Search News


Browse Archives

News

Will Work for Beer

October 8, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A new study suggests that the cliché of a full-time college student working a low-wage job to pay her tuition and getting lower grades than she’d have if she wasn't working is more fiction than fact.

If the student works fewer than 20 hours a week, she may, in fact, have a higher grade point average than her jobless peers and be spending her paychecks on “beer money” or other non-tuition expenses.

These are findings outlined in “Parental Transfers, Student Achievement and the Labor Supply of College Students,” forthcoming in the Journal of Population Economics, by Charlene Kalenkoski, an associate professor of economics at Ohio University, and Sabrina Wulff Pabilonia, a research economist in the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Division of Productivity Research and Program Development. The two economists wanted to learn how work affects students’ academic performance and what might motivate them to take on more hours of work.

Kalenkoski and Pabilonia used cross-sectional data from BLS’s National Longitudinal Youth Survey, initiated in 1997 with a sample group of young people born between 1980 and 1984, who were followed through 2004. They studied the whats and whys of student work for 2,356 Americans who completed at least one term of college between fall 1996 and spring 2004.

Of those students, 46 percent at four-year institutions and 72 percent at two-year institutions were employed during their first semesters in college. Four-year college students who worked at all averaged 22 hours a week of work, while two-year students averaged more than 30 hours.

Why Work?

Kalenkoski and Pabilonia looked at how changes in tuition and parental contributions affected how much students worked. What they found suggests that most students don't work to pay tuition but to cover other expenses, frivolous or otherwise.

A $5,000 reduction in parental contributions to tuition, they discovered, resulted in students at four-year colleges taking on an additional three hours of work each week. A student making $10 an hour (generous considering that many student jobs pay minimum wage or slightly more) would, over the course of a year, earn an additional $1,560 by working those extra three hours -- not nearly enough to compensate for smaller parental contributions.

For students at four-year institutions, the relationship between net price of schooling and hours worked was statistically insignificant, meaning that higher costs did not compel students to work more. Among students at two-year colleges, an increase in tuition by one standard deviation resulted in an additional two-and-a-half hours of work each week, not enough to pay the difference.

Together, Kalenkoski said, these findings are evidence that, on average, “students don’t work to pay tuition, they work to have ‘beer money,’ money for entertainment, money to pay other expenses, just not their tuition.”

She added: “We’re not saying there aren’t students who work to pay much of their tuition, we’re just saying it’s more likely they’re taking out loans to make up for whatever isn’t covered by other kinds of financial aid or parents.”

Because of insufficient data, the authors were unable to consider the impact that student loans had on whether students worked and how much they worked but, based on their findings, Kalenkoski said, it seems clear that “student loans really are a cushion that helps students keep their work hours down. If they didn’t have these student loans available, many more students would be working and those already working would likely work more hours.”

Work and GPA

In their analysis of academic performance, the economists found non-working students at four-year colleges had an average GPA of 3.04, while students who worked between one and 20 hours a week averaged 3.13, and students who worked more than 20 hours a week averaged a GPA of 2.95. Some work, then, was better than none and more work was worse than some.

A student who typically works six hours a week taking on two more hours of weekly work “is probably going to see a pretty small change in GPA, if any at all,” Kalenkoski said. The difference in performance comes when students take on significantly more work. An increase of 15.20 hours, one standard deviation, of work for a four-year college student resulted in a 0.18 lower GPA.

Overall, she said, work had “a much larger effect on GPA for two-year college students.” The average GPA for jobless students was 2.82, while it was 2.93 for students who worked for fewer than 20 hours each week and 2.94 for students who worked more than 20 hours. An increase of one standard deviation for a two-year college student, 19.78 hours, resulted in a 0.53 lower GPA.

Throwing this into the mix of other studies, though, it’s unclear quite what employment means for academic performance. A paper based on data from the 2004 National Survey of Student Engagement published last year in the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal found that working more than 20 hours a week hurt students’ grades, while working fewer than 20 hours a week resulted in grades that were just about the same as those who didn’t work at all.

The challenge and the reason for differences, Kalenkoski said, may be that "it's very difficult to get any data, let alone good data, on the lives of college students."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Will Work for Beer

  • Posted by Debbie Cochrane at The Institute for College Access & Success on October 8, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • Equating "non-tuition expenses" and "beer money" reinforces stereotypes that portray students as lazy and uninterested. The truth is the the majority of college expenses - 64% at public four-year colleges and an overwhelming 83% at public two-year colleges - are non-tuition expenses. Housing, food, textbooks and transportation are all legitimate costs of attending college, and students could simply not afford to be students if they can't pay for any one of them. Without enough financial aid or family resources to cover all of them, students have to work, and work however many hours it takes.

    For the most part, this study confirms what many others have about student employment: a little work is helpful, a lot of work isn't. Students should have the financial support to be able to cover all of their college costs without working so much that it hurts them academically.

  • Bad Title
  • Posted by Rick Kincaid , Career Services at The College at Brockport on October 8, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • As someone who has followed student employment research for many years (journal editor, chair of NSEA research committee), I find the title inaccurate. Other research shows that hard expenses (room, board, transportation, books) all claim the bulk of student earnings. The idea that a student job is frivolous is simply not true- without this additional income many students would be forced to leave school.

  • Appalled
  • Posted by Larry Beck , Career Center at Ball State University on October 8, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • It disappoints me that an educator supposedly familiar with college students who work would liken their earnings to "beer money." What an unfair stereotype!

    Research with student employees at Ball State shows motivation to be otherwise. In identifying their primary reason for working on-campus last spring, 35 percent reported earning money for living expenses. Earning money for college expenses (24 %) and earning spending money (24 %) were the next most often selected responses. These results are similar to a 2004 study.

    Fifty-six percent of the respondents thought on-campus employment encouraged them to stay in school and 55 percent said working on-campus encouraged most students to stay in school. More than 90 percent said they would recommend working on-campus to others.

    In a lousy economy, let's give a break to students who struggle to pay their own way!

  • Just plain wrong
  • Posted by Chris Lindstrom , Higher Education Program Director at USPIRG on October 8, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Working to pay for college expenses is not frivolous. The authors choose to focus on the entertainment part of a student's budget rather than the key, ancillary educational costs that they incur while being a student: transportation, books, additional course material, and for many, room and board as well as child care.

    Relying on a student loan to pay for college is not cushy. As the authors admit, students who worked to earn funds to cover their costs rather than take out a loan to pay for them would end up working too hard to make their grades.

  • Give College Students Respect They Deserve
  • Posted by Cathy Hakes at Georgia Gwinnett College on October 8, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • I too find the article title misleading in describing the reasons why student work. Research done by Kane, 1999; Paulsen and Smart, 2001; Zumeta, 2001, Dillian, 2005; Pascarella, Smart, and Smylie, 1992 and many others supports the fact that increasing costs in college tuition in proportion to family incomes has necessitated greater numbers of student work while enrolled. Their research has shown that college tutiion is an important factor in achieving socioeconomic success after college. Since states are shifting the burden of paying for college toward students and their families by decreasing higher education funding, more and more students must work and work a greater number of hours. I too follow the research on student employment and have studied its effects, positive or negative. Please give college students who work credit for paying for their college education and for trying not to incur student loan debt for BEER!

  • Epstein's position doesn't equal Kalenkoski+Wulff.
  • Posted by Anastasiya Osborne , Economist at USDA on October 8, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • There are no words "bear money" or "frivolous" in the paper itself. This is Ms. Epstein's interpretation. I've just checked. Let's be respectful and fair - this is a very good paper, and it came through a long and arduous peer review.

  • Posted by Cowabunga Dude on October 8, 2009 at 5:00pm EDT
  • The critics of the "beer money" phrase have apparently not been instructors in a long time.

    A lot of students spend a lot of their non-course time cavorting.

    How do I know? They talk about it openly...and often try to use their work schedules and hangovers as an excuse for not handing in work or showing up to class.

    Also, unless mommy and daddy pay for it, cell phones are expensive, as are cars and insurance and those new fancy shoes and those super-deluxe lattes, etc.

    In my experience, many undergraduates who work often don't buy the books because they claim they are too expensive. Where's all that extra cash going then? Many of them are NOT spending it on college-related expenses. And so often these seem to be the same students flitting off to impromptu skiing trips in November and extra-long Lauderdale spring breaks in April.

  • Interesting
  • Posted by Tasnim Shamma on October 8, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • Great article! Interesting that working -> higher GPA than not working.

  • Misinterpreting the coefficient
  • Posted by Peter Dorman at Evergreen State College on October 8, 2009 at 11:15pm EDT
  • I think most labor economists will agree with me that it is a stretch to say that work (but not too much) "helps" college students get better grades. In the absence of a logical mechanism that translates outside work into academic performance, the sensible view is that there is unmeasured heterogeneity in the student population that is correlated with working.