Predictors of College Enrollment across the Life Course: Heterogeneity by Age and Gender

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study focuses on how predictors of enrollment vary as individuals progress through the life-course. It is an interesting article, the topic under study is relevant and the empirical analysis is appropriated. However, the article requires to strengthen the theoretical framework to address a gender perspective. It seems that author(s) use gender as a “add women and stir” but not a in-dept discussion by a real gender approach.

 

I would recommend it for publication but after these major changes to a better articulation of the findings.

 

 

1.- Introduction section

 

Your stress is about “age” but nothing is said about gender. Please add it. Life-course approach is very important if you consider gender.

 

FIRST paragraphs: “

 “Granite State University (public comprehensive), 76% at the College of New Rochelle 28 (four-year non-profit), and 68% at Spokane community college were at least 25 (Author’s 29 calculations from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).”. I do not understand the difference between “Granite State University” and “College of New Rochelle”

 

2.- Theory and prior research Section (Heterogeneity by age and gender)

 

This section is somehow well structured, but it is somehow incomplete. Your stress is about “age”. It needs a more detailed and in-depth discussion of life-course trajectories by a gender and feminist approach.

 

In sum, the topic is quite interesting, but the paper needs much more work to clearly articulate the literature framework by gender and how results are similar or different from what is in the literature. I encourage the authors to revise the paper and send it again. Good luck!

 

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for their valuable comments.  The reviewer is absolutely right that the prior version gave inadequate attention to the matter of gender.  I have added an additional section to the literature review specifically to trace theories - mainstream/human capital and feminist/constructionist -  of gender and college enrollment and apply them to the matter of non-traditional enrollment.  See lines 119-155.  Additionally, I added some additional considerations to the discussion (lines 479-485).  

The reviewer was confused by some of the colleges I mentioned in the introduction. These are colleges across different institutional types (private/public, two/four-year) that have particularly high shares of older undergraduates.  I added some more information to clarify.  I also added some more qualifiers to the motivation section to clarify that I am speaking about American colleges.  

I hope that the reviewer is pleased by these changes.  I think they improve the manuscript, and I am in the reviewer's debt for this.  I am happy to make more changes if necessary.  

 

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a very necessary work nowadays. All the methodology, instruments and field work are very well founded. There is a lack of more current references, those that appear are old.

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewer for their comments.  I did add some more recent citations.  The primary reason why most of the citations are dated is that this population is rarely researched and therefore more up-to-date research simply doesn't exist.  I hope that this paper is a step towards remedying this. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors include a gender theoretical framework that I advised them.