New rural community college faculty members and job satisfaction.

What Charles Dickens said of the times leading up to the French Revolution could be said of the impending turnover of college faculty and administrators: "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times...." Depending on one's perspective, the next decade will be the most exciting or the most trying of times. The cause for optimism or pessimism is the prospect of a large turnover of faculty and administrators. The prospect is exciting because community college leaders will have the opportunity to impact significantly the culture and future direction of their institutions (Murray, 1999; Vaughan, 2001). However, much has also been written about a potential shortage of qualified community college faculty members. The impending shortage seems to be due to four factors: large numbers of retirements, increasing undergraduate enrollments, a lack of qualified candidates for faculty positions, and the inability of colleges to retain faculty. In the next few years, faculty may be retiring in unprecedented numbers. "Nationally, some 30% of the almost 100,000 community-college faculty members are likely to retire or otherwise leave their teaching positions in the next 3 years, according to the American Association of Community Colleges" (Evelyn, 2001, p. A8). One study found that 31% of all full-time community college faculty were 55 years of age or older, and 52% of these faculty stated that they planned to retire by 2004 (Shults, 2001). Another study found that "from 25,850 to 30,040 full-time community college faculty members will likely retire during the next 10 years" (Berry, Hammons, & Denny, 2001, p. 13).

At the same time colleges and universities are experiencing a rapid growth in enrollments. The National Center for Education Statistics' Projections of Education Statistics to 2010 predicts that overall college enrollment will grow by over two million students by 2010 to approximately approximately 17.5 million (Burnett, 2001). This is mostly due to "Tidal Wave II," the name given to the surge in births that occurred when the children of the baby boomers became adults. When we add to this the increasing numbers of nontraditional-aged students attending college, we can begin to see the scope of the crisis. Already numerous community colleges are reporting surges in enrollments that are creating shortages of faculty (Burnett, 2001).

Further exacerbating the problem is that there does not seem to be a large pool of applicants who are anxious or qualified to become community college teachers. Moreover, as many as 40% of current full-time faculty have seriously considered leaving the profession (Sanderson, Phua, & Herda, 2000), suggesting that job dissatisfaction is high among the professorate. Increasing enrollments coupled with a decreasing labor market add up to a potential crisis for college administrators. Although colleges and universities with national or regional reputations will be able to compete better in a shrinking labor market, the crisis is likely to be worse for colleges without such prestige. In other words, a shrinking labor market could spell difficulty for some community colleges.

Among those institutions at the greatest disadvantage may be rural community colleges. Rural community colleges cannot offer potential faculty the financial, cultural, and social advantages that more urban institutions can. Further intensifying the problem, as noted by Dr. Fong (president of Foothill-DeAnza Community College) is that community colleges "cannot put just anyone in a classroom and call them a teacher" (Burnett, 2000, p. 7). For community college leaders there are at least two overlapping considerations when recruiting and hiring a new professor. First, although the reality behind the rhetoric has been called into question by some (Grubb, 1999; O'Banion, 1994), community colleges take enormous pride in placing teaching at the heart of their mission (Cohen & Brawer, 1996; DeBard, 1995; Huber, 1998; Vaughan, 2000). Second, the community colleges are strongly committed to an open-door philosophy that welcomes all; consequently, faculty must be committed to and able to teach an extremely diverse student body.

Numerous researchers (Baldwin, 1979; Boice, 1992; Feldman, 1981) have commented that if colleges and universities are serious about retaining faculty, they need to develop an understanding of how faculty members conceptualize their role, how faculty members are socialized into the profession, and how faculty members develop professionally over a career. Organizational theorists using career stage theories have consistently demonstrated that a strong correlation exists between organizational support during the career-entry stage and the willingness of novice employees to remain with the institution and the career. "The implication for organizations is that the job context should be perceived as an integral part of career development opportunities" (Aryee, Chay, & Chew, 1994, p. 14). By understanding which environmental experiences are pivotal in shaping new faculty members' views, programs can be created that will enable them to have successful careers and thereby remain with these colleges (Baldwin & Blackburn, 1981). Therefore, in order to understand better which factors influence faculty members' perception of an effective "fit" between themselves and a particular college, a qualitative study of faculty socialization at six state-supported community colleges was conducted.

Because much of the literature suggests that a new faculty member's failure to thrive appears to be due to unmet expectations (Chatman, 1989; Feldman, 1981; Gaff & Lambert, 1996; Meyers, Reid, & Quina, 1998; Olsen & Crawford, 1998), the research reported here was based on the theory of met expectations first developed by Porter and Steers (1973). Numerous researchers have argued that the met expectations theory best accounts for job or career commitment (Meglino, Ravlin, & Adkins, 1989), voluntary job turnover (Aryee et al., 1994), and job satisfaction (Aryee & Tan, 1992; Chatman, 1989; Hom, Griffeth, & Palich, 1999; Menges & Associates, 1999; Olsen & Crawford, 1998; Tett & Meyer, 1993; Vandenberg & Scarpello, 1990). Several theories of organizational commitment are based on the premise that those individuals whose expectations of the job are more closely aligned with the reality of the job are more likely to experience job satisfaction and, therefore, more likely to find a career fit. Organizational researchers have concluded that person-environment fit is the root of all job satisfaction (Bertz & Judge, 1994) and that job satisfaction results in numerous benefits for both the employee and the organization (Premack & Wanous, 1985; Schneider, 1987). Individuals whose expectations are met tend to have higher job satisfaction, and those with higher job satisfaction are judged by superiors as being better performers (Bertz & Judge, 1994), are more committed to the organization and have longer tenures (Blau, 1987; Meglino et al., 1989; Schneider, 1987; Smart, Elton, & McLaughlin, 1986), experience less job stress (Olsen & Crawford, 1998), and encounter greater career success (Bertz & Judge, 1994).

Every fall, thousands of individuals start a teaching career at a community college with unrealistic expectations garnered from experiences as graduate students at universities. Most university professors are unlikely to be able to prepare individuals for the community college environment because they have not experienced it themselves. Gaff and Lambert (1996) note that the tasks that are required of new faculty, but that are seldom taught at research universities, include designing new courses, teaching diverse students, advising, contributing to institutional initiatives, and serving on faculty committees. Meyers et al. (1998) found that many new faculty members report that while in graduate school, they learned virtually nothing about effective teaching, the norms of academia, or being a productive faculty member. "A serious problem may result when a new faculty member oriented toward a disciplinary culture of research is hired at a teaching-oriented institution" (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994, p. 34). The problem is likely to be even more serious if, in addition to the academic cultural shock, the new faculty member suffers the cultural shock of moving to and working in a rural area.

In order to determine what attracts individuals to rural community colleges, a qualitative case study was conducted by the authors. In understanding one phenomenon, "the case study offers a means of investigating complex social units consisting of multiple variables of potential importance" (Merriam, 1998, p. 41). Those interested in case study research are concerned more with exploration, discovery, and interpretation instead of hypothesis testing. A case study can present insights into real-life situations that "can be construed as tentative hypotheses that help structure future research" (p. 41). Nonetheless, case studies are, in essence, just a small slice of life. Any far-reaching conclusions that are drawn must be limited by the fact that what has been studied is not the whole, but a part of that whole (Merriam, 1998). However, this case study could be considered a small beginning in moving toward a larger generalization (Merriam, 1998). According to Rhodes and Valadez (1996), "The strength of case study research is that it enables researchers to develop a depth of cultural knowledge within specific organizational settings. Theoretical constructs help to link qualitative findings that may be site-specific to the larger context" (p. 53).

In the spring of 2001, seven doctoral students assisted in a case study of new faculty at rural community colleges. The seven students were provided with a 4-hour workshop on interviewing techniques and an interview protocol. They were asked to interview between 5 and 10 new faculty members. A new faculty member was defined as one who had been at the particular community college for 4 years or less. The students interviewed a total of 45 faculty members at seven rural community colleges in four western states. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed by one of the authors. The QSR N5 (NUD*IST) software was the primary tool for data analysis. The data, once entered into the software, were subjected to content analysis. Content analysis can be defined as "any technique for making inferences by systematically and objectively identifying special characteristics of the messages" (Holsti, 1969 p. 608). There are two major steps to content analysis. The first step, sometimes called unitizing, is the "division of the text into units of meaning" (Rosengren, 1981, p. 34). The second step, sometimes called categorizing or coding, is to sort the data into meaningful categories.

Unitizing is simply the process of breaking the raw data or participants' comments into discrete units of meaning that can then be sorted into meaningful categories. For the purpose of this study, this process means examining the participants' comments and separating the comments into segments that contain only one main point. As Marshall (1981) suggests, "the units are really fairly obvious--you get chunks of meaning out of the data itself. If you read a side of transcript, there is something which comes out to you as, say, someone's attitude ..." (p. 396). These chunks of meaning should deal with only a single concept or point.

After the raw data have been broken into discrete units, "the first step toward organizing data into meaningful categories" (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996 p. 36) is coding. This step was completed using the constant-comparative described by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Essentially, coding begins by examining the unitized data for themes, reoccurring words, key concepts, and so on. For this study, the data were then placed into provisional categories that reflected a single theme or concept. The process was ongoing, and the categories and their content changed several times before the final determination of the categories. As the process continued, the researchers constantly compared "the previous incidents in the same and different groups coded in the same category" (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 106). Codes were expanded, changed, or eliminated altogether as ideas developed through repeated interactions with the data (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996). The process of constantly comparing new units of meaning with those already placed in categories continued until the researchers were satisfied that all the relevant categories were complete and no additional units of meaning would alter the coding. Once coding had been achieved, the data were interrogated and systematically explored to generate meaning (Coffey & Atkinson, 1996).

Results

Table 1 shows that there were 23 (51.1%) female participants and 22 (48.9%) male participants. Only 5 (11.1%) participants identified themselves as minorities, suggesting that rural colleges are not attracting a diverse faculty. The majority, 28 (62.2%), of participants held a master's degree, 1 (2.2%) had no degree, 1 (2.2%) had an associate's degree, 7 (15.6%) a bachelor's degree, and 8 (17.8%) held a doctorate. Table 1 also provides the age distribution. It is interesting to note, that of those reporting their age, 15.9% (7) are 50 years of age or older and 43.2% (19) are 40 years of age or older.

Table 2 shows that of the 45 faculty members, 15 (33.3%) were in their first year at the college, 17 (37.8%) were in their second year, 10 (22.2%) were in their third year, and 3 (6.7%) were in their fourth year. When asked about their previous employment, 12 reported they had been attending graduate school, 4 had been full-time faculty at another community college, 15 had been adjunct faculty at a community college, 2 had been full-time faculty at a four-year college, 1 had been an adjunct at a four-year college, 7 had worked in business or industry, 2 had held non-teaching positions at an educational institution, and 8 had taught high school.

Twenty-nine participants (64.4%) taught courses traditionally associated with transfer programs, 14 (31.1%) taught in career (AAS) programs, and 2 (4.4%) taught developmental courses.

Becoming a Community College Teacher

Participants were asked how they became full-time community college faculty. Most of the participants had taken a serendipitous route to community college teaching. "How did I become a community college teacher? I accidentally found out I liked teaching." Another said it was "by chance." Only 3 of 45 participants indicated that they had consciously decided to pursue a career in community colleges. "I wanted to be a community college teacher, and a position became open.... I filled out an application, had an interview, and got the position." Interestingly, this person was the only participant who had moved to the rural area solely for the purpose of teaching in a community college. Another participant, who had consciously sought a community college teaching position, cited community colleges' reputation for being teaching institutions and said, "I completed my M.A. degree, and after being a teaching assistant in graduate school, I realized that this was the level I wanted to work with." One participant stressed that his personal ties to community colleges created a desire to be a community college teacher. "I went to a community college and enjoyed it; that is why I became one. My dad was a community college teacher."

However, for 42 of the participants, a career in community college teaching was something that happened while they were planning for other lives. One participant desired a career in higher education, and the community college offered the only opportunity in her rural community.

   Well, I told you I taught high school before I came here, but it had
   never been my intention to teach at that level. After I finished my
   PhD, we moved here because my husband is a dentist, and he had
   an opportunity to work here and this is the only college close-by.

A few participants had moved to the area for personal or family reasons, and the community college offered one of the few opportunities to be gainfully employed in a rural community. One participant chose the community college "mainly because there were more job opportunities at the community college." Another said, "My husband moved here from where he was working, and they [the local community college] had an opening, so I took it." Another explained, "I was going through some life changes and had an opportunity to try something new and get closer to my family." One participant simply longed for rural living. "I wanted to move to this area, and my ability to make a living in a rural setting is pretty limited because I'm very specialized."

Several individuals were in the proverbial right place at the right time. "I was adjunct faculty, and when the full-time position came open, I applied and was given the job." Another said, "I began teaching part-time here, and a full-time position became available." Two individuals mentioned that they had sought part-time work that eventually would become full-time because they had wanted to stay home with young children, and the community college offered the best pay and hours for part-time work. "I was home with children and was interested in part-time work, I knew someone here at [the college] and when they needed someone to teach at night; they knew I was qualified, and they chose me." For a few it was simply the accidental act of noticing an advertised opening and applying. "I saw the ad in the newspaper and decided to apply."

A surprising number of these accidental faculty members mentioned the influence of someone who might be considered a champion. These champions ranged from friends to supervisors to former teachers. "I had a friend who taught here, and he was explaining to me how much he liked it." Another said, "Basically I was just job hunting, and a friend of mine used to work here." Some who had been adjuncts were encouraged by a supervisor. "I was working as a part-time tutor and this job became available, and my boss thought I'd do a good job, so I applied." Another participant, who took great pride in being asked to apply, echoed a similar experience. "After evaluations during my adjunct teaching, I was approached to see if I would be interested in becoming full time. That was after two years of doing the part-time thing. They actually approached me, and that's how I became interested."

One participant credited university professors for suggesting the possibility.

   When I was pursuing graduate studies, instead of going ahead
   and working on a PhD, I decided to take a break. I applied at the
   college mostly because I had two young children, but also because
   my professors encouraged me to consider community college
   teaching. I liked to spend time in the classroom and the best way
   to do it was to get into the community college.

Another participant enthusiastically credited her former community college instructor. "I mean it was pretty much a blessing--fate--a wonderful opportunity. My former [community college] professor had been watching me for some time doing some training and different things and asked me if I would like to teach part-time and see how it goes. And I said yah."

It appears that the results of this study and others (Fugate & Amey, 2000) show that, with rare exceptions, community college faculty do not consciously pursue a community college teaching career. Although this creates a potential problem for all community colleges, the problem is greater for rural community colleges, which have a smaller pool of qualified candidates from which to recruit new faculty. What does this study tell those who wish to recruit faculty to rural community colleges? Although the vast majority of the participants entered community college teaching by chance, many followed a similar path. For example, a number of the participants mentioned a contact at the community college such as a friend or former teacher. Community college leaders looking for new faculty might start by involving current faculty in the recruitment process. A number of participants also mentioned that they had been adjuncts before becoming full-time. Therefore, another source might be the current adjunct pool.

Job Satisfaction

Once recruited, if faculty members at rural community colleges are going to be retained, they need to find satisfaction in their work. Using the NUD*IST software, the researchers searched the database for passages where the participants were either asked about of mentioned job satisfaction. The participants' replies were first sifted into two categories: one containing responses from female participants and the other containing those of male respondents. Each category was further broken down into two subcategories. The first subcategory contained responses from faculty teaching courses normally associated with transfer programs (e.g., arts and sciences courses). The second subcategory contained responses from participants teaching in career programs (e.g., Applied Associate of Arts programs).

Overall the participants reported high levels of satisfaction with their roles as community college instructors. When asked what brought them their greatest satisfaction, both male and female faculty members often stated it was working with students. However, while male faculty tended to find satisfaction in the accomplishments of the students, female faculty found satisfaction in the relationships they built with their students or the personal triumphs of individual students. Male faculty, more often than not, found satisfaction in the accomplishments of their students, whereas female faculty seemed more concerned with the whole student. In other words, female faculty expressed more interest in the personal growth of students rather than their potential career success. They found satisfaction in mentoring a person and not just a student or future worker.

Male faculty who taught transfer courses frequently mentioned the students' success after they transferred to a four-year university. One enjoyed "seeing students go on to the university and be successful." Another found satisfaction in "teaching students who have completed your course and have gone on to transfer to other institutions." Male faculty teaching in career programs tended to be proud of students who mastered the career skills and found successful employment. "Having students get a lot out of the program, having it click where they know what's going on--that's the ultimate goal." Another stated somewhat sardonically that he was proud of "having a student that knows nothing and then seeing them in the workplace, making more money than I am." Regardless of whether they were teaching transfer or career courses, male faculty expressed gratification over student successes that were concrete and visible to others, such as success after transfer or on the job. The personal development of the individual was not a primary concern for male faculty. The success of the future worker or four-year college student was their primary concern, and, when it happened, it was the source of their satisfaction.

An interesting difference between male faculty teaching in transfer disciplines and male faculty teaching in career programs was that male faculty in career programs never spoke of students' success in the particular course but rather only of their success in their future careers. On the other hand, male faculty teaching transfer courses frequently found satisfaction in students' mastery of the discipline. One math faculty commented on "basically seeing students come in with poor math skills and a poor background and seeing their effort and seeing them succeed not only in my class but in college." A psychology instructor offered, "I think the greatest satisfaction is when the material resonates with the student in a practical way," while a history teacher enjoyed "having students gain a new appreciation for history." The interviewers did not probe for the reasons behind this difference. However, transfer faculty rarely know if their students will major in their discipline, and therefore, they may find satisfaction in knowing that they are providing a sound general education framework for students intent on pursuing a four-year degree. On the other hand, since most transferable courses are in the traditional arts and sciences, where faculty members tend to be more loyal to their disciplines than to their institutions, the satisfaction may flow from spreading the gospel of the discipline. In other words, transfer faculty may see acquisition of subject matter knowledge as an end in itself, while career faculty may see acquisition of knowledge and skills as a means to an end.

If male faculty spoke of relationships with students at all, they did so in generalizations, speaking of students as a collective entity rather than as individual students. A typical comment was about "watching some of these kids grow up over two years--I think that has been the greatest satisfaction." A career faculty member said, "The biggest satisfaction is working with students who were on the verge of dropping out, and seeing them get into this program and make it."

Although female faculty also spoke of students' accomplishments, it was in the context of a relationship with students. Female faculty seemed to take pride in assisting the students in developing self-esteem; that is, they seemed more concerned with the inner state of the students than with actual accomplishments. Female faculty members were more likely to express satisfaction in terms of "working with the students" or "watching students grow." One female participant stressed the importance of "getting the students to come alive, seeing the students energized and impressed, and showing the students their first project at the end of class and showing them how much better they are now." Another female participant stated, "I think the biggest satisfaction is when my students who really didn't think they were going to make it start to realize that they are qualified for jobs and begin to have greater confidence and to apply their knowledge."

The only discernible difference between female faculty teaching transfer courses and female faculty teaching career courses was that female faculty teaching transfer courses were much more likely than were female faculty teaching career courses or male faculty counterparts to mention working with colleagues and administrators. A typical response involved "working with colleagues and watching students grow." Another particularly enjoyed the collegiality of her institution. "I love walking down the hallway and saying 'Hi Dr. E.' or having a colleague give me a thumbs up like we are having a good day. Having the feeling of a student getting the subject and feeling good about a subject." Only one female faculty teaching career courses and one male faculty mentioned that they found satisfaction working with colleagues.

The Rural Environment

Because most of the participants had taken a serendipitous route to community college teaching, some were unfamiliar with rural life. A few of these accidental faculty members were insistent on warning prospective new faculty of the disadvantages of rural life. One offered the following advice to prospective faculty members: "I would say someone coming here from the outside needs to be really aware, and the academic dean told me this before I carne here, that there is a real feeling of isolation. This is a very rural place." Another, when asked what she would say to someone considering joining the faculty, replied tersely, "Be prepared for rural New Mexico." A different participant recommended that a new faculty member be "someone who is from a similar area in size and makeup, obviously someone who lives in the city where they teach. I don't want to say that my experience has been culture shock but it's definitely different from Lubbock."

The participants offered different reasons for their discomfort with rural life. For one participant it was the feeling he didn't fit with the monolithic culture of the college. "It's a plus to be a member and be familiar with the culture. It's a very conservative school, and I just don't fit the bill." For others it was the lack of a community of like-minded people to participate in what some might call "a community of ideas." "There are not lecture series, or anything."

Disappointments

Although most faculty members did not express concern over living and working in a rural area, over one third indicated a desire to leave their current position, and several others expressed ambiguity over staying for a long time. Those expressing a desire to leave most often cited two major concerns. First, they found the workload oppressive. "It's more than I thought it would be. This is really a 24/7 job if you let it." Another participant echoed this sentiment, commenting that a new faculty member needed "to be prepared to commit. This is not an 8 to 5 job, but if you want to do it right, you might as well be prepared to be totally immersed." Another commented, "The workload has been very frustrating." One, after commenting on the heavy workload, may have also provided some insight into why some faculty members are likely to stay in spite of the workload: "Prepare to be busier than you could possibly imagine, but you will get used to it. And if you like it here you will be fine."

Unlike counterparts in four-year institutions (Boice, 1992; Luce & Murray, 1998), new faculty members were more likely to be more overwhelmed by the sheer number of classes and students than by the demands of preparation. After commenting that "the workload has been very frustrating," one former high-school teacher quickly added, "I kind of figured the teaching would be easier, and it has been as far as student discipline and things like that. But the load has been a lot more than I expected. I didn't expect the load to be quite as heavy." Another participant also commented on unmet expectations: "Definitely there is a lot more work--specifically more classes than I expected." When commenting on the workload, a participant complained that the teaching load was hindering her career progress. "I didn't expect to be teaching this much. I expected to be more encouraged to pursue my own career. I work weekends and it's hard." Many community college administrators might find such a response distressing, given that most community college administrators almost certainly believe that teaching is an instructor's career.

The second major concern that may lead faculty members to abandon a community college teaching career centers on the perceived abilities of the students. Nearly all the participants expressed sadness over the level of students' preparation and motivation. When asked about the academic quality of students, typical comments included "very low, very low," "fairly poor," "not good in general," and "they are not prepared--they are not ready." Often they expressed dismay over the lack of motivation shown by students.

   I assumed that at the college level I wouldn't see students with
   lack of motivation or apathy. I would think that they would want
   to get skills and be better, and by and large they don't. That's
   just a reality I've had to come to grips with.

Another participant seemed to agree, commenting that "there are students that just don't put forth any effort at all. I have had students each semester that have all the potential in the world and just won't use it." One participant, summing up the perceptions of many faculty members, said, "The way I see it, I do have some exceptional students, not many. I have several that are good, but on the average they are generally unprepared and unmotivated."

Some faculty members seem to express a condescending, at times almost disdainful, attitude. "I have mixed feelings. Some are very prepared, and others are doing good to find their way in through the front door. It's about 50-50." Another participant expressed a familiar refrain: "A community college is a step away from high school." One faculty member spoke of students as if they were poor wretches who, although they know little, are sufficiently sentient to approach higher education with the appropriate fear and trembling of those who know they are unworthy: "I think they are inadequately prepared. A lot of them know they are not prepared, and they feel horrible and weak ..." Some faculty members seem to express the belief that only the less able or those without the means to exercise other options attend community colleges. One faculty member, for example, seemed to apologize and make excuses for why good students would attend a community college. "We have some students who arrive very prepared and some are not so much. Some could go to a four-year school if it weren't for the money or transportation problem. Some are not prepared at all--it's actually the majority."

Many faculty members readily acknowledge that serving underprepared students is the fate of community colleges. "There is a bigger difference here than at four-year colleges. Seventy percent come unprepared." For some faculty members, it has to do with the community college mission to serve the nontraditional student.

   We don't get many students coming right out of high school. Most
   have worked a little while and are in their mid-20s, sometimes
   their 50s. Their skills aren't fresh; they are distant. Writing an
   essay or things like that--we have to work on that--welcome back to
   college stuff.

For a number of these faculty members, it is a welcome fate. One faculty member acknowledged that it was the source of her motivation for teaching at a community college. After acknowledging the large number of underprepared students, she said:

   That's one of the reasons I like community colleges. Number one:
   almost every student here is hungry for knowledge. And that's
   different--can be different from the university where at least a
   percentage of students are there for the fun. And I don't see that
   at the community college.

A surprising twist on the theme that community colleges are fated to attract underprepared students was expressed by a few faculty members who seem to think the underpreparedness of the students is due to the regional values of their rural communities. After commenting that students were "mediocre, poor to mediocre," one participant quickly added "that's probably a trademark for Oklahoma." Another also linked underpreparedness to regional deficiencies.

   I'm from this part of the country, my father, and uncle and
   grandfather went to school here. All my cousins came to school
   here. It is a very important part of the area. One of the reasons
   that it is so important is that the students test to come in and
   are so far below the average; they are just barely able to get
   here. When they leave they almost meet the average.

A few faculty members blame the larger society. One faculty member, echoing the notion that underprepared students are the fate of community colleges, suggested that family values may differ in rural communities from those in non-rural communities.

   I think the average student, as far as the average student in the
   typical community college, is unprepared. I don't think I'm being
   too harsh when I say that. I think there is a difference between
   the typical community college student and the typical university
   student. On the average university students are more motivated
   and prepared. Generally here it is low. I think that comes from
   the upbringing and the values of the family.

Another simply put the blame on society: "Kids are coming out of high school not as prepared as they should be, and part of the problem also is it seems our society nowadays is really lazy." Some, however, were unconvinced that the problem was unique to community colleges: "They are not as prepared as I would like, but very few college students are as prepared as they should be."

Of those expressing satisfaction over the prospect of a long career in community college, a number of faculty members acknowledged that students' age and previous experience often compensated for lack of academic preparation.

   For the most part, for the wide range of students the average age
   level is 30 or 31. For that student, if they are not prepared they
   go figure out how to get prepared. It's generally the 17 and 18
   year old that are not sure where they want to be.

One rather reluctantly confessed, "I don't want to--but, I'd say the older ones are more prepared than the ones out of high school." Another agreed: "I get two different types of students. Most of my students are nontraditional and they know what they want. The traditional students out of high school need to be better prepared."

Conclusion

The faculty members who expressed the most satisfaction with teaching at a rural community college were those who were comfortable living and working in a rural community, who enjoyed the challenge of teaching students who varied considerably in their readiness for college studies, and who delighted in their students' accomplishments. Rural community colleges can do a better job of recruiting and retaining faculty if they take the time and effort to develop orientation programs that introduce prospective faculty to the realities of teaching in a rural community college. Those realities include a heavy workload, life in a rural community, and teaching a highly diverse student body that may be underprepared for college-level work. If community colleges develop realistic job previews (Premack & Wanous, 1985), they may find faculty members who not only will stay, but will also thrive. In the words of one participant: "If you like it here, you will be fine."

Table 1

Background Characteristics of New Community College Faculty

Variable              Frequency

Gender (a)
  Male                   22
  Female                 23
Ethnicity (a)
  Caucasian              38
  Black                   1
  Hispanic                1
  Other                   3
  Unknown                 2
Highest Degree (a)
  PhD                     8
  Master's               28
  Bachelor's              7
  Associate's             1
  No Degree               1
Age (a)
  20-29                   8
  30-39                  17
  40-49                  12
  50-59                   6
  60-69                   1
  Unknown                 1

(a) n = 45 for each group

Table 2

Professional Characteristics of New Community College Faculty

Variable                                Frequency

In Current Position (a)
  1st year                                 15
  2nd year                                 17
  3rd year                                 10
  4th year                                  3
Previous Employment (b)
  Grad school                              12
  Full-time community college faculty       4
  Adjunct community college faculty        15
  Four-year full-time faculty               2
  Four-year adjunct faculty                 1
  Business/industry                         7
  Education (non-teaching)                  2
  High school teacher                       8
Teaching Discipline (a)
  Transfer                                 29
  Career                                   14
  Developmental                             2

(a) n = 45

(b) Note. The total adds up to more than 45 because some participants
who had been adjuncts had also held other positions.

References

Aryee, S., Chay, Y. W., & Chew, J. (1994). An investigation of the predictors and outcomes of career commitment in three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 1-16.

Aryee, S., & Tan, K. (1992). Antecedents and outcomes of career commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 288-305.

Baldwin, R. (1979). Adult and career developments: What are the implications for faculty? Current Issues in Higher Education, 2, 13-20.

Baldwin, R., & Blackburn, R. T. (1981). The academic career as a developmental process: Implications for higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 52, 598-614.

Berry, L. H., Hammons, J. O., & Denny, G. S. (2001). Faculty retirement turnover in community colleges: A real or imagined problem? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25, 123-136.

Bertz, J., R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32-52.

Blau, G. L. (1987). Using a person-environment fit model to predict job involvement and organization commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 240-257.

Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burnett, S. (2000, October 16). Good help is hard to find (and even harder to keep). Community College Week, pp. 6-9.

Burnett, S. (2001, November 12). Help wanted. Community College Week, pp. 6-8.

Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 333-349.

Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DeBard, R. (1995). Preferred education and experience of community college English faculty: Twenty years later. Community College Review, 23(1), 33-50.

Evelyn, J. (2001, June 15). The hiring boom at 2-year colleges. The Chronicle

of Higher Education, pp. A8-9.

Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members.

Academy of Management Review, 6, 301-318.

Fugate, A. L., & Amey, M. J. (2000). Career stages of community college faculty: A qualitative analysis of their career paths, roles, and development. Community College Review, 28(1), 1-22.

Gaff, J. G., & Lambert, L. M. (1996). Socializing future faculty to the values of undergraduate education. Change, 4, 39-45.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Grubb, N. W. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York: Routledge.

Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis. In E. Aaronson (Ed.), The handbook of social psychology. (Vol. 2, pp. 596-692). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., & Palich, L. E. (1999). Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work. Personnel Psychology, 52, 97-112.

Huber, M. T. (1998). Community college faculty attitudes and trends, 1997. Menlo Park, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Luce, J., & Murray, J. P. (1998). New faculty's perceptions of the academic work life. The Journal of Staff, Program, & Organizational Development, 15(3), 103-110.

Marshall, J. (1981). Making sense as a personal process. In J. Rown (Ed.), Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new paradigm research. New York: John Wiley.

Meglino, B. M., Ravlin, E. C., & Adkins, C. L. (1989). A work values approach to corporate culture: A field test of the value congruence process and its relationship to individual outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 424-432.

Menges, R. J., & Associates. (1999). Faculty in new jobs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meyers, S. A., Reid, P. T., & Quina, K. (1998). Ready or not, here we come: Preparing psychology graduate students for academic careers. Teaching of Psychology, 25(2), 124-126.

Murray, J. P. (1999). Interviewing to hire competent community college faculty. Community College Review, 27(1), 41-56.

O'Banion, T. (Ed.). (1994). Teaching and learning in the community college. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

Olsen, D., & Crawford, E. A. (1998). A five-year study of junior faculty expectations about their work. The Review of Higher Education, 22(1), 39-54.

Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151-176.

Premack, S. L., & Wanous, J. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 706-719.

Rhodes, R., & Valadez, J. (1996). Democracy, multiculturalism, and the community college: A critical perspective. New York: Garland Publishing.

Rosengren, K. E. (1981). Advances in content analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sanderson, A., Phua, V., & Herda, D. (2000). The American faculty poll. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.

Shults, C. (2001). The critical impact of impending retirements on community college leadership. Leadership Series Research Brief no. 1. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

Smart, J. C., Elton, C. F., & McLaughlin, G. W. (1986). Person-environment congruence and job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29, 216-225.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46, 259-293.

Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Faculty socialization as cultural process: A mirror of institutional commitment (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 93-6). Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V. (1990). The matching model: An examination of the processes underlying realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 60-67.

Vaughan, G. B. (2000). The Community College Story (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Vaughan, G. B. (2001). Developing community college leaders for the future: Crisis or Opportunity. North Carolina State University. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED457873).

John P. Murray is a professor and coordinator of the Higher Education Program at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. [e-mail]

Sean Cunningham is a doctoral student in history at the University of Florida in Gainsville.