Thomas Brennan, Professional Writer

I have edited doctoral dissertations, master’s theses, and academic journal articles. It could be ethically confusing to present here pieces that I have edited for other authors, as it would not be clear who wrote what. This sample, then, is from my own master’s thesis, and it represents my ability to focus in on the key issues and draw the reader along a stream of logical thought.

The number of adult reentry students (typically defined as people at least 25 years of age who “stopped out” of college for at least a year or are coming to college for the first time) attending two- and four-year degree granting institutions in the United States has increased steadily over the past 30 years. During that same period, the percentage of all college students who are 25 years of age or older has also increased (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). These national trends are typical also of the California State University (Analytical Studies Division, 2003).

The California State University (CSU) system is committed to assisting members of this population to achieve their academic goals, and recognizes that this population adds a unique and valuable dimension to the diverse university community. At California State University, Long Beach (CSULB) this commitment is manifest in two programs. The Adult Reentry Outreach Program, part of University Outreach and School Relations, recruits adult reentry students from a variety of venues, most prominently local community colleges. The Adult Reentry Retention Program (ARRP) is a project of the Academic Advising Center; its mission is to help adult reentry students achieve their academic goals and persist to graduation. The program achieves this mission by providing adult reentry students advising regarding general education requirements, total program planning, and resource referrals.

At the same time, the coincidence of two significant circumstances presents a challenge to the ARRP. First, the CSU is experiencing a marked increase in the number of qualified applicants, thus many campuses in general and many degree programs in particular have been declared “impacted.” That is, there are more qualified applicants than the campuses and/or programs can accommodate. CSULB was declared impacted for all applicants in 2002 (California State University, Long Beach, 2002). Second, California is experiencing a fiscal crisis due to a budget deficit the amount of which is unprecedented; one strategy, of course, has been to cut funding across state programs, including education. The challenge, all too common among public agencies, is to provide services to increasing numbers of clients with decreasing resources.

This convergence of circumstances puts smaller, unique populations, such as adult reentry students, at risk of losing access both to admissions and to support services once admitted. There is no conspiracy at work here; it is simply a matter of “dividing up the pie.”

The CSU is governed by Title V of the California Education Code, which lays out the state’s master plan for education. That plan directs the CSU to give priority, in the admissions process, to students transferring from the state’s public community colleges; Title V directs each campus to maintain an enrollment comprised of at least 60% community college transfer students (California State University, 2003). The reasoning is easy to follow: once the state has admitted a student to a community college, the state has an obligation to ensure that, after completing the lower division requirements, the student will be able to transfer to a public university. As CSULB increases the percentage of community college transfer students it enrolls to meet this obligation, the percentage of the admissions/services pie left for other populations must decrease.

One strategy to ensure the availability of resources unique to this population’s needs would be for the ARRP to sponsor an Adult Reentry Student Association. Such an association would then take the lead on coordinating access to resources by raising funds, recruiting volunteers, and developing support networks. Helping students help themselves is consistent with prevailing theories regarding academic advising that is developmental rather than prescriptive, and empowering rather than paternal (Broadbridge, 1996; Winston, 1984). It also resonates with the mission of public administrators to encourage and enable citizens to help themselves and engage more actively in public and community activities (American Society of Public Administrators, 2003; Axinn & Levin, 1992). Many educators also advocate helping students to help themselves (Ellsworth, 1997; Lechner, 2001; Shutz, 2001). This strategy is also designed to tap non-traditional resources in a time of resource scarcity, and would create a situation in which the users help pay for the service (Gore, 1993).