Expectations and Motivation

Expectations influence outcomes; a good relationship is created from both sides having their visions of the other upheld. In my study the visualisation and behavioural expectations by staff and students of the other varied. Once again, returning to Chapter 7, the key question identified for this area:

“Can different sub-groups of staff and students articulate what expectations they have of each other, including what benefits they expect the other to deliver and in what format?”

9.3.1 Staff Expectations of Students

Governors and Managers raised business concerns about seeking to recruit Mature students, especially where there was no shortage of overall applicants to the institution.

“The business argument of having late lifers just doesn’t stack up. The OU is for that…” (Governor F)

“If we are to develop a mature student programme we need separate criteria for recruitment from the school leavers.” (Governor E)

The independent living and social experience was seen to be a crucial part of the offer by the university and, by definition, the commuting Mature student could only interact with a small part of the experience.

“The residential experience is an important part of the [study] experience and it may be worth acknowledging that prior to admission. Students who commute will have a very different experience” (Governor C)

“The transport, the residences…..this is a young person’s university” (Manager I)

This links to the “Fit” studies (Chatman, 1989; Schneider, 1987) and the retaining of institutional culture with a homogeneous recruitment policy. A critical influence of the Governors and Managers may be the lack of necessity for them to meet the students. In the background, the danger of stagnancy casts a threatening shadow and within the data an acceptance of the strength of diversity within a community was acknowledged by all categories, albeit reluctantly, and to a greater or lesser extent. One Academic (a biologist) offered a straightforward analogy,

“The basic bio-systems are diverse. In-breeding leads to downfall of the systems and basic structure”.

However, at the study institution diversity seems to have been interpreted in terms of gender, disability, socio-economic class and internationalism, while the measurement of fit, in age terms, was described repeatedly by staff as a “youthful culture”.

“Currently, this university still aims at primarily a youthful culture regardless of whether we recruit even larger numbers of mature students. This is right, for if we specialise in providing tailored services for mature students only, it would more likely encourage a geriatric spirit within the organisation”. (Academic A)

Although happy to have some Mature students, staff did defend the norm as the younger, residential, student but used justifications such as geographical isolation, and accepted the resultant “spirit of youth” as being at the fundamental core identity of the institution.

“It’s as if this university is only allowing diversity in by accident, sneaking in with the mainstreamed students and keeping quiet so they don’t let on that they’re actually there. …..The outreach work………ticks all the right boxes and let’s us feel good about ourselves” (Manager J)

This organisational characteristic was also recognised by the student participants who, although admitting the institution’s right to uphold it, were on the whole, dissatisfied with where that placed them and wished they had known prior to arrival in order to inform choice (although the most appropriate method of imparting this information will be difficult to ensure).

“I read that the university was highly residential before I came to university but I don’t really think the implications of this sank in. I didn’t, at any point, consider that I would end up being in what feels like 1% of the population”. (Julia)

Policy adjustments on a local level may be indicated, not least in terms of justification and further marketing. Some staff (including all Academics) suggested changing the institutional recruitment strategy. As Academic (D) noted:

“We bring the students from all over the world but we will consistently have immature learners if we only focus on one age group”

If Governors and Managers were dubious that universities got the best value from Mature students, the Academics absolutely refuted this:

“Mature students have a different perspective on life. Their interest in a subject will raise morale in a tutorial”.

“They are more committed. They have interest in the subject matter, not just to pass the degree but more likely to read around the subject matter, not just work the system”.

“They have the intellectual skills and organisational skills to compensate although others [mainstreamed students] are not getting these skills at school”. “Not like others [mainstreamed students], for some of them it is like organising a school for athletes and having to teach them to run when they arrive”

“They talk to teaching staff in a different manner. Almost like “allies” in the class for teaching staff since they can bridge the gap between mainstreamed students and teachers, translating issues between the two”

In relation to the final quote, Academic B commented that this had a positive influence on mainstreamed students’ retention. An additional gain was highlighted by Academic A who thought the mainstreamed students were “civilised” by being introduced to diverse opinions helping them to form new ideas on a broader, more informed, base.

Following this line of thought, a shared expectation through all three staff categories, assumed that Mature students knew that they were coming to expand their intellectual horizons and that this was the limit of the university responsibility. With reference to the “purpose” debate, the Academics generally displayed matched shrugs of unconcern on the Mature students’ lessened number of employable years. I put it to one Academic that the Mature student may equate a university study course with a better job. Surprised, she stated that it had not occurred to her for a minute that this would have been a motivation for someone arriving at university late in life. The student data would indicate that her assumption is unrealistic.

9.3.2 Mature Student Expectations of a Degree from an Ancient

The literature (Chapter 4) has demonstrated the impetus of students seeking something different in their lives from HE (Archer et al, 2003; Reay, 2002, 2003; Thombs, 1997) and categorised the motivational reasons (Britton and Baxter, 1999;

Maher, 2001; Peters, 2000; Warmington, 2003). The two broad categories were outlined as lifestyle betterment/financial rewards, and psychological benefits and the data supported these. Extending these, my data offered two additional gains expected by the students which, although they could be seen as sub-categories of the two, were highlighted as distinct; employment benefits and the gaining of an “Escape” route.

9.3.2.1 Lifestyle Betterment/Financial Rewards.

Young participants (under 30 years) had the most optimistic outlook on investment versus return. Mid-Life participants (31 – 50) held the belief that the acquisition of a university degree would place them in the position to increase their income. However increasing numbers of studies highlighted in Chapter 6 doubted the validity of their expectations (Nayloret al,2002; Egerton and Parry, 2001; Markset al, 2000; Purcell et al, 2007). The Mature student literature is liberally sprinkled with the element of “risk” (Baxter and Britton, 2001; McKenzie and Schweitzer, 2001). However, the participants in my study did not seem to have factored issues such as less years of employment, reluctance of graduate employers to hire mature people (Sennett, 2006), or geographical limitations into their risk calculation to any significant or consistent level (supporting Davis, 2001) nor had university recruitment information advised them of such a possibility.

“a university degree should hopefully open up a whole range of choices for me that will give me a better lifestyle” (Janice, M-LS)

Participants aged under 50 years were not surprised by the Government financial packages while studying, but older ones were “staggered” at how generous theirs were31. Those over 50 years had considerably less investment than the others but had the expectation that they would not be in the employment market again. The validity of their packages was questioned by the younger participants (and Governors and Managers) who recognised limited public funding and felt some

31

Regular inclusion would be a “fee waiver” eliminating tuition costs, free public transport, accommodation and attendance at summer schools, grants for reading materials and bursary packages.

resentment that resources could be more efficiently used by younger students who would be able to “pay society back”. This highlights an overall contentious, and often uncomfortable, debate as to whether those entering university later in life (post retirement) should continue their education in another setting other than the mainstream, publicly funded university system.

“This university is a radical, but safe, individual living experience that is worth it for the young. Aimed at the 18 year old experience. There are some pluses [of a mature student place] but they don’t offset the disadvantages of taking up a young place.” (Governor F)

A number of possible philosophical and economic justifications can be offered. There are parallels in the health service where smokers are not banned from accessing health care if they develop a smoking-related illness. It may be feasible that the benefit in lifestyle that attending university offered to these L-LS participants diminished the burden they might otherwise be on the health service (another study opportunity?). Some of the older L-LS participants talked of depression and ill-health prior to coming to university, and the resulting“new lease of life” (the energy relating to Sennett’s“usefulness” (2006). A consideration has to be the offset of elderly health care32 by a university life offering an extended quality of active, independent, life for extra years.

“If I had stayed at home and not done this course…..just pottered around in the garden like an old age pensioner I would have gone right downhill and become much older than my years”. (Alex, L-LS)

Data from both younger student and all staff categories, expressed the view that Late-life learning could, and probably should, be conducted outside of mainstream university education, some going as far as supporting an upper age limit on university mainstream access (40 – Governor F). However, with an accepted deference to seniority and societal respect for age, especially in academically vital people, a powerful counter argument was that a university education could be seen as an earned return to those who had contributed to taxes for years.

9.3.2.2 Employment Rewards

Eight of the participants (50% or 57% of those of employment age) stated that they expected “employment rewards” from a university education. This would seem consistent with the literature, especially with first generation university students (Round, 2005).

Whether linked to finances or not, my study showed that most participants under 50 expected to get a “better” job. However, defining “better” was complex. Although the link with financial reward would seem obvious (Astin, 1991) the latest news is bringing some publicised doubt into the surety of reliance on this association (Naylor et al, 2002; O’Leary and Sloane, 2005; Schofield, 2005). Specifically, and in addition to the financial link, the data in my study showed that participants defined “better” in terms of job security (3), and, in ideological terms, a more interesting and intellectually challenging job (3), and, finally, one which offers travel and opening up the world (2).

The Mid-life range of participants emerged as a clear sub group here, particularly in two distinct characteristics of motive: (a) their need of a mid-life change in employment terms and (b) their pragmatism in finding a solution on a local level to meet new demands. The data showed these participants to have one, or a combination of, recent life-changing events including illness and disability (2), redundancy (2), divorce (1), marriage and pregnancy (2), international relocation (1). Their life experience seemed to give them an ability to compromise readily and without regret so, for example, chose the particular university because it fitted geographically with their other commitments; childminding, not having to travel over a toll bridge to another institution.

The motivations of two other sub-groups emerged with similar, individual, distinctive features. It was surprising that the sub-classification of categories had a