DiRamio, 2009a; Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009; Church, 2009; Cook & Kim, 2009; DiRamio, Ackerman, & Mitchell, 2008; Madaus, 2009; Ryan, Carlstrom, Hughey, & Harris, 2011). This influx of veterans will include large numbers of female veterans (Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009) and disabled veterans (Madaus, Miller II, and Vance, 2009). Literature Review process All literature reviews begin somewhere. Some researchers may even begin with a plan as to where to start and where to go. Yet, just as a battle plan is continually modified, revised, and updated after the first shot is fired?a process repeating itself over and over?a literature review never follows the plan once the first article or first few papers are discovered and appraised. And, just as some battle plans may eventually be discarded in favor of new plans, so it is true of literature reviews. As the PI conducted his literature review, new information redirected his investigations and examinations. What appears in this chapter is the result of much searching, reading, and synthesizing of a great amount of material. The PI investigated the following areas: ? Previous research concerning veterans and student veterans. ? Effects of rank and time in military service. ? Special, unique, and vulnerable populations. ? Traditional and nontraditional students. 22 ? Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. ? Effects of killing. ? Issues concerning female veterans and female student veterans. ? Combat trauma. ? Understanding student veterans on campus. ? The Battlemind. ? Family issues affecting veterans. ? Effects of physical injuries. ? Institution of higher education support services. ? AU relationship with the US military. Previous research concerning veterans and student veterans The transition of military veterans from service to college and university campuses is not a modern-day issue (Black et al., 2007; Frederiksen & Schrader, 1951; North Carolina State University Libraries, 2004; Rumann & Hamrick, 2009). During the Vietnam War, it became apparent the adaptation from veteran to student veteran and from military service to campus was not without any problems (Caron & Knight, 1974). Academia did not respond well to addressing the needs of Vietnam veterans on college and university campuses. Ackerman & DiRamio (2009b) report finding little research suggesting campus administrators, and in particular, student affairs practitioners, understood Vietnam veterans or their needs (p. 1). Rumann and Hamrick (2007) believe today?s college and university administrations and faculties are less likely than earlier generations to 23 have personally experienced military or wartime service (as cited in Rumann & Hamrick, 2009). Additionally, according to Pattillo (2008) many college and university personnel most likely do not realize student veterans: ? May feel strangely old and far along the path of life, ? May have been in close proximity to tragedy many nonveteran students have never experienced, ? May feel much of the academic system is trivial and sort of child?s play. ? May have a maturity of life beyond that of their professors and advisors, ? May have a sense of lost momentum, ? And/or may feel in great haste to finish their academic pursuits. Directly related to this need for awareness on the part of educators is the need to help nonveteran students understand and appreciate this student veteran population (Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009). There is a continued widespread lack of knowledge about the unique needs of student veterans in higher education (Cook & Young, 2009; Herrmann, Raybeck, Wilson, Allen, & Hopkins, 2008). The amount of scholarly literature studying student veterans is slim and dated (DiRamio et al., 2008), and is scattered, not easily accessible, and difficult to find (Sargent, 2009). Institutions of higher education are culturally removed from the realities of military life (Black et al., 2007). Today, less than 1% of Americans bear the burden of military service (Eubank, 2011, p. 4). Life in the military is very different from what the typical freshman will experience in college (Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009). Student veterans on most campuses represent tiny minorities within larger student 24 bodies. According to the US ED (2008) data, student veterans represented approximately 4.1%12 of AY 2007-2008 undergraduates. The quotes beginning this chapter?the first from a WWII veteran and the second from a still-serving US Marine?provide evidence veterans, no matter when they served, faced and still face problems returning to, transitioning to, and adjusting to higher education after their military service. Veterans face motivational challenges and perceived barriers (e.g., lack of transition counseling/advising) transitioning to campus (Covert, 2002, p. 14). Individual student veterans choose to remain mostly invisible and unknown; yet, some aspects of their experiences assist them during their academic life while other aspects hinder them (Black et al., 2007). The ACE refers to student veterans as ?this special learner subpopulation? (Cook & Kim, 2009, p. 13). Special Populations Before college and university administrators can consider and designate student veterans, or any other group, a special population, it is necessary to define the term ?special population.? A special population is a subgroup of a general population (Sudman, 1985; Sudman & Kalton, 1986). A special population may be a disadvantaged group (USLegal.com, 2011) or any subgroup traditionally underrepresented (Helgamin, Anglin, & Casanova, 2002). According to Larson (1982) ?defining ?special? is a situation calling for dialectical 12 This percent equals 3.1% student veterans, 0.7% AC servicemembers, and 0.4% RC servicemembers. 25 reasoning13, because one cannot define difference without also defining sameness? (p. 844), and ?thus, what is special depends on what is usual? (p. 844). Sometimes, the term ?vulnerable population? replaces the term ?special population.? McCauley-Elsom et al. (2009) found it difficult to find a definition of vulnerable populations, but noted The National Statement of Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans described groups regarded as vulnerable (e.g., children, people in dependent relationships, and people with cognitive impairment). Sometimes, the term ?unique population? substitutes for the term ?special population.? A search of Elton B. Stevens Company (EBSCO) databases for articles concerning special and unique populations provides a broad listing of subgroups. This truncated list includes early special education kids; overweight children; children raised in social service/justice systems; smokers; drug abusers; homeless and mentally ill women; persons with mathematical learning disabilities; older adults seeking pain relief; and the US Census Bureau?s various ethnic and cultural groups (i.e., Whites or Native Americans). The list includes unusual or extreme groups such as incarcerated prisoners vulnerable to sexual assault; breast pump users in Kenya; patients outside the well-defined population targeted for a new drug and who require specific treatment recommendations; and non-Aborigines for political action against government redress to structurally disadvantaged Aborigines in Australia. Any person, group, or organization fascinated with or having a research interest in a unique, distinct, exclusive, or 13 According to Dr. James Comas, Associate Professor, Department of English, Middle Tennessee State University (2004, Dialectic as One of Four Types of Reasoning section), dialectical reasoning is ?reasoning from opinions ?that are generally accepted.?? 26 even a common peoples, may designate those persons a special population. For example, consider the following abstract of an article written by Rosenbloom, Loucks and Ekblom (2006) making a special population from a group of ordinary persons. Females and youth are frequently described as ?special? populations in football literature, but together these two populations outnumber male players. What makes females ?special? is that they tend to eat less when training and competing than their male counterparts, leading to lower intakes of energy, carbohydrate, and some nutrients. Youth football players are ?special? in regard to energy and nutrient requirements to promote growth and development, as well as to fuel sport. There is limited research on the dietary habits of these two populations, but the available literature suggests that many female and youth players need to increase carbohydrate intake, increase fluid intake, and develop dietary habits to sustain the demands of training and competition (p. 783). Various groups or organizations may use the term special population to describe persons within ?certain challenging populations? (Rosenthal, 2005, para. 2) in order to facilitate decision-making and training (e.g., using a patient?s size, weight, age, or culture to determine the ?stick? location for a peripheral intravenous catheter). Even government agencies designate particular peoples special populations. For example, the US Congress through the Perkins IV Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-270, 2006, para. 3(29)) codified six defined special populations: ? Individuals with disabilities. ? Individuals and foster children from economically disadvantaged families. ? Individuals preparing for nontraditional fields. ? Single parents and single pregnant women. 27 ? Displaced homemakers. ? Individuals with limited English proficiency. Another example comes from the North Dakota Department of Health which declared seniors, residents living in rural areas, non-English speaking residents, Native Americans, disabled persons, those hard of hearing, those with poor eyesight, and those homebound or living alone special populations (Widmeyer Communications, 2004). When labeling unique peoples a special population, advantages accrue. These advantages include (Helgamin et al., 2002): ? More focused interest for research agendas. ? More focused attention resulting in a broader understanding of the special population. ? A larger and/or more appropriate allocation of resources, monies, and services. ? A dispelling of common myths and stereotypes. However, being a special population has disadvantages. These disadvantages include (Helgamin et al., 2002): ? Perpetuation of the group?s misconceptions and stereotypes. ? Marginalization of the group outside the norm. ? Social stigmatization and/or isolation of the group?s members. ? Continuation of standard research agendas and research focus on the status quo. 28 ? Placement of persons with multiple identities (e.g., a gay, Hispanic, African-American, female veteran) within an inappropriate grouping and thus denying them various needs and aspects of their identities. Any cluster of persons with a common trait, characteristic, attribute, or feature may be a special or unique population. Yet, with over 300 student organizations (AU Office of Student Involvement, 2011) whose member groups may be considered special populations, AU does not have a list of special populations (A. Carry, personal communication, November 17, 2010) other than those ethnic and gender groups captured by most institutions serving the public?race (e.g., Native American, Caucasian, etc.) (J. Green, personal communication, December 10, 2010). For this report, the PI considers Active Component (AC) and Reserve Component (RC) servicemembers and student veterans enrolled on the AU campus to be student veterans. As such, student veterans are a special and unique population. They are nontraditional students (NCES, 1996, p. 4; NCES, 2002, p. 1; O?Herrin, 2011, p. 15) because they: ? Delayed enrollment (NCES, 2002a, p.1). ? Are older14. The NCES (1996, p. 4) indentifies those students 20 or older as freshmen, 21 or older as sophomores, 22 or older as juniors, and all students 23 or older as older than typical and nontraditional. ?Although age (especially being over 24 [NCES, 2002a, para 1]) is not precisely defined? (NCES, 2002b, p. 1), others define nontraditional student as 14 Solomon (1991) notes that while the numbers had been collected, the number of students over age 24 was not published before 1982 (p. 2) and the number of students over age 35 was not reported before 1987 (p. 3). 29 those ?mature students over age 21 on 30 September of the AY? (Taylor & House, 2010, p. 47), those older than 22 (Strage, 2008, para 2), those older than 24 (Hoyert & O'Dell, 2009, p.1; Jinkens, 2009, p.1; Newbold, Mehta & Forbus, 2010, p. 1), those older than 25 (Keith, 2007, Introduction section, para 1; Solomon, 1991, p. 3), or those older than 28 (Bye, Pushkar & Conway15, 2007, p.141). ? May be considered transfer students as they often bring college credits earned before they entered military service (O?Herrin, 2011, p. 15) or earned during their military service. ? Are financially independent for purposes of determining financial aid eligibility (NCES, 2002, p.1). ? As older adults, are profiled as a vulnerable population (Keith, 2007, Summary and Discussion section, para. 1). Nontraditional students The size of the nontraditional student population on American university and college campuses has increased and will continue to increase. The NCES (2011) reported that: ? Between 1999 and 2009, the number of students over age 25 rose 43% while the number of students under age 25 increased 27% (Chapter 3, Enrollment section, para. 2). 15 Bye et al. defined traditional students as those students 21 and younger and nontraditional students as those students 28 and over. They did not define those students whose ages were between 22 and 28. 30 ? Between 1999 and 2009, while total college enrollment increased 45%, the number of nontraditional students rose 86% compared to only 14% for traditional students (Introduction, College Enrollment section, para 1). ? From fall 2011 through 2019, the number of students age 25 and over will rise 23% while the number of students under age 25 will rise only 9% (Chapter 3, Enrollment section, para 2). Incoming students are increasingly diverse in gender, ethnicity, race, age, and socioeconomic status (Coll & Draves, 2009). During AY 1999-2000, 73% of all undergraduates (NCES, 2002b, p. 25) had at least one ?nontraditional? characteristic (i.e., had delayed enrollment, had attended part-time, had worked full-time, were consider financially independent for financial aid purposes, had dependents other than a spouse, were a single parent, or did not have a high school diploma) (NCES, 2002b, p. viii). The term ?nontraditional? implies these atypical students are new to higher education and institutions of higher education have not served them (Ogren, 2003). According to the NCES (2002b, p. vii) the ?traditional postsecondary student?one who is dependent, attends full time until completing a bachelor?s degree, and works no more than part-time while enrolled?is no longer typical.? There is a growing percentage of older students attending college (Leverence, 2010). According to Newbold et al. (2010), nontraditional students: Are more apt to be married and are more apt to be commuter students than their traditional counterparts. They tend to work more hours while attending a university, bring different expectations for the college experience, are less involved in various college social activities, are less interested in ?having a good time? in college than traditional students, 31 spend more years in college working toward a degree, and tend to have a higher [Grade Point Average] GPA (p. 1). Nontraditional students are older and have not followed a continuous educational path to college. Those who postponed attending college are usually married and have dependents (Newbold et al., 2010). They tend to vary more in their expectations of college, their motivations, and their experiences with higher education than nontraditional students do. Nontraditional students have life and career experiences that have broadened their general attitudes, are largely more financially self-sufficient, and use personal savings or employer-provided tuition assistance to support their continuing education objectives. Studies show nontraditional students may have better time-management skills; may have difficulties with family support and the renegotiation of the traditional division of household labors and other chores; and as full-time employees have limited time to interact with fellow students on campus (Newbold et al., 2010). Nontraditional students do not take advantage of the academic and social services provided by institutions of higher education. While many tend to interchange the terms ?nontraditional student? and ?adult learner,? adult learners have unique characteristics (Compton, Cox & Laanan, 2006). Nontraditional students?especially older adults?have been considered an underserved population. According to Tovar (2008), adult learners differ in knowledge, experience, attitude, and aptitude as well as their tendencies towards learning (p. 26-2). Adult learners?especially those returning to campus after many years away?are often ill-equipped for certain learning tasks and certain educational settings and seldom become fully accomplished learners 32 (Tovar, 2008, p. 7). Faculties may have to teach adults returning to campus to learn. Student veterans? military and combat experiences give them an outlook and a worldview different from that of traditional and nontraditional nonveteran students. Colleges and universities have been criticized for not providing nontraditional students those services that might retain them (Keith, 2007). Higher education was organized to meet the needs of the institution and secondarily to meet the needs of the individual; to the university a student is a student, whether s/he is 18, 28, or 38 (Solomon, 1991, p.8). According to Jinkins (2009), the composite opinion of 30 faculty members is that a life-changing event and not age may define a traditional or nontraditional student, as some nontraditional students may exhibit traditional student characteristics all their lives while some traditional students may exhibit nontraditional personalities early in their lives. Like returning veterans, nontraditional students may experience ?dispositional barriers? (intrapersonal attributes) such as adjustment difficulties, intimidation in returning to higher education, worry about competing with traditional students, perceptions of inadequate study skills, and concerns with fitting in with traditional students in class (Keith, 2007). Younger students interact with peers and in peer-related activities while older students are less involved with campus activities (Bye et al., 2007). Hoyert & O'Dell (2009) in a study involving 340 undergraduates (299 women, 141 men; 369 traditional students, 71 nontraditional students), found older students maintained higher grades than younger students; endorsed learning goals more 33 strongly than younger students; adopted dominant learning goals more frequently than younger students; adopted dominant performance goals less frequently than younger students; and that both older and younger students endorsed performance goals to a similar extent (Discussion section, para 1). Yet, veterans?being older?are playing catch-up with their nonveteran peers. Cohen, Warner and Segal (1995) suggested student veterans at age 24 were a full AY behind their nonveteran peers and when between ages 29 and 34 were half an AY behind (p. 99), and reported Card?s (1983) analysis suggested no evidence veterans would ever catch-up (as cited in Cohen et al., 1995). PTSD: What Higher Education may not know In World War I, posttraumatic stress was called ?shell shock;? in WWII, it was dubbed ?combat fatigue? (Meinert, 2011). Military service in combat and the potential for PTSD greatly separate student veterans from their traditional and nontraditional nonveteran student peers. Approximately 5.2 million Americans, 3% of the adult population, experience PTSD in a given year (Church, 2009, p. 47) as a result of rape, plane crashes, industrial accidents, natural disasters, or dealing with victims of crime and accidents (Meinert, 2011), while approximately 18.5% of servicemembers who have returned from Afghanistan and Iraq have PTSD or depression (RAND, 2008a). Since the number of veterans with PTSD is unknown, but is estimated by Grossman (2009) to be as high as 40%, this section presents an essential overview of PTSD related to combat and military service and the possible impacts to those student veterans. To those outside the 34 psychological and psychiatric services?and to many within the medical profession?PTSD is something only veterans have. PTSD just does not go away when a veteran leaves the combat area or when s/he leaves the service. According to Lipkin et al. (1983), combat experiences produce stresses that people who have not lived it cannot fully comprehend. Growing literature? though sparse and inconsistent in terms of the findings?indicate personality changes may be common in veterans, yet we know little about the range of personality changes in combat veterans due to racial, ethnic, or cultural differences that contribute to distress and associated behaviors unfortunately labeled personality disorders (Dunn et al., 2004; Ghafoori & Hierholzer, 2010). Moreover, certain veterans may have lasting difficulties because their performances during their deployments were inconsistent with their own self- efficacies (Lipkin et al., 1983). Grossman (2009) wrote: War entails trauma to the body and the mind. This is particularly true in Iraq and Afghanistan, where [I]mprovised [E]xplosive [D]evices (IEDs) are primary weapons of close-quarters combat (Church, 2009). There is currently no one reliable source for the percentage of returning veterans headed for higher education who may be individuals with disabilities. However, an estimate of 40% is not unreasonable given the reported prevalence...of [Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom] OEF/OIF veterans identified with PTSD, TBI, depression, substance abuse, hearing and vision related injuries, and substantial mobility limitations owing to brain and orthopedic injuries, as well as disfiguring burns and debilitating toxic exposure (p. 4). According to Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick, US Army Deputy Chief of Staff ? G-1 (Human Resources), since 11 September 2001 more than 1.1 million soldiers [RAND (2008b) reported approximately 1.64 million US troops] have deployed in harm?s way and many are on their third or fourth 35 deployments (Ryan, 2011, p. 12). According to Belasco and Bruner (as cited in RAND, 2008b, p. xix) the pace of the deployments in these current conflicts is unprecedented in the history of the AVF. Hosek, Kavanagh, and Miller (2006) report, ?not only is a higher proportion of the US armed forces being deployed, but deployments have been longer, redeployment to combat has been common, and breaks between deployments have been infrequent? (as cited in RAND, 2008b, p. xix). Many servicemembers may be deployed early to compensate for the fact that 17%?or about one in six soldiers?are nondeployable (Ryan, 2011) due to medical reasons (Lopez, 2010); substance abuse, behavioral problems, disciplinary problems (Elements Behavioral Health, 2010); or dental issues. Multiple deployments can and will acerbate combat-related stress. There is a correlation between the frequency and length of deployments and emotional and psychological stress. Adler, Huffman, Bliese, and Castro (2005) have noted soldiers entering the armed forces today will deploy an average of 14 times by the time they serve 21 years while veterans who served 20 years ago only served an average of 4 deployments (p. 121). Studies show 24 to 36 months between deployments is needed to keep the Army resilient (Ryan, 2011), yet the Army has not achieved its stated Boots on Ground:Dwell16 (BOG:Dwell) time ratio of 1:2, that is one year deployed for two years stateside (Dabkowski et al., 2009). In 2009, the Department of the Army (DA) reported a BOG:Dwell time ratio for deployed Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) between 1:0.85 and 1:1 (Dabkowski et al., 2009, p. 11), that is about 10.2 months to one year at home 16 According to Dabkowski et al. (2009) report the Army refers to the time a Soldier or Brigade Combat Team (BCT) spends deployed overseas in a combat environment as ?Boots on the Ground? or BOG time, and the time a Soldier or BCT spends between deployments at home station as ?Dwell? time (p. 11). 36 station between deployments. Dabkowski et al. (2009) have calculated the Army?s plan to grow from 43 BCTs to 45 BCTs is insufficient and that an additional 10 BCTs are needed to have a better than 70% chance of achieving a 1:2 BOG:Dwell time ratio. We see at US airports every day individual US servicemembers returning home and possibly back to campus from Iraq and Afghanistan. The transition from hostile areas to home is similar to what servicemembers experienced during the Vietnam War. Lipkin et al. (1983) wrote: The transition from the [Vietnam] combat zone to hometown often took only 48 hours and crossed many time zones. Returning military personnel were often dazed, exhausted, and bewildered by their rapid transition and by the hostile, critical, or disinterested responses of strangers, friends, and family (p. 54). It is unknown how many returning veterans are dealing with PTSD problems; however, for most, there is a readjustment process that can be difficult and stressful (Lokken, Pfeffer, McAuley, & Strong, 2009). Mental health problems, including PTSD and depression, begin to appear over a period of time following a veteran?s return from deployment, particularly in veterans who have been injured during combat (Grieger et al., 2006). Very few PTSD symptoms are unique to PTSD (Lipkin et al., 1983). The DOD Task Force on Mental Health (2007) stated data from the Post-Deployment Health Re-Assessment administered to servicemembers 90 to 120 days after returning from deployment, indicated 38% of soldiers, 31% of Marines, and 49% of National Guard members reported PTSD, depression, or anxiety (p. ES-2). Grieger et al. (2006) reported the majority of those with PTSD or depression at seven months did not meet criteria 37 for either condition at one month (p. 1777). Many servicemembers cope with combat-related stressors informally by turning to their peers for support (Hosek et al., 2006, p. xxiii). What are the effects of killing? Black et al. (2007) wrote: The basic formula for creating soldiers is to strip them of their individual identities; push them to their limits physically, mentally, and emotionally; and build them up with a new identify based on obedience to authority and loyalty to their fellow soldiers. Following that, the military uses behavioral reinforcement methods to teach the newly formed soldiers how to overcome the natural human aversion to killing (Grossman, 1996). During their training and time in the military, the soldiers are taught that they are different from civilians as part of their induction into the military culture (p.5). Few scientific studies have investigated the impact of killing during war (Maguen et al., 2009, 2011) or the relationship between killing and the risk for combat- related PTSD (Maguen et al., 2011), yet killing others is a powerful contributor to PTSD (Fontana & Rosenheck, 1999, p. 124). Today?s military employs sophisticated Pavlovian and operant conditioning to overcome servicemembers? loathing to kill in combat with a psychological cost to soldiers of an increase in posttraumatic stress (Grossman, 1996). Maguen et al. (2011) reported of those OIF veterans who had served in Infantry units, 77% to 87% had shot at or directed fire at an enemy combatant, that 48% to 65% had reported killing an enemy combatant, and that 14% to 28% had been responsible for killing a noncombatant. Maguen et al. (2010) reported killing in combat was a significant predictor of PTSD symptoms and alcohol abuse (p. 89); was a significant predictor of psychosocial functioning, including 38 anger and relationship difficulties (p. 89); and may be associated with moral injury and changes in spirituality/religiosity (p. 90). Maguen et al. (2010) reported: Military personnel who have killed may experience significant shame and/or guilt?; [and] may have received criticism or been subject to insensitive questioning by acquaintances, friends, or family members that cause them to be weary of speaking to others about this sensitive issue, especially when they fear others will not understand or judge them for their actions (p. 90). What are the effects of combat trauma? While killing in combat is a predictor of PTSD, Maguen et al. (2009, 2010, 2011) did find an association between killing in combat and depression. Major depression can be a reaction to loss; TBI, a consequence of blast exposure or other head injury, and PTSD, a reaction to trauma (Rand, 2008b). Many veterans of the wars in Iraq (OIF and Operation New Dawn [OND]) and Afghanistan (OEF) may have been exposed for months at a time to large-scale trauma few civilians will ever experience on a daily basis (Black et al., 2007). Military training and culture promotes what veterans call a ?suck it up? attitude (Lorber & Garcia, 2010, Psychoeducation section, para. 1) where the servicemember disregards emotions and views seeking help as complaining. Church (2009) refers to this attitude as the ?culture of the Warrior? (p. 43), a culture that incorporates the values of honor, sacrifice, and bravery and which places restraint on behavior and shields the servicemember from psychological stress (p. 47). According to Goodman (2005) ?unless a soldier asks for help, there?s a good chance s/he?ll never receive it? (p. 40) and ?only a third of troubled Iraq veterans seek care? (p. 40). 39 Seventy-seven percent of OIF veterans reported seeing dead bodies and 56% reported witnessing killing (Maguen et al. 2010). Shay (1995) describes a ?berserking? effect associated with seeing a buddy killed and where: Grief is transformed into uncontrollable rage and a lack of concern for one?s own safety, which are then both directed toward obtaining revenge. The restraints of civilization on injuring or killing anyone outside of one?s own group (and sometimes within one?s own group) are almost completely suspended (p. 123). The National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study reported a lifetime PTSD prevalence of 31% and half of those Vietnam veterans (15%) who ever had PTSD still had PTSD 20-plus years later (Creamer & Forbes, 2004). Dunn et al. (2004) in a study involving 115 male combat veterans who were patients in the Houston, Texas VA Medical Center?s Trauma Recovery Program (a specialized PTSD treatment program) and in two local veteran outreach centers reported 42% had one or more personality disorders (p. 79). Bollinger, Riggs, Blake, and Ruzek (2000) in a study of 107 male combat veterans in a VA Medical Center specialized inpatient PTSD unit found 79.4% were diagnosed with at least one personality disorder (p. 262). According to the RAND Center for Military Health Policy Research (2008a): Approximately 18.5% of servicemembers who have returned from Afghanistan and Iraq have PTSD or depression and 19.5% report experiencing a TBI during deployment (p. 1). If these numbers are representative, then of the 1.64 million deployed to date, approximately 300,000 veterans currently suffer from PTSD or major depression, and about 320,000 may have experienced TBI during deployment (p. 2). 47% of returning troops who met criteria for PTSD or major depression had not sought help? for these conditions in the past year; for those reporting a probable TBI; 57% had not been evaluated? (p. 3). 40 Unlike physical wounds, PTSD, major depression, and TBI affect mood, thoughts, and behavior and often remain invisible to other servicemembers, other veterans, family members, and to society in general (RAND, 2008a; RAND, 2008b). Veterans may experience intrusive memories and flashbacks, outbursts of anger, distrust of authority, inability to concentrate, inability to sleep, hypervigilance, psychological numbing, substance abuse, posttraumatic stress, physical pain, problems with intimate relationships, existential issues, grief/loss, disability, and identity issues (Black et al., 2007; Church, 2009). In addition, symptoms of these conditions, especially PTSD and depression, can have a delayed onset?appearing months after exposure to stress (RANDa, 2008). According to RAND (2008a): Unless treated, PTSD, depression, and TBI can have far-reaching and damaging consequences. Individuals afflicted with these conditions face higher risks for other psychological problems and for attempting suicide. They have higher rates of unhealthy behaviors?such as smoking, overeating, and unsafe sex?and higher rates of physical health problems and mortality. Individuals with these conditions also tend to miss more work or report being less productive. These conditions can impair relationships, disrupt marriages, aggravate the difficulties of parenting, and cause problems in children that may extend the consequences of combat trauma across generations. There is also a possible link between these conditions and homelessness. These consequences can have a high economic toll stemming from lost productivity, reduced quality of life, homelessness, domestic violence, the strain on families, and suicide (p. 3). Based on clinical observations by Erbes, Curry, and Leskela (2009), OEF/OIF veterans demonstrate ?greater difficulties with treatment compliance (as indicated by the numbers of missed sessions and rates of treatment attrition), equal or higher levels of alcohol related difficulties, and lower rates of trauma-related 41 avoidance than Vietnam veterans did? (p. 176). Three-fourths of institutions of higher education cited student veteran retention and persistency as a pressing issue (Cook & Kim, 2009, p. 9). Yet, Lipkin et al. (1983) found: Some individuals with PTSD spend so much time and energy in their jobs they may advance rapidly and be well paid. However, some of this group, which includes executives, clergy, lawyers, doctors, and nurses, work so compulsively they have little meaningful interaction with friends, family, children, etc. Fears of intimacy, guilt over survival, and attempts at restitution may underlie their overachievement (p. 55). In a study that compared a 95% male OEF/OIF veteran sample to a 100% male Vietnam veteran sample, the OEF/OIF veterans reported higher rates of problematic alcohol use, as measured on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test than the Vietnam veterans reported (Erbes et al., 2009, p. 178). This finding is likely due to the younger OIF/OEF population?s greater endorsement of traditional masculine gender role norms that may contribute to higher substance use as a means of coping with distress (Lorber & Garcia, 2010, Substance Use section, para. 1). OEF/OIF veterans are less likely to remain in treatment for extended periods and are more likely than Vietnam veterans to drop out (Erbes et al., 2009, p. 176). Lipkin et al. (1983) reported that where treatment resolution has not been successful, the veteran ?is likely to have developed an assortment of protective mechanisms or maladaptive behaviors which may include repression and denial, suspiciousness, and aggressiveness, or apathy, withdrawal and amnesia? (p. 56). Lorber and Garcia (2010) reported many male veterans have the misimpression they are alone among their returning peers in their experience of psychological symptoms. Many veterans who need care are reluctant to seek 42 help fearing a lack of confidential services (RAND, 2008a) and potential adverse consequences on employment and career prospects (RAND, 2008b). Veterans showed the most preference for counseling from someone who has shared their experiences and understood the nature of deployment (Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009; Warner, Appenzeller, Mullen, Warner, & Grieger, 2008) and may prefer group counseling with fellow veterans (Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009). Many veterans seek care through private employer-sponsored health plans and in the public sector (RAND, 2008a). The VA faces challenges in providing access to care to returning OIF/OEF veterans, who may face long wait times for appointments, particularly in facilities resourced primarily to meet the demands of older veterans (RAND, 2008a). At the same time, OEF/OIF veterans report feeling uncomfortable or out of place in VA facilities (some of which are dated and most of which treat patients who are older and chronically ill), indicating a need for some facility upgrades and newer approaches to outreach (RAND, 2008b). In addition, RAND (2008b) reported ?PTSD and major depression are not yet fully understood? (p. xxvii); that ?medical science for treating combat-related TBI is in its infancy? (p. xxvi); that ?gaps in the effective treatment of veterans remained in system-wide implementation? (p. xxx) and that ?veterans with more-severe injuries face a different kind of access gap? lack of coordination across a continuum of care? (p. xxvi). Ultimately, the care of veterans with PTSD, depression, and TBI reaches beyond the DOD and the VA into the general US health care system and society at large. 43 Female student veterans. The role of women in the US military has greatly expanded since the draft ended in 1973 (Cohen et al., 1995; Holder, 2010). Women servicemembers comprised about 14.1% and 16.5%, respectively of the AC enlisted and officer strengths (DOD, 2009). Baechtold & De Sawal (2009) wrote: The psychosocial outcomes of basic training do not easily fit into the models of identity development related to traditional college students? . When the structured military community is removed, the [female servicemember] is forced to again redefine who she is as a woman, a civilian, a veteran, and a student? the identity that was respected in the military is one that demonstrates male characteristics. Therefore, when women veterans re-enter civilian life, they are often unsure of how to fulfill not only their specific roles as students but also their roles as women (p. 40). Today?s female veterans ?may have endured the shame of being labeled homosexual or promiscuous? (Lipkin et al., 1983, p. 61). As the number of women in the military goes up and as recent DOD assignment policies have increased the numbers of women in the Iraq and Afghanistan combat zones, women are as exposed to the dangers of war as men and are subject to the same stresses and mental health issues (Stone, 2008, p. 36). According to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, more than 200 thousand women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2010, para. 3). As the number of student veterans increases, so will the number of female student veterans. Female student veterans often experience the transition to higher education differently than male student veterans. Holden (2010) reports female veterans may have difficulty transferring skills learned in the male- 44 dominated military and war-related Military Occupational Specialties (MOS). While serving in the military, females had fewer same-gender role models than males did (Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009). The transitions male veterans encountered when enrolling in higher education are likely facilitated by the on- campus presence of male veterans among the faculty and staff, yet female student veterans on campus are less likely than male student veterans to find same-gender role models (Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009). According to the 2010 Digest of Education Statistics, the percent of female faculty at degree-granting institutions during the fall 2009 semester was 47.1% (NCES, 2011, chapter 3, table 256), yet the number of female faculty who are also veterans remains unknown and unreported. Of the 5,897 full- and part-time, male and female, non- student employees on the AU campus 252 (4.3%) are veterans (S. Lowther, personal communication, June 30, 2011), however, only one non-tenured professor and one part-time instructor are female veterans (S. Lowther, personal communication, July 8, 2011). Women are not as likely to be diagnosed with PTSD as men are (Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009). The DOD Task Force on Mental Health (2007) theorized one explanation may be that cultural expectations make it difficult to recognize women as combatants, as well as a tendency in the mental health profession to diagnose women as having depression, anxiety, and borderline personalities instead of combat-related PTSD. Women sometimes experience difficulties adapting to environments where women outnumber men, such as higher education (Ryan et al., 2011). While men and women veterans suffer the 45 same readjustment issues, female veterans?who composed just over 14% of the US Armed Forces and comprise about 11.6% of the 2.2 million servicemembers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan (Jelinek, 2011)? harbor at least one additional adjustment anguish, Military Sexual Trauma (MST). MST refers to a variety of sexual offenses (DOD Task Force on Mental Health, 2007). Women veterans (and some male veterans) who may have experienced MST (i.e., jokes, sexual harassment, assault, rape, and/or demoralization) were often preyed upon by men higher in their chains of command, crimes military women call ?rape by rank? (Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009; Stone, 2008, The Equal Opportunity War section, para. 10). Darrah Westrup (as cited in Stone, 2008) states, ?Only during the past year, have large numbers [of women] with war-zone trauma sought help. Many learned only recently there are specialized VA mental- health programs for women? (para. 12). Female veterans tend not to define themselves as veterans after they have completed their service, yet remain concerned about maintaining the emotional and psychological strength expected of military servicemembers (DOD, 2007). These issues can create barriers that prevent women from seeking treatment (Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009). While scholarly literature involving family reactions to women returning to school is sparse, Berkove (1979) found women reported little change in the basically traditional division of family chores (p. 452) (i.e., kitchen cleanup, preparing meals, doing laundry, grocery shopping, housecleaning, driving children, and paying bills [p. 454]) once they returned to school and noted increased stress from extra responsibilities (i.e., studying, writing papers, 46 preparing for exams). Berkove (1979) found high husband support was associated with significantly fewer expressions of stress (p. 451). Understanding student veterans on campus Much of recent research involving student veterans has investigated veterans? transition issues from service to campus and from combat to campus (Ackerman & DiRamio, 2009a; Baechtold & De Sawal, 2009; Cook & Kim, 2009; DiRamio et al., 2008; Madaus, 2009; Rumann & Hamrick, 2009; Ryan et al., 2011) yet little is known of the student veteran after his transition. This section provides a summary of various issues that may affect student veterans during their academic years. Major transitions to higher education can take six months to two years to accomplish (Goodman, p. 450). For some indefinable time after a veteran returns from deployment, s/he may inadvertently act out ingrained, often rehearsed, combat-conditioned responses. The typical scenario?and one often joked about?is the veteran ?hitting the dirt? in reaction to a car backfiring. However, as the PI can attest from his personal military experiences17, seemingly trivial events (i.e., the sound of an air raid siren) can trigger immediate Pavlovian responses. The passage of time allows for re-adjustment and the finding of niches and friends (Rumman & Hamrick, 2010, p. 452). 17 The PI had just returned from a 12-month tour in South Korea near the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) where various camps and compounds along the DMZ frequently used air raid sirens to initiate no- notice alerts. He was sitting on the couch at his in-laws house in a small farm town in upstate New York. At noon on a Saturday, the fire whistle (an air-raid siren) at the nearby volunteer fire station sounded. The PI immediately got up and headed towards the front door. He only stopped when his wife asked him where he was heading. In the PI?s mind, he was heading to the unit orderly room to begin orchestrating his unit?s assigned rapid-response alert procedures. 47 Not knowing veterans their own age, current students base their views of veterans largely on narrow experiences with older veterans. As a result, many picture veterans to be elderly men with whom they have little in common. Traditional and nonveteran students do not understand what today?s veterans have been through and do not know how to approach them; therefore, most student veterans seek the company of other student veterans if for nothing else then to validate their time in service (Rumman & Hamrick, 2009). Consider these comments from a recent Afghanistan veteran (Brandi, 2010): The crazy thing about this war is I feel more alive here than any time I can ever remember. My life has real meaning now, purpose, and even a sense of power. I?m living on adrenaline and [Meal, Ready-to-Eat] MREs, my senses heightened, and my combat skills peaked. Damn if I haven?t become the ?Predator?, the executioner, truly walking through the Valley of Death. Hell, that old saying about fearing no evil makes sense to me now. But, how in hell do I explain this to the folks back home (para. 12)? Rumman and Hamrick (2010) noted nearly all the student veteran participants in their 2009 study voiced impatience with people who presumed expert knowledge of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (p. 447) and who conveyed stereotyped assumptions (p. 453), while some student veteran participants commented on the futility of engaging nonveteran students in those conversations (p. 447). The cultural differences between military and civilian life can have detrimental costs to a counseling association for the uninformed campus counselor (Black et al., 2007, p. 5). According to Rumman and Hamrick (2010), veterans sought opportunities to spend time with other veterans, members of their National Guard or RC units, and to a lesser extent, ROTC cadets. Pettigrew (1974) noted one assumption underlying all separatism, be it majority or minority individuals, is that 48 ?we? or ?those people? are happier and better off when apart from the majority (as cited in Larson, 1982, p. 852) Similar to Vietnam veterans who found jobs with little or no social contact or supervision (e.g., janitors, night watchmen, gardeners) (Lipkin et al., 1983, p. 55), today?s veterans may be uncomfortable in large crowds, uneasy with people walking closely behind them, and may tend to sit in the back of the classroom (Rumman & Hamrick, 2010 p. 441). In a 2009 pilot study assessing the levels of academic, social, and institutional stresses student veterans experienced, Cate, Gerber, and Holmes (2009a, 2009b) found 38.5% of respondents felt discomfort in crowds, 57% of respondents felt they did not fit in well with their [nonveteran] classmates and 84.6% of respondents believed they did not have much in common with their [nonveteran] classmates. Congressional Medal of Honor winner and former US Marine Corps Commandant General M. David Shoup (1969) asserted: Whether they liked it or not, their military training and experience have affected them, for the creeds and attitudes of the armed forces are powerful medicine, and can become habit-forming. The military codes include all the virtues and beliefs used to motivate men of high principle; patriotism, duty and service to country, honor among fellowmen, courage in the face of danger, loyalty to organization and leaders, self-sacrifice for comrades, leadership, discipline, and physical fitness. For many veterans the military?s efforts to train and indoctrinate them may well be the most impressive and influential experience they have ever had?especially so for the young and less educated (p. 2). Once separated from the military, many veterans experience a sense of being rudderless [lacking direction] due to the relative ambiguity of civilian life compared to the highly structured military environment (Black et al., 2007, p 13). According to Rumann & Hamrick (2010), identity re-negotiation includes learning 49 about the presumptions their veteran status, and in some cases their military uniforms, signified to friends and acquaintances, fellow military personnel, and strangers (p. 448). Nonveterans often misunderstood veterans and thus contributed to the student veterans? feelings of confusion, unfinishedness, conflict, threat, anxiety, and disorientation (Westwood & Ishiyama, 1990, para. 21). A few studies found Black veterans more than White veterans exhibited odd or eccentric behaviors (i.e., paranoid or schizoid personality disorders) or dramatic or erratic behaviors (i.e., narcissistic, antisocial, or borderline personality disorders) (Ghafoori & Hierholzer, 2010). The military culture veterans experienced was (and still is) a world where authority was unconditional; the rules were clear, absolute, and understood; superiors were responsible and accountable for their subordinates? actions; trust was based on everyday life and death situations and circumstances; and the military organization prescribed the servicemember?s day-to-day life, learning and training, and advancement (Black et al., 2007). Veterans may feel cultural disorientation, intense loneliness, homesickness, self-doubt, a loss of self- confidence, impotence, feelings of being unimportant and unworthy, and may experience identity crisis (Ishiyama & Westwood, 1992). Acts of discipline, respect for authority and the chain of command, minimized individual expression, and unquestioned deference to individuals of superior rank are some of the traits military culture holds in high regard; yet, are often discouraged in higher education (Ryan et al., 2011). Veterans entering or reentering higher education may feel the loss of their reference or peer group (e.g., their battle-buddies 50 and/or bunkmates, their units, and the consistency and constancy of their chains of command). Once an individual enters the military?s one-way door, s/he is changed forever; ?once you go in, you can never go back to the way you were before? (Black et al., 2007, p. 5). Bob (pseudonym), a student veteran participant in Rumann and Hamrick?s 2009 study (2010) stated: Normalcy would be to return to a prior condition. This is impossible. Once you?ve been affected by a life-altering experience such as deployment, it is impossible and counter-productive to make an attempt at normalcy. A balance between what normalcy would be and the new conditions in the game of life are probably a much more important positive focus. Trying to return to normalcy is negative (p. 448). Time and rank in the military. There is a large gap in age and maturity level due to military service (Heller, 2006) between student veterans and traditional students. No two veterans have the same military experience. They have served in the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, and/or Coast Guard. They may have served in full-time AC units, in part-time or full-time RC units, or both. They may have held rank as enlisted men or women, noncommissioned officers, warrant officers, or commissioned officers. Officers expect subordinates to comply with and follow their orders. Officers are to care for their subordinates and try to avoid putting their subordinates in unnecessarily dangerous situations. Leaders at all levels expect subordinates to carry out orders rapidly without regard for their personal safety. Some student veterans may have issues with campus authorities due to experiences, both positive and negative, with past military leaders and/or superiors. Black et al. (2007) found: 51 Within the enlisted ranks, it is part of the culture to privately criticize authority figures and attempt to undermine the authority of leaders deemed to be unworthy?this hostility can then be transferred onto any authority relationship in which there is a perception of ?us versus them.? [Student veterans] may find themselves reacting to their instructors, counselors, administrators, or administrative assistants in much the same way they would have done with their superiors in the military. The classic example is of the student/instructor relationship paralleling the enlisted/officer relationship (p. 14). In addition to time in service and rank held, a veteran?s MOS can affect transition to college. Not all servicemembers served overseas or in combat units nor do all servicemembers have direct combat experience. Those who did not deploy were stressed as their responsibilities, workloads, and operational tempo increased (Hosek et al., p. xvii). Moreover, nondeployed servicemembers had to deal with the stress of reintegrating with returning units. According to Hosek et al. (2006), a servicemember attempting to reintegrate into a returning unit could experience difficulty as the deployed unit?s members had formed strong personal bonds and had a set of shared experiences that did not include those left-behind servicemembers? (p xvii). Some veterans were bath and laundry specialists, veterinary assistants, clerk/typists, musicians, parachute riggers, intelligence analyst, legal clerks, air traffic controllers, mechanics, chaplain assistants, or served on ships at sea or on air bases outside the combat areas. Those who spent their military time in safe noncombat areas (e.g., Hawaii, Alaska, Italy, etc.) and those never assigned to combat or combat support units may be ashamed and reluctant to defend or explain their lack of OIF/OEF experiences and thus hide their veteran status. Moreover, Black et al. (2007) postulates combat veterans are unlikely to 52 volunteer information about their tours of duty because nonveterans do not want to hear about them, their experiences might be misunderstood (i.e., ?you weren?t there, so you can?t understand?), or they fear they will be labeled or thought of as different (p. 6). In the military, sameness to others is very important, being unique and standing out can get one into trouble or killed. ?Blending in? is a learned skill (Black et al., 2007, p. 6). Family issues. Families may be a source of strength and support or a source of stress. Strong family support provides the veteran with stability and resiliency. The veteran may view weak or unsupportive family members as significant barriers to successfully transitioning to and remaining in college. Westwood (as cited in Black et al., 2007) believed most veterans discussed very little of their combat experiences with their family members because they do not want to burden their families with what happened, do not want to appear weak, and/or do not want to lose their prescribed role in the family dynamic. Outram, Hansen, MacDonell, Cockburn, and Adams (2009) in a 2005 Australian Department of Veterans Affairs study involving 76 female members of a Partners of Veterans Association support group indicated almost all their Vietnam veteran husbands had a high level of dependency on their wives in day-to-day life but lacked a general capacity for physical and emotional intimacy (p. 130). According to Evans, McHugh, Hopwood, and Watt (2003), researchers have rarely simultaneously measured both veterans and their partners? family satisfaction to provide a point 53 of comparison on how individuals on each side of the relationship experience PTSD and other psychological problems (p. 766). A veteran?s family is at risk for developing ?secondary traumatization? (Galovski & Lyons, 2004; Ford et al., 1993) or PTSD by association (Outram et al., 2009). Secondary traumatization has been reported in several generations of combat veterans in the immediate and long-term aftermaths of WWII, the Vietnam War, and the Israeli-Arab wars (Ford et al., 1993). The veteran?s experiences can cause family members to experience psychological distress, lower self-esteem, increased levels of stress symptomatology (the combined symptoms of a disease [The Free Dictionary, 2011]), and dysfunctional family functioning (Mellor, Davidson, & Mellor, 2001). The Australian Institute of Health (1999) reported a 1997-98 Australian Department of Veterans Affairs study found 40% of Vietnam veterans reported physical or psychological health problems in their partners that those veterans felt might be related to their Vietnam service (as cited in Outram et al., p. 128). Outram et al. (2009) further reported: The most common metaphor used was that living with a Vietnam veteran was ?like walking on eggshells.? The men were described as hypersensitive to both physical stimuli (e.g., noise) and comments or events that were often misinterpreted, exaggerated, or seen as personal insults and attacks. Anger, aggression, outburst of temper at partners, children, and strangers as well as withdrawal, long periods of silence, manipulation and blame, possessiveness and jealousy, a need to keep tight control on the partner?s whereabouts and unpredictable mood swings were consistently described. Nightmare and insomnia, obsessive checking for safety of self and family as well as verbal and emotional (rather than physical) abuse were reported (p. 130). The tendency of PTSD sufferers to avoid any emotionally charged situations could be a source of their partners? frustrations (Evans et al., 2003, p.766). 54 Outram et al. believed [student] veterans may develop debilitating and long-term health problems that may adversely affect the health and wellbeing of their women resulting in isolation from family, friends, and the wider community (p. 133). Evans et al. (2003) conceded, ?Veterans from other theatres of war have similar difficulties with relationships? (p. 766). The Battlemind. The Walter Reed Army Institute of Research brochure entitled, 10 Tough Facts about Combat and what Leaders can do to Mitigate Risk and Build Resilience defined the battlemind18 as ?the soldier?s inner strength to face adversity, fear, and hardship during combat with confidence and resolution; it is the will to persevere and win? (Land Combat Study Team, 2006). Male veterans are historically reluctant to seek psychotherapy and may be difficult to engage (Lorber & Garcia, 2010). Psychological injuries such as PTSD are largely invisible to the casual observer (Black et al., 2007). Because the numbers of student veterans on individual college and university campuses are usually very small, administrators, faculty, student services and student affairs personnel, counselors, and supporting staffs do not hear of or see what Manual Martinez, a counselor at the East Los Angeles Veterans Center, calls military readjustment issues (Blose, 2009). These military readjustment issues include obvious difficulties such as trouble sleeping, lasting memories, developing or redeveloping study skills, moving in or around crowds, and ways to deal with PTSD, TBI, or LD as well as not-so-obvious problems such as understanding the 18 ?Skills a veteran develops to survive in combat: constantly being on alert, swallowing grief or other emotions, and other mental tricks that can backfire in civilian life? (Blose, 2009, p. 26). 55 battlemind, the stigma of seeking counseling, and the perceptions nonveterans conjured or invoked of today?s veterans from reading about warriors in literature and culture (Blose, 2009). Physical injuries. ?Physical injuries can be visible or unseen? (Black et al., 2007, p. 4). The NCES (2011) reports 11% of undergraduates (43% male; 57% female) during AY 2007-2008 reported having disabilities and that 4% of those undergraduates reporting disabilities were student veterans (Chapter 3, Enrollment section, para. 5). As veterans arrive on campus, colleges and universities may face the problem of carrying on medical treatments and/or rehabilitation begun in military hospitals. According to Church (2009), up to 70% of veterans (p. 50) will not utilize DOD or VA healthcare relying instead on public and private healthcare and campus health centers while 47% have not seen a physician or mental health professional in the past year (p. 50). A veteran is likely to arrive on campus with a wide range of medical diagnoses and related health issues that may have a chronic impact on their living, working, learning, and relationship functions and may significantly affect the student veteran?s strength, endurance, and energy levels (Church, 2009). A student veteran?s condition(s) and use of prescription medications and nonprescription drugs may produce significant side effects, impair performance, and affect class attendance. Neither DOD nor VA figures account for the fact many veterans transitioning from the battlefield to campuses do so with some form of LD, likely predating their military service (Grossman, 2009). However, student veterans 56 who had no LD before entering military service may find they now have LD resulting from TBI. Some faculty and most nonveteran students do not have the awareness of, knowledge of, or sensitivity to those student veterans with LD. Moreover, according to Horowitz (2006), LD do not go way and are a problem with lifelong implications (Don?t Expect to Outgrow Learning Disabilities section, para. 1; Learning Disabilities Association of American, n.d.; Taymans, 2009); while faculty and students may be unable to or unwilling to accept, understand, or cope with a student veteran?s LD (Adults with Learning Disabilities: A Call to Action section, para. 8). In addition, student veterans may come with various combat-connected disabilities such as vision and hearing loss, burns, mobility impairments, or spinal cord injuries (Church, 2009) as well as service-connected ailments like arthritis, gastritis, frostbite, eczema, hepatitis, osteoporosis, asthma, or MST, to name a few. Welsh (1946) reported veterans with defective hearing had lost confidence in their ability to function effectively as civilians and had developed ?Rip Van Winkle? feelings and tendencies (p.1). A student veteran?s injuries and ailments may cause the veteran to ?self- pace? (Church, 2009, p. 45) a gradual return to campus. A student veteran?s disabilities may affect his/her ability to learn as s/he might be new to his/her disabilities or may be just developing an understanding of those disabilities. The psychological progression for accepting and accommodating their disabilities will take time; especially given the military culture to simply ?suck it up? (Stecker, Fortney, Hamilton & Ajzen, 2007, p. 1360) and ?soldier on? (Black et al., 2007, p. 57 11). Furthermore, newly arriving disabled student veterans may not be aware of their rights as disabled students nor how to request accommodations. Institutional support services Between Vietnam and today, with few veterans attending college partly due to less generous GI Bill benefits (Neal, n.d.), numerous institutions of higher education let their VA offices deteriorate or disappear resulting in many colleges across the US lacking the expertise and offices to aid student veterans in their academic pursuits (Heller, 2006). Cook and Kim19 (2009) in a 2008 survey of 723 colleges and universities, found: ? 47.6% (344) did not employ a trained individual to assist student veterans with transitional issues (p. 36). ? 56.3% (407) did not train their faculties and staffs on student veteran transition issues (p. 36). ? 67% (484) did not have trained staffs to assist student veterans with physical disabilities (p. 9). ? 76.7% (555) did not have trained staffs to assist student veterans with less visible disabilities (e.g., PTSD or TBI) (p.36). ? 61.8% (447) had not appointed a committee to develop a campus responsiveness plan to address student veterans? needs (p.34). Rumann & Hamrick (2010) believe if veterans are not well represented among campus faculty members and administrators, and if these individuals 19 Cook and Kim (2009) claim this study is the first attempt to assess the current state of programs and services for veterans on campuses across the nation (p. 1). 58 have little firsthand or systematic knowledge of the military culture and the potential impact of wartime service on servicemembers, it may complicate campus efforts to serve student veterans. Cook and Kim (2009, p. 11) defined: ? Low Veteran Enrollment (LVE) schools as those with a student veteran population less than or equal to one percent of total student enrollment; ? Moderate Veteran Enrollment (MVE) schools as those with a student veteran population between one percent and three percent of total student enrollment; ? High Veteran Enrollment (HVE) schools as those with a student veteran population greater than three percent of total student enrollment. The average number of student veterans enrolled at LVE institutions was 44; at MVE institutions, 178; and at HVE institutions, 320 (Cook & Kim, 2009, p. 11). While the exact number of student veterans enrolled on the AU campus was unknown, the number of AU student veterans using education benefits was 210 (S. Bernard, personal communication, February 14, 2011). Although the number of student veterans enrolled on the AU campus would appear to make AU an MVE institution, the percent of the student veteran population (0.89%20) places AU in the LVE category. Within LVE institutions, Cook and Kim (2009) reported: ? The registrar?s office was the primary contact for student veterans and information on VA and state government education benefits counseling (p.13). 20 Percent of veterans equals 210 veterans divided by 23,533, AU?s spring 2011 general student population. 59 ? 67% (484) did not have an office or department exclusively dedicated to serving student veterans (p. 13). ? 58% (419) did not offer a one-stop service program (i.e., academic advising, financial aid, tuition counseling, or employment assistance) (p.14). ? 60% (433) lacked staffs trained to deal with student veteran transition issues (p. 13). ? More than 60% (433) do not offer their faculties and staffs professional development training on dealing with student veterans issues (p. 13). ? Less than 33% (241) planned to train their counseling staffs to deal with PTSD within the next five years (p. 14). Because LVE institutions serve fewer student veterans (Cook & Kim, 2009), these schools rely primarily on college catalogs and brochures to attract veterans (p. 13), are more likely to offer student veterans counseling services through a general counseling office available to all students (p. 14), are more likely to have a student veteran organization (p. 14), and are not likely to offer student veterans or their spouses and dependents in-state tuition (p.15). Auburn University and its military association AU has a long military ancestry. During the Civil War, AU21 closed when most of its students and faculty enlisted, when the Confederate Army used the campus to train various military units, and when medical personnel used the ?Old 21 Then the East Alabama Male College. 60 Main? building as a military hospital to treat Confederate wounded. In 1872, ten years after the passage of the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 (the First Morrill Act), Alabama established AU22 as the first land-grant college in the South (AU, 2011a). The Morrill Act ?called for inclusion of military training? (Wade, 2005, p. 8) and the teaching of military tactics to US military officers. On 1 October 1918, nearly all of AU?s23 able-bodied 18-year-old and older male students voluntarily joined the US Army with 878 students forming the academic section of the Student Army Training Corps. During World War II (WWII), AU provided officer training, vocational training in radio and mechanics to enlisted personnel, and produced over 32,000 troops. Following WWII, 7.8 million veterans (49% of college admissions in 1947) used the Servicemen?s Readjustment Act of 1944 (the GI Bill); many such students attended AU. Since WWII, veterans from the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the smaller conflicts of Somalia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Iraq invasion of Kuwait (Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), current covert and clandestine operations, and the ongoing US involvements in Iraq24 and Afghanistan25 have attended AU. At present, AU has nationally recognized Army, Air Force, and Navy Reserve Officer Training Programs (ROTC); each among the top ten of their respective ROTC programs in the nation. The various US military services routinely send some of their best officers to AU for advanced civil schooling. 22 Then the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Alabama. 23 Then the Alabama Polytechnic Institute. 24 On 1 September 2010, Operation Iraqi Freedom ended and Operation New Dawn began. 25 Operation Enduring Freedom. 61 Summary Not all student veterans exhibit symptoms of PTSD or combat trauma nor are they broken or maimed or suffering from TBI and LD. Yet they are all nontraditional students and have been transformed in some form or fashion by their military experiences. The NCES reported 73% of all undergraduates are nontraditional in some way (NCES, 2002a), making them the majority rather than the exception at present (Compton et al., 2006). On today?s college and university campuses, with the exception of military service, student veterans are very much similar to nonveteran students. Current servicemembers and soon to be veterans are volunteer patriots and reflect the social, cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity of America (DOD Task Force on Mental Health, 2007, p. 7). According to The Heritage Foundation (2008) they do not come disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, were significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods26, were more educated than their peers27, scored better on the Armed Forces Qualifying Test (AFQT)28, were not grossly overrepresented among minorities29, and came disproportionately from the South30. While the total US veteran population has decreased 14.4% between 2000 and 2010, 26 Only 10.7% of 2007 recruits came from the poorest one-fifth of neighborhoods (incomes less than $33,267), while 24.9% came from the wealthiest one-fifth (incomes greater than $65,032). 27 Only 1.4% of recruits had not graduated high school, compared to 20.8% of 18-24-year-olds. 28 On the AFQT, 67.5% of 2007 recruits scored in the top 50th percentile. 29 White and black recruits were about equally represented with troop-to-population ratios of 1.05 and 1.03, respectively. Native American recruits were overrepresented with a troop-to-population ratio of 2.68. Hispanic recruits were underrepresented with a troop-to-population ration of .65. 30 The South (which is in line with Southern military history and tradition) accounted for 42.97% of 2007 recruits while the Northeast accounted for only 12.81%. In terms of troop-to-population ratios the south was overrepresented at 1.19, the Midwest and West were nearly similar at 0.98 and 0.94, respectively while the Northeast was underrepresented at 0.73. 62 Alabama?s veteran population has increased somewhere between one and five percent (National Center for Veteran Analysis and Statistics, 2010). According to the VA (2007), the highest proportions of male veterans (39%) and female veterans (44%) were in the South and the lowest proportions of female veterans (13%) and male veterans (16%) were in the Northeast (p. 12). This literature review?s purpose was to share relevant theory and the findings and conclusions of other research studies related to this dissertation?s topic. The review summarized broad themes in the existing literature. To answer partly the question posed in this study?s title, ?Are student veterans a traditional, nontraditional, or special population?? the literature indicates student veterans are not traditional students. The PI focused particular interest on PTSD. A major difference between student veterans and nonveteran students is the potential for developing PTSD because of military service. PTSD does not end when a student veteran?s transition to higher education is complete. As reported in this chapter, studies do indicate PTSD does have a lasting impact. It is of interest to note if US veterans were similar to the Iraqi veterans of Iraq?s war on Iran, 82% of US veterans would have accepted the problems and difficulties associated with being a veteran (Zandipour, 2007). 63 Chapter III: Methods ?Among young people who are recent high school graduates, more than one in five do not meet the minimum standard necessary to enlist in the US Army.? --- Christina Theokas, Director of Research at The Education Trust (The Education Trust, 2010, p. 1). "In the 17-to-24-year-olds today, only three in ten can join the Army with those [physical, educational, and character] qualifications. The stereotype is a dumb guy with a gun with nothing else to do; no future. It's the exact opposite." --- Lieutenant General Benjamin Freakley, Commanding General, US Army Accessions Command (Hull, 2009, para. 5). ?I think my generation sees veterans as a removed group of individuals?I t?s just hard to comprehend that my generation will soon have its own veterans" --- Molly Kocour, Junior at the University of Kansas (McDaniel, 2004, para. 3). ?One of the challenges of being a veteran is I?ll be in college longer than the rest of my graduating class. It delays you getting out into the world and getting a job...." --- Ryan Pithan, US Marine Corps Reservist, and a Senior at Iowa State University (Murtaugh, 2010, para. 21). Introduction William Trochim (2006) wrote, ?All quantitative data is based upon qualitative judgments; and all qualitative data can be described and manipulated numerically.? With this thought in mind, the PI sought to collect both quantitative and qualitative data to answer the research questions. The PI designed and intended this investigation to be exploratory, cross-sectional, and non- experimental; and elected to use a concurrent, mixed methods approach that 64 simultaneously collected quantitative (broad numeric trends) and qualitative data conveyed opinions, views, and experiences. Creswell (2003) described the concurrent mixed methods approach as converging qualitative and quantitative data to provide a wide-ranging investigation of the research problem. Since all research methods have limitations, the intent in using a mixed methods approach is to neutralize or cancel the biases associated with a pure quantitative or qualitative method (Creswell, 2003). The study?s purpose was to identify and better understand those student veterans attending AU, a land-grant institution located in Auburn, Alabama. By determining the common traits and uniquenesses of AU student veterans; appreciating how AU?s student veterans distinctly acclimate to university life; and understanding how AU?s student veterans assimilate/adapt/acclimate themselves into the university/campus environment, university administrators, faculty, staff, and in particular student affairs and student services personnel might better comprehend, value, and appreciate what makes student veterans tick. Understanding AU?s student veterans as a unique and special population may well contribute to improved student veteran persistency and higher graduation rates. Procedure This investigation?s general flow followed the design described here. 1. During the literature review, the PI discovered a 1946 student opinion questionnaire designed by the ETS. 65 2. On 19 October 2010, the ETS granted a license to use the questionnaire. 3. On 21 October 2010, the PI obtained a subscription to the online survey service, SurveyMonkey, and modified the 1946 ETS questionnaire for use as an online survey instrument. 4. Between 1 and 8 November 2010, the PI pilot tested the online survey to validate the questionnaire?s content. 5. From 9 November through14 December 2011, the PI modified the ETS survey instrument. 6. On 15 December 2011, the PI submitted a research protocol review form to the AU Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Research Involving Human Subjects. 7. On 7 December 2010, the AU IRB approved the research protocol (see Appendix A). 8. On 10 December 2010, the PI requested an updated license agreement from the ETS. 9. On 22 December 2010, James Halliday, Copyright Administrator for the ETS extend the previously granted license. 10. On 17 January 2011, the PI made the survey available to participants. 11. On 18 January 2011, Adam Fountain, ASVA president, emailed all known ASVA members a recruiting announcement (see Appendix D) and posted a recruiting announcement (see Appendix E) on ASVA?s Facebook page. 66 12. Between 18 and 21 January 2011, the PI spent three days in the AU Student Center recruiting nonveteran participants31. 13. On 23 January, Adam Fountain granted the PI Facebook administrator privileges to create additional student veteran recruiting announcements. 14. On 26 January, the PI recruited nonveteran participants from the two courses his dissertation advisor was teaching. 15. On 31 January 2011, the PI closed the survey. 16. On 31 January 2011, the PI downloaded the database for analysis. Research Questions Creswell (2003) wrote, A research problem [question] is an issue or concern that needs to be addressed (p. 21). Research questions are interrogative statements or questions that the investigator seeks to answer (p. 108). They are used frequently in social science research and especially in survey studies (p. 108). This study sought to answer one central research question and five subquestions. For this study, the central research question is, ?What are the defining characteristics of AU?s enrolled student veterans?? Since the central research question has the potential to cover vast areas of interest, the PI engaged five research subquestions to narrow this study?s focus. 1. What demographic characteristics define AU student veterans and AU nonveteran students? 31 Originally, the PI planned to compare nonveteran students? responses to student veterans? responses. The PI modified this plan due to the fact the nonveteran student sample (78) lacked sufficient variety to permit generalizing to the nonveteran population (20,082). 67 2. How do AU student veterans spend their time compared to AU nonveteran students? 3. What worries and concerns do AU student veterans and AU nonveteran students have or experience? 4. How do AU student veterans and AU nonveteran students perceive respect: a. From fellow AU student veterans? b. From fellow AU nonveterans? c. From AU professors? d. From the AU administration? 5. How do AU student veterans perceive and nonveteran students perceive the veteran-friendliness of the AU campus? The General Population and Subpopulations Ross and Shannon (2008, p. vii) state, ?a population consists of every member of a group with specific characteristics.? According to the AU OIRA (2011), the spring 2011 enrolled student population was 23,533. For this study, only US citizens can be US veterans or US nonveterans. Therefore, the PI disqualified those 984 students classified as nonresident aliens (AU?s OIRA, 2011). Since persons under age 19 are a vulnerable population, and since the PI recognized obtaining parental consent through an anonymous online survey was practically impossible, the PI excluded those 2,257enrolled and underage students (Campbell, 2011). Thus, the spring 2011 semester?s adjusted student 68 population consisted of only US students a) enrolled at AU; b) enrolled for the spring 2011 semester; and c) age 19 or older. Table 1 summarizes the calculation of the AU spring 2011 adjusted student population. Table 1 Auburn University?s spring 2011 Adjusted Student Population. Population Type Population Size Spring 2011 enrolled population 23,533a Enrolled nonresident aliens -984a Enrolled students under age 19 -2,257b Spring 2011 adjusted student population 20,292 aAU?s OIRA, 2011 bCampbell, 2011 Since by definition only veterans can be veterans, the PI stratified the adjusted spring 2011 student population to isolate AU?s student veterans. Stratification means the sample represents specific individual characteristics (e.g., veteran and nonveteran) found within the population (Creswell, 2003, p. 156). Therefore, the PI divided the spring 2011 adjusted student population into two unique subpopulations: student veterans and nonveteran students. From these two distinctive populations the PI recruited the samples. Student veteran subpopulation. The first distinctive subpopulation consisted of enrolled AU student veterans. Since AU did not possess a capability to identify all enrolled student veterans, the exact number of enrolled student veterans is unknown. AU?s only means of identifying student veterans is through the student veterans? use of VA education benefits. According to Steven Barnard, AU?s VA certifying official (personal communication, February 11, 2011), approximately 210 (179 males; 31 69 females) were using VA educational benefits during the spring 2011 semester. Those student veterans who were ineligible for VA education benefits (recent enlistees), who had not applied for benefits (were using active duty tuition assistance), who had used all their available benefits, or whose benefits had expired (ten year limitation after separation) were invisible to the AU administration and Mr. Barnard. These student veterans are not included in determining the size of the student veteran subpopulation. The PI drew the student veteran sample from the membership of the ASVA. This element of the design ?purposefully selected [male and female student veteran] participants ? that ? best help[ed] the PI understand th e problem and the research question[s]? (Creswell, 2003, p. 185). Nonveteran subpopulation. The second distinctive subpopulation was enrolled AU nonveteran students. As depicted in table 1, the spring 2011 adjusted student population after removing nonresident aliens and those under age 19 was 20,292. The PI further defined (see table 2) the nonveteran subpopulation by removing the known 210 student veterans. Thus, the enrolled nonveteran subpopulation was 20,082. Table 2 Stratifying the spring 2011 adjusted student population. Population Type Population Size Spring 2011 adjusted student population 20,292 Enrolled student veterans subpopulation -210a Enrolled nonveteran subpopulation 20,082 aS. Bernard, personal communication, 11 Feb 2011 70 The nonveteran student sample included male and female nonveteran students recruited through nonprobability (or convenience) sampling. Nonprobability sampling, while less desirable than random sampling permitted the selection of participants ?based on their convenience and availability? (Creswell, 2003, p. 156). Based on the PI?s concerns the nonveteran student sample was too small and lacked adequate variety to generalize to AU?s nonveteran population, the PI did not analyze the nonveteran data or conduct an analysis between the nonveteran and student veteran samples. Instrumentation Survey instrument. This study employed a modified version of a 71 question, student opinion questionnaire the ETS designed and employed in 1946. ETS designed the questionnaire to compare WWII student veterans and nonveterans with respect to background, attitudes and motives, worries, and participation in various aspects of college life. Since the 1946 questionnaire was 64 years old, the PI requested the ETS? permission to modify the questionnaire. On 19 October 2010, James Halliday, Copyright Administrator, Copyright Group, General Counsel?s Office at ETS granted the PI a royalty-free, nonexclusive, nontransferable license (see Appendix B). The PI then updated several terms (i.e., changed dormitory to residence hall), modified some of the original answer choices (i.e., replaced expired VA education benefits programs with currently available VA education benefits programs), and redesigned the questionnaire to take advantage of 71 SurveyMonkey?s online survey technologies and design principles. The PI designed the online questionnaire to facilitate anonymous participation; the survey did not request personally identifiable information. Content validity (pilot testing). The primary purposes for the pilot test were a) to determine the average length of time required to complete the survey, b) to determine if any terminology needed modification, updating, or defining, c) to collect comments to determine if the answer choices provided were complete, and d) to determine if other issues existed that need to be addressed. Since the PI had not design the survey?s questions to represent constructs or scales, the PI did not intend the pilot test to test the correlational strength amongst the questions (Streiner, 2003). On 1 November 2010, the PI opened the 57 question draft questionnaire for pilot testing. The PI recruited student veteran testers from the ASVA leadership group, and recruited nonveteran student testers from several of his dissertation advisor?s undergraduate business classes. On 8 November 2010, the PI closed the draft questionnaire. At the time the PI closed the survey, six student veterans (five males and one female) and six nonveteran student (four males and two females) had completed the online questionnaire. The PI was able to talk to several pilot testers. Those participants stated the online questionnaire was straightforward and the questions easy to understand. Nonveteran student participants took an average of 15 minutes and 17 seconds to complete the questionnaire. Student veterans averaged 21 minutes and 38 seconds due to the fact the survey 72 contained 12 student veteran-specific questions requesting student veteran-only responses. Final survey design. The final questionnaire asked 58 questions (59 if the consent question was included). The PI realized early on this dissertation would collect numerous data elements and possessed the potential to investigate many things and grow into a large and overwhelming project. Therefore, the PI took the opportunity to collect much data, narrowed this dissertation down to a manageable study, and will use the additional data collected for further study. Since the AU IRB approved the research protocol on 7 December 2010, since the fall 2010 semester was ending (final exams between 6 and 10 December), and since students had left or were leaving campus for the winter/Christmas break, the PI delayed data collection to the start of the spring 2011 semester. This delay forced the PI to change several survey questions to reflect the spring 2011 semester instead of the fall 2010 semester. Due to pilot testing for content validation, the PI changed several questions to reflect comments addressed on the survey. Below are examples of changes the PI incorporated into the final survey questionnaire. ? The PI changed the question, ?In general, are you enjoying your studies this semester as much as you had expected to?? to read, ?In general, did you enjoy your studies during the fall 2010 semester as much as you had expected to?? For this question, the PI added the answer choice ?Was not enrolled during the fall 2010 semester.? 73 ? For the question, ?If you served in land areas outside the 50 United States, list those areas and the length of your tours?,? the PI added Somalia to the list of countries. ? For the question, ?During the past week, how many hours did you spend at each of the following activities?...,? the PI changed answer choice ?Bull sessions? to read ?Bull sessions (informal group discussions)? since some testers did not know what a bull session was. ? Of special note was the response, ?I don?t know any student veterans,? by a nonveteran participant in the comment field of the question, ?In general, do you as either a veteran on nonveteran feel respected by your fellow veteran students?? Because of this comment, the PI added the answer choice ?I don?t know any veterans.? After modifying the questionnaire, the PI submitted a list of modifications to the 1946 student opinion questionnaire to the ETS and requested a new copyright license. On 22 December 2010, the ETS responded with ?Since the [19 October 2010] license agreement does not state the specific changes, it is still valid? (J. Halliday, personal communication, 22 December 2010). The final questionnaire design (see Appendix C) asked 59 questions. The PI organized the survey into nine sections or pages. The first page consisted of the information letter and the consent question. The procedural design of the survey (SurveyMonkey capabilities) only permitted those participants who selected/checked the consent radial to proceed with the survey. The second page requested various demographic data. The third page requested veteran 74 status. The PI added skip logic to the veteran status question?s answer choices. Note: Skip logic is an online survey design technique that directs each participant through the survey based on his/her answer choices (SurveyMonkey, 2010a). For example, if a participant identified himself or herself as a nonveteran, the skip logic caused the survey to bypass page four (veteran-specific questions) and proceed to page five. Page four solicited the student veteran participants? service data and their opinions concerning their motivations for attending college. Page five requested the participants? marital status and number of children. If respondents were not married, the skip logic bypassed page six and proceeded to page seven. Page six solicited married respondents? marital data and opinions about their marriages. Page seven sought participants? data and opinions concerning university life and collected participants? data regarding their use of time. Page eight asked participants for data related to individual concerns and worries. Page nine?the last page of the survey?solicited participants? opinions concerning levels of respect. The survey instrument displayed a progress bar at the top of each page. The average participant took less than 20 minutes to complete the survey. Data Collection Participant recruitment. To recruit AU student veterans, the PI contacted and asked for assistance from Adam Fountain, ASVA President. Adam emailed a recruiting announcement (see Appendix D) to all known ASVA members and posted a recruiting 75 announcement (see Appendix E) on the ASVA Facebook page. To recruit AU nonveteran students, the PI on 18, 20, and 21 January 2010 set up a table, chairs, and two laptops on the second floor of AU?s Student Center. The PI solicited random participants from those students moving through the student center and encouraged them to complete the online questionnaire using one of the two laptops. During recruiting in the Student Center, those potential participants who did not have time to sit and complete the online survey were given a recruiting flyer (see Appendix F) and encouraged to complete the survey at a time and place more convenient to their schedules. To increase the number of participants, the PI made verbal recruiting announcements during two of his dissertation chair?s introductory business courses. As an incentive to participate in the study, participants at the end of the study were routed to a second separate and independent questionnaire where, if the participants so desired, they could volunteer their names and email addresses in order to enter a drawing for one of four $25 Visa gift cards. Participants? confidentiality. Study participants were self-selected since they responded to wide-area open recruiting (email, Facebook, and personal invitation) announcements. Each participant denoted consent when s/he checked the radial button next to question one (the consent statement), "I am 19 years of age or older and agree to be a participant in this study." Participants not checking the radial next to the consent statement could not advance to question two and the remainder of the questionnaire. The online questionnaire consisted of two independent and 76 separate surveys. The first survey (the modified ETS student opinion questionnaire) collected participants? data and opinions. Participants accessed the first survey using the web links provided in the various recruiting announcements. The first survey did not solicit personally identifiable information. At the end of the first survey, SurveyMonkey directed the participants to a completely different and separate second survey. The second survey only collected the names and email addresses of those participants who volunteered to enter the drawing. Participants? names and email addresses collected in the second survey could not be associated to their responses in the first survey. Therefore, the PI considered the risk involving a breach of confidentiality as minimal. Data protection. SurveyMonkey hosted the survey. Both SurveyMonkey and the PI protected the collected data. SurveyMonkey provided its own data and access security. According to SurveyMonkey?s website (2010b): The data you collect is kept private and confidential. [The PI is] the owner of the data collected or uploaded into surveys?. We are located in the US?. All surveys and data are stored on our servers?. Physical security is enforced by servers in a locked cage; requiring a passcard and biometric recognition for entry; [by] use of digital surveillance equipment; [by] controls for temperature, humidity and smoke/fire detection; and [by] 24/7 staffing. Network security is maintained with?. a firewall that restricts access?. Hardware?and software security is maintained?. passwords [are encrypted]?. D ata backed up every hour internally and backed up every night to centralized backup system?. When the PI downloaded the data for statistical analysis, the data was stored on a password-protected laptop. The PI?s laptop and any printed materials, when not under the PI's physical control, were stored and locked in the PI's residence. 77 Data analysis Trochim (2006) provided an outline for a three-step data analysis process to which the PI has added more specifications. Step one ? data preparation. Data preparation involved cleaning and organizing the data for analysis and includes the following activities. SurveyMonkey indicated 151 participants began the questionnaire. After the PI had downloaded the database to the PI?s laptop, the PI checked the data for accuracy. The PI discovered six participants had quit the questionnaire after question one, one participant had failed to answer questions 12 through 59, one participant had failed to answer questions 13 through 59, two participants had failed to answer questions 31 through 59, and one participant had failed to answer questions 44 through 59. Additionally, three were nonresident aliens and one was not an enrolled AU student but rather the parent of a student. The PI removed these 15 surveys from the database leaving 136 possibly usable questionnaires. Next, the PI checked for missing or incorrect data. For example, the PI made several changes to the veteran status data as some student veterans indicated they were nonveterans yet provided service start and separation dates and other veteran-specific data. After correcting the data, the PI conducting a boxplot analysis of the age variable for outliers (see figure 1) and found the ages of ten participants (four student veterans and six nonveterans) to be outliers. 78 Figure 1. Boxplot analysis for student veteran and nonveteran student age outliers. The PI deleted those ten outliers leaving a final database of 126 qualified and usable cases (48 student veterans; 78 nonveterans. The student veteran sample represented 22.9% (48/210) of the student veteran subpopulation. Forty or 83.3% (40/48) of the student veterans were males, and eight or 16.7% (8/55) were females. The nonveteran student sample represented 0.39% (78/20,082) of the nonveteran student subpopulation (see Tables 1 and 2). Forty-four or 56.4% (44/78) were female nonveteran students, and 34 or 43.6% (34/78) were male nonveteran students. Generalizing the nonveteran student sample to the nonveteran student subpopulation was questionable since the nonveteran student sample did not mirror the characteristics of the nonveteran student 79 subpopulation. Generalizing of the student veteran sample to the student veteran subpopulation was more certain. Therefore, the PI elected to report in Chapter IV only the descriptive statistics for the student veteran sample. Step two ? describe the data. This step involves describing the data using descriptive statistics and univariate analysis. According to Salkind (2010), univariate analysis examines only one dependent variable (p. 280) at a time. To conduct the univariate analysis, the PI used the [Statistical Package for Social Sciences] SPSS 16.0 analytical software and the descriptive statistics tools called Crosstabs and Frequencies to generate the descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics are the values describing the characteristics of a sample or population (Salkind, 2010, p. 379). For each research question, the PI reported descriptive statistics (frequencies of responses by gender, percentages of the distribution, totals for each gender, and mean, median, and mode values, if appropriate) for the student veteran sample. The PI reported all descriptive statistics in descriptive narratives along with tables in Chapter IV. Step three ? Testing. This step involved crosstabs or frequency computations to address each research question. Since the PI?s central research question was, ?What are the defining characteristics of AU?s enrolled student veterans?? the PI only reported descriptive statistics and the mean, median, and mode, if appropriate for the representative AU student veteran and to compare the representative male AU student veteran to the representative female AU student veteran. 80 Ethical Concerns The PI did not anticipate nor did he experience any ethical concerns or issues related to this study. Concerns for Internal, External, and Conclusion Validity External Validity. Trochim (2006) defines external validity ?as the degree to which the conclusions in your study would hold for other persons in other places and at other times.? Trochim (2006) identifies three major threats to external validity? wrong people (e.g., nonresident aliens), wrong places (i.e., away from the AU campus), and wrong times (i.e., between semesters). At the time the PI opened the survey to participants, the PI did not consider any of these threats a major concern. For the purposes of understanding currently enrolled AU student veterans, the PI surveyed the right people (veterans) at the right place (AU) at the right time (spring 2011 semester). Internal Validity. The first area of internal validity concerned cause and effect. This study did not examine the effects of a treatment and did not seek to find a cause or an effect. It merely sought to collect the experiences and opinions of student veterans and nonveteran students. This investigation did not involve before and after measurements. Therefore, the PI did not consider Trochim?s (2008) single 81 group threats32, multiple group threats33, or social interaction threats34 as concerns. Conclusion Validity. Threats to conclusion validity can lead to an incorrect recognition of relationships in the study?s observations. Trochim (2006) states there are essentially two kinds of errors concerning relationships: 1) finding no relationship where there is one and 2) finding a relationship where there is not one. Threats to finding no relationship where there is one include low reliability of measures, poor reliability of treatment implementation, random irrelevancies in the setting, random heterogeneity of respondents, and low statistical power. Of these four threats, only low reliability of measures was a concern. Low reliability of measures relates to the questionnaire and includes poor question wording and bad design/layout. The pilot test for content validity and subsequent fine-tuning of the survey questionnaire represent the PI?s explicit efforts to ensure and minimize any threats to conclusion validity. Concerns for the Generalizability of the Results Generalization is the act of estimating a population fact from a sample finding (Burns & Bush, 2008). The greater the number and variety of participants, the more generalizable the findings would be. The number of participants 32 Single group threats include history, maturation, testing instrumentation, mortality, and statistical regression. 33 Multiple group threats include selection-history, selection-maturation, selection-testing, selection- instrumentation, selection-mortality, and selection-statistical regression. 34 Social interaction threats include diffusion or imitation of treatment, compensatory rivalry, resentful demoralization, and compensatory equalization of treatment. 82 influenced the generalizability of the findings from the sample to the population. Within this study, the PI determined that generalizing the findings from the nonveteran sample was questionable as the sample only represented 0.39% (78/20,082) of the nonveteran subpopulation. Because the student veteran sample represented 22.9% (48/210) of the student veteran subpopulation, the PI believed generalizability to this subpopulation is possible. Limitation of the Methodology The extremely small size of the nonveteran student sample and the fact the nonveteran student sample did not mirror the characteristics of the nonveteran student subpopulation limit the generalizability of the findings to the nonveteran subpopulation and therefore did not permit a confident analysis comparing student veterans and nonveterans. Conclusion This chapter described the research design and rationale; listed the research questions; described the general population and the student veteran and nonveteran subpopulations; detailed the instrumentation and concern for content validity; reviewed the pilot testing; put into plain words the data collection process; illustrated the data analysis; addressed ethical and validity, reliability, and generalizability concerns; and summarized the methodology?s limitations. The PI made every attempt to conduct an unbiased and randomized study to compare student veterans to nonveteran students on the AU campus. While the 83 study garnered 22.9% of the known student veteran population and permits generalizing the findings of the student veteran sample to the student veteran population, the small number (0.39%) of and lack of variety amongst the nonveteran student participants make generalizing the findings of the nonveteran student sample to the nonveteran student population questionable. 84 Chapter IV: Analysis of Findings ?I certainly am not proud of the fact that for years, to me, the defense of our country was someone else?s problem, never mine or my children?s.? --- Frank Schaeffer, father of US Marine John Schaeffer (Williams, 2003). ?If I come out and say ?I?m 25? or ?I?m a veteran,? they won?t talk to me. They just don?t know socially how to deal with that.? --- Dan Parker, former US Marine, and political science and English major at The University of Kansas (Carpenter, 2008). Methodological approach The PI employed a nonexperimental research design to collect data because he could not control or manipulate the Independent Variable (IV) (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005), veteran status. That is, each participant entered the study already classified/categorized as either a veteran or nonveteran. The PI?s original intent was to compare enrolled student veterans to enrolled nonveteran students attending AU. After analyzing the questionnaires for completeness and outliers, the PI concluded generalizing the nonveteran student sample (78) to the overall AU nonveteran subpopulation (20,082; table 2, page 60) was not viable as the AU nonveteran sample lacked participant variety. However, since the AU student veteran sample (48) represented 22.8% of the AU student veteran subpopulation (210); since the AU male student veteran subsample (40) represented 22.3% of the AU male student veteran subpopulation (179); and since the AU female student veteran subsample (8) represented 25.8% of the AU 85 female student veteran subpopulation (31), this chapter will report only the descriptive statistics for AU?s student veteran participants. Therefore, this non- experimental study attempted to determine: 1. What demographic characteristics define AU male and female student veterans? 2. How do female AU student veterans spend their time compared to male AU student veterans? 3. What worries and concerns do male and female AU student veterans have or experience? 4. How do AU female and male student veterans perceive respect: a. From fellow AU student veterans? b. From fellow AU nonveteran students? c. From AU professors? d. From the AU administration? 5. How do male and female AU student veterans perceive the veteran- friendliness of the AU campus? Descriptive Statistics Since this study?s original intent was to compare student veterans and nonveteran students enrolled on the AU campus, the distinctive characteristic or IV was veteran status (e.g., veteran or nonveteran). All other variables were categorical and the statistics produced were descriptive. The descriptive statistics displayed in the tables in this chapter represent the quantitative data collected 86 from 48 questionnaires completed by AU student veterans. To avoid even the appearance of bias, the PI wrote the narrative statements in this chapter so the largest statistic appeared first and the smallest statistic came last. There are no statistics to report for survey questions one and two. Question one was the consent question. Question two determined, and was subsequently used, to remove those surveys completed by nonresident alien participants. Survey questions 3 through 58 provided the descriptive statistics to describe the typical AU student veteran, male student veteran, and female student veteran. Survey question 3, ?What is your gender?? Table 3 depicts the gender makeup of the student veteran sample. Within the sample, 83.3% (40) were males and 16.7% (8) were females. Table 3 Survey question 3, ?What is your gender?? Male Female Total Count 40 8 48 % total 83.3% 16.7% 100% Survey question 4 (restated), ?What is your age?? Table 4 depicts the minimum ages, the mean ages, the maximum ages, and the age ranges. The mean age for student veterans was 26.9 years with a low of 19.7 years and a high of 36.1 years. For the representative male student veteran, the mean age was 26.9 years and ranged from a low of 19.7 years to a high of 36.1 years. 87 For the representative female student veteran, the mean age was 26.8 years and ranged from a low of 21.9 years to a high of 31.2 years. Table 4 Survey question 4, ?What is your age?? Veteran Minimum Age Mean Age Maximum Age Range N Male 19.7 26.9 36.1 16.4 40 Female 21.9 26.8 31.2 9.3 8 Total 19.7 26.9 36.1 16.4 48 Survey question 5, ?What is your race?? Table 5 indicates the racial characteristics of the student veteran participants. Within the sample, 91.7% (44) were White, 4.2% (2) were Black, and 4.2% (2) were other. Female student veterans were 87.5% (7) White and 12.5% other (Italian/American). Male student veterans were 92.5% (37) White, 5.0% (2) Black, and 2.5% (1) other (Black/Korean). Table 5 Survey Question 5, ?What is your race?? Veteran White Black Other Total Female Count 7 1 8 % gender 87.5% 12.5% 100% % total 14.6% 2.1% 16.7% Male Count 37 2 1 40 % gender 92.5% 5.0% 2.5% 100% % total 77.1% 4.2% 2.1% 83.3% Total Count 44 2 2 48 % gender 91.7% 4.2% 4.2% 100% % total 91.7% 4.2% 4.2% 100% 88 Survey question 6, ?What is your ethnicity?? Table 6 provides the descriptive statistics for student veterans? ethnicity. Within the sample, non-Hispanics represented 93.8% (45) while Hispanics made up 6.2% (3). Male student veterans were 95.0% (38) non-Hispanic and 5.0% (2) Hispanic. Female student veterans were 87.5% (7) non-Hispanic and 12.5% (1) Hispanic. Table 6 Survey question 6, ?What is your ethnicity?? Veteran Hispanic Non-Hispanic Total Male Count 2 38 40 % gender 5.0% 95.0% 100% % total 4.2% 79.2% 83.3% Female Count 1 7 8 % gender 12.5% 87.5% 100% % total 2.1% 14.6% 16.7% Total Count 3 45 48 % gender 6.2% 93.8% 100% % total 6.2% 93.8% 100% Survey question 7, ?Are you an Alabama resident?? Table 7 portrays the student veteran sample as 75.0% (36) Alabama residents and 25.0% (12) nonresidents. Of the male student veterans, 70.0% (28) were Alabamians and 30.0% (12) were not. Of the female student veterans, 100% (8) were Alabamians. 89 Table 7 Survey question 7, ?Are you an Alabama resident?? Veteran No Yes Total Female Count 8 8 % gender 100.0% 100% % total 16.7% 16.7% Male Count 12 28 40 % gender 30.0% 70.0% 100% % total 25.0% 58.3% 83.3% Total Count 12 36 48 % gender 25.0% 75.0% 100% % total 25.0% 75.0% 100% Survey question 8, ?How large was the community in which your home was located during the time you were in high school?? Table 8 shows the descriptive statistics for hometown. Within the sample, 31.2% (15) came from towns with populations between 2,500 and 25,000, 22.9% (11) came from cities with populations between 25,000 and 100,000, 22.9% (11) came from cities with populations over 100,000, 18.8% (9) came from farms or the country, and 4.2% (4) came from villages with populations under 2,500. The mode value was three indicating the representative student veteran?s high school hometown had a population between 2,500 and 25,000. Of the male student veterans, 30.0% (12) were from towns with populations between 2,500 and 25,000, 27.5% (11) were from cities with populations between 25,000 and 100,000, 20.0% (8) were from cities with populations over 100,000, 17.5% (7) were from farms or the country, and 5.0% (2) were from villages with populations under 2,500. The mode value was three 90 indicating the representative male student veteran?s high school hometown had a population between 2,500 and 25,000. Of the female student veterans, 37.5% (3) were from towns with populations between 2,500 and 25,000, 37.5% (3) were from cities with populations over 100,000, 25.0% (2) were from farms or the country, while no female student veterans came from villages with populations under 2,500 or from cities with populations between 25,000 and 100,000. The mode values were three and five. Since the median value was three, the lowest mode value was used to determine the representative female student veteran?s high school hometown had a population between 2,500 and 25,000. Table 8 Survey question 8, ?What was the size of your hometown?? Veteran Farm/ Country <2,500 >2,500 >25,000 >100,000 Total Male Count 3 2 12 11 8 40 % gender 17.5% 5.0% 30.0% 27.5% 20.0% 100% % total 14.6% 4.2% 25.0% 22.9% 16.7% 83.3% Female Count 2 3 3 8 % gender 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% 100% % total 4.2% 6.2% 6.2% 16.7% Total Count 9 2 15 11 11 48 % gender 18.8% 4.2% 31.2% 22.9% 22.9% 100% % total 18.8% 4.2% 31.2% 22.9% 22.9% 100% 91 Survey question 9, ?Are you an undergraduate or a graduate student?? Table 9 provides the descriptive statistics for student classification. Within the sample, 87.5% (42) of the 48 student veterans were undergraduate students while 12.5% (6) were graduate students. One hundred percent of the eight female student veterans were undergraduates. Of the 40 male student veterans, 85.0% (34) were undergraduates and 15% (6) were graduate students. Table 9 Survey question 9,?Are you an undergraduate or graduate student?? Veteran Graduate Undergraduate Total Female Count 8 8 % gender 100.0% 100% % total 16.7% 16.7% Male Count 6 34 40 % gender 15.0% 85.0% 100% % total 12.5% 70.8% 83.3% Total Count 6 42 48 % gender 12.5% 87.5% 100% % total 12.5% 87.5% 100% Survey question 10, ?Where are you living at the present time?? Table 10 displays the descriptive statistics for living arrangements. Of the 48 student veterans, 79.2% (38) lived in an apartment or house, 8.3% (4) lived with parents or relatives, 8.3% (4) lived in a mobile home or trailer, 2.1% (1) lived in a military barracks, and 2.1% (1) lived in a military barracks in Iraq. No student veterans lived in a residence hall, a fraternity house, or a rooming or boarding 92 house. The mode value was five indicating the representative student veteran lived in an apartment or house. Within the male student veteran subsample, 80.0% (32) lived in an apartment or house, 10.0% (4) lived with parents or relatives, 7.5% (3) lived in a mobile home or trailer, and 2.5% (1) were deployed to Iraq and living in a military barracks. The mode value was five indicating the representative male student veteran lived in an apartment or house. Within the female student veteran subsample, 75.0% (6) lived in an apartment or house, 12.5% (1) lived in a mobile home or trailer, and 12.5% (1) lived in a military barracks. The mode value was five indicating the representative female student veteran lived in an apartment or house. Table 10 Survey question 10, ?Where are you living at the present time?? Veteran Parents or Relatives Apt or House Mobile home or Trailer Military Barracks Military Barracks (Iraq) Total Male Count 4 32 3 1 40 % gender 10.0% 80.0% 7.5% 2.5% 100% % total 8.3% 66.7% 6.2% 2.1% 83.3% Feale Count 6 1 1 8 % gender 75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100% % total 12.5% 2.1% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 4 38 4 1 1 48 % gender 8.3% 79.2% 8.3% 2.1% 2.1% 100% % total 8.3% 79.2% 8.3% 2.1% 2.1% 100% 93 Survey Question #11, ?How many hours each week do you work for pay?? Table 11 depicts the descriptive statistics for work for pay. Within the full sample, 37.5% (18) did not work, 14.6% (7) worked 16 to 20 hours a week, 14.6% (7) worked over 40 hours a week, 8.3% (4) worked 11 to 15 hours a week, 4.2% (2) worked one to five hours a week, 4.2% (2) worked six to ten hours a week, 4.2% (2) worked 21 to 25 hours a week, 4.2% (2) worked 26 to 30 hours a week, 4.2% (2) worked 31 to 35 hours a week, and 4.2% (2) worked 36 to 40 hours a week. The mode value was one indicating the representative student veteran did not work. Of the 40 male student veterans, 32.5% (13) did not work, 17.5% (7) worked 16 to 20 hours a week, 15.0% (6) worked over 40 hours a week, 7.5% (3) worked 11 to 15 hours a week, 5.0% (2) worked one to five hours a week, 5.0% (2) worked six to ten hours a week, 5.0% (2) worked 21 to 25 hours a week, 5.0% (2) worked 26 to 30 hours a week, 5.0% (2) worked 31 to 35 hours a week, and 2.5% (1) worked 36 to 40 hours a week. The mode value was one indicating the representative male student veteran did not work; yet the median of 4.5 indicated he worked between 11 and 15 hours and 16 to 20 hours. Of the female student veterans, 62.5% (5) did not work, 12.5% (1) worked 11 to 15 hours a week, 12.5% (1) worked 36 to 40 hours a week, and 12.5% (1) worked over 40 hours a week. None of the female student veterans worked one to five hours a week, six to ten hours a week, 16 to 20 hours a week, 21 to 25 hours a week, 26 to 30 hours a week, or 31 to 35 hours a week. The mode value was one indicating the representative female student veteran did not work. 94 Tab le 11 Su rvey qu estio n 1 1, ?H ow man y h ou rs e ach w ee k d o yo u wo rk f or pa y? ? Tot al 40 100% 83 .3% 8 100% 16 .7% 48 100% 100% Ove r 40 ho urs 6 15 .0% 12 .5% 1 12 .5% 2.1 % 7 14 .6% 14 .6% 36 -40 ho urs 1 2.5% 2.1 % 1 12 .5% 2.1 % 2 4.2 % 4.2 % 31 -35 ho urs 2 5.0% 4.2 % 2 4.2 % 4.2 % 26 -30 ho urs 2 5.0% 4.2 % 2 4.2 % 4.2 % 21 ?25 ho urs 2 5.0% 4.2 % 2 4.2 % 4.2 % 16 -20 ho urs 7 17 .5% 14 .6% 7 14 .6% 14 .6% 11 -15 ho urs 3 7.5% 6.2 % 1 12 .5% 2.1 % 4 8.3 % 8.3 % 6? 10 ho urs 2 5.0% 4.2 % 2 4.2 % 4.2 % 1? 5 ho urs 2 5.0% 4.2 % 2 4.2 % 4.2 % Did Not W ork 13 32 .5% 27 .1% 5 62 .5% 10 .4% 18 37 .5% 37 .5% Ve tera ns Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Count % ge nd er % tota l Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Ma le Fem ale Tot al 95 Survey question 12 (restated), ?In what branch of the Armed Forces did you serve?? Table 12 indicates 27.1% (13) served in the Army, 20.8% (10) served in Army Reserve or National Guard, 18.8% (9) served in the Marine Corps, 12.5% (6) served in the Navy, 10.4% (5) served in the Air Force, 6.2% (3) served in the Air Force Reserve, and 4.2% (2) served in the Marine Corps Reserve. The mode value was two indicating the representative student veteran had served in the Army. Within the female student veteran subsample, 37.5% (3) served in the Army, 37.5% (3) served in the Army Reserve or National Guard, 12.5% (1) served in the Navy, and 12.5% (1) served in the Air Force. No female student veteran served in the Marine Corps, Marine Corps Reserve, or the Air Force Reserve. The mode values were one and two indicating the representative female student veteran had served in the Army or the Army Reserve or National Guard Of the male student veteran subsample, 25% (10) served in the Army, 22.5% (9) served in the Marine Corps, 17.5% (7) served in the Army Reserve or National Guard, 12.5% (5) served in the Navy, 10.0% (4) served in the Air Force, 7.5% (3) served in the Air Force Reserve, and 5.0% (2) served in the Marine Corps Reserve. The mode value was one indicating the representative male student veteran had served in the Army. 96 Table 12 Survey question 12, ?In what branch of the Armed Forces did you serve?? Veteran USA USA R&NG USN USMC USMC Res USAF USAF Res Total Female Count 3 3 1 1 8 % gender 37.5% 37.5% 12.5% 12.5% 100% % total 6.2% 6.2% 2.1% 2.1% 16.7% Male Count 10 7 5 9 2 4 3 40 % gender 25.0% 17.5% 12.5% 22.5% 5.0% 10.0% 7.5% 100% % total 20.8% 14.6% 10.4% 18.8% 4.2% 8.3% 6.2% 83.3% Total Count 13 10 6 9 2 5 3 48 % gender 27.1% 20.8% 12.5% 18.8% 4.2% 10.4% 6.2% 100% % total 27.1% 20.8% 12.5% 18.8% 4.2% 10.4% 6.2% 100% Note. USA = US Army; USAR&NG = US Army Reserve & National Guard; USN = US Navy; USMC = US Marine Crops; USMC Res = US Marine Corps Reserve; USAF = US Air Force; USAF Res = US Air Force Reserve. Survey question 13, ?When did you enter military service?? and survey question 14 (part A), ?When did you separate from military service?? The PI combined survey questions 13 and 14 (part A) to read, ?What was the length of your military service?? Table 13 indicates the average length of military service was 5.6 years and ranged from a low of 0.5 years to a high of 11.1 years. Male student veterans had served an average of 5.8 years with a low of 0.5 years and a high of 11.1 years. Female student veterans had served an average of 4.9 years ranging from 2.0 years to 10.9 years. 97 Table 13 Survey question 13 and 14 (combined), ?What was the length of your military service?? Veteran Minimum length of service Mean Length of service Maximum Length of service Range N Male .50 5.77 11.09 10.59 40 Female 2.00 4.87 10.09 8.09 8 Total .50 5.62 11.09 10.59 48 Survey question 14 (part B), ?Are you still serving in the Armed Forces?? Table 14 provides the descriptive statistics for still serving and indicates 41.7% (20) were no longer in service while 58.3% were still serving. Of those still serving, 22.9% (11) were in the Army Reserve or National Guard, 10.4% (5) were in the Army, 10.4% (5) were in the Air Force Reserve, 6.2% (3) were in the Marine Corps Reserve, 4.2% (2) were in the Navy, and 4.2% (2) were in the Marine Corps. For female student veterans, 50.0% (4) were no longer serving, 37.5% (3) remained in the Army Reserve or National Guard, 12.5% (1) remained in the Army, and none remained in the Navy, Marine Corps, Marine Corps Reserve, or Air Force Reserve. For male student veterans, 40% (16) were no longer serving, 20% (8) remained in the Army Reserve or National Guard, 12.5% (5) remained in the Air Force Reserve, 10% (4) remained in the Army, 7.5% (3) remained in the Marine Corps Reserve, 5.0% (2) remained in the Navy, and 5.0% (2) remained in the Marine Corps. 98 Table 14 Survey question 14 (part B),?Are you still serving in the Armed Forces?? Veteran No USA USA R&NG USN USMC USMC Res USAF Res Total Male Count 16 4 8 2 2 3 5 40 % gender 40.0% 10.0% 20.0% 5.0% 5.0% 7.5% 12.5% 100% % total 33.3% 8.3% 16.7% 4.2% 4.2% 6.2% 10.4% 83.3% Female Count 4 1 3 8 % gender 50.0% 12.5% 37.5% 100% % total 8.3% 2.1% 6.2% 16.7% Total Count 20 5 11 2 2 3 5 48 % gender 41.7% 10.4% 22.9% 4.2% 4.2% 6.2% 10.4% 100% % total 41.7% 10.4% 22.9% 4.2% 4.2% 6.2% 10.4% 100% Note. USA = US Army; USAR&NG = US Army Reserve & National Guard; USN = US Navy; USMC = US Marine Crops; USMC Res = US Marine Corps Reserve; USAF = US Air Force; USAF Res = US Air Force Reserve. Survey question 15, ?What was the highest pay grade you held in the Armed Forces?? Table 15 points out the descriptive statistics for highest pay grade held. Within the sample, 41.7% (20) were E-4s, 35.4% (17) were E-5s, 12.5% (6) were E-6s, 4.2% (2) were E-2s, 4.2% (2) were O-3s, and 2.1% (1) was an E-3. The mode value of five indicated the representative student veteran had been an E-4. Within the male student veteran subsample, 37.5% (15) were E-5s, 35% (14) were E-4s, 15.0% were E-6s, 5.0% were E-2s, 5.0% (2) were O-3s, and 2.5% (1) were E-3s. The mode value of six indicated the representative male student veteran had been an E-5. Within the female student veteran subsample, 75.0% (6) were E-4s, and 25.0 were E-5s. The mode value of five indicated the representative female student veteran had been an E-4 99 Table 15 Survey question 15, ?What was the highest pay grade you held in the Armed Forces?? Veteran E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 E-6 O-3 Total Male Count 2 1 14 15 6 2 40 % gender 5.0% 2.5% 35.0% 37.5% 15.0% 5.0% 100% % total 4.2% 2.1% 29.2% 31.2% 12.5% 4.2% 83.3% Female Count 6 2 8 % gender 75.0% 25.0% 100% % total 12.5% 4.2% 16.7% Total Count 2 1 20 17 6 2 48 % gender 4.2% 2.1% 41.7% 35.4% 12.5% 4.2% 100% % total 4.2% 2.1% 41.7% 35.4% 12.5% 4.2% 100% Survey question 16, ?Did you serve outside the 50 United States?? Within the sample, table 16 indicates 85.4% (41) had served in a foreign country while 14.6% (7) had not served outside the 50 United States (US). Within the female student veteran sample, 87.5% (7) had served outside the 50 US while 12.5% (1) had not. Of the male student veterans, 85.0% (34) had served outside the 50 US while 15% (6) had not. 100 Table 16 Survey question 16a, ?Did you serve outside the 50 United States?? Veteran Yes No Total Male Count 34 6 40 % gender 85.0% 15.0% 100% % total 70.8% 12.5% 83.3% Female Count 7 1 8 % gender 87.5% 12.5% 100% % total 14.6% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 41 7 48 % gender 85.4% 14.6% 100% % total 85.4% 14.6% 100% Table 17 indicates of those 41 student veterans who had served outside the 50 United States, 85.4% (35) had served on land, 9.8% (4) had served on land and sea, and 4.9% (2) had served at sea. Of the female student veterans with time served outside the 50 United States, 100.0% (7) had served in a foreign country. No female student veterans had served at sea or on land and sea. Of the 34 male student veterans, 82.4% (28) had served in a foreign country, 9.8% (4) had both outside the 50 US and on sea duty, and 4.9% (2) had served at sea. 101 Table 17 Survey question 16b, ?Did you serve outside the 50 United States?? Veteran Land Duty Sea duty Land And Sea duty Total Male Count 28 2 4 34 % gender 82.4% 5.9% 11.8% 100% % total 68.3% 4.9% 9.8% 82.9% Female Count 7 7 % gender 100.0% 100% % total 17.1% 17.1% Total Count 35 2 4 48 % gender 85.4% 4.9% 9.8% 100% % total 85.4% 4.9% 9.8% 100% Survey question 17, ?If you served in land areas outside the 50 United States, list those area and the length of your tours.? Table 18 indicates of the 39 student veterans (35 with land duty and four with land and sea duty) who had served in a foreign country, 56.4% (22) had served in one foreign country, 30.8% (12) had served in two foreign countries, 7.7% (3) had served in three foreign countries, and 5.1% (2) had served in four foreign countries. The mode value of one indicated the representative student veteran had spent time in one foreign country. Of the 32 male student veterans having foreign service, 56.2% (18) had served in one foreign country, 28.1% (9) had served in two foreign countries, 9.4% (3) had served in three foreign countries, and 6.2% (2) had served in four foreign countries. The mode value of one indicated the representative male student veteran had spent time in one foreign country. 102 Of the eight female student veterans with overseas service, 57.1% (4) had served in one foreign country while 42.9% (10) had served in two foreign countries. The mode value of one indicated the representative female student veteran had spent time in one foreign country. Table 18 Survey question 17a, ?In how many foreign countries did you serve?? Veteran 1 2 3 4 Total Male Count 19 8 3 2 32 % gender 59.4% 25.0% 9.4% 6.2% 100% % total 48.7% 20.5% 7.7% 5.1% 82.1% Female Count 5 2 7 % gender 71.4% 28.6% 100% % total 12.8% 5.1% 17.9% Total Count 24 10 3 2 39 % gender 61.5% 25.6% 7.7% 5.1% 100% % total 61.5% 25.6% 7.7% 5.1% 100% Table 19 indicates, of the 39 student veterans (35 with land duty and four with land and sea duty) who had service in a foreign country, the mean time served was 18.8 months. The shortest time served in a foreign country was three months and the longest period was 46 months. Of the seven females who had served in a foreign country, the mean time served was 18.1 months. The shortest period was three months and the longest period was 36 months. Of the 32 males who had served in a foreign country, the mean time served was 18.9 months. The shortest time was three months and the longest period was 46 months. 103 Table 19 Survey question 17b, ?How many months did you serve in foreign countries?? Veteran Minimum time served in foreign countriesa Mean time served in foreign countriesa Maximum time served in foreign countriesa Range N Male 3 18.94 46 43 32 Female 3 18.14 36 33 7 Total 3 18.79 46 43 39 aTime shown is in months. Within the student veteran sample, table 20 shows 17 student veterans did not serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of those 31 that did, 87.1% (27) served in Iraq, 9.7% in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and 3.2% (1) in Afghanistan only. Of the 26 male student veterans who had served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, 84.6% (22) served in Iraq only, 11.5% (3) served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and 3.8% (1) served in Afghanistan only. Of the five female student veterans who had served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, 100.0% (5) served in Iraq while none served in Afghanistan or Iraq and Afghanistan. 104 Table 20 Survey question 17c, ?Did you serve in Iraq or Afghanistan?? Veteran Iraq Afghanistan Iraq And Afghanistan Total Male Count 22 1 3 26 % gender 84.6% 3.8% 11.5% 100% % total 71.0% 3.2% 9.7% 83.9% Female Count 5 5 % gender 100% 100% % total 16.1% 16.1% Total Count 27 1 3 31 % gender 87.1% 3.2% 9.7% 100% % total 87.1% 3.2% 9.7% 100% Survey question 1835, ?Had you applied to any college or university for admission before you entered military service?? Of the 48 student veterans in the sample, table 21 indicates 54.2% (26) had applied for admission and had attended college before entering military service, 27.1% (13) had not applied for admission before entering military service, and 18.8% (9) had applied for admission but had not actually attended college before entering military service. The mode value of three indicated the representative student veteran had attended college before he had entered military service. Of the 40 male student veterans, 50.0% (20) had applied for admission and had attended college before entering military service, 30.0% (12) had not applied for admission, and 20.0% (8) had applied for admission but had not 35 The PI discovered a discrepancy in the descriptive statistics on questions 18 and 20. Each question had an answer choice for attended college. On question 18, 20 males answered they had attended college while on question 20, only 11 males indicated the same. 105 actually attended college before entering military service. The mode value of three indicated the representative male student veteran had attended college before he had entered military service. Of the eight female student veterans, 75.0% (6) had applied for admission and had attended college before entering military service, 12.5% (1) had not applied for admission, and 12.5% (1) had applied for admission but had not actually attended college before entering military service. The mode value of three indicated the representative female student veteran had attended college before she had entered military service. Table 21 Survey question 1836, ?Had you applied to any college or university for admission before you entered military service?? Veteran Had not applied Yes, didn?t attend Yes, attended Total Male Count 12 20 8 40 % gender 30.0% 50.0% 20.0% 100% % total 25.0% 41.7% 16.7% 83.3% Female Count 1 6 1 8 % gender 12.5% 75.0% 12.5% 100% % total 2.1% 12.5% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 13 26 9 48 % gender 27.1% 54.2% 18.8% 100% % total 27.1% 54.2% 18.8% 100% 36 See footnote 35 on page 104. 106 Survey question 19, ?If you started attending college before you entered military service how many terms of college did you complete before leaving for military service?? Of the 26 student veterans from the previous question who had attended college before entering military service, table 22 indicates one failed to answer this question. Of the remaining 25 student veterans, 28.0% (7) had completed two terms, 12.0% (3) had completed one term, 12.0% (3) had completed four terms, 12.0% (3) had completed five terms, 12.0% (3) had completed nine or more terms, 8.0% (2) had completed three terms, 8.0% (2) had completed eight terms, 4.0% (1) had completed six terms, and 4.0% (1) had completed seven terms. The mode value was two indicating the representative student veteran had completed two terms. Of the six female student veterans who had attended college before entering military service, 50.0% (3) had completed two terms, 16.7% (1) had completed three terms, 16.7% (1) had completed five terms, 16.7% (3) had completed eight terms, and none had completed one, four, six, seven, or nine more terms. The mode value was two indicating the representative female student veteran had completed two terms. Of the 20 male student veterans from the previous question who had attended college before entering military service, one failed to answer this question. Of the remaining 19 male student veterans, 21.1% (4) had completed two terms, 15.8% (3) had completed one term, 15.8% (3) had completed four terms, 15.8% (3) had completed nine or more terms, 10.5% (2) had completed five terms, 5.3% (1) had completed three terms, 5.3% (1) had completed six 107 terms, 5.3% (1) had completed seven terms, and 5.3% (1) had completed eight terms. The mode value was two indicating the representative male student veteran had completed two terms. 108 Tab le 22 ?If yo u 108 ervi c a tte nd ing co lle ge be fore yo u e nte red mi lita ry 108 ervi ce s h ow man y t erm s o f co lle ge di d yo u co mp let e b efo re le avin g f or m ilita ry 108 ervi ce s?? Tot al 6 100% 24 .0% 19 100% 76 .0% 25 100% 100% 9 o r mo re term s 3 15 .8% 12 .0% 3 12 .0% 12 .0% 8 term s 1 16 .7% 4.0 % 1 5.3 % 4.0 % 2 8.0 % 8.0 % 7 term s 1 5.3% 4.0 % 1 4.0 % 4.0 % 6 terns 1 5.3 % 4.0 % 1 4.0 % 4.0 % 5 term s 1 16 .7% 4.0 % 2 10 .5% 8.0 % 3 12 .0% 12 .0% 4 term s 3 15 .8% 12 .0% 3 12 .0% 12 .0% 3 term s 1 16 .7% 4.0 % 1 5.3 % 4.0 % 2 8.0 % 8.0 % 2 term s 3 50 .0% 12 .0% 4 21 .1% 16 .0% 7 28 .0% 28 .0% 1 t erm 3 15 .8% 12 .0% 3 12 .0% 12 .0% Ve tera ns Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Fema le Ma le Tot al 109 Survey question 2037, ?Regardless of how you felt about going to college when you left high school, do you think you actually would have gone to college if you hadn?t entered military service?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 23 indicated 47.9% (23) were sure they would have gone to college, 35.4% (17) did attend college before entering military service, 10.4% (5) probably would have gone to college (but not sure), 4.2% (2) would not have gone to college, and 2.1% (1) probably would not have gone to college. After ignoring those 17 student veterans who had attended college, the resulting mode was four indicating the representative student veteran would have gone to college if he had not entered military service. Of the 40 male student veterans, 57.5% (23) were sure they would have gone to college, 27.5% (1) did attend college before entering military service, 7.5% (3) probably would have gone to college (but not sure), 5.0% (2) would not have gone to college, and 2.5% (1) probably would not have gone to college. After ignoring those 11 males who had attended college, the resulting mode value was four indicating he would have gone to college if the representative male student veteran had not entered military service. Of the eight female student veterans, 75.0% (6) did attend college before entering military service and 25.0% (2) probably would have gone to college (but not sure). After ignoring those six females who had attended college, the resulting mode value was two indicating the representative female student veteran probably would have gone to college if she had not entered military service. 37 See footnote 35 on page 104. 110 Table 23 Survey question 20, ?Regardless of how you felt about going to college when you left high school, do you think you actually would have gone to college if you hadn?t entered military service?? Veteran Would not have gone Probably would not have gone Probably would have gone Would have gone Attended before Service Total Male Count 2 1 3 23 11 40 % gender 5.0% 2.5% 7.5% 57.5% 27.5% 100% % total 4.2% 2.1% 6.2% 47.9% 22.9% 83.3% Female Count 2 6 8 % gender 25.0% 75.0% 100% % total 4.2% 12.5% 16.7% Total Count 2 1 5 23 17 48 % gender 4.2% 2.1% 10.4% 47.9% 35.4% 100% % total 4.2% 2.1% 10.4% 47.9% 35.4% 100% Survey question 21, ?Are you now drawing (or have you applied for) veterans? education benefits from the Veterans Administration?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 24 indicates 60.4% (29) were using the Post-9/11 GI Bill; 4.2% (2) were using the Montgomery GI Bill ? Active Duty (MGIB-AD); 4.2% (2) were using the Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP); 4.2% (2) were using the MGIB ? Selective Reserve (MGIB-SR); and 2.1% (1) were using active duty tuition assistance. Included in the student veteran sample were student veterans who were drawing benefits from multiple programs. 6.2% (3) were using both Post-9/11 and MGIB-AD benefits, 4.2% (2) were using both Post-9/11 and REAP benefits, and 2.1% (1) were using the MGIB-AD, the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program (VREP), and Alabama state benefits. Additionally, 6.2% (3) had not applied for education 111 benefits; 4.2% (2) were not eligible for education benefits, and 2.1% (1) had exhausted their benefits. Of the eight female student veterans, 62.5% (5) were using Post-9/11 benefits, 12.5% (1) were using MGIB-SR benefits, 12.5% (1) were using active duty Tuition Assistance (TA), and 12.5% (1) were using both MGIB-AD and Post- 9/11 benefits. Of the 40 male student veterans, 60% (24) were using Post-9/11 benefits; 5.0% (2) were using MGIB-AD benefits; 5.0% (2) were using REAP benefits; 2.5% (1) were using MGIB-SR benefits; 5.0% (2) were using both Post-9/11 and MGIB-AD benefits; 5.0% (2) were using both Post-9/11 and REAP benefits; 2.5% (1) were using Post-9/11, MGIB-AD, and Alabama state benefits; 7.5% (3) had not applied for benefits, 5.0% (2) were not eligible for benefits, and 2.5% (1) had exhausted their education benefits. 112 Tab le 24 Su rvey qu estio n 2 1, Are yo u n ow drawi ng (or ha ve yo u a pp lie d f or) ve teran s e du ca tio n b en efits from t he V ete ran s Ad ministrat ion ?? Tota l 40 100% 83.3 % 8 100% 16.7 % 48 100% 100% No te. MG IB- AD = M on tgo me ry GI Bill ? Activ e Du ty; RE AP = Re serv e E du cat ion As sis tan ce Pro gram; M GIB -SR = M on tgo me ry GI B ill ? S ele cti ve Re serv e; VRE P = Vo cat ion al Re hab ilita tio n a nd Em ploy me nt Pro gram. Us ed up 1 2.5% 2.1% 1 2.1 % 2.1% Hav e not ap pli ed 3 7.5% 6.2% 3 6.2% 6.2% Not Eligi ble 2 5.0% 4.2% 2 4.2% 4.2% Pos t- 9/11 & VRE P & A L stat e 1 2.5% 2.1% 1 2.1% 2.1% Pos t- 9/11 & RE AP 2 5.0% 4.2% 2 4.2% 4.2% Pos t- 9/11 & MG IB - AD 2 5.0% 4.2% 1 12.5% 2.1% 3 6.2% 6.2% Ac tiv e Duty TA 1 12.5% 2.1% 1 2.1% 2.1% Mg iB- SR (Chap 16 06) 1 2.5% 2.1% 1 12.5% 2.1% 2 4.2% 4.2% RE AP (Chap 16 07) 2 5.0% 4.2% 2 4.2% 4.2% MG IB - AD (Chap 30) 2 5.0% 4.2% 2 4.2% 4.2% Pos t- 9/11 (Chap 33) 24 60.0% 50.0% 5 62.5% 10.4% 29 60.4% 60.4% Vete ran s Coun t % gen de r % tota l Coun t % gen de r % tota l Coun t % gen de r % tota l Mal e Fem ale To tal 113 Survey question 22, ?Do you think you would have come to college after completing your military service if the financial aid provided by veterans? benefits had not been available to you?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 25 shows 50.0% (24) would have come to college if veterans? benefits had not been available, 25.0% (12) probably would have, 12.5% (6) probably would not have come, and 12.5% (6) would not have come. The mode value was four indicating the representative student veteran would have gone to college even if VA benefits had not been available. Of the 40 male student veterans, 50.0% (20) would have come, 25.0% (10) probably would have come, 12.5% (5) probably would not have come, and 12.5% (5) would not have come. The mode value was four indicating the representative male student veteran would have gone to college even if VA benefits had not been available. Of the eight female student veterans, 50.0% (4) would have come, 25.0% (2) probably would have come, 12.5% (1) probably would not have come, and 12.5% (1) would not have come. The mode value was four indicating the representative female student veteran would have gone to college even if VA benefits had not been available. 114 Table 25 Survey question, ?Do you think you would have come to college after completing your military service if the financial aid provided by veterans? benefits had not been available to you?? Veteran No Probably not Probably would have Yes Total Male Count 5 5 10 20 40 % gender 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 50.0% 100% % total 10.4% 10.4% 20.8% 41.7% 83.3% Female Count 1 1 2 4 8 % gender 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 50.0% 100% % total 2.1% 2.1% 4.2% 8.3% 16.7% Total Count 6 6 12 24 48 % gender 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 50.0% 100% % total 12.5% 12.5% 25.0% 50.0% 100% Survey question 23, ?On the whole, would you say that your experience while in service made you more or less eager to go to college?? Of the 48 student veterans and their military experiences, table 26 portrays 57.1% (24) became more eager to go to college, 38.1% (16) felt no change in their feelings about attending college, and 4.8% (2) became less eager to attend college. Of the eight female student veterans, 66.7% (4) felt no change in their eagerness to go to college, and 33.3% (2) felt more eager to attend college. Of the 40 male student veterans, 61.1% (22) felt more eager to attend college, 33.3% (12) felt no change in their eagerness to go to college, and 5.6% (2) felt less eager to go to college. 115 Survey question 24, ?On the whole, how would you say your military service experience, or the fact of having been in service, has affected your ability to do good scholastic work in college?? Table 27 reveals 68.8% (33) felt they were doing better scholastically, 25.0% (12) felt they were performing no better or no worse, and 6.2% (3) felt they were doing worse. Of the eight female student veterans, 87.5% (7) felt they were performing better, and 12.5% (1) felt they were performing no better or worse. Of the 40 male student veterans, 65.0% (26) felt they were doing better, 27.5% (11) felt they were performing no better or no worse, and 7.5% (3) felt they were doing worse. Table 26 Survey question 23, ?On the whole, would you say that your experience while in service made you more or less eager to go to college?? Veteran More eager No change Less eager Total Male Count 22 12 2 36 % gender 61.1% 33.3% 5.6% 100% % total 52.4% 28.6% 4.8% 85.7% Female Count 2 4 6 % gender 33.3% 66.7% 100% % total 4.8% 9.5% 14.3% Total Count 24 16 2 42 % gender 57.1% 38.1% 4.8% 100% % total 57.1% 38.1% 4.8% 100% 116 Table 27 Survey Question 24, ?On the whole, how would you say your military experience, or the fact of having been in service, has affected your ability to do good scholastic work in college?? Veteran Doing better No better, no worse Doing worse Total Male Count 26 11 3 40 % gender 65.0% 27.5% 7.5% 100% % total 54.2% 22.9% 6.2% 83.3% Female Count 7 1 8 % gender 87.5% 12.5% 100% % total 14.6% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 33 12 3 48 % gender 68.8% 25.0% 6.2% 100% % total 68.8% 25.0% 6.2% 100% Survey question 25, ?How many children do you have?? Table 28 shows 83.3% (40) of the student veterans did not have children, 12.5% (6) had one child, and 4.2% had two children. Of the female student veterans, 75.0% (6) did not have children, 12.5% (1) had one child, and 12.5% (1) had two children. Of the male student veterans, 85.0% (34) did not have children, 12.5% (5) had one child, and 2.5% (1) had two children. 117 Table 28 Survey question 25, ?How many children do you have?? Veteran None 1 child 2 children Total Male Count 34 5 1 40 % gender 85.0% 12.5% 2.5% 100% % total 70.8% 10.4% 2.1% 83.3% Female Count 6 1 1 8 % gender 75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100% % total 12.5% 2.1% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 40 6 2 48 % gender 83.3% 12.5% 4.2% 100% % total 83.3% 12.5% 4.2% 100% Survey question 26 (restated), ?What is your marital status?? Table 29 provides the descriptive statistics for marital status. Of the 48 student veterans, 45.8% (22) were single, 33.3% (16) were married, 10.4% (5) were single, but living with their significant other, 6.2% (3) were divorced, 4.2% (2) were separated, and none were engaged or widowed. Of the 40 male student veterans, 50.0% (20) were single, 27.5% (11) were married, 12.5% (5) were single, but living with their significant other, 7.5% (3) were divorced, and 2.5% (2) were separated. Of the eight female student veterans, 62.5% (5) were married, 25.0% (2) were single, and 12.5% (1) were separated. 118 Table 29 Survey question 26, ?What is your marital status?? Veteran Single Married Single, living w/ significant other Separated Divorced Total Male Count 20 11 5 1 3 40 % gender 50.0% 27.5% 12.5% 2.5% 7.5% 100% % total 41.7% 22.9% 10.4% 2.1% 6.2% 83.3% Female Count 2 5 1 8 % gender 25.0% 62.5% 12.5% 100% % total 4.2% 10.4% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 22 16 5 2 3 48 % gender 45.8% 33.3% 10.4% 4.2% 6.2% 100% % total 45.8% 33.3% 10.4% 4.2% 6.2% 100% Survey question 27, ?If married, how long have you been married?? Table 30 provides the descriptive statistics for length of marriage. Of the 16 married student veterans, 25.0% (4) had been married less than one year, 12.5% (2) had been married more than one year, 12.5% (2) had been married more than two years, 12.5% (2) had been married more than three years, 12.5% (2) had been married more than five years, 12.5% (2) had been married more than nine years, 6.2% (1) had been married more than six years, and 6.2% (1) had been married more than seven years. Of the five married female student veterans, 20% (1) had been married less than one year, 20% (1) had been married more than five years, 20% (1) had been married more than six years, 20% (1) had been married more than seven years, and 20% (1) had been married more than nine years. 119 Of the 11 married male student veterans, 27.3% (3) had been married less than one year, 18.2% (2) had been married more than one year, 18.2% (2) had been married more than two years, 18.2% (2) had been married more than three years, 9.1% (1) had been married more than five years, and 9.1% (1) had been married more than nine years. 120 Tab le 30 Su rvey qu estio n 2 7, ?If marr ied , h ow l on g h ov e yo u b ee n marr ied ?? Tot al 8 100% 24 .0% 19 100% 76 .0% 25 100% 100% Mo re tha n 9 ye ars 1 9.1% 6.2 % 1 20 .0% 6.2 % 2 12 .5% 12 .5% Mo re tha n 7 ye ars 1 20 .0% 6.2 % 1 6.2 % 6.2 % Mo re tha n 6 ye ars 1 20 .0% 6.2 % 1 6.2 % 6.2 % Mo re tha n 5 ye ars 1 9.1% 6.2 % 1 20 .0% 6.2 % 2 12 .5% 12 .5% Mo re tha n 3 ye ars 2 18 .2% 12 .5% 2 12 .5% 12 .5% Mo re tha n 2 ye ars 2 18 .2% 12 .5% 2 12 .5% 12 .5% Mo re tha n 1 ye ar 2 18 .2% 12 .5% 2 12 .5% 12 .5% Le ss tha n 1 ye ar 3 27 .3% 18 .8% 1 20 .0% 6.2 % 4 25 .0% 25 .0% Ve tera ns Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Fema le Ma le Tot al Note: Due to the small number of married student veterans (five females and 11 males), the PI did not include the descriptive statistics for those survey questions (28 through 30) related to marriage. 121 Survey question 31, ?What was your ACT score?? Table 31 indicates that of the 20 veterans who reported having taken the ACT, the representative student veteran?s mean ACT score was 25.5 and ranged from a low of 19 to a high of 33. For those 26 male student veterans, the mean ACT score was 25.08 and ranged from a low of 19 to a high of 30. For those four female student veterans, the mean ACT score was 28.25 and ranged from a low of 21 to a high of 33. Table 31 Survey question 31, ?What was your ACT Score?? Veteran Minimum ACT Mean ACT Maximum ACT Range N Male 19 25.08 30 11 26 Female 21 28.25 33 12 4 Total 19 25.50 33 14 30 Survey question 32, ?In what college are you enrolled?? Table 32 provides the descriptive statistics for college in which enrolled. One student veteran failed to respond to this question. Of the remaining 47 student veterans, 29.8% (14) were enrolled in Business; 29.8% (14) in Liberal Arts; 12.8% (6) in Engineering; 8.5% (4) in Agriculture; 8.5% (4) in Education; 4.3% (2) in Architecture, Design, and Construction; 2.1% (1) in Human Sciences; 2.1% (1) in Nursing; and 2.1% (1) in Sciences and Mathematics. Of the 39 male student veterans responding, 33.3% (13) were in Business; 28.2% (11) were in Liberal Arts; 15.4% (6) were in Engineering; 7.7% (3) were in Agriculture; 5.1% (2) were in Architecture, Design, and Construction; 122 5.1% (2) were in Education; 2.6% (1) were in Nursing; and 2.6% (1) were in Sciences and Mathematics. Of the eight female student veterans responding, 37.5% (3) were in Liberal Arts, 25.0% (2) were in Education, 12.5% (1) were in Agriculture, 12.5% (1) were in Business, and 12.5% (1) were in Human Sciences. 123 Tab le 32 Su rvey qu estio n 3 2 (r esta ted ), ?In wh at co lle ge are y ou en roll ed ?? Tot al 39 100% 83 .0% 8 100% 17 .0% 47 100% 100% Note . A GRI = A gric ulture ; A RCH = A rchi tec ture, Des ign, & Cons truc tion ; B US I = B us ines s; E DU C = E du cat ion ; E NG R = Eng inee rin g; HU SC = H um an S cien ces ; LA RT ? Lib eral A rts ; NUR S = Nurs ing; SCMH = S cien ce & Ma them ati cs . S CM H 1 2.6% 2.1 % 1 2.1 % 2.1 % NURS 1 2.6% 2.1 % 1 2.1 % 2.1 % LA RT 11 28 .2% 23 .4% 3 37 .5% 6.4 % 14 29 .8% 29 .8% HU SC 1 12 .5% 2.1 % 1 2.1 % 2.1 % ENGR 6 15 .4% 12 .8% 6 12 .8% 12 .8% EDU C 2 5.1% 4.3 % 2 25 .0% 4.3 % 4 8.5 % 8.5 % BUSI 13 33 .3% 27 .7% 1 12 .5% 2.1 % 14 29 .8% 29 .8% ARC H 2 5.1% 4.3 % 2 4.3 % 4.3 % AGRI 3 7.7% 6.4 % 1 12 .5% 2.1 % 4 8.5 % 8.5 % Ve tera ns Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Ma le Fem ale Tot al 124 Survey question 33, ?What is your current GPA?? Table 33 provides the descriptive statistics for current Grade Point Average (GPA). Two male student veterans were first semester attendees and did not have GPAs. Of the 46 remaining student veterans, 30.4% (14) had GPAs between 3.000 and 3.499, 28.3% (13) had GPAs between 3.500 and 4.000, 26.1% (12) had GPAs between 2.500 and 2.999, 13.0% (6) had GPAs between 2.000 and 2.499, and 2.2% (1) had GPAs between 1.500 and 1.999. The mode value was one indicating the representative student veteran had a GPA between 3.500 and 4.000. Yet, the median value was two indicating the representative student veteran had a GPA between 3.000 and 3.4999. Of the eight female student veterans, 50.0% (4) had GPAs between 3.000 and 4.499, 25.0% (2) had GPAs between 3.500 and 4.000, and 25.0% (2) had GPAs between 2.500 and 2.999. The mode and median values were two indicating the representative female student veteran had a GPA between 3.000 and 3.499. Of the 38 male student veterans, 28.9% (11) had GPAs between 3.500 and 4.000, 26.3% (10) had GPAs between 3.000 and 3.499, 26.3% (10) had GPAs between 2.500 and 2.999, 15.8% (6) had GPAs between 2.000 and 2.499, and 2.6% (1) had GPAs between 1.500 and 1.999. The mode and median values were two indicating the representative male student veteran had a GPA between 3.000 and 3.499. 125 Table 33 Survey question 33 (stated), ?What is your current GPA?? Veteran 3.500 to 4.000 3.000 to 3.499 2.500 to 2.999 2.000 to 2.499 1.500 to 1.999 Total Male Count 11 10 10 6 1 38 % gender 28.9% 26.3% 26.3% 15.8% 2.6% 100% % total 23.9% 21.7% 21.7% 13.0% 2.2% 82.6% Female Count 2 4 2 8 % gender 25.0% 50.0% 25.0% 100% % total 4.3% 8.7% 4.3% 17.4% Total Count 13 14 12 6 1 46 % gender 28.3% 30.4% 26.1% 13.0% 2.2% 100% % total 28.3% 30.4% 26.1% 13.0% 2.2% 100% Survey question 34, ?At the end of the fall 2010 semester, how many credit hours had you completed?? Table 34 provides the descriptive statistics for credit hours completed. One male student veteran was a first semester attendee and had not earned credits. Of the remaining 47 student veterans, 14.9% (7) had completed 46 to 60 credits, 14.9% (7) had completed 61 to 75 credits, 14.9% (7) had completed 76 to 90 credits, 14.9% (7) had completed 105 to 120 credits, 12.8% (6) had completed 121 or more credits, 10.6% (5) had completed 31 to 45 credits, 8.5% (4) had completed 16 to 30 credits, 4.3% (2) had completed one to 15 credits, and 4.3% (2) had completed 91 to 105 credits. Four mode values exist for this question?s responses. Therefore, the PI used the median value of six to determine the representative student veteran had completed 61 to 75 credits. Of the eight female student veterans, 25.0% (2) had completed 31 to 45 credits, 25.0% (2) had completed 46 to 60 credits, 25.0% (2) had completed 120 126 or more credits, 12.5% (1) had completed 76 to 90 credits, and 12.5% (1) had completed 106 to 120 credits. The mode value was six indicating the representative female student veteran had completed 61 to 75 credits. Of the remaining 39 male student veterans, 17.9% (7) had completed 61 to 75 credits, 15.4% (6) had completed 76 to 90 credits, 15.4% (6) had completed 106 to 120 credits, 12.8% (5) had completed 46 to 60 credits, 10.3% (4) had completed 16 to 30 credits, 10.3% (4) had completed 120 or more credits, 7.7% (3) had completed 31 to 40 credits, 5.1% (2) had completed one to 15 credits, and 5.1% (2) had completed 91 to 105 credits. The median value was six indicating the representative male student veteran had completed 61 to 75 credits. 127 Tab le 34 Su rvey qu estio n 3 4 (r esta ted ), ?At th e e nd of the fa ll 2 01 0 se me ste r, h ow man y cre dit ho urs ha d yo u co mp let ed ?? Tot al 8 100% 17 .0% 39 100% 83 .0% 47 100% 100% Mo re tha n 120 cre dits 2 25 .0% 4.3 % 4 10 .3% 8.5 % 6 12 .8% 12 .8% 106 to 120 cre dits 1 12 .5% 2.1 % 6 15 .4% 12 .8% 7 14 .9% 14 .9% 91 to 105 cre dits 2 5.1 % 4.3 % 2 4.3 % 4.3 % 76 to 90 cre dits 1 12 .5% 2.1 % 6 15 .4% 12 .8% 7 14 .9% 14 .9% 61 to 75 cre dits 7 17 .9% 14 .9% 7 14 .9% 14 .9% 46 to 60 cre dits 2 25 .0% 4.3 % 5 12 .8% 10 .6% 7 14 .9% 14 .9% 31 to 45 cre dits 2 25 .0% 4.3 % 3 7.7 % 6.4 % 5 10 .6% 10 .6% 16 to 30 cre dits 4 10 .3% 8.5 % 4 8.5 % 8.5 % 1 to 15 cre dits 2 5.1 % 4.3 % 2 4.3 % 4.3 % Ve tera ns Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Cou nt % ge nd er % tota l Fema le Ma le Tot al 128 Survey question 35, ?How many credits are you taking during the spring 2011 semester?? Table 35 provides the descriptive statistics for credits taken during the spring 2011 semester and indicates 45.8% (22) were taking 11 to 15 credits, 33.3% (16) were taking more than 15 credits, 12.5% (6) were taking six to ten credits, and 7.5% (4) were not attempting any credits. Of the female student veterans, 62.5% (5) were taking 11 to15 credits, 12.5% (1) were taking six to ten credits, 12.5% (1) were taking more than 15 credits, and 12.5% (1) were not attempting any credits. Of the male student veterans, 42.5% (17) were taking 11 to 15 credits, 37.5% (15) were taking more than 15 credits, 12.5% (5) were taking six to ten credits, and 7.5% (3) were not attempting any credits Table 35 Survey question 35 (restated), ?How many credits are you taking during the spring 2011 semester?? Veteran 0 credits 6-10 credits 11-15 credits More than 15 credits Total Male Count 3 5 17 15 40 % gender 7.5% 12.5% 42.5% 37.5% 100% % total 6.2% 10.4% 35.4% 31.2% 83.3% Female Count 1 1 5 1 8 % gender 12.5% 12.5% 62.5% 12.5% 100% % total 2.1% 2.1% 10.4% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 4 6 22 16 48 % gender 8.3% 12.5% 45.8% 33.3% 100% % total 8.3% 12.5% 45.8% 33.3% 100% 129 Survey question 36, ?What would you say were the 3 chief reasons for your coming to college?? For this question, participants specified a first, second, and third reason. To analyze this question?s data, the PI used an excel spreadsheet with eight columns corresponding to the eight specified answer choices. The analysis did not include the Some Other Reason choice since the various other reasons lacked a theme or commonality. To score participants? selections, each first choice was given a value of three, each second choice a value of two, and each third choice a value of one. Table 36, column two?the Wanted chance to enjoy college life column?is used to explain the calculations and analysis for this question as discussed below. 130 Ta ble 36 Su rvey qu estio n 3 6, ?W ha t wou ld yo u sa y w ere t he 3 c hief re aso ns fo r you r c om ing to co lle ge ?? ( rep rese nta tive stu de nt ve tera n). Comi ng to co lle ge se em ed the log ical thing to do 0 7 10 24 17 1.4 1 4 4.5 2 10.5 5 Famil y and frien ds exp ect ed me to co me 0 2 4 8 6 1.33 1 1 1 3.0 8 W an ted to f ind the lin e of work I wou ld be mos t int erest ed in 1 3 3 12 7 1.7 1 3 2.5 5 10.5 5 W an ted to incre ase my ge ne ral kn owl ed ge 4 8 9 37 21 1.76 6 6 6 18.0 3 A co lle ge de gre e is ne ce ss ary to e nte r my ch ose n profe ssio n 17 10 2 73 29 2.5 2 7 7 8 22 .0 2 W an ted to prep are myse lf for a bett er- pa ying job 23 10 5 94 38 2.4 7 8 8 7 23 .0 1 W an ted to mak e so cial co nta cts & de ve lop so cial skills 1 2 4 11 7 1.57 2 2.5 4 8.5 7 W an ted ch an ce to e njoy co lle ge life 1 6 10 25 17 1.47 5 4.5 3 12.5 4 Ve tera ns 1st Cho ice (3) 2nd Cho ice (2) 3rd Cho ice (1) Tot al Cou nt Ave rag e Ra nk b y to tal Ran k b y c ou nt Ran k b y a ve rag e Placin g sc ore Chie f rea so ns 131 For the rows 1st Choice (3), 2nd Choice (2), and 3rd Choice (1), column two indicates the number of first (cell value of 1), second (cell value of 6), and third (cell value of 10) choices participants made. The Totals row cell (cell value of 25) equals the number of 1st choices (cell value of 1) times a value of three (1x3=3), plus the number of 2nd choices (cell value of 6) times a value of two (6x2=12), plus the number of 3rd choices (cell value of 10) times a value of one (10x1=10) (e.g., 25=3+12+10). The Count row cell (cell value of 17) indicates the total number of participants selecting that particular choice regardless of ranking (e.g., 17 equals one 1st choice plus six 2nd choices plus ten 3rd choices or 1+6+10). The Average row cell (cell value of 1.47) depicts the value calculated when the Total value was divided by the Count value (e.g., 1.47=25/17). For the Rank by Totals row, the Rank by Count row, and the Rank by Average row, the PI compared each column?s total, or count, or average to the other columns? totals, counts, or averages and ranked each column accordingly from one (lowest total, or count, or average) to eight (highest total, or count, or average). For example, one is the lowest rank, two is the second lowest rank, three is the third lowest rank, etc. If two choices tied?say for fourth highest place?the values of the fourth and fifth places were added together and then divided by 2 (e.g., [4+5]/2=4.5). The rank by totals row that intersected with the Wanted chance to enjoy college life column (cell value of 5) indicates this reason for coming to college ranked the fifth highest of all eight columns. The Rank by Count row that intersected with the Wanted chance to enjoy college life column (cell value of 4.5) indicates this reason choice?s total count tied with the last cell 132 in the row for the fourth highest rank. The Rank by Average cell (cell value of 3) indicates this reason choice ranked third highest. After the PI ranked each column, the Rank by Total (cell value of 5), the Rank by Count (cell value of 4.5), and the Rank by Average (cell value of 3) the PI summed values to determine a Placing Score (12.5=5+4.5+3). The PI then compared each column?s Placing Scores and ranked each reason choice from one (the lowest) to eight (the highest). The representative student veteran (see table 36), the representative male student veteran (see table 37), and the representative female student veteran (see table 38) all selected the same three chief reasons for coming to college. These reasons (from most selected to least selected) were: 1. Wanted to prepare myself for a better-paying job. 2. A college degree is necessary to enter my chosen profession. 3. Wanted to increase my general knowledge. 133 Tab le 37 Su rvey qu estio n 3 6, ?W ha t wou ld yo u sa y w ere t he 3 c hief re aso ns fo r you r c om ing to co lle ge ?? ( rep rese nta tive ma le stu de nt ve teran ). Comi ng to co lle ge se em ed the log ical thing to do 0 6 8 20 14 1.4 3 4 4 2 10. 0 6 Famil y and frien ds exp ect ed me to co me 0 2 4 8 6 1.33 1.5 2.5 1 5.0 8 W an ted to f ind the lin e of work I wou ld be mos t int erest ed in 1 3 2 11 6 1.8 3 3 2.5 5 10.5 5 W an ted to incre ase my ge ne ral kn owl ed ge 4 6 6 30 16 1.88 6 5 6 17.0 3 A co lle ge de gre e is ne ce ss ary to e nte r my ch ose n profe ssio n 12 10 2 58 24 2.4 2 7 7 7 21 .0 2 W an ted to prep are myse lf for a bett er- pa ying job 21 6 4 79 31 2.55 8 8 8 24.0 1 W an ted to mak e so cial co nta cts & de ve lop so cial skills 1 1 3 8 5 1.60 1.5 1 4 6.5 7 W an ted ch an ce to e njoy co lle ge life 1 6 10 25 17 1.47 5 6 3 14.0 4 Ve tera ns 1st Cho ice (3) 2nd Cho ice (2) 3rd Cho ice (1) Tot al Cou nt Ave rag e Ran k b y to tal Ran k b y c ou nt Ran k b y a ve rag e Placin g sc ore Chie f rea so ns 134 Tab le 38 Su rvey qu estio n 3 6, ?W ha t wou ld yo u sa y w ere the 3 c hief re aso ns fo r you r c om ing to co lle ge ?? ( rep rese nta tive fem ale stu de nt ve tera n). Comi ng to co lle ge se em ed the log ical thing to do 0 1 2 4 3 1.3 3 5 5 4 14 .0 4T a No one choose thi s re ason. Famil y and frien ds exp ect ed me to co me a W an ted to f ind the lin e of work I wou ld be mos t int erest ed in 0 0 1 1 1 1.00 3 3 3 9.0 6 W an ted to incre ase my ge ne ral kn owl ed ge 0 2 3 7 5 1.40 6 6.5 5 17.5 3 A co lle ge de gre e is ne ce ss ary to e nte r my ch ose n profe ssio n 5 0 0 15 5 3.00 7.5 6.5 8 22.0 2 W an ted to prep are myse lf for a bett er- pa ying job 2 4 1 15 7 2.14 7.5 8 7 22.5 1 W an ted to mak e so cial co nta cts & de ve lop so cial skills 0 1 1 3 2 1.50 4 4 6 14.0 4T W an ted ch an ce to e njoy co lle ge life a Ve tera ns 1st Cho ice (3) 2nd Cho ice (2) 3rd Cho ice (1) Tot al Cou nt Ave rag e Ran k b y to tal Ran k b y c ou nt Ran k b y a ve rag e Placin g sc ore Chie f rea so ns 135 The remaining five reasons (from most selected to least selected) selected by male student veterans (see table 37) were: 4. Wanted a chance to enjoy college life. 5. Wanted to find the line of work I would be most interested in. 6. Coming to college seemed the logical thing to do. 7. Wanted to make social contacts and develop social skills. 8. Family and friends expected me to come. The remaining five reasons (from most selected to least selected) selected by female student veterans (see table 38) were: 4. (Tied). Wanted to make social contacts and develop social skills. 4. (Tied). Coming to college seemed the logical thing to do. 6. Wanted to find the line of work I would be most interested in. No female student veterans selected Wanted a chance to enjoy college life or Family and friends expected me to come. Survey question 37, ?Is the academic department, school, or division (e.g., arts, engineering) in which you are now studying your first choice or would you prefer to major in some other academic department?? Table 39 indicates 87.5% (42) were in the academic department of their first choice while 12.5% (6) would prefer another department. Of the female student veterans, 75.0% (6) were in their preferred academic department while 25.0% (2) would prefer to be in another academic department. Of the male student veterans, 90.0% (36) were in their preferred academic department while 10.0% (4) would prefer to be in another academic department. 136 Table 39 Survey question 37, ?Is the academic department, school, or division (e.g., arts, engineering) in which you are now studying your first choice or would you prefer to major in some other academic department?? Veteran In the department of my first choice Prefer another academic department Total Male Count 36 4 40 % gender 90.0% 10.0% 100% % total 75.0% 8.3% 83.3% Female Count 6 2 8 % gender 75.0% 25.0% 100% % total 12.5% 4.2% 16.7% Total Count 42 6 48 % gender 87.5% 12.5% 100% % total 87.5% 12.5% 100% Survey question 38 (restated), ?In general, did you enjoy your studies during the fall 2010 semester as much as you had expected to?? Three student veterans (one female and two males) who were not enrolled during the fall 2010 semester are not included in this question?s statistics. Table 40 points out 66.7% (30) enjoyed their classes as they expected to, 17.8% (8) enjoyed their classes more than they expected to, and 15.6% (7) enjoyed their classes less than they expected to. Of the 38 male student veterans, 71.1% (27) enjoyed their classes as they expected to, 18.4% (7) enjoyed their classes more than they expected to, and 10.5% (4) enjoyed their classes less than they expected to. Of the seven female student veterans, 42.9% (3) enjoyed their classes as they expected to, 42.9% (3) enjoyed their classes more than they expected to, and 14.3% (1) enjoyed their classes less they than expected to. 137 Table 40 Survey question 38 (restated), ?Did you enjoy your studies during the fall 2010 semester as much as you had expected?? Veteran More than I expected to As I expected to Less than I expected to Total Male Count 7 27 4 38 % gender 18.4% 71.1% 10.5% 100% % total 15.6% 60.0% 8.9% 84.4% Female Count 1 3 3 7 % gender 14.3% 42.9% 42.9% 100% % total 2.2% 6.7% 6.7% 15.6% Total Count 8 30 7 45 % gender 17.8% 66.7% 15.6% 100% % total 17.8% 66.7% 15.6% 100% Survey question 39, ?Did you find it more or less difficult to keep up in your work during the fall 2010 semester than you had expected it to be?? Three student veterans (one female and two males) who were not enrolled during the fall 2010 semester are not included in this question?s statistics. Table 41 indicates 46.7% (21) found it somewhat more difficult than expected to keep up with their studies, 37.8% (17) reported their efforts to keep up with their studies as expected, 8.9% (4) found it much more difficult than expected to keep up, and 6.7% (3) found it somewhat less difficult than expected to keep up. Of the seven female student veterans, 57.1% (4) found their efforts to keep up with their studies as expected, 28.6% (2) found it somewhat more difficult than expected to keep up, and 14.3% (1) found it much more difficult than expected to keep up. Of the 38 male student veterans, 50.0% (19) found it somewhat more difficult than expected to keep up, 34.2% (13) found their efforts to keep up with 138 their studies as expected, 7.9% (3) found it somewhat less difficult than expected to keep up, and 7.9% (3) found it much more difficult than expected to keep up. Table 41 Survey question 39, ?Did you find it more or less difficult to keep up in your work during the fall 2010 semester than you had expected it to be?? Veteran Somewhat Less difficult As expected Somewhat More difficult Much More difficult Total Male Count 3 13 19 3 38 % gender 7.9% 34.2% 50.0% 7.9% 100% % total 6.7% 28.9% 42.2% 6.7% 84.4% Female Count 4 2 1 7 % gender 57.1% 28.6% 14.3% 100% % total 8.9% 4.4% 2.2% 15.6% Total Count 3 17 21 4 45 % gender 6.7% 37.8% 46.7% 8.9% 100% % total 6.7% 37.8% 46.7% 8.9% 100% Survey question 40, ?How would you rate, as teachers the faculty members who taught you during the fall 2010 semester?? Three student veterans (one female and two males) who were not enrolled during the fall 2010 semester are not included in this question?s statistics. Of the 45 student veterans enrolled in the fall 2010 semester, table 42 indicates 62.2% (28) felt most of their professors were good teachers, 17.8% (8) felt all their professors were good teachers, 15.6% (7) felt some of their professors were good and some were poor, and 4.4% (2) felt most of their professors were poor. Of the 38 male student veterans, 63.2% (24) felt most of their professors were good teachers, 15.8% (6) felt all their professors were good teachers, 139 15.8% (6) felt some of their professors were good and some were poor, and 1.7% (2) felt most of their professors were poor. Of the seven female student veterans, 57.1% (4) felt most of their professors were good, 28.6% (2) felt all their professors were good teachers, and 14.4% (1) felt some were good and some were poor. Table 42 Survey question 40, ?How would you rate, as teachers, the faculty who taught you during the fall 2010 semester?? Veteran All Were good teachers Most Were good teachers Some good; some poor Most Were Poor teachers Total Male Count 6 24 6 2 38 % gender 15.8% 63.2% 15.8% 5.3% 100% % total 13.3% 53.3% 13.3% 4.4% 84.4% Female Count 2 4 1 0 7 % gender 28.6% 57.1% 14.3% .0% 100% % total 4.4% 8.9% 2.2% .0% 15.6% Total Count 8 28 7 2 45 % gender 17.8% 62.2% 15.6% 4.4% 100% % total 17.8% 62.2% 15.6% 4.4% 100% Survey question 41, ?Are you planning to complete your degree in less than the usual amount of time spent (either by attending summer sessions or by taking a heavier than normal load of courses)?? Of the 48 student veterans enrolled in the fall 2010 semester, table 43 portrays 41.7% (20) as planning to complete their degrees in the usual time, 31.2% (15) as planning to complete their degrees in longer than the usual time, and 27.1% (13) as planning to complete their degrees in shorter than the usual 140 time. The mode and median values were two indicating the representative student veteran planned to complete his degree in the normal time. Of the eight female student veterans, 37.5% (3) are planning to finish in the usual time, 37.5% (3) in longer than the usual time, and 25.0% (2) in less than the usual time. The mode values were two and three and the median value was two indicating the representative female student veteran planned to complete her degree in the normal time. Of the 40 student veterans, 42.5% (17) plan to complete their programs in the usual time, 30.0% (12) plan to take longer than the usual time, and 27.5% (11) plan to complete their studies in a shorter time. The mode and median values were two indicating the representative male veteran planned to complete his degree in the normal time. Table 43 Survey question 41, ?Are you planning to complete your degree in less than the usual amount of time?? Veteran Shorter than normal time Normal time Longer than normal time Total Male Count 11 17 12 40 % gender 27.5% 42.5% 30.0% 100% % total 22.9% 35.4% 25.0% 83.3% Female Count 2 3 3 8 % gender 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% 100% % total 4.2% 6.2% 6.2% 16.7% Total Count 13 20 15 48 % gender 27.1% 41.7% 31.2% 100% % total 27.1% 41.7% 31.2% 100% 141 Survey question 42, ?During the past week38, how many hours did you spend at each of the following activities?? Table 44 depicts how the representative student veteran utilized his time39 during a typical week40. The representative student veteran slept 40.2 hours, worked 25.5 hours, spent 14.0 hours in class and labs, participated 13.9 hours in other activities, played computer games and/or watched television for 9.9 hours, participated 8.3 hours in extra-curricular activities, studied for 7.4 hours, spent 5.2 hours in social activities, participated for 4.4 hours in athletics or other physical activities, spent 2.9 hours on distance education courses, attended 2.9 hours of lectures and/or concerts, spent 2.7 hours traveling to/from campus, spent 2.0 hours in religious activities, talked in bull sessions for 2.0 hours, and had 26.7 hours of unaccounted for time. The representative male student veteran slept 39.0 hours, worked 25.0 hours, spent 14.7 hours in class and labs, participated 11.3 hours in other activities, played computer games and/or watched television for 10.6 hours, participated 10.8 hours in extra-curricular activities, studied 7.9 hours, spent 5.9 hours in social activities, participated 4.5 hours in athletics or other physical activities, worked 3.8 hours on distance education courses, attended 2.7 hours of lectures and/or concerts, spent 2.4 hours traveling to/from campus, spent 1.9 hours at religious activities, talked in bull sessions for 2.0 hours, and had 25.5 hours of unaccounted for time. 38 The PI?s analysis of this question assumed a 7-day week and 168 available hours. 39 For each activity, some participants indicated zero time spent on that activity. Therefore, the PI calculated the average time spent on each activity by summing those times indicated and then dividing the total time by the count of those participants who indicated time spent on that activity. 40 Twenty of the 48 veterans reported less than 100 total hours spent on the various weekly activities. 142 The representative female student veteran slept 45.9 hours, worked 11.4 hours, participated 23.0 hours in other activities, spent 10.8 hours in class and labs, played computer games and/or watched television for 6.8 hours, studied 5.5 hours, attended 4.0 hours of lectures and/or concerts, spent 4.0 hours traveling to/from campus, participated 3.8 hours in athletics or other physical activities, spent 2.4 hours in social activities, spent 2.3 hours at religious activities, participated 2.2 hours in extra-curricular activities, worked 1.7 hours on distance education courses, did not participate in bull sessions, and had 44.2 hours of unaccounted for time. 143 Table 44 Survey question 42, ?During the past week, how many hours did you spend at each of the following activities?? Where time spent Representative student veteran Representative male student veteran Representative female student veteran Sleep 40.2 39.0 45.9 Employment 25.5 25.0 11.4 Classes, labs, etc. 14.0 14.7 10.8 Other activities 13.9 11.3 23.0 Computer games or TV 9.9 10.6 6.8 Extra-curricular activities 8.3 10.8 2.2 Studying 7.4 7.9 5.5 Social activities 5.2 5.9 2.4 Athletics/physical education 4.4 4.5 3.8 Distance education 2.9 3.8 1.7 Lectures, concerts, etc. 2.9 2.7 4.0 Travel to/from campus 2.7 2.4 4.0 Religious Activities 2.0 1.9 2.3 Bull sessions 2.0 2.0 0 Unaccounted for time 26.7 25.5 44.2 Total time (7 days x 24 hours) 168.0 168.0 168.0 Survey question 43, ?If you could be admitted to (and could get housing at) any other university you might choose, do you think you would still want to attend Auburn University?? Of the 48 student veterans enrolled in the fall 2010 semester, table 45 shows 77.1% (37) would continue to attend AU, 20.8% (10) might go to another college or university, and 2.1% (1) would definitely attend another college or university. 144 Of the 40 male student veterans, 62.5% (30) would continue to attend AU, 22.5% (9) would consider going elsewhere, and 2.5% (1) would definitely go elsewhere. Of the eight female student veterans, 87.5% (7) would remain at AU, 12.5% (1) would consider attending another college or university, and none would definitely attend another college or university. Table 45 Survey question 43, ?If you could be admitted to (and could get housing at) any other university you might choose, do you think you would still want to attend Auburn University?? Veteran Attend Auburn University Might go elsewhere Definitely go elsewhere Total Male Count 30 9 1 40 % gender 75.0% 22.5% 2.5% 100% % total 62.5% 18.8% 2.1% 83.3% Female Count 7 1 8 % gender 87.5% 12.5% 100% % total 14.6% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 37 10 1 48 % gender 77.1% 20.8% 2.1% 100% % total 77.1% 20.8% 2.1% 100% Survey question 44, ?When you first enrolled at Auburn University, how well do you feel you were prepared, by virtue of your previous education and experience, for getting the most out of your courses?? Of the 48 student veterans in the study, table 46 shows 50.0% (24) were fairly well prepared due to previous education and experience to get the most out of their courses, 31.2% (15) were very well prepared, and 18.8% (15) were poorly prepared. The median and mode values were two indicating the 145 representative student veteran was fairly well prepared for getting the most out of his courses. Of the eight female student veterans, 37.5% (3) were very well prepared, 37.5% (3) were fairly well prepared, and 25.0% (2) were poorly prepared. Both the median and mode values were two indicating the representative female student veteran was fairly well prepared for getting the most out of her courses. Of the 40 male student veterans, 52.5% (21) were fairly well prepared, 30.0% (12) were very well prepared, and 17.5% (7) were poorly prepared. The median and mode values were two indicating the representative male student veteran was fairly well prepared for getting the most out of his courses. Table 46 Survey question 44, ?When you first enrolled at Auburn University, how well do you feel you were prepared, by virtue of your previous education and experience, for getting the most out of your courses?? Veteran Very well prepared Fairly well prepared Poorly prepared Total Male Count 7 21 12 40 % gender 17.5% 52.5% 30.0% 100% % total 14.6% 43.8% 25.0% 83.3% Female Count 2 3 3 8 % gender 25.0% 37.5% 37.5% 100% % total 4.2% 6.2% 6.2% 16.7% Total Count 9 24 15 48 % gender 18.8% 50.0% 31.2% 100% % total 18.8% 50.0% 31.2% 100% 146 Survey question 45, In general, do you have a satisfactory place to study, one that is free from noise and distraction and reasonably comfortable?? Of the 48 student veterans in the study, table 47 shows 54.2% (26) had an entirely satisfactory place to study, 41.7% (20) had a fairly satisfactory place to study, and 4.2% (2) had a unsatisfactory place to study. The mode value of one indicated the representative student veteran was entirely satisfied with his study space. Of the 40 male student veterans, 50.0% (20) had an entirely satisfactory place to study, 41.7% (18) had a fairly satisfactory place to study, and 5.0% (2) had a unsatisfactory place to study. The mode value of one indicated the representative male student veteran was entirely satisfied with his study space. Of the eight female student veterans, 75.0% (6) had an entirely satisfactory place to study, and 25.0% (20) had a fairly satisfactory place to study. The mode value of one indicated the representative female student veteran was entirely satisfied with her study space. 147 Table 47 Survey question 45, ?In general, do you have a satisfactory place to study, one that is free from noise and distraction and is reasonably comfortable?? Veteran Entirely Satisfactory Fairly Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Total Male Count 20 18 2 40 % gender 50.0% 45.0% 5.0% 100% % total 41.7% 37.5% 4.2% 83.3% Female Count 6 2 8 % gender 75.0% 25.0% 100% % total 12.5% 4.2% 16.7% Total Count 26 20 2 48 % gender 54.2% 41.7% 4.2% 100% % total 54.2% 41.7% 4.2% 100% Survey question 46, ?In general, would you say you usually exert strong effort to do good work in your courses, or do you tend to do just enough to get by?? Of the 48 student veterans in the study, table 48 portrays 47.9% (23) as having exerted fairly hard effort in some courses and not so hard effort in other courses, 43.8% (21) as having exerted usually strong effort in all courses, and 8.3% (4) as having exerted just enough effort to get by with fair grades. The mode value was two indicating the representative student veteran had exerted fairly hard effort in some courses and not so hard effort in other courses. Within the female veteran subsample, 50.0% (4) usually exerted strong effort, 37.5% (3) exerted fairly hard effort in some courses and not so hard effort in other courses, and 12.5% (1) exerted just enough effort to get by with fair grades. The mode value was two indicating the representative female student 148 veteran had exerted fairly hard effort in some and not so hard effort in other courses. Within the male veteran subsample, 50.0% (4) exerted fairly hard effort in some courses and not so hard effort in other courses, 42.5% (14) usually exerted strong effort, and 7.5% (3) exerted just enough effort to get by with fair grades. The mode value was two indicating the representative male student veteran had exerted fairly hard effort in some courses and not so hard effort in other courses. Table 48 Survey question 46, ?In general, would you say you usually exert strong effort to do good in your courses, or do you tend to do just enough to get by?? Veteran Usually strong effort Fairly hard in some; not so hard in others Enough to get by with fair grades Total Male Count 17 20 3 40 % gender 42.5% 50.0% 7.5% 100% % total 35.4% 41.7% 6.2% 83.3% Female Count 4 3 1 8 % gender 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 100% % total 8.3% 6.2% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 21 23 4 48 % gender 43.8% 47.9% 8.3% 100% % total 43.8% 47.9% 8.3% 100% Survey question 47, ?In general, how well do you keep up to date in your study assignments?? Of the 48 student veterans in the study, table 49 depicts 60.4% (29) usually had their assignments done on time, 37.5% (18) usually had their assignments done before they were due, and 2.1% (1) were usually late completing their assignments. No student veteran indicated being usually far 149 behind or did not complete an assignment. The mode value was two indicating the representative student veteran usually had his assignments done on time. Of the 40 male student veterans, 60.0% (24) usually had their assignments done on time, 37.5% (15) usually had their assignments done before they were due, and 2.5% (1) were usually late completing their assignments. The mode value was two indicating the representative male student veteran usually had his assignments done on time. Of the eight female student veterans, 62.5% (5) usually had their assignments done on time, 37.5% (3) usually had their assignments done before they were due, and none was usually late completing their assignments. The mode value was two indicating the representative female student veteran usually had her assignments done on time. Table 49 Survey question 47, ?In general, how well do you keep up to date in your study assignments?? Veteran Usually done before they are due Usually done on time Usually a little late Total Male Count 15 24 1 40 % gender 37.5% 60.0% 2.5% 100% % total 31.2% 50.0% 2.1% 83.3% Female Count 3 5 8 % gender 37.5% 62.5% 100% % total 6.2% 10.4% 16.7% Total Count 18 29 1 48 % gender 37.5% 60.4% 2.1% 100% % total 37.5% 60.4% 2.1% 100% 150 Survey question 48, ?Of the courses you are now taking, how many would you say you are really interested in?? Table 50 shows 37.5% (18) were interested in most of their courses, 22.9% (11) were interested in less than half of their courses, 18.8% (9) were interested in about half of their courses, 16.7% (8) were interested in all their courses, and 4.2% (2) were not interested in any of their classes. The mode value was two indicating the representative student veteran was interested in most of his courses. Of the female student veterans, 50.0% (4) were interested in most of their courses, 37.5% (3), were interested in less than half of their courses, and 12.5% (1) were interested in all their courses. The mode value was two indicating the representative female student veteran was interested in most of her courses. Of the male student veterans, 35.0% (14) were interested in most of their courses, 22.5% (9) were interested in about half of their courses, 20.0% (8) were interested in less than half of their courses, 17.5% (7) were interested in all their courses, and 5.0% (2) were not interested in any of their courses. The mode value was two indicating the representative male student veteran was interested in most of his courses. 151 Table 50 Survey question 48, ?Of the courses you are now taking, how many would you say you are really interested in?? Veteran All of them Most of them About half of them Some, But less than half None of them Total Male Count 7 14 9 8 2 40 % gender 17.5% 35.0% 22.5% 20.0% 5.0% 100% % total 14.6% 29.2% 18.8% 16.7% 4.2% 83.3% Female Count 1 4 3 8 % gender 12.5% 50.0% 37.5% 100% % total 2.1% 8.3% 6.2% 16.7% Total Count 8 18 9 11 2 48 % gender 16.7% 37.5% 18.8% 22.9% 4.2% 100% % total 16.7% 37.5% 18.8% 22.9% 4.2% 100% Survey question 49, ?On the whole, how well satisfied are you with the kind of education you are getting?? Table 51 reveals 39.6% (19) were fairly well satisfied with the education they are getting, 37.5% (18) were very well satisfied, 18.8% (9) were satisfied, and 4.2% (2) were somewhat dissatisfied. No student veteran was very much dissatisfied. The mode value was two indicating the representative student veteran was fairly well satisfied with the education he was getting from AU. Of the male student veterans, 42.5% (17) were fairly well satisfied with the education they are getting, 35.0% (14) were very well satisfied, 17.5% (7) were satisfied, and 5.0% (2) were somewhat dissatisfied. The mode value was two indicating the representative male student veteran was fairly well satisfied with the education he was getting from AU. 152 Of the female student veterans, 50.0% (4) were very well satisfied, 25.0% (2) were fairly well satisfied, and 25.0% (2) were satisfied. The mode value was one indicating the representative female veteran was very well satisfied with the education she was getting from AU. Table 51 Survey question 49, ?On the whole, how well satisfied are you with the kind of education you are getting?? Veteran Very well satisfied Fairly well satisfied Satisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Total Male Count 14 17 7 2 40 % gender 35.0% 42.5% 17.5% 5.0% 100% % total 29.2% 35.4% 14.6% 4.2% 83.3% Female Count 4 2 2 8 % gender 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100% % total 8.3% 4.2% 4.2% 16.7% Total Count 18 19 9 2 48 % gender 37.5% 39.6% 18.8% 4.2% 100% % total 37.5% 39.6% 18.8% 4.2% 100% Survey question 50, ?Do you ever feel that the things you are studying at Auburn are not really worth the time spent on them?? Within the student veteran sample, table 52 divulges 39.6% (19) sometimes felt the things they were studying were not really worth the time spent on them, 33.3% (16) seldom felt that way, 18.8% (9) frequently felt that way, and 8.3% (4) never felt that way. The mode value was three indicating the representative student veteran sometimes felt what he was studying was not worth his time. 153 Within the female veteran subsample, 50.0% (4) seldom felt the things they were studying were not really worth the time they spent on them, 25.0% (2) sometimes felt that way, 12.5% (1) never felt that way, and 12.5% (1) frequently felt that way. The mode value was two indicating the representative female student veteran seldom felt what she was studying was not worth her time. Within the male subsample, 42.5% (17) sometimes felt the things they were studying were not really worth the time they spent on them, 30.0% (12) seldom felt that way, 20.0% (8) frequently felt that way, and 7.5% (3) never felt that way. The mode value was three indicating the representative male student veteran sometimes felt what he was studying was not worth his time. Table 52 Survey question 50, ?Do you ever feel the things you are studying at Auburn are not really worth the time spent on them?? Veteran Never felt that way Seldom felt that way Sometimes felt that way Frequently felt that way Total Male Count 3 12 17 8 40 % gender 7.5% 30.0% 42.5% 20.0% 100% % total 6.2% 25.0% 35.4% 16.7% 83.3% Female Count 1 4 2 1 8 % gender 12.5% 50.0% 25.0% 12.5% 100% % total 2.1% 8.3% 4.2% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 4 16 19 9 48 % gender 8.3% 33.3% 39.6% 18.8% 100% % total 8.3% 33.3% 39.6% 18.8% 100% 154 Survey question 51, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset?? Table 53 depicts the descriptive statistics for worried, anxious, and/or upset. Of the 48 student veterans, 58.3% (28) occasionally felt worried, anxious, and/or upset; 20.8% (10) frequently felt worried, anxious, and/or upset; and 20.8% (10) seldom or never felt worried, anxious, and/or upset. The mode value was two indicating the representative student veteran occasionally felt worried, anxious, and/or upset. Of the 40 males, 57.5% (23) occasionally felt worried, anxious, and/or upset; 25.0% (10) seldom or never felt worried, anxious, and/or upset; and 17.5% (7) frequently felt worried, anxious, and/or upset. The mode value was two indicating the representative male student veteran occasionally felt worried, anxious, and/or upset. Of the eight females, 62.5% (5) occasionally felt worried, anxious, and/or upset and 37.5% (3) seldom or never felt worried, anxious, and/or upset. The mode value was two indicating the representative female student veteran occasionally felt worried, anxious, and/or upset. 155 Table 53 Survey question 51, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset?? Veteran Frequently Occasionally Seldom or never Total Male Count 7 23 10 40 % gender 17.5% 57.5% 25.0% 100% % total 14.6% 47.9% 20.8% 83.3% Female Count 3 5 8 % gender 37.5% 62.5% 100% % total 6.2% 10.4% 16.7% Total Count 10 28 10 48 % gender 20.8% 58.3% 20.8% 100% % total 20.8% 58.3% 20.8% 100% Survey question 52 (restated), ?What worries, concerns, and/or anxieties have bothered you this semester?? Tables 54 through 67 provide the descriptive statistics for this item. The following level four section headings end the restated survey question.?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about?? Survey question 52a, ??m aking ends meet financially?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 54 indicates 41.7% (20) were bothered very much, 33.3% (16) were bothered some, and 25.0% (12) were bothered little or not at all. For the eight female student veterans, 50.0% (4) were bothered very much, 37.5% (3) were bothered some, and 12.5% (1) were bothered little or not at all. For the 40 male student veterans, 40.0% (16) were bothered very much, 32.5% (13) were bothered some, and 27.5% (11) were bothered little or not at all. 156 Table 54 Survey question 52a, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about making ends meet financially?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 16 13 11 40 % gender 40.0% 32.5% 27.5% 100% % total 33.3% 27.1% 22.9% 83.3% Female Count 4 3 1 8 % gender 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 100% % total 8.3% 6.2% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 20 16 12 48 % gender 41.7% 33.3% 25.0% 100% % total 41.7% 33.3% 25.0% 100% Survey question 52b, ??l ack of adequate housing accommodations?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 55 indicates 79.2% (38) were bothered little or not at all, 18.8% (9) were bothered some, and 2.1% (1) were bothered very much. For the 40 male student veterans, 80.0% (32) were bothered little or not at all, 17.5% (7) were bothered some, and 2.5% (1) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 75.0% (6) were bothered little or not at all, 25.0% (2) were bothered some, and none was bothered very much. 157 Table 55 Survey question 52b, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about lack of adequate housing accommodations?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 1 7 32 40 % gender 2.5% 17.5% 80.0% 100% % total 2.1% 14.6% 66.7% 83.3% Female Count 2 6 8 % gender 25.0% 75.0% 100% % total 4.2% 12.5% 16.7% Total Count 1 9 38 48 % gender 2.1% 18.8% 79.2% 100% % total 2.1% 18.8% 79.2% 100% Survey question 52c, ??i llness or death in your family?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 56 indicates 85.4% (41) of student veterans were bothered little or not at all, 8.3% (4) were bothered some, and 6.2% (3) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 87.5% (7) were bothered little or not at all, 12.5% (1) were bothered some, and none were bothered very much. For the 40 male student veterans, 85.0% (34) were bothered little or not at all, 7.5% (3) were bothered some, and 7.5% (3) were bothered very much. 158 Table 56 Survey question 52c, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about an illness or death in your family?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 3 3 34 40 % gender 7.5% 7.5% 85.0% 100% % total 6.2% 6.2% 70.8% 83.3% Female Count 1 7 8 % gender 12.5% 87.5% 100% % total 2.1% 14.6% 16.7% Total Count 3 4 41 48 % gender 6.2% 8.3% 85.4% 100% % total 6.2% 8.3% 85.4% 100% Survey question 52d, ??n ervousness?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 57 indicates 47.9% (23) of student veterans were bothered little or not at all, 41.7% (20) were bothered some, and 10.4% (5) were bothered very much. For the 40 male student veterans, 50.0% (20) were bothered little or not at all, 37.5% (15) were bothered some, and 12.5% (5) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 62.5% (5) were bothered some, 37.5% (3) were bothered little or not at all, and none was bothered very much. 159 Table 57 Survey question 52d, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about nervousness?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 5 15 20 40 % gender 12.5% 37.5% 50.0% 100% % total 10.4% 31.2% 41.7% 83.3% Female Count 5 3 8 % gender 62.5% 37.5% 100% % total 10.4% 6.2% 16.7% Total Count 3 20 23 48 % gender 10.4% 41.7% 47.9% 100% % total 10.4% 41.7% 47.9% 100% Survey question 52e, ??h ealth problems?? Table 58 indicates one male student veteran failed to respond. Of the remaining 47 male student veterans, 61.7% (29) were bothered little or not at all, 27.7% (13) were bothered some, and 10.6% (5) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 50.0% (4) were bothered little or not at all, 25.0% (2) were bothered some, and 25.0% (2) were bothered very much. For those 39 male student veterans, 64.1% (25) were bothered little or not at all, 28.2% (11) were bothered some, and 7.7% (3) were bothered very much. 160 Table 58 Survey question 52e, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about health problems?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 3 11 25 39 % gender 7.7% 28.2% 64.1% 100% % total 6.4% 23.4% 53.2% 83.0% Female Count 2 2 4 8 % gender 25.0 25.0% 50.0% 100% % total 4.3 4.3% 8.5% 17.0% Total Count 5 13 29 47 % gender 10.6% 27.7% 61.7% 100% % total 10.6% 27.7% 61.7% 100% Survey question 52f, ??g etting accustomed to college study?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 59 shows 56.2% (27) were bothered little or not at all, 33.3% (16) were bothered some, and 10.4% (5) were bothered very much. For the 40 male student veterans, 60.0% (24) were bothered little or not at all, 27.5% (11) were bothered some, and 12.5% (5) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 62.5% (5) were bothered some, 37.5% (3) were bothered little or not at all, and none were bothered very much. 161 Table 59 Survey question 52f, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about getting accustomed to college study?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 5 11 24 40 % gender 12.5% 27.5% 60.0% 100% % total 10.4% 22.9% 50.0% 83.3% Female Count 5 3 8 % gender 62.5% 37.5% 100% % total 10.4% 6.2% 16.7% Total Count 5 16 27 48 % gender 10.4% 33.3% 56.2% 100% % total 10.4% 33.3% 56.2% 100% Survey question 52g, ??b eing unable to concentrate?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 60 depicts 37.5% (18) were bothered some, 35.4% (17) were bothered little or not at all, and 27.1% (13) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 62.5% (5) were bothered some, 25.0% (2) were bothered very much, and 12.5% (1) were bothered little or not at all. For 40 male student veterans, 40.0% (16) were bothered little or not at all, 32.5% (13) were bothered some, and 27.5% (11) were bothered very much. 162 Table 60 Survey question 52g, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about being unable to concentrate?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 11 13 16 40 % gender 27.5% 32.5% 40.0% 100% % total 22.9% 27.1% 33.3% 83.3% Female Count 2 5 1 8 % gender 25.0 62.5% 12.5% 100% % total 4.2 10.4% 2.1% 16.7% Total Count 13 18 17 48 % gender 27.1% 37.5% 35.4% 100% % total 27.1% 37.5% 35.4% 100% Survey question 52h, ??l egal issues?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 61 shows 89.6% (43) were bothered little or not at all, 6.2% (3) were bothered some, and 4.2% (2) were bothered very much. For the 40 male student veterans, 90.0% (36) were bothered little or not at all, 7.5% (3) were bothered some, and 2.5% (1) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 87.5% (7) were bothered little or not at all, 12.5% (1) were bothered very much, and none was bothered some. 163 Table 61 Survey question 52h, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about legal issues?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 1 3 36 40 % gender 12.5% 7.5% 90.0% 100% % total 2.1% 6.2% 75.0% 83.3% Female Count 1 7 8 % gender 12.5 87.5% 100% % total 2.1 14.6% 16.7% Total Count 2 3 43 48 % gender 4.2% 6.2% 89.6% 100% % total 4.2% 6.2% 89.6% 100% Survey question 52i, ??g etting to know people socially?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 62 shows 47.9% (23) were bothered little or not at all, 31.2% (15) were bothered some, and 20.8% (10) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 50.0% (4) were bothered some, 25.0% (2) were bothered very much, and 25.0% (2) were bothered little or not at all. For the 40 male student veterans, 52.5% (21) were bothered little or not at all, 27.5% (11) were bothered some, and 20.0% (8) were bothered very much. 164 Table 62 Survey question 52i, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about getting to know people socially?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 8 11 21 40 % gender 20.0% 27.5% 52.5% 100% % total 16.7% 22.9% 43.8% 83.3% Female Count 2 4 2 8 % gender 25.0 50.0% 25.0% 100% % total 4.2 8.3% 4.2% 16.7% Total Count 10 15 23 48 % gender 20.8% 31.2% 47.9% 100% % total 20.8% 31.2% 47.9% 100% Survey question 52j, ??s trained personal relations with close relatives or friends?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 63 depicts 60.4% (29) were bothered little or not at all, 29.2% (14) were bothered some, and 10.4% (5) were bothered very much. For the 40 male student veterans, 62.5% (25) were bothered little or not at all, 27.5% (11) were bothered some, and 10.0% (4) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 50.0% (4) were bothered little or not at all, 37.5% (3) were bothered some, and 12.5% (1) were bothered very much. 165 Table 63 Survey question 52j, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about strained personal relations with close relatives or friends?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 4 11 25 40 % gender 10.0% 27.5% 62.5% 100% % total 8.3% 22.9% 52.1% 83.3% Female Count 1 3 4 8 % gender 12.5 37.5% 50.0% 100% % total 2.1 6.2% 8.3% 16.7% Total Count 5 14 29 48 % gender 10.4% 29.2% 60.4% 100% % total 10.4% 29.2% 60.4% 100% Survey question 52k, ?? feelings of inferiority, inability to compete with others, or to live up to your own standards?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 64 shows 45.8% (22) were bothered little or not at all, 37.5% (18) were bothered some, and 16.7% (8) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 62.5% (5) were bothered some, 25.0% (2) were bothered little or not at all, and 12.5% (1) were bothered very much. For the 40 male student veterans, 50.0% (20) were bothered little or not at all, 32.5% (13) were bothered some, and 17.5% (7) were bothered very much. 166 Table 64 Survey question 52k, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about feelings of inferiority, inability to compete with others, or to live up to your own standards?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 7 13 20 40 % gender 17.5% 32.5% 50.0% 100% % total 14.6% 27.1% 41.7% 83.3% Female Count 1 5 2 8 % gender 12.5 62.5% 25.0% 100% % total 2.1 10.4% 4.2% 16.7% Total Count 8 18 22 48 % gender 16.7% 37.5% 45.8% 100% % total 16.7% 37.5% 45.8% 100% Survey question 52l, ??t rying to decide what course of study to follow?? Table 65 indicates one male student veteran failed to respond. Of the remaining 47 student veterans, 83.0% (39) were bothered little or not at all, 10.6% (5) were bothered some, and 6.4% (3) were bothered very much. For the 39 male student veterans, 87.2% (34) were bothered little or not at all, 7.7% (3) were bothered some, and 5.1% (2) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 62.5% (5) were bothered little or not at all, 25.0% (2) were bothered some, and 12.5% (1) were bothered very much. 167 Table 65 Survey question 52l, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about trying to decide what course of study to follow?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 2 3 34 39 % gender 5.1% 7.7% 87.2% 100% % total 4.3% 6.4% 72.3% 83.0% Female Count 1 2 5 8 % gender 12.5 25.0% 62.5% 100% % total 2.1 4.3% 10.6% 17.0% Total Count 3 5 39 47 % gender 6.4% 10.6% 83.0% 100% % total 6.4% 10.6% 83.0% 100% Survey question 52m, ??t rying to make up a deficiency in preparation for some course?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 66 depicts 54.2% (26) were bothered little or not at all, 39.6% (19) were bothered some, and 6.2% (3) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 50.0% (4) were bothered little or not at all, 37.5% (3) were bothered some, and 12.5% (1) were bothered very much. For the 40 male student veterans, 55.0% (22) were bothered little or not at all, 40.0% (16) were bothered some, and 5.0% (2) were bothered very much. 168 Table 66 Survey question 52m, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about trying to make up a deficiency in preparation for some course?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 2 16 22 40 % gender 5.0% 40.0% 55.0% 100% % total 4.2% 33.3% 45.8% 83.3% Female Count 1 3 4 8 % gender 12.5 37.5% 50.0% 100% % total 2.1 6.2% 8.3% 16.7% Total Count 3 19 26 48 % gender 6.2% 39.6% 54.2% 100% % total 6.2% 39.6% 54.2% 100% Survey question 52n, ??r elations with members of the opposite sex?? Of the 48 student veterans, table 67 depicts 58.3% (28) were bothered little or not at all, 27.1% (13) were bothered some, and 14.6% (7) were bothered very much. For the 48 male student veterans, 52.5% (21) were bothered little or not at all, 32.5% (13) were bothered some, and 15.0% (6) were bothered very much. For the eight female student veterans, 87.5% (7) were bothered little or not at all, 12.5% (1) were bothered very much, and none was bothered some. 169 Table 67 Survey question 52n, ?Do you sometimes feel worried, anxious, and/or upset about relations with members of the opposite sex?? Veteran Bothered very much Bothered some Bothered little or not at all Total Male Count 6 13 21 40 % gender 15.0% 32.5% 52.5% 100% % total 12.5% 27.1% 45.8% 83.3% Female Count 1 7 8 % gender 12.5 87.5% 100% % total 2.1 14.6% 16.7% Total Count 7 13 28 48 % gender 14.6% 27.1% 58.3% 100% % total 14.6% 27.1% 58.3% 100% Survey question 53, ?Are there any problems not mentioned in the previous question, which have been bothering you in the past six months?? Of the 48 student veterans, 25.0% (12) revealed problems not addressed in question 52. These comments41 (and the number of student veterans mentioning them) included: ? PTSD or symptoms of PTSD (i.e., depression, nightmares, and sleep deprivation). Five (41.7%) of those student veterans providing comments mentioned this item. ? Getting others to put in as much effort towards our goals as I do (1). ? Regret not finishing degree when younger and better able to devote time to school (1). 41 For those comments made by only one student veteran, the PI did not intend the order in which he presented those comments to represent any degree of priority, importance, or level of concern. 170 ? Divorce (1). ? Anxiety issues concerning close friends still serving in combat areas (1). ? Nervousness in big crowds (1). ? Not being able to relate with other students (1). ? Lack of time to do school work due to work and family obligations (1). Survey question 54, ?How much would you say that any of the problems mentioned in the previous two questions have interfered with your college work in the past six months?? Within the student veteran sample, table 68 depicts 54.2% (26) felt the problems mentioned in questions 52 and 53 interfered a little, but not much with their college work, 35.4% (17) felt no interference at all, and 10.4% (5) felt the problems mentioned interfered a good deal. The mode value was two indicating the representative student veteran felt his worries interfered little, but not much. Of the eight female student veterans, 75% (6) felt the problems mentioned in the previous two questions interfered a little, but not much and 25% (2) felt no interference at all. None felt the problems interfered a good deal. The mode value was two indicating the representative female student veteran felt her worries interfered little to not much. Of the 48 male student veterans, 50% (20) felt the problems mentioned in the previous two questions interfered a little, but not much, 37.5% (15) felt no interference at all, and 12.5% (5) felt the problems interfered a good deal. The mode value was two indicating the representative male student veteran felt his worries interfered little to not much. 171 Table 68 Survey question 54, ?How much would you say that any of the problems mentioned in the previous two questions have interfered with your college work in the past six months?? Veteran Have interfered a good deal Have interfered a little, but not much Have not interfered at all Total Male Count 5 20 15 40 % gender 12.5% 50.0% 37.5% 100% % total 10.4% 41.7% 31.2% 83.3% Female Count 6 2 8 % gender 75.0% 25.0% 100% % total 12.5% 4.2% 16.7% Total Count 5 26 17 48 % gender 10.4% 54.2% 35.4% 100% % total 10.4% 54.2% 35.4% 100% Survey question 55, ?In general, do you, as either a veteran or nonveteran, feel respected by your fellow nonveteran students?? Table 69 presents the descriptive statistics for survey question 55. Within the student veteran sample, two male student veterans failed to respond. Of the remaining 46 student veterans who responded, 69.6% (32) believed they were fairly well respected, 13.0% (6) believed they were very well respected, 13.0% (6) believed they were somewhat disrespected, and 4.3% (2) believed they were very much disrespected. Of the eight female student veterans, 75.0% (6) believed they were fairly well respected, 12.5% (1) believed they were somewhat disrespected, and 12.5% (1) believed they were very much disrespected. None felt they were very much respected. 172 Of the 38 male student veterans, 68.4% (26) believed they were fairly well respected, 15.8% (6) believed they were very well respected, 13.2% (5) believed they were somewhat disrespected, and 2.6% (1) felt they were very much disrespected. Table 69 Survey question 55, ?In general, do you, as a veteran or nonveteran, feel respected by your fellow nonveteran students?? Veteran Very well respected Fairy well respected Somewhat disrespected Very much disrespected Total Male Count 6 26 5 1 38 % gender 15.8% 68.4% 13.2% 2.6% 100% % total 13.0% 56.5% 10.9% 2.2% 82.6% Female Count 6 1 1 8 % gender 75.0% 12.5% 12.5% 100% % total 13.0% 2.2% 2.2% 17.4% Total Count 6 32 6 2 46 % gender 13.0% 69.6% 13.0% 4.3% 100% % total 13.0% 69.6% 13.0% 4.3% 100% Survey question 55 also solicited participant comments. Of the 48 student veterans, 47.9% (23) provided remarks, which the PI coded and summarized here. Of these student veterans, one was a distance education student stationed in Iraq and had not interacted with students on campus. The comments42 of the remaining 22 student veterans fell into five categories. ? Nonveterans do not know why I am different (5 or 22.7%). ? I felt respected and/or appreciated (5 or 22.7%). 42 For those comments made by five veteran students or by four veteran students, the PI did not intend the order in which he presented those comments to represent any degree of priority, importance, or level of concern. 173 ? I did not feel disrespected (4 or 18.2%). ? Nonveterans are not interested in my military experiences (4 or 18.2%). ? Do not tell others I am a veteran (4 or 18.2%). Survey question 56, ?In general, do you, as either a veteran or nonveteran, feel respected by your fellow veteran students??43 Within the student veteran sample, one male student veteran failed to respond. Table 70 presents the descriptive statistics for the 47 remaining student veterans. Within the sample, 61.7% (29) felt very well respected, 29.8% (14) felt fairly well respected, 6.4% (3) felt somewhat disrespected, and 2.1% (1) felt very much disrespected. Of the 39 male student veterans, 66.7% (26) felt were very well respected, 30.8% (12) felt fairly well respected, and 2.6% (1) felt somewhat disrespected. None felt very much disrespected. Of the eight female student veterans, 37.5% (3) felt very well respected, 25.0% (2) felt fairly well respected, 25.0% (2) felt somewhat disrespected, and 12.5% (1) felt very much disrespected. 43 Of the 78 nonveteran students who responded to this question, 38.5% (30) indicated they did not know an AU student veteran. 174 Table 70 Survey question 56, ?In general, do you, as a veteran or nonveteran, feel respected by your fellow veteran students?? Veteran Very well respected Fairy well respected Somewhat disrespected Very much disrespected Total Male Count 26 12 1 39 % gender 66.7% 30.8% 2.6% 100% % total 55.3% 25.5% 2.1% 82.6% Female Count 3 2 2 1 8 % gender 37.5% 25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 100% % total 6.4% 4.3% 4.3% 2.1% 17.4% Total Count 29 14 3 1 47 % gender 61.7% 29.8% 6.4% 2.1% 100% % total 61.7% 29.8% 6.4% 2.1% 100% Survey question 56 also solicited participant comments. Fifteen of the 48 (31.3%) student veterans provided observations. Fourteen student veterans commented they felt respect from, a sense of brotherhood with, a feeling of family among, and a connection between their fellow student veterans. One female student veteran44 claimed other student veterans and ROTC cadets would not acknowledge her. Survey question 57, ?In general, do you feel respected by your professors?? Table 71 presents the descriptive statistics for survey question 57. Within the sample, one student veteran failed to respond. Of the remaining 47 student veterans, 66.0% (31) believed they were fairly well respected, 27.7% (13) 44 This veteran, in comments on other survey questions stated she ?did not feel recognized or asked about [her] experiences by those in the ROTC.? She further stated her classmates could not understand why she ?cannot sit with the rest of her class due to her PTSD.? 175 believed they were very well respected, 4.3% (2) believed they were very much disrespected and 2.1% (1) believed they were somewhat disrespected. Of the eight female student veterans, 50% (4) felt very well respected, 37.5% (3) felt fairly well respected, and 12.5% (1) felt very much disrespected. None felt somewhat disrespected. Of the 39 male student veterans, 71.8% (28) felt fairly well respected, 23.1% (9) felt very well respected, 2.6% (1) felt somewhat disrespected, and 2.6% (1) felt very much disrespected. Table 71 Survey question 57, ?In general, do you feel respected by your professors?? Veteran Very well respected Fairy well respected Somewhat disrespected Very much disrespected Total Male Count 9 28 1 1 38 % gender 23.1% 71.8% 2.6% 2.6% 100% % total 19.1% 59.6% 2.1% 2.1% 82.6% Female Count 4 3 1 8 % gender 50.0% 37.5% 12.5% 100% % total 8.5% 6.4% 2.1% 17.4% Total Count 13 31 1 2 47 % gender 27.7% 66.0% 2.1% 4.3% 100% % total 27.7% 66.0% 2.1% 4.3% 100% Survey question 57 also solicited participant comments. Eighteen (37.5%) provided comments, which the PI coded45 and summarized here into five categories. 45 For those comments made by an equal number of student veterans, the PI did not intend the order in which he presented those comments to represent any degree of priority, importance, or level of concern. 176 ? Were very professional, respected me, my opinions, my life experiences, and my capabilities (8 or 44.4%). ? Were as respectful to me as to others, but not due to my veteran status (3 or 16.7%). ? Treated me like a dumb college kid or made me feel inferior (3 or 16.7%). ? I earned my professors? respect through hard work (2 or 11.1%). ? Were very helpful with personal issues and resolving conflicts between my military duties and classes (2 or 11.1%). Survey question 58, ?In general, do you feel respected by the Auburn University administration?? Within the student veteran sample, two male student veterans failed to respond. Of the remaining 46 student veterans, table 72 indicates 52.2% (24) felt fairly well respected, 37.0% (17) felt very well respected, 10.9% (5) felt somewhat disrespected, and none felt very much disrespected. Of the 38 male student veterans, 47.4% (18) felt fairly well respected, 39.5% (15) felt very well respected, 13.2% (5) felt somewhat disrespected, and none felt very much disrespected. Of the eight female student veterans, 75.0% (6) felt fairly well respected, 25.0% (2) felt very well respected, and none felt somewhat disrespected or very much disrespected. 177 Table 72 Survey question 58, ?In general, do you feel respected by the Auburn University administration?? Veteran Very well respected Fairy well respected Somewhat disrespected Very much disrespected Total Male Count 15 18 5 38 % gender 39.5% 47.4% 13.2% 100% % total 32.6% 39.1% 10.9% 82.6% Female Count 2 6 8 % gender 25.0% 75.0% 100% % total 4.3% 13.0% 17.4% Total Count 17 24 5 47 % gender 37.0% 52.2% 10.9% 100% % total 37.0% 52.2% 10.9% 100% Survey question 58 also solicited participant comments. Eighteen (37.5%) student veterans provided comments, which the PI coded and summarized here into three categories. ? The administration does care (7 or 38.9%). ? No reasons to feel disrespected (6 or 33.3%). ? No yellow ribbon program; student veterans perceived as problems since the VA does not make timely payments; and AU only cares about money (5 or 27.8%). ? Treated as a traditional freshman and forced to purchase a meal plan (1 or 5.6%)46. 46 Anecdotal comment by a 27-year-old female student veteran, who stated she had spent six years in the active Navy, had been married 5 years, had two children, and was maintaining a home. 178 Survey question 59, ?In your opinion, is Auburn University a veteran- friendly campus??47 Within the sample, one student veteran failed to respond. Of the remaining 47 student veterans, table 73 shows 48.9% (23) felt AU was veteran-friendly, 23.4% (11) felt AU was veteran-neutral, 21.3% (10) felt AU was very veteran- friendly, and 6.4% (3) felt AU was veteran-unfriendly. Of the eight female student veterans, 62.5% (5) felt AU was veteran- friendly and 37.5% (3) felt AU was veteran-neutral. None felt AU was very veteran-friendly or veteran-unfriendly. Of the 39 male student veterans, 46.2% (18) felt AU was veteran-friendly, 25.6% (10) felt AU was very veteran-friendly, 20.5% (8) felt AU was veteran- neutral, and 7.7% (3) felt AU was veteran-unfriendly. Table 73 Survey question 59, ?In your opinion, is Auburn University a veteran-friendly campus?? Veteran Very veteran- friendly Veteran- friendly Veteran- neutral Veteran- unfriendly Total Male Count 10 18 8 3 39 % gender 25.6% 46.2% 20.5% 7.7% 100% % total 21.3% 38.3% 17.0% 6.4% 82.6% Female Count 5 3 8 % gender 62.5% 37.5% 100% % total 10.6% 6.4% 17.4% Total Count 10 23 11 3 47 % gender 21.3% 48.9% 23.4% 6.4% 100% % total 21.3% 48.9% 23.4% 6.4% 100% 47 Of the 78 nonveteran students who responded to this question, 14.1% (11) indicated they did not have an opinion concerning the level of veteran-friendliness on the AU campus. 179 Survey question 59 also solicited participants? comments. Of the 48 student veterans, 45.8% (22) provided comments, which the PI coded into four categories and summarized here. ? AU was trying to improve (10 or 45.5%). ? AU should participate in the Yellow Ribbon program, should offer all student veterans in-state tuition, and award credits for military training and for college courses taken while in service (6 or 27.3%). ? AU has a campus veterans association and the Auburn Student Veterans Association was doing good work (3 or 13.6%). ? Poor support from an overworked AU VA certifying official48 (1 or 4.5%). ? Should offer more accommodations such as group seating at sports events (1 or 4.5%). Summary The PI did not compare AU student veterans to AU nonveteran students as originally planned since recruiting participants from the PI?s chair?s two undergraduate business courses may have skewed the variety and type of the nonveteran student participants. Therefore, this chapter presented only those descriptive statistics describing the current male and female AU student veteran sample. These statistics are generalizable to the AU student veteran population since the student veteran sample represented 22.8% of the AU student veteran population. Based on these descriptive statistics, differences between female 48 At the time of this study, AU had only one VA certifying official. When not working on veterans issues, the VA certifying official supported other nonveteran financial aid activities. 180 and male AU student veterans do exist. Chapter V presents a summary of this investigation; discusses this study?s conclusions, recommendations, and implications; and suggests areas for future research. 181 Chapter V: Conclusions ?But, after my tour [in Iraq and the Army], I returned home to a vastly different environment, to put it mildly. I no longer had a rank. I no longer had a role. And, I?d lost my band of brothers (p. 55). I get really discouraged (p. 159).? --- Blake Davis, title character from the book, The Leader who had no Title (Sharma, 2010, p. 55). I think we have some respect for veterans, but on the other hand, we just don?t care. Heck, there?s probably a lot of my generation who don?t even know where Iraq and Afghanistan are.? --- Alyssa Warrick, future historian at Truman State University (McDaniel, 2004). ?They pulled out discharge papers, photographs, Bronze Stars and other medals, and they related memories of training and wartime that they have carried with them throughout their lives. I began to realize how essential it was to understand this part of their stories, which constituted the very basis through which they had become seen?I had not previously had a particular interest in military service, but the more I listened to the veterans, the more respect I gained for what that [service] had meant in their lives, the high price of citizenship they had paid, and how deeply they seemed to care about America.? --- Suzanne Mettler, Author of ?The GI Bil and the Making of the Greatest Generation? (Mettler, 2005, p. xi). Review of Purpose and Method This study began with the intent to compare AU student veterans and AU nonveteran students on the AU campus during the spring 2011 semester. However, the small nonveteran student sample size (0.39% or 78/20,082) and their possible lack of variety redirected this study to focus on only AU student veterans. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following research 182 subquestions concerning the typical AU student veteran, the typical AU female student veteran, and the typical AU male student veteran: 1. What demographic characteristics define AU male and female student veterans? 2. How do female AU student veterans spend their time compared to male AU nonveteran students? 3. What worries and concerns do male and female AU student veterans have or experience? 4. How do female and male AU student veterans perceive respect: e. From fellow AU student veterans? f. From fellow AU nonveteran students? g. From AU professors? h. From the AU administration? 5. How do male and female AU student veterans perceive the veteran- friendliness of the AU campus? This chapter summarizes this study?s findings, describes the conclusions, and makes recommendations for future research. Those reading this chapter should consider the descriptions herein as snapshots-in-time?snapshots that if collected in another time, may produce different results. Administrators, student advisors, student services and affairs personnel, staff, and faculty will find the narratives within this chapter useful in understanding and interacting with their student veterans. Note: while the PI did not consider the nonveteran student sample large enough or varied enough to generalize findings to the nonveteran 183 student subpopulation, he did include some interesting discoveries regarding nonveteran students in various footnotes throughout this chapter. Summary of the Findings This section addresses each research subquestion separately by first describing the characteristics or conclusions for the typical AU student veteran, followed by the typical AU male student veteran and the typical AU female student veteran. Since the student veteran sample represented 22.3% (48/210) of the AU student veteran subpopulation, since the female student veteran sample represented 25.8% (8/31) of the AU female student veteran subpopulation, and since the male student veteran sample represented 22.3% (40/179) of the AU male student veteran subpopulation, it is safe to generalize the conclusions here to the various AU student veteran subpopulations. Research subquestion 1. What demographic characteristics define AU student veterans? The representative AU student veteran. The representative student veteran who attended AU during the spring 2011 semester was a single49 (56.2%) childless (83.3%) 26.9 year-old (mean) non-Hispanic (93.8%) white (91.7%) male (83.3%) from Alabama (75.0%). His high school hometown had a population between 2,500 and 25,000 (mode). He resided in an apartment or house50 (79.2%) and worked an average of 15.9 49 Single (45.8%) and single, living with significant other (10.4%) added together. 50 No veteran lived in a residence hall while 14.0% of nonveterans did. No veteran lived in a fraternity house while 2.0% of nonveterans did. No nonveteran lived with parents or relatives while 8.3% of veterans did. 184 hours weekly51. His mean ACT score was 25.5. He had attended college (mode) and had completed two terms (mode) before entering military service. He probably would have gone to college (mode) if he had not entered military service and would have gone (50.0%) or probably would have gone (25.0%) to college even if VA education benefits had not been available. His three primary reasons for coming to college were: 1) to prepare for a better-paying job; 2) to earn a college degree since it was necessary to enter his chosen profession; and 3) to increase his general knowledge. He was planning to complete his degree in the normal time (42.5%) or longer (30.0%). He had served in the Army (27.1%) or the Army Reserve or National Guard (20.8%) for approximately five years and seven months52 (mean). He had been an E-453 (mode) and had served overseas (85.4%) primarily on land duty (95.1%) for approximately 19 months in at least one (56.4%) foreign country. He had served in Iraq (62.5%) and/or Afghanistan (8.3%) and was still performing military service (58.3%) in either the Reserves or National Guard (67.9%) or on Active duty (32.1%). He believed his military service had made him more eager to attend college (57.1%) and had caused him to do better scholastically (68.8%). When he first enrolled at AU, he felt fairly well prepared (mode) to get the most out of his classes. During the fall 2010 semester, he had enjoyed his classes as expected (66.7%); but found keeping up with his course work somewhat more difficult (46.7%) or much more difficult (8.9%) than expected. He 51 While 37.5% of AU student veterans did not work, 14.6% (median) worked 16 to 20 hours a week and 14.6 % worked over 40 hours each week. 52 As of 1 February 2011. 53 The pay grade E-4 is the rank equivalent of Specialist or Corporal (Army), Corporal (Marine Corps), Petty Officer Third Class (Navy or Coast Guard), or Senior Airman (Air Force). 185 felt his professors during the fall 2010 semester were mostly good teachers (62.2%). At the end of the fall 2010 semester, he had accumulated between 61 and 75 credits (median). His GPA was between 3.0 and 3.4999 (mode). He felt he had an entirely satisfactory (54.2%) or very satisfactory (41.7%) place to study. He had completed his assignments usually on time (mode) and had usually exerted fairly hard effort in some courses but not so hard effort in other courses (mode). He was interested in most of his courses (mode); yet sometimes felt the things he was studying were not worth the time he had to spend on them (mode). During the spring 2011 semester, he was an undergraduate (87.5%) enrolled in the department of his first choice (87.5%) and was primarily a business (29.8%), liberal arts (29.8%), or engineering (12.8%) major. He had enrolled for 13.7 credits hours (mean) and was drawing VA and/or state education benefits (87.5%)54, but most likely the post-9/11 GI Bill (60.4%). Overall, he was fairly well satisfied (39.6%) or very well satisfied (37.5%) with the kind of education AU was giving him. If another college were to admit him, he would still want to attend AU (77.1%). The representative AU male student veteran. The representative male student veteran who attended AU during the spring 2011 semester was a single55 (62.5%) 26.9-year-old (mean), non-Hispanic (95.0%), white (92.5%), childless (85.0%), Alabamian. His high school hometown?s population had been between 2,500 and 25,000 (mode). He lived in 54 Not eligible for benefits, 4.3%; had not applied for benefits, 6.2%; or had used up their benefits, 2.1%. 55 Single (50%) and single, living with significant other (12.5%) are combined. 186 a house or apartment (80.0%) and worked56 roughly 16.9 hours a week (mean). His mean ACT score was 25.1. He had attended college (mode)57 before entering military service and had completed two terms (mode). He felt he probably would have gone to college (mode) if he had not entered military service and would have gone (50.0%) or probably would have gone (25.0%) to college even if VA education benefits had not been available. His three primary reasons for coming to college were: 1) to prepare for a better-paying job; 2) to earn a college degree since it was necessary to enter his chosen profession; and 3) to increase his general knowledge. He was planning to complete his degree in the normal time (42.5%) or longer (30.0%). He had served in the Army (37.5%) or the Army Reserve or National Guard (20.8%) for approximately five years and nine months58. He had been an E-559 (mode). He had served overseas (85.0%) primarily on land duty (94.1%) for approximately 19 months in at least one (56.2%) foreign country. He had served in Iraq (62.5%) and/or Afghanistan (10.0%). Surprisingly, he was still serving (66.7%) in a Reserve or National Guard unit (66.7%) or on active duty (33.3%). He believed his military service made had him more eager to attend college (61.1%) and felt his military service contributed to better scholastic achievement (65.0%). 56 While 32.5% of male student veterans did not work, 17.5% (median) worked 16 to 20 hours a week and 15.0% worked over 40 hours each week. 57 From table 21, page 105. See footnote 35 on page 104. 58 As of 1 February 2011. 59 The pay grade E-5 is the rank equivalent of Sergeant (Army or Marine Corps), Petty Officer Second Class (Navy or Coast Guard), or Staff Sergeant (Air Force). 187 When he first enrolled at AU, he felt fairly well prepared to get the most out of his classes (52.5%). During the fall 2010 semester, he had enjoyed his classes as expected (71.1%); but found keeping up with his course work somewhat more difficult (50.0%) or much more difficult (7.9%) than expected. His professors during the fall 2010 semester had been mostly good teachers (63.2%). At the end of the fall 2010 semester, he had accumulated between 61 and 75 credits (mode) and was maintaining a GPA between 3.0 and 3.4999 (mode). He felt his study area had been entirely satisfactory (50.0%) or fairly satisfactory (45.0%) and usually completed his assignments on time (mode). He usually exerted fairly hard effort to do well in some courses and not so hard effort in other courses (mode). He was interested in most of his courses (mode), yet sometimes felt the things he had studied were not worth the time he had to spend on them (mode). During the spring 2011 semester he was an undergraduate (85%), was enrolled in the department of his first choice (90.0%), and was primarily a business (33.3%), liberal arts (28.2%), or engineering (15.4%) major. He had enrolled for 13.8 credits hours (mean) and was drawing federal and/or state education benefits (85.0%), most likely the post-9/11 GI Bill (60.0%). Overall, he was fairly well satisfied (42.5%) or very well satisfied (35.0%) with the kind of education AU was giving him. If another college were to admit him, he would want to remain at Auburn (75.0%). 188 The representative AU female student veteran. The representative AU female student veteran who attended AU during the spring 2011 semester was a married (75.0%)60, childless (75.0%), 26.8 year- old (mean) non-Hispanic (87.5%) white (87.5%), Alabamian (100%). Her high school hometown had a population between 2,500 and 25,000. She resided in an apartment or house (75.0%) and worked61 an average of 11.4 hours a week. Her mean ACT score was 28.3. She had attended college (75%) and had completed two terms (mode) before entering military service. She probably would have gone to college (mode and median) and would have gone (50.0%) or probably would have gone (25.0%) even if VA education benefits had not been available (75%). Her three primary reasons for coming to college were: 1) to prepare for a better- paying job; 2) to earn a college degree since it was necessary to enter her chosen profession; and 3) to increase her general knowledge. She was planning to complete her degree in the normal time (37.5%) or longer (37.5%). She had served in the Army (37.5%), or the Army Reserve or National Guard (37.5%) for approximately four years and ten months. The highest pay grade she had held was E-462 (75.0%). She had served overseas (87.5%) on land duty (100%) for just over 18 months in at least one (57.1%) foreign country. She had served in Iraq (100.0%) but not in Afghanistan. At the time of this study she was still serving (50.0%) in the Army Reserves or National Guard (37.5%) or in the active Army (12.5%). She felt her military service had not change her 60 Separated was considered to be married. 61 Five of the eight female veterans (62.5%) did not work (mode). 62 The pay grade E-4 is the rank equivalent of Specialist or Corporal (Army), Corporal (Marine Corps), Petty Officer Third Class (Navy or Coast Guard), or Senior Airman (Air Force). 189 eagerness to attend college (66.7%) and believed her military service had caused her to perform better scholastically (87.5%). When she first enrolled at AU, she felt poorly prepared (37.5%) or fairly well prepared (37.5%) to get the most out of her classes. During the fall 2010 semester, she had enjoyed her classes as expected (42.9%) or less than expected (42.9%); and found her efforts to keep up with her studies as difficult as expected (57.1%). Her teachers during the fall 2010 semester were mostly good (57.1%). At the end of the fall 2010 semester, she had accumulated between 31 and 60 (bimodal) credit hours. She was interested in most of her courses (mode) and seldom felt her courses were not worth the time she spent on them (mode). Her cumulative GPA was between 3.0 and 3.4999 (mode and median). She felt she had an entirely satisfactory (75.0%) place to study, usually exerted strong effort (mode) to do good work in her courses, and usually completed her assignments on time (62.5%) or before (37.5%) those assignments were due. During the spring 2011 semester, she was an undergraduate (100%) liberal arts (37.5%) or education (25.0%) major enrolled in her department of first choice (75.0%). She had enrolled for 13.6 credit hours (mean) and was drawing federal and/or state education benefits (87.5%63)?most likely the post-9/11 GI Bill (62.5%). In general, she was very well satisfied (50.0%) or fairly well satisfied (25.0%) with the kind of education AU was giving her. She felt if another college were to admit her, she would want to remain at AU (87.5%). 63 One female student veteran was using active duty tuition assistance benefits. 190 Research subquestion 2. How do AU student veterans spend their time?64 NOTE: As discussed in Chapter IV, this question did not specify nor require the total number of hours to add up to 168 hours (hours available in one seven-day week). Some student veteran participants may have assumed an academic week of five days, or 120 hours. The representative AU student veteran. During a typical seven-day week, the representative student veteran slept 40.2 hours; worked 25.5 hours; spent 14.0 hours in classes and labs; participated in 13.9 hours of other activities; and played computer games and/or watched television for 9.9 hours. He engaged in 8.3 hours of extra-curricular activities; studied 7.4 hours; spent 5.2 hours in social activities; and spent 4.4 hours in athletics or other physical activities. He spent 2.9 hours on distance education courses; attended 2.9 hours of lectures and/or concerts; spent 2.7 hours travelling to/from campus; allocated 2.0 hours to religious activities; talked for 2.0 hours during bull sessions; and participated 26.7 hours in unidentified activities. The representative AU male student veteran. During a typical week the representative male student veteran slept 39.0 hours; worked 25.0 hours; spent 14.7 hours in classes and labs; and participated in other activities for 11.3 hours. He played computer games and/or watched television for 10.6 hours and participated in 10.8 hours of extra-curricular activities. He spent 7.9 hours studying and 5.9 hours engaged in social activities. 64 For each activity, some participants indicated zero time spent on that activity. Therefore, the PI calculated the average time spent on each activity by summing the times indicated and then dividing the total time by the count of participants who indicated time spent on that activity. 191 He participated in athletics or other physical activities for 4.5 hours, worked 3.8 hours on distance education courses, and attended 2.7 hours of lectures and/or concerts. He spent 2.4 hours travelling to and from the AU campus, 2.0 hours in religious activities and 2.0 hours in bull sessions, and 25.5 hours in other unidentified activities. The representative AU female student veteran. A typical week for the representative female student veteran saw her sleeping 45.9 hours, working 11.4 hours, sitting in class and/or labs for 10.8 hours; and engaging in other activities for 23.0 hours. She played computer games and/or watched television for 6.8 hours, was involved in extra-curricular activities for 2.2 hours, studied for 5.5 hours, and spent 2.4 hours in social activities. She was involved in athletics or other physical activities for 3.8 hours, spent 1.7 hours on distance education courses, and attended 4.0 hours of lectures and/or concerts. She had to travel 4.0 hours to and from the AU campus and spent 2.3 hours in religious activities. She did not participate in bull sessions and spent 44.2 hours engaged in other unidentified activities. Comparing the representative male and female student veterans. Table 74 depicts those five activities the representative female student veteran spent more time on than the representative male student veteran did and the number of additional hours she was engaged in those activities. 192 Table 74 Activities where the representative AU female student veteran spent more time than the representative AU male student veteran.? Females spent more time on? Representative female student veterana Representative male student veterana Differencea Other activities 23.0 11.3 11.7 Sleep 45.9 39.0 6.9 Travel to/from campus 4.0 2.4 1.6 Lectures, concerts, etc. 4.0 2.7 1.3 Religious activities 2.3 1.9 0.4 Unaccounted for time 44.2 25.5 18.7 a Times shown are in hours Table 75 depicts those ten activities the representative AU male student veteran spent more time on than the representative AU female did and the number of additional hours he was engaged. Table 75 Activities where the representative male AU student veteran spent more time than the representative AU female student veteran. Males spent more time on? Representative male student veterana Representative female student veterana Differencea Employment 25.0 11.4 13.6 Extra-curricular activities 10.8 2.2 11.7 Classes, labs, etc. 14.7 10.8 3.9 Computer games or TV 10.6 6.8 3.8 Social activities 5.9 2.4 3.5 Studying 7.9 5.5 2.4 Distance education 3.8 1.7 2.1 Bull sessions 2.0 0.0 2.0 Athletics/physical education 4.5 3.8 0.7 a Times shown are in hours 193 Research subquestion 3. What worries and concerns do AU students veterans have or experience? NOTE: While the PI considered the AU nonveteran student sample too small and lacking in participant variety to generalize findings and conclusions to the AU nonveteran student population, he did compare AU student veterans to AU nonveteran students. The PI has provided footnotes describing these comparative descriptive statistics in the hope they may generate scholarly interest and thought. To rank the worries and concerns, the PI added the percentages for the bothered very much and bothered some statistics and then ranked the worries from highest percent to the lowest percent. The representative AU student veteran?s worries. The representative student veteran occasionally (mode) felt worried, anxious, or upset but felt little to no interference (mode) from these worries in the past six months. Table 76 depicts those worries and/or concerns that bothered him the most. In descending order, he was bothered most by his financial situation65; being unable to concentrate66; feelings67 of inferiority, inability to compete with others, or to live up to his own standards; nervousness68; and lastly getting to know people socially69. 65 Making ends meet financially bothered veterans (75.0%) more than it bothered nonveterans (62.8%). 66 Being unable to concentrate bothered veterans (64.6%) less than it bothered nonveterans (70.5%). 67 Feelings of inferiority, inability to compete, or to live up to his own standards bothered veterans (54.2%) less than it bothered nonveterans (62.8%). 68 Nervousness bothered veterans (52.1%) less than it bothered nonveterans (67.9%). 69 Getting to know people socially bothered veterans (52.0%) more than it bothered nonveterans (42.3%). 194 Table 76 Worries that bothered the representative student veteran the most. Worries or Concerns Bothered very much Bothered some Total Bothered some or very much Making ends meet financially 41.7% 32.5% 74.2% Being unable to concentrate 37.5% 27.1% 64.6% Feelings of inferiority, inability to compete with others, or to live up to your own standards 16.7% 37.5% 54.2% Nervousness 10.4% 41.7% 52.1% Getting to know people socially 20.8% 31.2% 52.0% Table 77 depicts those worries and/or concerns that bothered the representative student veteran the least. In ascending order, he was bothered least by legal issues70, illness or death in his family71, deciding what courses of study to follow72, his housing situations73, other worries74, health problems75, strained relationships with close relatives or friends76, relations with members of the opposite sex77, getting used to college-level study78, and trying to make up a deficiency in preparation for some course79. 70 Legal issues bothered veterans (10.4%) more than they bothered nonveterans (5.1%). 71 Illness/death in the family bothered veterans (14.4%) much less than they bothered nonveterans (34.6%). 72 Deciding a course of study bothered veterans (17.0%) much less than it bothered nonveterans (34.6%). 73 Lack of adequate housing bothered veterans (20.9%) and nonveterans (19.3%) about equally. 74 Other worries bothered veterans (27.1%) just slightly more than they bothered nonveterans (24.4%). 75 Health problems bothered veterans (38.3%) less than they bothered nonveterans (46.2%). 76 Strained personal relationships bothered veterans (39.6%) less than they bothered nonveterans (48.8%). 77 Relations with the opposite sex bothered veterans (41.7%) less than they bothered nonveterans (47.5%). 78 Getting use to college study bothered veterans (44.7%) more than it bothered nonveterans (41.0%). 79 Trying to make up a deficiency in preparing for a course bothered veterans (45.8%) slightly less than it bothered nonveterans (47.5%). 195 Table 77 Worries that bothered the representative AU student veteran the least. Worries or Concerns Bothered little or not at all Legal issues 89.6% Illness or death in your family 85.4% Trying to decide what course of study to follow 83.0% Lack of adequate housing accommodations 79.2% Other worries 72.9% Health problems 61.7% Strained personal relations with close relatives or friends 60.4% Relations with members of the opposite sex 58.3% Getting accustomed to college study 56.2% Trying to make up a deficiency in preparation for some course 54.2% The representative AU male student veteran?s worries. The representative male student veteran occasionally (mode) felt worried, anxious, or upset but felt little to no interference (mode) from these worries in the past six months. Table 78 depicts those worries and/or concerns that bothered the representative male student veteran the most. Making ends meet financially bothered him the most followed in order by his inability to concentrate; feelings of inferiority, inability to compete with others, or to live up to his own standards; and lastly nervousness. 196 Table 78 Worries that bothered the representative AU male student veteran the most. Worries or Concerns Bothered very much Bothered some Total Bothered some or very much Making ends meet financially 40.0% 32.5% 72.5% Being unable to concentrate 27.5% 32.5% 60.0% Feelings of inferiority, inability to compete with others, or to live up to your own standards 17.5% 32.5% 50.0% Nervousness 10.4% 37.5% 50.0% Table 79 depicts those worries and/or concerns that bothered the representative male student veteran the least. He was bothered the least by legal issues, trying to decide what course of study to follow, illness or death in his family, lack of adequate housing, health problems, strained relationships with close relatives and friends, trying to make up a deficiency in preparing for some course, relations with members of the opposite sex, getting to know people socially, and getting accustomed to college study. 197 Table 79 Worries that bothered the representative AU male student veteran the least. Worries or Concerns Bothered little or not at all Legal issues 90.0% Trying to decide what course of study to follow 87.2% Illness or death in your family 85.0% Lack of adequate housing accommodations 80.0% Other worries 72.9% Health problems 64.1% Strained personal relations with close relatives or friends 62.5% Trying to make up a deficiency in preparation for some course 55.0% Relations with members of the opposite sex 52.5% Getting to know people socially 52.5% Getting accustomed to college study 50.0% The representative AU female student veteran?s worries. The representative female student veteran occasionally (mode) felt worried, anxious, or upset but felt little to no interference (mode) from these worries in the past six months. Table 80 indicates she was bothered mostly by her finances and getting to know others socially. Her other worries include her feelings of inferiority, inability to compete with others, or to live up to her own standards; getting use to college-level study; her nervousness, and her inability to concentrate. 198 Table 80 Worries that bothered the representative AU female student veteran the most. Worries or Concerns Bothered very much Bothered some Total Bothered some or very much Making ends meet financially 50.0% 37.5% 87.5% Getting to know people socially 25.0% 62.5% 87.5% Feelings of inferiority; inability to compete with others; or to live up to your own standards 12.5% 62.5% 75.0% Getting accustomed to college study 62.5% 62.5% Nervousness 62.5% 62.5% Being unable to concentrate 25.0% 32.5% 60.0% Table 81 depicts those worries and/or concerns that bothered the representative female veteran the least. In ascending order, her worries were her legal issues, relations with members of the opposite sex, illness or death in her family, her housing situation, other worries, deciding what course of study to follow, health issues, strained relationships with close family members and friends, and trying to make up a deficiency in preparing for some course. 199 Table 81 Worries that bothered the representative AU female student veteran the least. Worries or Concerns Bothered little or not at all Legal issues 87.5% Relations with members of the opposite sex 87.5% Illness or death in her family 87.5% Lack of adequate housing accommodations 75.0% Other worries 72.9% Trying to decide what course of study to follow 62.5% Health problems 50.0% Strained personal relations with close relatives or friends 50.0% Trying to make up a deficiency in preparation for some course 50.0% Research subquestion 4a. How do AU student veterans perceive respect from fellow AU student veterans?80 The representative student veteran felt his fellow student veterans respected him very well (61.7%) or fairly well (29.8%)81. The representative male student veteran felt his fellow student veterans respected him very well (66.7%) or fairly well (30.8%). The representative female student veteran felt most of her fellow student veterans respected her very well (37.5%) or fairly well (25.0%). These perceptions of respect stemmed from a shared sense of brotherhood and family and a strong connection with their fellow AU student veterans. However, the female veteran felt some of her fellow veterans disrespected her somewhat (25.0%) or very much (12.5%). Additionally, the female veteran?s 80 Veterans felt more disrespect from veterans (8.5%) than nonveterans felt from veterans (2.1%). 81 For this question, 39.0% of AU nonveteran students answered they did not know an AU student veteran. 200 perception that her fellow veterans respected her very well, is about half what the male veteran felt from his fellow veterans (37.5% vs. 66.7%, respectively). Research subquestion 4b. How do AU student veterans perceive respect from fellow AU nonveterans?82 The representative student veteran believed nonveteran students respected him fairly well (69.6%), yet felt some nonveteran students were somewhat disrespectful (13.0%) or very much disrespectful (4.3%). The representative male student veteran felt fairly well respected (68.4%) or very well respected (15.8%) while sensing a little disrespect (13.2%). The representative female student veteran felt fairly well respected (75.0%) yet felt an undercurrent of being somewhat disrespected (12.5%) or very disrespected (12.5%). The representative female student veteran?s perception that her fellow AU nonveteran students somewhat or very much disrespected her is much greater than the representative male student veteran?s perception of disrespect from his fellow nonveteran students (25.0% vs. 15.6%, respectively). Student veterans felt nonveteran students were not interested in their military experiences and felt nonveteran students did not understand why those experiences made them different. Research subquestion 4c. How do AU student veterans perceive respect from AU professors?83 The representative student veteran thought his AU professors respected him fairly well (66.0%) or very well (27.7%). Veterans felt their professors were respectful; professional; valued their life experiences, opinions, and capabilities; 82 Nonveterans felt less disrespect from nonveterans (6.5%) than veterans felt from nonveterans (17.3%). 83 Nonveterans felt more disrespect from professors (9.1%) than veterans felt from professors (6.4%). 201 and were very helpful with personal issues and when necessary, resolving conflicts between their military duties and classes. The representative male student veteran felt his professors were fairly well respectful (71.8%) or very well respectful (23.1%). The representative female student veteran felt her professors respected her very well (50.0%) or fairly well (37.5%).The female veteran?s perception that her professors respected her very well is more than double the male veteran?s perception that his professors respected him very well (50.0% vs. 23.1%, respectively). Research subquestion 4d. How do AU student veterans perceive respect from the AU administration?84 The representative student veteran felt fairly well respected (52.2%) or very well respected (37.0%) by the AU administration. The typical student veteran felt the AU administration did care, yet some voiced concern the administration only cared about money since AU was not participating in the Yellow Ribbon program. The representative female85 student veteran perceived the AU administration as fairly well respectful (75.0%) or very well respectful (25.0%). The representative male student veteran sensed the AU administration as fairly well respectful (47.4%) or very well respectful (39.5%). 84 Both veterans and nonveterans felt respected by the AU administration (89.2% vs. 89.7%, respectively). 85 While not represented in these statistics, a 27-year-old female Navy veteran with six years active service anecdotally commented she had been married five years, had two children, and was maintaining a home. Yet, she felt the AU administration disrespected her by treating her as a typical traditional freshman by forcing her to purchase meal plans. 202 Research subquestion 5. How do AU student veterans perceive AU?s veteran-friendliness?86 The representative student veteran believed AU was either veteran- friendly (48.9%) or very veteran-friendly (21.3%). The representative male student veteran felt the AU campus was either veteran-friendly (46.2%) or very veteran-friendly (25.6%). The representative female student veteran thought the AU campus was veteran-friendly (62.5%) or veteran-neutral (37.5%). The typical student veteran felt AU was trying to improve the campus for student veterans yet some identified the lack of in-state tuition for all student veterans and the difficulty of getting course credits for military training or college courses taken while in service as areas of concern. Central research question. What are the defining characteristics of AU?s student veterans? The descriptive statistics describing AU?s 40 male and eight female student veterans surveyed in this study revealed some interesting discoveries. This section summarizes those findings AU?s administration, faculty, and support staff may find interesting and presents those themes here: 1) Veterans make up 0.89% (210/23,533) of the AU spring 2011 general student population. Only the labeled group Native Americans and Alaskans who make up 0.7% (165/23,533) of the general student population constitute a smaller subpopulation of AU students (AU OIRA, 2010a). 86 In answering this question, all veterans had opinions while 15.4% of nonveterans had no opinions. Veterans more than nonveterans felt AU was a veteran neutral or veteran-unfriendly campus (29.8% vs. 6.1%, respectively). Nonveteran participants equated the presence of ROTC and a lack of anti-war demonstrations to veteran-friendliness, yet 38.5% of AU nonveterans did not know an AU veteran student. 203 2) Males compose 83.3% of the AU student veteran population (S. Bernard, personal communication, February 14, 2011). Males made up 41.8% (10,484/25,078) of the fall 2010 semester enrollment (AU?s OIRA, 2010a). 3) Male and female student veterans were the same age (26.9 vs. 26.8, respectively) and on average student veterans were older than the average undergraduate or graduate nonveteran student was. The fall 2010 semester undergraduate?s average age87 was 20.5 while a graduate?s average age was 26.3 (AU?s OIRA, 2010b). 4) Caucasians (91.7%) dominated the student veteran population. No female student veterans were Black. During the fall 2010 semester Caucasians made up 81.6% (20,527/25,078) of the general student population (AU?s OIRA. 2010a). 5) One hundred percent of female student veterans and 75% of the male student veterans were Alabamians. Only 61.3% (14,751/24,056) of AU?s fall 2010 enrollment hailed from Alabama (AU?s OIRA, 2010c). 6) Veterans were mostly undergraduates (87.5%). All student veterans claiming graduate status were males. 7) No student veterans lived in a residence hall or in a fraternity house. 8) Ten percent of male student veterans lived with parents or relatives while no female student veterans did. 9) No student veterans lived in on-campus housing while 20.1% of AU undergraduates did (AU?s OIRA, 2010d, p. 3). 87 The PI calculated the average age from referenced data. 204 10) Surprisingly, 58.3% of AU student veterans were still serving in an AC or RC unit. Of those serving, 67.9% were in the National Guard or Reserve while 32.1% were in AC units. 11) As of 1 February 2011, female student veterans had served an average of 58 months while male student veterans had served 69 months. 12) The representative female student veteran had a minimum length of service one and a half years longer than the representative male student veteran had (2.0 years vs. 0.5 years, respectively). 13) Most student veterans had served overseas (85.4%). Their average time overseas was about 19 months. 14) Of those who had served overseas, 87.1% had served in Iraq and 12.9% had served in Afghanistan. 15) Fifty-two percent (25) of student veterans (48) had attended college before entering military service and had completed one or more college terms before entering military service. Sixty percent (15) of those 25 student veterans who had attended college had completed three or more college terms. 16) While 87.5%88 of AU student veterans were using federal and/or state education benefits, 45.8% worked more than 16 hours a week. 17) Male AU student veterans worked an average of 25.0 hours a week while AU female veterans worked only 11.4 hours a week. 88 Not eligible for education benefits, 4.2%; had not applied for education benefits, 4.2%; had used up education benefits, 2.1%. 205 18) While 57.1% of student veterans felt their military service made them more eager to attend college, 66.7% of female student veterans and 33.3% of male student veterans felt no change in their eagerness to attend college. 19) Of AU?s 48 student veterans, 33.3% (16) were married. Of the married student veterans, six had one child and two had two children. 20) Female student veterans had higher mean ACT scores than male student veterans had (28.3 vs. 25.1, respectively). The mean ACT score for AY 2010-2011 entering freshmen was 26.9 (OIRA, 2010e. ACT Test Composite Scores section). 21) While 75.0% of female student veterans reported GPAs higher than 3.000, only 55.2% of male student veterans reported similar GPAs. 22) Male student veterans were mostly Business (33.3%) and Liberal Arts (28.2%) majors, while female student veterans were mostly Liberal Arts (37.5%) and Education (25.0%) majors. 23) While 90.0% of male student veterans were enrolled in the academic department of their first choice, 25.0% of female student veterans would prefer to be enrolled in another department. 24) Eighty percent of male student veterans and 75.0% of female student veterans were taking 11 or more credits during the spring 2011 semester. 25) During the fall 2010 semester, more female student veterans (42.9%) than male student veterans (10.5%) enjoyed their studies less than expected. 26) Nearly one-third (31.2%) of student veterans were planning to take longer than the usual time to complete their degrees. 206 27) Eighty percent of AU male student veterans and 75.0% of AU female student veterans were taking 11 or more credits during the spring 2011 semester. 28) More than three-fourths (77.1%) of AU student veterans would remain at AU even if admitted to another college or university. 29) At the time they first enrolled at AU, nearly one-third (31.2%) of AU student veterans felt poorly prepared to get the most out of their education. 30) AU student veterans occasionally felt worried, upset, or anxious (58.3%). In the past six months, 35.4% of AU?s student veterans felt these concerns interfered a good deal. 31) Male student veterans felt more disrespect from nonveterans (15.8%) than from fellow student veterans (2.6%). 32) Female student veterans felt more disrespect from fellow student veterans (37.5%) than from nonveterans (25.0%). 33) Female student veterans (12.5%) felt more disrespect from their professors than male student veterans (5.2%) felt from theirs. 34) Male student veterans felt more disrespect from the AU administration (13.2%) than female student veterans did (0.0%). 35) Nearly seven in ten student veterans felt the AU campus was veteran-friendly while three in ten felt the campus was either veteran-neutral (23.4%) or veteran-unfriendly (6.4%). While no female student veteran felt the AU campus was veteran-unfriendly, 37.5% felt the campus was veteran-neutral. 207 Male student veterans felt the campus was veteran-unfriendly (7.7%) or veteran- neutral (20.5%). Implications for research Clearly, more research is necessary to describe fully the differences between student veterans and nonveterans on the AU campus. The availability of research describing the national population of student veterans generically is limited and the paucity of information needs to be addressed in future research. Below are suggested areas for additional research. ? Can the results of this study be generalized to other four-year colleges or universities, community colleges, elite institutions etc. when considering such qualifiers as : o Anti-ROTC sentiments and attitudes (e.g., Harvard, Columbia, or Brown)? o Number of veterans located in the state (in 2007 more veterans in the South [43%]; fewer veterans in the Northeast [12.8%])? o Enrollment criteria (i.e., ACT/SAT scores)? o Unique program offerings (e.g., wireless engineering technology)? o Proximity to military installations? ? Would the trends uncovered in this study fluctuate over time or remain steady and constant during longitudinal research? 208 ? How many student veterans have been diagnosed with PTSD, depression, TBI, or a LD and how did these veterans perform academically? ? Are those student veterans having been diagnosed with PTSD, depression, TBI, or LD using student counseling services, and what is the effectiveness of that counseling? ? What campus activities are institutions using to educate nonveteran students about student veterans and issues related to PTSD, depression, TBI, and LD? ? What is the relationship between PTSD, TBI, and LD and social acceptance of veteran students and/or academic performance? ? Would students veterans be willing to participate in campus activities intended to educate nonveteran students about PTSD, depression, TBI, and LD or would student veterans feel an invasion of privacy? ? Why are nearly three in five AU student veterans continuing to serve (one in five in AC units; two in five in RC units) while simultaneously working towards their degrees? ? What effect does continuing to serve while attending college have on social acceptance, perceptions of respect, and/or academic performance? ? Why do AU female student veterans perceive much greater levels of disrespect from male student veterans and from nonveterans than male student veterans perceive from the same groups? 209 ? Is there a relationship between female student veterans? perceptions of the military males? attitudes towards women in service and the female student veterans? perceptions of male student veterans? attitudes of female student veterans on campus? ? Why are nearly a third of student veterans planning to take longer than the normal time to complete their degrees? ? Is there a relationship between a student veteran?s academic department and the student veteran?s perception of his professors? teaching quality? ? Is there a relationship between a student veteran?s military pay grade or rank and/or branch of service and a student veteran?s perception of his professors? teaching qualities? ? Is there a relationship between a student veteran?s gender and branch of service and the student veteran?s choice of department? ? How many student veterans can be considered transfer students? ? Does still serving in the military (reserve or active) affect GPA? ? Does branch of service (e.g., Army vs. Marine Corps) affect student veterans? GPA? ? Does branch of service affect student veterans? perceptions of respect? ? Does pay grade affect student veterans? perceptions of respect? ? Does gender impact student veterans? perceptions of respect? ? Does overseas service influence student veterans? perceptions of respect? 210 ? Is there a relationship between a student veteran?s branch of service and/or MOS and the student veteran?s ability to do good scholastic work? ? Does branch of service or MOS affect difficulty of keeping up with course work? So, what? Why should we care about those student veterans on campus? No two student veterans are alike. They come from and with different pre- military and military experiences. They serve and/or served in various AC and RC forces for different lengths of time; received different types and lengths of training; experienced different numbers, types, and lengths of deployments to various worldwide locations; held different ranks and pay grades; experienced a wide range leadership and concern from their chains of command; and experienced differing degrees of combat trauma. While most may be warriors, some may have been serving conscientious objectors89. Female student veterans may have experienced MST and may have been labeled promiscuous or lesbian, but had to survive in military environments valuing male virtues and characteristics. Some student veterans may have issued orders resulting in the deaths of subordinates or noncombatants. Some student veterans may feel a sense (survivor?s guilt) of having abandoned their buddies when they departed the war zone. Many student veterans have never cried and simply continue to ?suck it up? and ?drive on.? How these veterans interacted, reacted, internalized, 89 WWI Congressional Medal of Honor winner Alvin York was denied conscientious objector status four times before entering the US Army. 211 and continue to internalize their experiences and feelings may be expressed in common known behaviors and/or in unique ways. A student veteran?s individual upbringing, childhood, family and social interactions, extracurricular activities, sports, scouting (boy scouts and girl scouts), personal successes and failures, teenage experiences, and many other factors have all contributed to and influenced their personalities and their needs. Now add other personality modifiers such as possible spouse and family responsibilities; the constant stress of combat (e.g., perceived danger to self and buddies, being an eyewitness to killing, and exposure to combatant and noncombatant death and dying); PTSD, TBI, other physical disabilities, or a newly discovered LD. The Army has underachieved its Bog:Dwell time ratio goal90 of one year deployed to two years at home station. Returning servicemembers to the war zone after only 12 months at home station limits those servicemembers? opportunities to rest, recover, recuperate, and rejuvenate. The student veterans participating in this study reported a mean time overseas of approximately nineteen months. While this overseas time may have included time in countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan, it is important to note that Adler et al. (2005, as cited in Sargeant, 2009) reported: Researchers found soldiers who served over 19 months in Vietnam were more likely classified as having PTSD compared to those soldiers who served less than 19 months in Vietnam. This research with Vietnam veterans has not been used in correlation with recent veterans who have served over 19 months in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, Vietnam is similar to Iraq and Afghanistan in regards to the guerilla combat, where one has difficulties distinguishing civilians from combatants. Guerilla 90 In 2009, the Army reported BOG:Dwell time ratios of between 1:085 and 1:1. 212 combat also increases the chances of civilian casualties, which is an additional stress and traumatic experience soldiers are expected to cope with (p. 7). Veterans possess different sets of resources that can influence how well they navigate the cross-cultural transition from service to campus (Black, Westwood, & Sorsdal, 2007). Yet some student veterans do not recognize they need help, or they do not seek help right away (Meinert, 2011, p. 27). As veterans complete their military service obligations and return from the war zones or extended deployments, many veterans will pursue higher education for the first time or return to their alma maters after prolonged absences. Dropout rates among combat veterans are higher if for no other reason than many return home with anxiety, depression, and PTSD (Marklein, 2008). Although veterans receive much training and mental conditioning and programming for months before combat (Chaffee College, 2011), academia must remember the military?s prime function is preparing for and conducting war. The DOD is not in the business of reconditioning servicemembers nor does the DOD allocate equivalent time to deprogramming servicemembers before they enter or re-enter civilian life. It appears the DOD expects departing servicemembers and veterans who feel the need to seek help to self-refer themselves to their local or regional VA hospitals for treatment. Branker (2009) wrote: Many colleges and universities have spent enormous amounts of money and resources on homecoming ceremonies but ?homecoming? should be more than an event, it should be a process fueled by various campus resources that seek to connect the student veterans with the institution (p. 60). 213 There is a great need for colleges and universities to become more proactive in helping veterans transition and readjust from combat to college and university life (Sargent, 2009). Administrators, professors, student affairs and student services practitioners, counselors, and staffs should consider student veterans a distinct, outside the mainstream, homogeneous group?a special population?and begin structuring their interactions to meet the unique needs of these student veterans. Military servicemembers and veterans make a valuable addition to any student population because they bring unique experiences and skills to campus (Strach, 2009). Yet, in today?s time, when the US military is an AVF, many do not believe veterans to be a special or unique population. After all, there is no draft; they have a choice to serve. This attitude is not new. President Franklin D. Roosevelt?years before he signed the original 1944 GI Bill?on 2 October 1933 at the American Legion?s national convention in Chicago declared, ?No person, because he wore a uniform must thereafter be placed in a special class of beneficiaries over and above all other citizens? (Ortiz, 2006, p. 433). While thousands of educators just after WWII felt the comic GI was the real GI (Grinnell, 1946), today?s educators appear to be genuinely interested in the success of those student veterans on campus. AU's tradition of educating student veterans and members of the Armed Forces is a proud one. Currently, AU is one of 30 finalists and the only institution of higher education (out of 147 semi-finalists and 4,049 entrants) competing to be one of fifteen 2011 Secretary of Defense Employer Support Freedom Award winners for exceptional support to employees serving in the National Guard and Reserves. Recently, AU has begun 214 to recognize the special needs of student veterans as demonstrated by AU?s creation of a veterans? learning community in 2009, the convening of a veteran affairs task force in January 2010, and the establishment of the Veterans and Transfer Students Resource Center in November 2010. Yet, student veterans? demands for special benefits and considerations from the university may make for an awkward relationship, especially in today?s time of declining resources and funding and a lagging economy. On the AU campus, student veterans represented 0.89 % of the spring 2011 student population (0.93% if the 984 nonresident aliens were excluded), matching the national demographic showing less than 1% of the US population serves in the military (Eubank, 2011). Due to age and delays in enrollment (NCES, 2002, p.1) student veterans are nontraditional students (O?Herrin, 2011, p. 15) and as such meet the NCES? definition of nontraditional student (see Chapter I, page 2). They are technically transfer students (O?Herrin, 2011, p. 15) as they often bring college credits earned before they entered military service or earned during their military service. AU student veterans have succeeded in high school, have succeeded in getting into the military, have succeeded throughout their military careers, and have succeeded in gaining admission to AU. However, once a veteran arrives on campus, administrators, faculty, and staff must be attentive to the current struggles s/he lives with and become knowledgeable and equipped to best accommodate his/her needs. The report Major Differences: Examining Student Engagement by Field of Study?Annual Results 2010 215 produced by the National Survey of Student Engagement (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, 2010) found: ? Student veterans attending four-year colleges and universities generally perceived lower levels of campus support than nonveteran students did. ? Student veterans had less interaction with professors. ? Student veterans spent as much time studying as nonveteran students did. ? Student veterans worked twice as many hours each week as nonveteran students did. ? One in five student veterans reported having a disability, twice that of nonveteran students. For AU to be a truly veteran-friendly campus, administrators, faculty, and staff must foster a culture of support, allocate sufficient and appropriate resources, and become visible and empowered leaders. However, AU?s administrators, faculty, and staff may be losing their connections to and understanding of student veterans. According to Sam Lowther of the AU OIRA, 4.3% (252) of AU?s 5,897 full-time and part-time non- student employees were veterans (personal communication, June 30, 2011) and only one-fifth of one percent (13) were female veterans (personal communication, July 8, 2011). Mr. Lowther (personal communication, June 30, 2011) cautioned, ?It should be expected the numbers would be declining over time, since most Vietnam era veterans are reaching retirement age.? Of the 78 nonveteran students who participated in this study, 38.5% responded they did 216 not know a student veteran thus supporting the comments in the second quote beginning this chapter. One means to introduce AU?s student veterans to the student body and to facilitate an understanding of student veterans? experiences would be to incorporate the Veterans History Project91 into periodic open forums to hear AU student veterans? oral histories. Additionally, AU needs to expand its veteran data collection efforts to include those who become AU students first and then join the National Guard or Reserves later. To alter slightly a quote from Kati Haycock, President of the Education Trust (The Education Trust, 2010), ?Will we step up and squarely meet the challenge of ensuring that all our student [veterans get the institutional support they deserve in order to gain] the high-level skills and knowledge that they need for success??? (p. 3). Summary The PI?s intent was to compare enrolled student veterans to nonveteran students on the AU campus. After collecting and analyzing the data, the PI determined the AU nonveteran student sample was too small and lacked sufficient variability to generalize the findings and conclusions to the AU nonveteran student population. If the PI had made comparisons between those AU nonveteran student participants and AU student veteran participants, the findings and conclusions would have been suspect. The analysis conducted and explained in chapter IV and the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for future research the PI described in this chapter characterize the descriptive 91 Information describing the Veterans History Project, a project of the American Folklife Center of the Library of Congress, may be found at http://www.loc.gov.vets. 217 statistics of the representative AU student veteran, the representative AU male student veteran, and the representative AU female student veteran. Student veterans, as the review of literature characterizes the term ?traditional student,? are not traditional students and clearly meet the various and established definitions of nontraditional students. As discussed in Chapter I, AU does not have a list of special populations. In dealing with AU?s student veterans, it is essential to recognize that s/he is not a ?special problem,? a ?unique predicament,? or a ?distinctive dilemma? but that s/he may have academic, scholarly, social, and/or physical differences or idiosyncrasies for which s/he may need special support. While AU may or may not consider student veterans a special or unique population, these student veterans and their distinctive characteristics mark them as an atypical sub-element of the current student body. Student veterans are not necessarily looking to be isolated or have special programs created on their behalf (Cook & Kim, 2009). However, the administration should give student veterans an opportunity to voice their needs, desires, and satisfaction with their learning environments and their voices should be heard (Groccia, 1997). Whether or not AU elects to treat its enrolled student veterans as a special or unique population in the future, AU should consider the words John Erle Grinnell (1946) wrote 65 years ago: The boys who go back to the campus can honestly, I believe, do more for us than we can do for them. They are mature; their eyes are open; their feet are under them. They will judge the maturity of our campus life, the purposes of our program, and the good sense of our methods. To fairly meet their challenge we must move up, not down. We must put away childish things. We must expect our fledglings from the sheltered life of home to follow these strong, strange men and to grow up a little faster in association with them. And we should be pleased to see that happen. The 218 shallow sophistry of the new crop of Freshmen from the city high schools will give way before the calm, amused glance of the veteran. The assimilation that results should be something a little better than we had. Our colleges?and in some measure our high schools?should feel to their very core the pleasant shock of this infusion?if they prove wise enough to submit to change and growth (p. 282). For today, Les Parrot (2007), professor of psychology and founder of the Center for Relationship Development at Seattle Pacific University may best sum up the attitudes of student veterans towards administrators, faculties, and staffs: My students won?t give a rip about my academic degrees until they know that I genuinely care about what they learn from me. And when I can convince them of how deeply invested I am in their future, can almost do no wrong in their eyes (p. 43). 219 References About.com. (2011). US military: Active Duty: Definition. Retrieved from http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/g/actdu.htm. Ackerman, R., & DiRamio, D. (2009a). From the editors. Creating a veteran- friendly campus: Strategies for transition and success (back cover). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ackerman, R., & DiRamio, D. (2009b). Editors? notes. Creating a veteran-friendly campus: Strategies for transition and success (1). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ackerman, R., DiRamio, D., & Garza, R. L. (2009). Transitions: Combat veterans as college students. In Robert Ackerman & David DiRamio (Eds.), Creating a veteran-friendly campus: Strategies for transition and success (pp. 5-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Adler, A. B., Huffman, A. H., Bliese, P. d., & Castro. (2005). The impact of deployment length and experience on the well-being of male and female soldiers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 121-137. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.10.1.121. Allen, M. (2009). Until the last man comes home: POWs, MIAs, and the unending Vietnam war. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press. 220 Auburn University. (2011a). About Auburn. Retrieved from http:// www.auburn.edu/admissions/auburn/. Auburn University Office of Communications and Marketing. (2010, November 11). Auburn University to launch veterans and transfer students resource center. Retrieved from http://wireeagle.auburn.edu/news/1970. Auburn University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. (2010a). Ethnic enrollment by college/school; Fall 2010. Retrieved from https:// oira.auburn.edu/factbook/enrollment/enrtrends/eebg.aspx. Auburn University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. (2010b). Enrollment by age, gender and level; Fall 2010. Retrieved from https://oira.auburn.edu/factbook/enrollment/stuchar/ebaglf.aspx. Auburn University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. (2010c). Enrollment of students by state and territories: Fall 2010. Retrieved from https://oira.auburn.edu/factbook/enrollment/stuchar/enbstate.aspx. Auburn University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. (2010d). Fall 2010: New student factbook. Retrieved from https://oira.auburn.edu/ newstu_factbookFA10.pdf. Auburn University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. (2010e). Welcome to OIRA. Retrieved from https://oira.auburn.edu. Auburn University Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. (2011, February 9). Distribution of enrollment by class level, gender, and ethnicity: Spring 2011: Fall 2010. Retrieved from https://oira.auburn.edu/ factbook/enrollment/stuchar/ebaglf.aspx. 221 Auburn University Office of Student Involvement. (2011, January 24). Student organizations search. Retrieved from https://fp.auburn.edu/stuorgs/ default.aspx. Baechtold, M., & De Sawal, D. M. (2009). Meeting the needs of women veterans. New Directions for Student Services, (126), 35-43. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Berkove, G. (1979). Perceptions of husband support by returning women students. Family Coordinator, 28(4), 451. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Black, T., Westwood, M. J., & Sorsdal, M. N. (2007). From the front line to the front of the class: Counseling students who are military veterans. In J. A. Lippincott, R. B. Lippincott, (Eds.), Special populations in college counseling: A handbook for mental health professionals (pp. 3-20). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Blose, C. (2009). Home at last. Community College Journal, 79(4), 24-26. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Bollinger, A. R., Riggs, D. S., Blake, D. D., & Ruzek, J. I. (2000). Prevalence of personality disorders among combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13(2), 255. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Brandi, A. (2010). My friend the beast. Retrieved from http://sgtbrandi.com/ ?page_id=2080. 222 Branker, C. (). Deserving Design: The new generation of student veterans. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(1), 59-66. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. (2008). Basic marketing research using Microsoft Excel data analysis: Chapter 12 self-study quiz. Retrieved from http:// wps.prenhall.com/bp_burns_bmr_2/81/20952/5363839.cw/index.html. Bye, D., Pushkar, D., & Conway, M. (2007). Motivation, interest, and positive affect in traditional and nontraditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(2), 141-158. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Campbell, M. (2011, February 11). Spring 2011 enrollment by age and level. Auburn University?s Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. Caron, H. S., & Knight, V. B. (1974). An outreach approach to facilitating the transition from military to civilian life: A critical choice point for the drug dependent. Journal of Drug Issues, 4(1), 52-60. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Carpenter, T. (2008, May 20). Veteran makes case for GI Bill reform. The Topeka Capital-Journal: cjonline.com. Retrieved from http://cjonline.com/ stories/052008/loc_280837763.shtml. Cate, C. A., Gerber, M. M., & Holmes, D. L., (2009a). Student stressors in higher education: A pilot study. Retrieved from http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/ ~chriscate/CateISTSS25.pdf. 223 Cate, C. A., Gerber, M. M., & Holmes, D. L., (2009b). Prevalence of mental health disorders and service utilization among student veterans: A pilot study. Retrieved from http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~chriscate/ CateISTSS25.pdf. Chaffee College (2011). The war experience. Retrieved from http://www.chaffey. edu/vets/The_War_Experience.pdf. Church, T. E. (2009). Returning veterans on campus with war related injuries and the long road back home. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 22(1). 43-52. Cohen, J., Warner, R. L., & Segal, D. R. (1995). Military service and educational attainment in the all-volunteer force. Social Science Quarterly 76(1), 88- 104. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Coll, J. E., & Draves, P. (2009). Traditional age students: Worldviews and satisfaction with advising; a homogeneous study of student and advisors. College Student Affairs Journal, 27(2), 215-223. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Compton, J. I., Cox, E., & Laanan, F. S. (2006). Adult learners in transition. New Directions for Student Services, (114), 73-80. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Cook, B. J., & Kim, Y. (2009, July). From soldier to student: Easing the transition of service members on campus. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. 224 Comas, J. N. (2004, August). Dialectical reasoning in Aristole?s theory of rhetoric. Retrieved from http://frank.mtsu.edu/~jcomas/rhetoric/ aristotle_dialectic.html. Covert, C. M. (2002). Counseling adult learners for new careers: The motivations and barriers associated with postsecondary educational participation of soldiers in transition. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Creamer, M., & Forbes, D. (2004). Treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in military and veteran populations. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(4), 388-398. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.41.4.388. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dabkowski, M., Kwinn, M. J., Miller, K., & Zais, M. (2009). Unit BOG: Dwell...a closed-form approach. Phalanx: Bulletin of Military Operations Research & Related Sciences, 42(4), 11-14. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Department of Defense. (2009). Population representation in the military services: Fiscal Year 2009 report. Retrieved from http://prhome.defense. gov/mpp/ACCESSION%20POLICY/PopRep2009/summary/ PopRep09Summ.pdf. Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health. (2007). An achievable vision: Report of the Department of Defense task force on mental health. Falls Church, VA: Defense Health Board. 225 Department of Education. (2008). Table 1: Percentage distribution of undergraduates, by military status and receipt of veterans? educational benefits: 2007-2008. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/ tables_listings/showTable2005.asp?popup=true&rt=p&tableID=6457. Department of Veteran Affairs. (2001). National survey of veterans: Chapter 7, veteran benefits. Retrieved from http://www1.va.gov/vetdata/docs/ VBA_PROGRAMS.pdf. Department of Veteran Affairs. (2007, September). Women veterans: Past, present and future: Revised and updated. Retrieved from http:// www.va.gov/womenvet/docs/womenvet_history.pdf. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2009). Periods of war for VA benefits. Retrieved March 27, 2010, from http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/pension/wartime.htm. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2010). VA benefits & health care utilization. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://www1.va.gov/vetdata/docs/ 4X6_winter10_sharepoint.pdf. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2009). Yellow ribbon program. Retrieved from http://gibill.va.gov/GI_Bill_Info/CH33/Yellow_ribbon.htm. DiRamio, D., Ackerman, R., & Mitchell, R. (2008). From combat to campus: Voices of student-veterans. NASPA Journal (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.), 45(1), 73-102. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. 226 Dunn, N., Yanasak, E., Schillaci, J., Simotas, S., Rehm, L. P., Souchek, J., & ... Hamilton, J. D. (2004). Personality disorders in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder and depression. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(1), 75-82. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Duquette, C., & Fullarton, S. (2009). ?With an LD you?re always mediocre and expect to be mediocre?: Perceptions of adults recently diagnosed with learning disabilities. Exceptionality Education International, 19(1), 51-71. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Elements Behavioral Health. 2010, July 9). Army experiencing influx of non- deployable soldiers due to mental health issues. Retrieved from http://www.elementsbehavioralhealth.com/drug-abuse-addiction/army- experiencing-influx-of-non-deployable-soldiers-due-to-mental-health- issues/. Erbes, C. R., Curry, K. T., & Leskela, J. (2009). Treatment presentation and adherence of Iraq/Afghanistan era veterans in outpatient care for posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychological Services, 6(3), 175-183. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Eubank, R. (2011, May). Preserving the memory of the fallen. VFW Magazine, 98(8), 2. Evans, L., McHugh, T., Hopweed, M., & Watt, C. (2003). Chronic posttraumatic stress disorder and family functioning of Vietnam veterans and their partners. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 37(6), 765-772. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 227 Field, K. (2011, January 14). After repeal of ?Don?t Ask,? elite colleges rethink ROTC. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp A1, A17-A18. Fontana, A., & Rosenheck, R. (1999). A model of war zone stressors and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 12(1), 111. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Ford, J. D., Shaw, D., Sennhauser, S., Greaves, D., Thacker, B., Chandler, P., & ... McClaim, V. (1993). Psychosocial debriefing after Operation Desert Storm: Marital and family assessment and intervention. Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), 73-102. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Frederiksen, N. & Schrader, W. B. (1951). Adjustment to college: A study of 10,000 veteran and nonveteran students in sixteen American colleges. Princeton, NJ. Educational Testing Service. Galovski, T., & Lyons, J. A. (2004). Psychological sequelae of combat violence: A review of the impact of PTSD on the veteran's family and possible interventions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(5), 477-501. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Ghafoori, B., & Hierholzer, R. W. (2010). Personality patterns among Black, White, and Hispanic combat veterans. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 2(1), 12-18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. GlobalSecurity.org. (2010). Personnel end strength ? July 2010. Retrieved from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/end-strength.htm. Goodman, B. (2005). Bringing the battle home. Psychology Today, 38(4), 40. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 228 Grieger, T. A., Cozza, s. J., Ursano, R. J., Hoge, C., Martinez, P. E., Engel, C. C., & Wain, H. J. (2006). Posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in battle-injured soldiers. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(10), 1777- 1783. Retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/163/10/ 1777. Griffin, R. (2006). A Survey of Alabama school principals? perceptions of the effectiveness of the national board certification process. Retrieved from http://etd.auburn.edu/etd/bitstream/handle/10415/463/GRIFFIN_ROBERT _20.pdf?sequence=1. Grinnell, J. (1946, May). When the G.I. goes to college. Journal of Higher Education, 17(5), 243-246. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Groccia, J. E. (1997). The student as customer versus the student as learner: Is the customer always right when the customer is a student? About Campus (2)2, 31. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Grossman, D. (1996). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Co. Grossman, P. (2009). Forward with a challenge: Leading our campuses away from the perfect storm. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 22(1), 4-9. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database. Harbaugh, K. (2009, September). Bring back ROTC. VFW, 97(1), 22-26. Hegamin, A., Anglin, G. M., & Casanova, M. (2002). Deconstructing the concept of special populations. Journal of Drug Issues, 32(3), 825-835. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 229 Heller, J. (2006, September). From combat to college: War veterans on campus. VFW Magazine, 94(1), 14-18. Herrmann, D., Raybeck, D., Wilson, R., Allen Jr., B., & Hopkins, C. (2008, November 21). College is for veterans, too. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A33. Holder, K. A. (2010, April). Post-9/11 women veterans. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Dallas, TX. Horowitz, S. H. (2006, March 1). Learning Disabilities in Adulthood. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/ld- basics/ld-explained/ld-across-the-lifespan/learning-disabilities-in- adulthood-the-struggle-continues. Hosek J. R., Kavanagh, J., & Miller, L. (2006). How deployments affect service members. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/ RAND_MG432.sum.pdf. Hoyert, M. S., & O'Dell, C. D. (2009). Goal orientation and academic failure in traditional and nontraditional aged college students. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1052-1061. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Huntington, S. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil- military relations. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 148-57. Hull, J. (2009, April 28). Chief army recruiter Freakley determined to change perception. Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Retrieved from http:// lubbockonline.com/stories/042809/loc_434252517.shtml. 230 Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (2010, November 4). Veterans in college perceive lower levels of campus support and interact less with faculty than nonveterans, survey finds. Retrieved from http:// nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2010_Results/pdf/NSSE_2010_Press_Release.pdf. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (n.d.). Glossary: Race/ethnicity. US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http:// nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/?charindex=R. Ishiyama, F., & Westwood, M. J. (1992). Enhancing client-validating communication: Helping discouraged clients in cross-cultural adjustment. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 20(2), 50. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Jelinek, P. (2011, January 14). Military commission: Lift ban, allow women in combat. Associated Press. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/ 41083172/ns/us_news-life/t/military-commission-lift-ban-allow-women- combat. Jinkens, R. C. (2009). Nontraditional students: Who are they?. College Student Journal, 43(4), 979-987. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2010). Chairman?s corner: Too many doors still closed to women. Retrieved from http://www.jcs.mil/newsarticle.aspx?ID=412. Keith, P. M. (2007, December). Barriers and nontraditional students? use of academic and social services. College Student Journal, 41(4), 1123-1127. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 231 Land Combat Study Team (2006, March). 10 tough facts about combat and what leaders can do to mitigate risk and build resilience. Retrieved from http://usaphcapps.amedd.army.mil/HIOShoppingCart/Uploads/ DownloadableProds/10_Battlemind_10_Tough_Facts_Combat.pdf. Larson, P. C. (1982). Counseling special populations. Professional Psychology, 13(6), 843-858. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.13.6.843. Learning Disabilities Association of America. (n.d.). For adults. Retrieved from http://www.ldanatl.org/aboutld/adults/index.asp. Lipkin, J. O., Scurfield, R. M., & Blank, A. S. (1983). Post-traumatic stress disorder in Vietnam veterans: Assessment in a forensic setting. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 1(3), 51-67. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Leverence, M. E. (1997). A study of nontraditional students? perceptions of their library skills. The Reference Librarian, (48), 143-161. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Lokken, J., Pfeffer, D., McAuley, J., & Strong, C. (2009). A statewide approach to creating veteran-friendly campuses. New Directions for Student Services, (126), 45-54. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Lopez, C. T. (2010, November 4). Non-deployable rate could reach 16 percent by 2012. Retrieved from http://www.army.mil/article/47695/non-deployable- rate-could-reach-16-percent-by-2012/. 232 Lorber, W., & Garcia, H. A. (2010). Not supposed to feel this: Traditional masculinity in psychotherapy with male veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47(3), 296-305. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Madaus, J. W. (2009). From the special issue editor. Journal of Postsecondary Education & Disability, 22(1), 2-3. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Madaus, J. W., Miller II, W. K., & Vance, M. L. (2009). Veterans with disabilities in postsecondary education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 22(1), 10-17. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Maguen, S., Lucenko, B. A., Reger, M. A., Gahm, G. A., Litz, B. T., Seal, K. H., ... Marmar, C. R. (2010). The impact of reported direct and indirect killing on mental health symptoms in Iraq War veterans. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23(1), 86-90. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Maguen, S., Metzler, T. J., Litz, B. T., Seal, K. H., Knight, S. J., & Marmar, C. R. (2009, October). The impact of killing in war on mental health symptoms and related functioning. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22(5), 435-443. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Maguen, S., Vogt, D. S., King, L. A., King, D. W., Litz, B. T., Knight, S. J., & Marmar, C. R. (2011). The impact of killing on mental health symptoms in Gulf War veterans. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 3(1), 21-26. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Williams, R. (2003). Marines. Retrieved from http://serve.marines.com/ story1.html#top. 233 Marklein, M. (2008, February 4). Vets don't tap into all of their benefits. Air Force Times 68(29), 7. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Markos, P. A., Baron, H., & Allen, D. N. (2005). A unique population: Women who are homeless and mentally ill. Guidance & Counseling, 20(3/4), 109- 116. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. McCauley-Elsom, K., Gurvich, C., Lee, S., Elsom, S., O?Conner, M., & Kulkarni, J. (2009). Vulnerable populations and multicentred research. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 18(2). 108-115. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. McDaniel, L. (2004, September). Can they connect on campus? Today?s generation of college students remains out of touch with veterans and their values. VFW Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/ doc/1G1-122259653.html. Meinert, D. (2011, July). Hidden wounds. HRMagazine 56(7), 24-29. Mellor, D., Davidson, A., & Mellor, D. (2001). The adjustment of children of Australian Vietnam veterans: Is there evidence for the transgenerational transmission of the effects of war-related trauma? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35(3), 345-351. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Merriam-Webster. (2011). Definition of faculty. Retrieved from http://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faculty. Mettler, S. (2008). Soldiers to citizens: The G.I. Bill and the making of the greatest generation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 234 Mission: Readiness. (2009). Ready, willing and unable to serve: 75 percent of young adults cannot join the military; Early ed in Pennsylvania is needed to ensure national security. Harrisburg, PA: Shelton et al. Retrieved from http://www.missionreadiness.org/PAEE0609.pdf. Murtaugh, T. (2010, December 10). Veterans face unique challenges as students. The Iowa State Daily. Retrieved from http://iowastatedaily.com/ news/article_8e9b8ad8-03d8-11e0-b697-001cc4c03286.html National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Definition for new race and ethnicity categories. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/reic/ definitions.aspsa01.asp. National Center for Education Statistics. (1996, November). Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends in Enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and Persistence and attainment among 1989-90 beginning postsecondary students. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/97578.pdf. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002a). Nontraditional undergraduates: Definitions and Data. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/ 97578e.asp. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002b). The condition of education: Closer look 2002a: Nontraditional undergraduates: Definition of nontraditional students. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/ analysis/2002a-sa01.asp. 235 National Center for Education Statistics. (2002b). The condition of education 2002: Glossary. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/ 2002025_End.pdf. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011, April). Digest of education statistics: 2010. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/ pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2011015. National Center for Veteran Analysis and Statistics. (2010). Percent change in veteran population by state. Retrieved from http://www.va.gov/vetdata/ docs/Maps/VetPop_PercentChange2000_2010.pdf. Neal, C. (n.d.). GI Bill doesn?t cover cost, critics say. Talk of the Nation (NPR). Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Newbold, J. J., Mehta, S. S., & Forbus, P. (2010). A comparative study between non-traditional and traditional students in terms of their demographics, attitudes, behavior and educational performance. International Journal of Education Research, 5(1), 1-24. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Niesen, P. (2006). The all-volunteer force: Thirty years of service. Air & Space Power Journal, 20(1), 118. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database. North Carolina State University Libraries. (2004). Transforming society: The GI Bill experience at NC State online exhibition. Retrieved from http://www. lib.ncsu.edu/exhibits/gibill/eOrigins.html. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness. (2009). Population representation in the military services: Fiscal year 2009 report. 236 Ogren, C. A. (2003). Rethinking the ?nontraditional? student from a historical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(6), 640-664. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. O'Herrin, E. (2011). Enhancing veteran success in higher education. Peer Review, 13(1), 15-18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Ortiz, S. R. (2006). The ?New Deal? for veterans: The Economy Act, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the origins of New Deal dissent. Journal of Military History 70(2), 415-438. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Outram, S., Hansen, V., MacDonell, G., Cockburn, J., & Adams, J. (2009). Still living in a war zone: Perceived health and wellbeing of partners of Vietnam veterans attending partners support groups in New South Wales, Australia. Australian Psychologist, 44(2), 128-135. doi:101080/00050060802630353. Pattillo, S. (2008, July 9). The ?government issued? GI Bill [PowerPoint slides]. Pidgeon, J. (2010, April). Mailcall. [Letter to the editor]. VFW Magazine, 97(7), 6. Public Law 109-270. (2006, August 12). Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Improvement Act of 2006. Retrieved from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/ cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ270. 109.pdf. RAND Center for Military Health Policy Research. (2008a). Invisible wounds: Mental health and cognitive care needs of America?s returning veterans. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_ briefs/2008/RAND_RB9336.pdf. 237 RAND Center for Military Health Policy Research. (2008b). Invisible wounds of war: Psychological and cognitive injuries, their consequences, and services to assist recovery. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/ dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG720.pdf. Rosenbloom, C., Loucks, A., & Ekblom, B. (2006, July). Special populations: The female player and the youth player. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24(7), 783-793. Retrieved from http://sportsoracle.com/uploads/2616.pdf. Rosenthal, K. (2005). Tailor your I.V. insertion techniques for special populations. Nursing, 35(5), 36-42. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Rumann, C. B., & Hamrick, F. A. (2009). Supporting student veterans in transition. New Directions for Student Services, (126), 25-34. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Rumann, C. B., & Hamrick, F. A. (2010). Student veterans in transition: Re- enrolling after war zone deployments. The Journal of Higher Education 81(4), 431-458. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Ryan, S. W., Carlstrom, A. H., Hughey, K. F., & Harris, B. S. (2011). From Boots to books: Applying Schlossberg's model to transitioning American veterans. NACADA Journal, 31(1), 55-63. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Sabo, R. (2010, December 8). Student veterans organization & support on the rise at college campuses. Retrieved from http://www.gibill.com/news/ student-veterans-organizations-on-the-rise-308.html. Salkind, N. J. (2010). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 238 Sargent, W. (2009, June 9). Helping veterans transition into academic life through the creation of a university veteran support group: So we can better serve those who served us. Online Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database. Sharma, R. (2010). The leader who had no title. New York, NY: Free Press. Shoup, D. M. (1969). The new American militarism. Atlantic (01606506), 223(4), 51. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Solomon, K. (1991). Impact of older students on higher education in the United States: 1945-1985. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Stecker, T., Fortney, J., Hamilton, F., & Ajzen, I. (2007). An assessment of beliefs about mental health care among veterans who served in Iraq. Psychiatric Services, 58(10), 1358-1361. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Stever, J. A. (1996). The veteran and the neo-progressive campus. Academic Questions, 10(1), 41. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Stone, A. (2008, January 2). Mental toll of war hitting female servicemembers. USA Today. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Strage, A. (2008). Traditional and non-traditional college students' descriptions of the "ideal" professor and the "ideal" course and perceived strengths and limitations. College Student Journal, 42(1), 225-231. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Streiner, D. L. (2003). Being inconsistent about consistency: When coefficient alpha does and doesn't matter. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(3), 217-222. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 239 Stringer, E. (2007, September). No soldier left behind: Veterans seek college education. The Bulletin 75(5). Retrieved from http://www.acui.org/ publications/bulletin/article.aspx?issue=452&id=3494. Student Veterans of America. (2011). Chapters: Quick stats. Retrieved from, http://www.studentveterans.org/chapters/. Sudman, S. (1985). Efficient screening methods for the sampling of geographically clustered special populations. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 22(1), 20-29. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Sudman, S. & Kalton, G. (1986). New developments in the sampling of special populations. Science, 240(4855), 991-996. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Sudman, S., Sirken, M., & Cowan, C. (1988). Sampling rare and elusive populations. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 401-429. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. SurveyMonkey. (2010a). Answer: How does skip logic work? Retrieved from http://help.surveymonkey.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/39/kw/skip% 20logic. SurveyMonkey. (2010b). Answer: How do you keep our data secure and where is it stored? Retrieved from ttp://help.surveymonkey.com/app/answers/detail/ a_id/337/kw/data%20protection. Taylor, J., & House, B. (2010). An exploration of identity, motivations and concerns of non-traditional students at different stages of higher education. Psychology Teaching Review, 16(1), 46-57. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. 240 Taymans, J. M., Swanson, H. L., Schwarz, R. L., Gregg, N., Hock, M., & Gerber, P. J. (2009). Learning to achieve: A review of the research literature on serving adults with learning disabilities. National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. The Education Trust. (2010, December). Shut out of the military: Today?s high school education doesn?t mean you?re ready for today?s Army. Washington, DC: Theokas, C. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/sites/ edtrust.org/files/publications/files/ASVAB_4.pdf. The Free Dictionary. (2011). Symptomatology. Retrieved from http://medical- dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/symptomatology. The Heritage Foundation. (2008, August 21). Who serves in the U. S. military? The demographics of enlisted troops and officers. (Center for Data Analysis Report #08-05). Washington, DC: Shanea, W., & Sherk, K. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/08/Who- Serves-in-the-US-Military-The-Demographics-of-Enlisted-Troops-and- Officers. Tovar, L. A. (2008, January). Learning how to learn: Implications for nontraditional adult students. Online Submission, Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Trochim, W. M., (2006, October 20). The research methods knowledge base, (2nd ed.). Retrieved December 15, 2009, from http://www. socialresearchmethods.net/kb/analysis.php. 241 USLegal.com. (2011). Reserve component law & legal definition. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/reserve-component/. USLegal.com. (2011). Special population law & legal definition. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/special-population/. Veterans with Disabilities: Transition from Combat to College. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/disability/pdf/Facutly%20Guide%20- %20Veterans%20with%20Disabilities.pdf VFW Magazine. (2009, September). ROTC belongs on campus, say Americans. Veteran of Foreign Wars, 97(1), 4. VFW Magazine. (2010, April). Debunking the Vietnam drug myth. Veteran of Foreign Wars, 97(7), 6. Wade, K. L. A. (2005, December 16). The intent and fulfillment of the Morrill Act of 1862: A review of the history of Auburn University and the University of Georgia. (Master Thesis). Auburn University, Auburn, AL. Warner, C., Appenzeller, G., Mullen, K., Warner, C., & Grieger, T. (2008). Soldier attitudes toward mental health screening and seeking care upon return from combat. Military Medicine, 173(6), 563-569. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. War on Terror News. (2009, October 14). FY 2009: DOD recruiting met decreased goals. Retrieved October 21, 2009, from http:// waronterrornews.typepad.com/home/2009/10/fy-2009-dod-recruiting-met- decreased-goals.html. 242 Welsh, A. (1946). Linguistic problems of deafened veterans returning to the universities. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 32(3), 340-343. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Westwood, M. J., & Ishiyama, F. (1990). The communication process as a critical intervention for client change in cross-cultural counseling. Journal of Multicultural Counseling & Development, 18(4), 163. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Widmeyer Communications. (2004). Major findings: Special Populations study for the North Dakota department of health. Retrieved from http://www. apctoolkits.com/documents/isolationandquarantine/Special%20Population s%20Study%20North%20Dakota%20Department%20of%20Health.pdf. 243 Appendix A Auburn University, IRB Approval Notice 244 245 Appendix B Licensing Agreement, The Educational Testing Service 246 247 Appendix C Final Questionnaire Design 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 Appendix D ASVA Email Recruiting Announcement 268 269 Appendix E ASVA Facebook Page Recruiting Announcement 270 271 Appendix F AU Student Center Survey Recruiting Script 272