Want to learn more?

Students nearing graduation are in a constant state of flux. Arnett (2000) proposed the words emerging adult, to describe young people aged 18–25. Emerging adults experience a specific period within a lifespan life that is characterized by flexibility, choice, and independence. Yet, Steffy (2017) also argues that emerging adulthood simply reflects a grim labor market (in particular, for the millennial generation). During this time the scope and flexibility of life’s possibilities may be greater than it will ever be again. At the same time, this flexibility, choice, and independence can be troublesome for college seniors because graduating from college is a time of dramatic change (Osgood et al., 2005; Settersten, 2007) as students transition out of college and leave familiar settings, schedules, support networks and their often, newly constructed identities (Read et al., 2017; Young-Jones et al., 2021). Not only are students leaving the familiar setting of college, but most are exiting an educational system of which they have been a part since their first day of kindergarten. This means nearly 17 years of structure, schedule, and direction is nearing completion.

Even if students are ready to leave higher education they may “lack the confidence to cope with and be resistant to the transition” (Yang & Gysbers, 2007, p. 168) because of the overwhelming nature of transitional moments. During these moments students experience what Sizer (2002), Fletcher et al. (2014) and Young-Jones et al. (2021) termed senioritis or “a complex combination of vulnerability, nostalgia, restlessness, weariness, disappointment—and laziness and entitlement” (Sizer, 2002, p. 136). While this term was originally applied to high school seniors in the 1950s; it can be used to describe the process of moving from adolescence into adulthood. Fletcher et al. (2014) found that to prevent or reduce senioritis, institutions of higher education should provide a “college experience supportive of psychological need fulfillment.” 

In absence of this supportive college experience, students’ current motivation for coursework decreases which often result in procrastination. Indeed, Rice et al. (2012) found a strong correlation between psychological distress and procrastination and Cerino (2014) revealed “academic motivation had a greater influence on academic procrastination than self-efficacy” (p. 161). Cerino’s (2014) research concluded that motivation had the most impact on procrastination and that interventions which target academic motivation were warranted. However, it is important to note these interventions are created to treat the source instead of symptom; instead of creating another course in time-management, the academic institution should work to understand the source of reduced motivation. In this case, it is often the overwhelming nature of the transition. Indeed, in a review or recent research regarding the transition from higher education to the workforce, Edmonds et al., (2024) coined the term prospective negativity which “relates to students experiencing stress, anxiety and negative emotions before they even graduate because of the uncertainty associated with the university-to-work experience” (p. 5).

Salmela-Aro et al.’s (2007) research found that students have difficulty concentrating during emerging adulthood because it is a time where students’ goals in differing domains of life are intersecting and interdependent. As students attempt to manage the competing domains of work, health, family, education, friendship, travel, children, self, lifestyle, hobbies, daily life, wealth, and housing (Salmela-Aro, et al., 2007), they realize the domains are not often in their ability to control, which amplifies feeling overwhelmed. Indeed, Aronson et al.’s (2015) research yielded three major concerns for students as they graduate, the third of these was the transition to “real adult life” (p. 1104).

Pistilli worked with Taub and Bennett (2003) to develop the senior concerns survey (SCS). Taub continued the work with Servaty-Seib and Cousins (2006) to shorten the SCS and identify measures causing graduating seniors the most distress. Pistilli et al. (2003) developed a senior concerns survey which yielded four major concerns by graduating seniors including career searching and development, financial woes, loss and change, and availability of helping systems. Kwok (2018) also described three major challenges faced by undergraduate students as they leave higher eduction: ambiguity of the external environment, inadequate ability to manage uncertainty, and mental health issues (such as anxiety). The absence of programming related to these concerns leaves students with much uncertainty as they prepare to exit the university.

Return to the top of the page.

Many higher education institutions offer high-impact practices to seniors, such as capstones, senior seminars, internships, practicums, cooperative learning experiences; but few, if any, have curriculum-infused exit programs for all students (Gardner & Van der Veer, 1998; Hunter et al., 2012). The University of Maryland and the University of Baltimore both have webpages devoted to the senior year experience. 

Transitions, of any kind, are difficult and a human responds to that transition can be the difference between healthy, productive living and being stuck. Brammer’s (1992) research is clear about the impact of learning coping skills through workshop environments. The addition of exit programming (as workshops) at the end of one’s college career could help a student navigate the change in a successful way. Brammer’s (1992) wrote time and again that support from meaningful people and a recognition of transition as being a “normal part of living” (p. 241) is necessary at every stage.

The University of Maryland’s (2019) website is nearly entirely career-search focused but offers a “Backpack to Briefcase” workshop series that focuses on transition skills for seniors, including cooking, financial literacy, and more. However, upon further investigation, nothing can be found about this program other than it is centered in the Office of Parent and Family Affairs. The University of Baltimore (2020) touts a program of the same name. In this program, alumni return to the classroom to share their experiences postgraduation. This program is entirely centered in the alumni division of the university. Although the job search is supported by career service divisions, no evidence can be found that students are supported in any of the other areas of concern by other campus units.

In 2021-2022 a structured curriculum course was offered at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center for postdoctoral fellows and senior PhD students (Perez-Oquendo, et al., 2024). The results were astounding as 100% of participants agree that the course enabled them to understand the significance of:

• developing peer to peer relationships

• taking advance of networking (alumni, social media, professional organizations)

• effectively draft career ascertaining materials (CV’s, resumes, cover letters)

• preparing for an interview

• understanding the recruiting process

• mentorship

• actively career planning

• recruiting talent

• developing grant proposal

• understanding the career ladder clim

• self0care

• being able to work collaboratively

Allen and Taylor (2006) and Wendlandt and Rochlen (2008) found students would benefit from receiving direct support in coping with change and making post-graduation plans because graduating students may not recognize all the adulting factors they will soon face. Young-Jones et al. (2021) corroborated these findings in that students may be able to see what types of support they need, much less where to locate the supports. Collaboration among faculty, staff, and family members could reduce the uncertainty and ambiguity that may arise from all the topics (Agliata & Renk, 2008). 

Deck et al (2017) proposed using a field seminar to teach students the necessary skills to obtain a job that is a good fit, Glassburn (2020) agreed that “faculty and employers should both work toward preparing and supporting” (p. 156) new employees and Perez-Oquendo et al.’s (2024) documentation supports integration into a student’s curriculum. Bazine et al.,’s (2024) research also clearly stated “universities" should invest into programs aiming to foster PCO [protean career orientation] since it has been demonstrated that it is critical to career success and the success of school to work transitions” (p. 12) as well be a part of a student’s formal degree program.

The absence of programming related to transition concerns leaves students with much uncertainty as they prepare to exit the university which may harm new graduate’s well-being and mental health (Zays et al., 2023). A student’s mental health could also be classified as their psychological well-being as Lane’s (2016) research determined, “the strongest relationship to psychological well-being and life satisfaction were found with career-related and change and loss-related graduation concerns, suggesting that college senior well-being is moderately tied to these” (p. 241).

 Servaty-Seib (2014) developed the perceived impact of life event scale survey (PILESS) which measured changes in life circumstances as loss or gain and connected that loss to Hazan and Shaver’s (1990) ideas that work is central to psychological well-being. Zayts et al., (2023) in a review of the university to work transition research, reported that new graduates in the workforce often experience “anxiety, depression, and stress upon searching for a job after graduation” (p. 1). In 2016, Miller and Servaty-Seib used PILESS to measure the heightened concerns of graduating high school seniors as found by the SCS and defined these concerns as loss, heightened anxiety, and the state of being unwell.

Davis and Myers (2012) found a correlation between anxiety rising in anticipation of planned organizational exit, “members’ reluctance to leave could make this type of departure more difficult” (p. 211). This anxiety may be due to the lack of information about what comes next, for students this means adulting, living life beyond college, and career ascertainment. The failure to find meaningful work connected to a student’s program of study negatively impacts student wellness as Cassidy and Wright (2008) found unemployed and underemployed graduates experience “psychological damage . . . while finding employment in line with a career plan has significant benefits for mental health” (p. 189). 

Likewise, Salmela-Aro et al. (2007) discovered emerging adults reported higher levels of wellness when they transitioned to a career that corresponded to their education. The absence of dedicated support has impacted students as they shared having to change career goals, engage in inefficient job searches, and even alter preferred geographic areas. These experiences mirror Muñiz and Eimerbrink (2018), who made the connection between unrealistic expectations that cause students “greater levels of stress” (p. 112). 

As Buhl (2007) found, even competent emerging adults were “more likely to perceive a decrease of well-being in their transition to work life” (p. 566). Therefore, when considering the transition, student physical, general, and academic well-being must be considered. When students are faced with this difficult transition, they may cope in less than healthy ways. There is a well-established link between mental and physical health as Zayts et al. (2023) reported that students entering the workforce also “report suffering from physical ailments during this period” (p. 1). The general mental anguish students experience can lead to destructive behaviors. 

Boyd et al. (2014), Wilhite and Frommé (2015), and Marino and Frommé (2018) researched increased alcohol use during the transition out of college. Blayney et al. (2019) found in the final year, students who were graduating had higher levels of drug and alcohol use when compared to their nongraduating peers. Boyd et al. (2014) and Blayney et al. (2019) advocated for the development of interventions for students transitioning out of the university that encourage education regarding new social environments. These interventions could be rooted in exit programming about relocation planning, staying involved through alumni associations, and navigating new workplace structures.

As students approach graduation, they take an assessment of available supports (Lane, 2016; Pistilli et al., 2003), because most students are not ready to move “from student to career” (Cassidy & Wright, 2008, p. 190). Yet, supports are largely unavailable or difficult to locate. Allen and Taylor (2006) found senior students struggled to get clear answers from those in the university; instead, they experienced a “do it yourself” (Roksa & Silver, 2019, p. 1061) attitude with little guidance or coordination of university resources. Aronson et al.’s (2015), Glassburn’s (2020), and Harry and Chinyamurinidi (2022)’s research discovered the same as students expressed a desire for university assistance to help in the process of finding employment and ease their anxieties about what is to come. Roksa and Silver’s (2019) findings also showed a wide majority of students do not use university resources, such as career services, as they transition from the university. Although the rate of use was low for continuing-generation students at 28%, the rate for first-generation students was even lower at 19% (Roksa & Silver, 2019). This non-use could be due to high levels of high-psychological distress as Yang and Gysbers (2007) discovered students who had low levels of career search efficacy also had increased psychological distress and this led to a decreased number of psychological capabilities (readiness, confidence, control, support, decision independence) that could help them in the career search process.  

Davis and Myers (2012) found without management of the departure process, leavers may experience organizational cynicism (Naus et al., 2007). Naus et al. (2007) found cynicism highest among those who believed promises upon entry were not kept. These promises can be linked to higher education institutions’ mission and vision statements. In an analysis of varying institutional types, it was found institutions claim to contribute to society, engage citizens, develop productive employees/employers, and build stronger communities for the public good (Michigan State University, 2008; Midwest University, 2014; University of Texas, 2020). All missions, regardless of geographic location or size of institution, focus on the preparedness of students for their transition out of higher education. If students view these statements as promises, they may feel disregarded by the organization if unmet. Allowing this type of organizational cynicism to permeate communication about the institution can be dangerous; therefore, Naus et al. (2007) recommended to take this cynicism as a warning sign and to “understand, contain and prevent cynicism where possible before it develops into something beyond repair” (p. 710), which may impact future admission numbers and alumni activity. 

Indeed, the United States has few institutionalized school-to-work linkages which results in students on their own to navigate not only the career transition, but the transition to adulthood. Aronson et al., (2015) are a bit critical of this lack of support due to the “lack of occupational relevance of most US college programs” (p. 1099). Essentially, instead of helping students make the connections between programs (especially those in the humanities), students are left largely to themselves to not only make the connections, but explain those connections to potential employers. 

Lane (2016) found family attachment style was key when examining the levels of stress college students felt as they transitioned out of college and Boyd et al. (2014) research showed family plays an important role in adjustment to post-college life.Those with an insecure attachment style had more worry about careers, overcoming loss, and establishing new networks (Young-Jones et al., 2021). Although most students were counting on family for information, many students still worried about the transition. To provide meaning to their transitional experience, students often looked toward older siblings and expected conversation imitation from parents. Yet, students were afraid to, or lacked the confidence, to ask for information. This often caused stress in the family unit, which was supported by Buhl’s (2007) research that showed emerging adulthood is a stressor for families and often leads to “increased tension and decreased cohesion and connectedness” (p. 552). Buhl (2007) went on to argue that the relationship emerging adults have with their parents also contributes to the emerging adult’s sense of wellbeing. This, however, assumes a student has a positive relationship with their family or that their family is able to provide knowledge and support as graduation nears.

It has also become clear that students across different majors or colleges vary greatly in their preparedness. While students studying business or finance may have some background in understanding investment and retirement, social work majors likely do not have that same requisite knowledge. Glassburn’s(2020) findings support this inequity as said by one of the interview participants “Social workers don’t really get trained about how to ask for more money. . . we don’t even know what we should be getting paid” (p. 147). While the content knowledge is different from major to major, so is the stress of the job. Glassburn’s (2020) research also brought forth the idea of how to help student understand the stressors they would face in their first job, specifically: dealing with compassion fatigue, practicing self-care, and compassion satisfaction. These are not experiences of every graduate, but it would serve graduates well to learn from potential mentors in those careers.  

Finally, as Harry and Chinyamurinidi (2021) wrote as more student enter higher education, it becomes a feeder into the labor system and because of that institutions of higher learning become “essential agents of change” (p. 277) in the college to career transition.

To fully understand how emerging adults discover adulting concepts and experience transition from higher education, an examination of human development is necessary. This research clearly defines and describes the concept of emerging adulthood, explores emotional intelligence and its importance in how humans manage change during this emerging adulthood and finally, examines these concepts within the framework of Maslow’s hierarchy theory (1943). 

Arnett’s Emerging Adulthood

Historically, the stage of life between high school graduation and entering the full-time workforce has been under researched and difficult to define. Hayes (1981) was one of the first to define this period as an identity crisis between adolescence and adulthood. Erikson’s (1993) human development theory grouped together individuals aged 18 to 40 with the defining tension as the ability to commit to others in partnership and maintain this partnership even with personal compromise and sacrifice. In the past 20 years there has been a trend that shows childhood extending into adolescence, which pushed adolescence into what is traditionally adulthood (Côté & Brynner, 2008; Furstenberg et al., 2004; Shanahan, 2000; Twenge, 2017). identified a trend showing . Due to this shift, young people are less likely to socialize without parents, date, and engage in sexual intercourse. Twenge (2017) found this shift appeared in “every racial group, region, and class” (p. 25) and concluded young people are experiencing delayed maturation. 

Kimmel (2008) set forth an argument that adolescence has expanded due to the shift from an agrarian society where people graduated from high school and went to work in law, medicine, factory, military, or farming to an industrialized, technological society with an endless array of options. Muñiz and Eimerbrink (2018) also discovered when students are faced with so many choices, they are often unprepared or unable to decide, which is why education and programming related to graduating and adulting are more imperative than ever. Arnett (2000) supported these assertions in that “industrialized societies allow a prolonged adolescence for extended identity exploration” (p. 473).

Goldscheider and Goldscheider (1999) found during this stage of life, many young people move back and forth between being more and less independent; much of that depends on circumstances outside of their immediate control. As emerging adults graduate college, they move from independent living back to being dependent in their parent’s homes. These young adults may also experience high job turnover as they strive to find a career that truly matches their interest. Arnett (2000) agreed, stating this group of young adults were difficult to define because they were “neither adolescents nor adults, in between the two but not really one or the other” (Arnett, 2000, p. 471). Kimmel (2008) coined this period of life adultolescence. and Arnett (2000) proposed the term and defining characteristics of emerging adulthood.

Emerging adults range in age from 18–25 and are classified by their instable residency while they work to develop self-sufficiency, financial/residential independence, and reduce dependence on their family (Arnett, 2000; Galambos et al., 2006). A final indicator for this ensemble is their “heterogeneity” (Arnett, 2000, p. 477) or that even though connected by age, instability, and mobility, they are simultaneously diverse in demographics and how they experience this stage of life. During this stage, emerging adults experience a lack of societal role requirement, which causes them to experience a wide scope of “individual volition” (Arnett, 2000, p. 471).

As students enter the final year of college, this volition is amplified. Students have not yet settled into adulthood by establishing a home, getting married, or having children; instead, they are working to finish school and begin a full-time career (Arnett, 2000). Although the possibilities seem enthralling, exciting, and enchanting, graduates are also often consumed with confusion, anxiety, and worry about the upcoming changes. Moos and Tsu (1976) recognized change as a crisis that is “essentially a disturbance of the equilibrium, an upset in a steady state” (p. 13). Humans experience anxiety and worry when their emotional equilibrium has been disturbed, which often inhibits the ability to move forward and cope in emotionally productive ways. 

Emotional Development

Emerging adults have also been characterized by a marked difference in psychological well-being (Galambos, et al., 2006). As students enter this transitional period, they experience an emotional disequilibrium while attempting to cope with their changes. This disequilibrium and stress often leaves students feeling paralyzed and overwhelmed about the unknown (Allen & Taylor, 2006; Pistilli et al., 2003; Roksa & Silver, 2019; Schriver & Teske, 2020; Servaty-Seib, 2014; Wendlandt & Rochlen, 2008; Wood, 2004; Young-Jones et al., 2021). Students approaching graduation simultaneously experience happiness and sadness (Wilt et al., 2016), excitement and uncertainty (Yazedjian et al., 2010), and excitement and worry (Silver et al., 2021). Although students feel confident and excited about their new freedoms, they also feel “the weight of constraints” (Silver & Roksa, 2017, p. 259) and “emotionally fraught” (Silver et al., 2021, p. 389) as graduation nears. As students attempt to manage this emotional disequilibrium, their well-being is at stake because Lane (2016) found the well-being of college seniors was “moderately tied to those aspects of transition” (p. 241). 

The absence of transitional support and communication leaves students experiencing unusually high levels of emotional distress (Price & Hooijberg, 1992). To reduce this stress, leaders in organizations could communicate more to reduce uncertainty (Jablin & Putnam, 2004; Miller & Jablin, 1991). Wendlandt and Rochlen (2008) noted the potential value of clearly communicated exit programs arranged by faculty and staff for students approaching graduation. These programs could ease the transition (Wendlandt & Rochlen, 2008), reduce confusion, and provide space for exploration in transitional moments (Schlossberg, 1984) as students focus on how to be a newcomer in groups and organizations. Students who may struggle during exit likely struggled during organizational entry because they did not have the family background or educational opportunities that truly prepared them for college (Mu & Cole, 2019). Mu and Cole (2019) discovered students who experienced higher rates of anxiety when entering college are likely to experience the same feelings as they progress through their academic career and approach graduation. 

Price and Hooijberg (1992) identified when people experience high levels of anxiety and uncertainty without social support, it can lead to vulnerability, which may lead students down dangerous coping paths. As students attempt to cope with the changes and emotional responses they experience, many turn to unhealthy mechanisms. Radomski et al. (2015) found drinking patterns among college seniors had negative impacts on reaching developmentally appropriate goals, such as graduation and transitioning into the workforce. Likewise, Gates et al. (2016) discovered a strong correlation between instability during emerging adulthood and alcohol-related problems and Marino and Frommé (2018) found graduating students did not decrease their alcohol use. 

To assist students with their affective responses to transitioning out of higher education, understanding emotional intelligence is imperative. Goleman (2005) defined emotional intelligence as knowing one’s emotion, managing that emotion, motivating oneself to get information to reduce anxiety, recognizing emotions in others, and handling relationships. For this study, the items of most concern were knowing one’s emotions, managing one’s emotions, and being motivated to find information. Knowing one’s emotions culminates with self-confidence or “courage that comes from certainty about our capabilities, values, and goals” (Goleman, 2006, p. 54). This literature review noted the disturbance of emotional equilibrium students experience during their transition out of college. This disturbance in emotional equilibrium may be due to a mismatch of what students think will happen and their reality. Higgins’ (1987) self-discrepancy theory states when a discrepancy exists, a human will feel emotions from either the dejection (i.e., dissatisfaction, discouraged, pitiful, sad, gloomy, miserable) or agitation (i.e., guilt, anxiety, worry, fear, tense, alarm) cluster. 

Goleman (2005) further focused on agitation-related emotions when defining anxiety as having two forms: cognitive (i.e., having worrisome thoughts) and somatic (i.e., physical manifestation of an emotion). Anxiety comes with a broad spectrum of impacts on the human body: lowered immune function, vulnerability to virus, heart disease, accelerating diabetes, asthma, ulcers, and damage to a human’s long-term memory (Goleman, 2005). Borkovec and Roemer’s (1995) research connected anxiety and worry and found at the heart of anxiety lies worrying. Worry can be helpful because it is a recognition of what could go wrong and allows a human to practice action within that realm (Goleman, 2005; Higgins, 1987); it also has a trigger effect where worrying plunges a human into a “long series of distress thoughts, each of which primes yet another topic for worry” (Goleman, 2005, p. 68). Higgins’ (1987) and Taormina and Gao’s (2013) research supported the idea of this negative spiral students may experience when feeling this emotional self-discrepancy. Some students see being rejected for potential employment as an indicator to work harder, but others have difficulty picking themselves up and keep moving forward (Higgins, 1987). This is strongly associated to Duckworth’s (2016) ideas of grit in which it was found the more grit a person has, the more likely they will enjoy a healthy emotional life. 

Higgins (1987) worked to predict the connection between incompatible beliefs and negative emotions, whereas incompatible beliefs are defined as new information. As students transition to their new role(s), they often experience a mismatch between their expectation and reality, which can result in negative emotions as they make sense of their new role. Higgins (1987) distinguished between the perspective of self (i.e., actual, ideal, and ought) and others. This resulted in five pairings: (a) actual/own, (b) ideal/own, (c) ideal/other, (d) ought/other, and (e) ought/own. 

The tension of actual/own and ideal/own occurs when the person’s own standpoint does not match what they hope. Humans who experience this are vulnerable to dejection related emotions, which are particularly intense and powerful (Higgins, 1987). When students enter higher education, they have hopes, dreams, and goals that are not always met by the time they graduate. Actual/own and ideal/other focuses on when the person’s own standpoint does not match what another hopes or believes. Humans who experience this are vulnerable to dejection related emotions, such as shame and embarrassment, which are “associated with people believing that they have lost standing or esteem in the opinion of others” (Higgins, 1987, p. 322).

Experiencing the dichotomies of actual/own versus ought/other will provide a mismatch between reality and assumption of what others believe. Humans who experience this are vulnerable to agitation related emotions and may feel helpless or threatened (Higgins, 1987). These pressures seem to be worse for students who grew up believing their worth was attached to the amount of parental affection and approval they received when they succeeded (Higgins, 1987). Pressure from external significant others (i.e., parents, siblings, peers, professors), when combined with these lifetime pressures, can lead students to experience this discrepancy which results in intense emotional discomfort.

The final tension, actual/own versus ought/own is when the person experiences a mismatch between their current state and what they perceive as their success obligation (Higgins, 1987). Humans who experience this are vulnerable to agitation related emotions such as guilt, self-contempt, and uneasiness. Exit from an organization is usually difficult, even moreso when the organization has helped to redefine the self, which is the experience of many college students. 

When humans experience change that results in tension, anxiety, fear, guilt, shame, and helplessness, their usual problem-solving mechanisms do not work (Moos & Tsu, 1976). As students are better able to recognize and label their emotions, they can learn new mechanisms to manage the resulting anxiety. Borkovec and Roemer (1995) encouraged humans to control anxiety by becoming more self-aware and actively challenging worrisome thought. Challenging those thoughts can be done by gathering information to reduce uncertainty and find constructive steps to take. These strategies seem to be even more important when considering the deterioration of college student mental health. In 2016, all indicators of mental health issues on the American freshman survey of students entering college rose with nearly 60% of students feeling overwhelming anxiety (Twenge, 2017).

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

When considering human development, it would be negligent to not review Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of needs, which posits people progress through stages of development. Humans may move, stall, or fall backwards if they experience an emotional disequilibrium. Humans ultimately have an active drive toward growth, learning, and actualization for their well-being (Taormina & Gao, 2013). Maslow’s hierarchy is not without criticism; Yang (2003) criticized the theory for being culture centric and Cullen and Gotell (2002) criticized it for being gender biased. However, many researchers have found the ideas to be worthy of interest and continued discussion. 

The first level of Maslow’s hierarchy includes physiological needs, better known as conditions necessary for the body to survive, including food, ambient temperature, exercise, good health. Maslow (1943) categorized these first levels as prepotent, or that a subhierarchy exists. For instance, a person “who is lacking food, safety, love, and esteem would most probably hunger for food more strongly than anything else” (Maslow, 1943, p. 373). Researchers (Li, 2020; Oleson, 2004; Taormina & Gao, 2013) engaged in research that verified humans will not climb Maslow’s hierarchy of needs without meeting each need. 

The second level includes safety and security needs. Taormina and Gao’s (2013) research took an alternative viewpoint to categorize needs by defining threats that could stop a human from fully engaging in this level and consequently, not being able to move to the next level. These threats include, “job security, medical insurance, and retirement security” (Taormina & Gao, 2013, p. 4). Maslow (1943) broadened needs in this category by adding the idea of familiarity, which was supported by Oleson (2004) who described safety needs as preferring a routine and structured life. Oleson’s (2004) research specifically focused on the strong connection between Maslow’s hierarchy and money and its impact on physiological and security needs. 

The concerns over financial wellness are closely related to physiological, safety, and security needs, which exist in two lowest levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. Li (2020) and Oleson (2004) found humans will not climb the hierarchy without meeting these most basic needs. The stress students experience will impact their progression as Taormina and Gao (2013) reported, anxiety always has a negative impact on a human’s progression through Maslow’s stages. As students attempt to climb into the third hierarchical level, they experience even more difficulty because of network changes, which create a sense of belongingness that is fundamental to the human species (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).

As students are stuck in Maslow’s (1943) first two levels, their emotional disequilibrium is amplified. Li’s (2020) research on the effect of Maslow’s Hierarchy on patients with depression found many patients described discomfort symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, difficulty breathing, difficult swallowing, and random pain. Although serious, nothing was revealed in tests and even after taking medication, there was no improvement. These tendencies support Goleman’s (2005) knowledge of the somatic symptoms of anxiety and worry. In fact, Li (2020) found the degree of life satisfaction was most “directly proportional to the state of mental health” (p. 8), and when a person’s most basic needs are met, they experience a balanced mental state. 

Taormina and Gao’s (2013) research focused on measuring these needs in the context of traditional values, including physiological, safety, and belongingness needs; they discovered anxiety/worry always had a negative impact on the human’s progression through Maslow’s stages. Thus, the worry and anxiety that comes with looming graduation not only stops students from progressing in the hierarchy, but may also cause them to regress. 

Humans “seek social needs such as belonging, companionship, and social acceptability” (Oleson, 2004, p. 4) which certainly links to Maslow’s third hierarchy, love and belonging. Taormina and Gao (2013) and Baumeister and Leary (1995) found belongingness is innate and the ability to have interpersonal relationships is fundamental to the human species. In fact, these relationships are so important that Baumeister and Leary (1995) reported being excluded socially may be “the most common and important cause of anxiety” (p. 506). During the transition from higher education, relationships look different than ever before, as Arnett (2000) discovered relationships during emerging adulthood involve a deeper level of intimacy and less focus on the self. 

The troubles students experience in the third level of Maslow’s hierarchy can stop their movement to the fourth level, esteem. Esteem needs include those of self-worth, accomplishment, independence, and respect. These characteristics are necessary for students to have confidence and be able to clearly articulate their skills in interviews and while entering the workforce.

Esteem needs make up the fourth level of Maslow’s hierarchy. Maslow (1943) classified these needs into two basic categories, the lower version as the need for respect from others and the higher version is the “desire for reputation or prestige, recognition, attention, importance, or appreciation” (pp. 381–382). Taormina and Gao (2013) focused on the higher version of esteem needs as a personal evaluation of attitude and respect one has for oneself. This respect or esteem from others ties back to Higgins’ self-discrepancy theory. When students are asked about the future, if they have nothing to report, this directly impacts their sense of self efficacy. Satisfaction of these needs can lead a human to the highest levels of Maslow’s pyramid, self-actualization and transcendence, where people are motivated to reach full potential for the self and others. Moreover, Sumerlin (1995) engaged in research of Maslow’s ideas and developed a list of 11 characteristics of a self-actualizing person: (a) autonomy, (b) purpose in life, (c) movement toward capacity, (d) openness to experience, (e) courage, (f) comfort with solitude, (g) democratic character, (h) self-acceptance, (i) curiosity, (j) lack of fear of one’s own greatness, and (k) an ability to live in the moment while integrating experiences and future goals. Sumerlin’s characteristics directly match many of the objectives, goals, and missions of institutions of higher education.

Pistilli et al. (2003) developed a senior concerns survey which yielded four major concerns by graduating seniors including financial woes. Aronson et al.’s (2015) research yielded three majors concerns, students reported debt and financial concerns as the second largest challenge..The absence of programming related to these concerns leaves students with much uncertainty as they prepare to exit the university. 

Schriver and Teske (2020) found the top stressors for students preparing to graduate were “making enough money [and] financial planning for my future” (p. 85); these findings are supported by Allen and Taylor (2006), Silver and Roksa (2017), Silver et al. (2021), and Yazedjian et al. (2010). Other financial issues include budgeting with a new salary, navigating financial aid repayment, unemployment, and learning to manage credit (Brooks, 2018; Frippery, 2020; Glassburn, 2020; Kelsen, 2019; Young-Jones et al., 2021, Zayts et al., 2023), as well as negotiating and navigating workplace benefits (Kelsen, 2019; Petersen, 2016).

These stressors are compounded by the competitiveness of the job market, especially during lean periods (Brooks, 2018). Chen and Yur-Austin’s (2016) research of students transitioning during the great recession of 2008 found students were more likely to delay graduation and higher education became “warehouses” (p. 34) for students waiting to enter the workforce. Additionally, Aronson et. al (2015) recommended transitional programs are especially important during economic downturns as university staff and faculty could help students to engage in career adaptability or the ability to manage career transitions which includes” career planning, control over career, career curiosity, and career confidence” (p. 1101). Developing these skills in college would help students weather future economic crises.

These memories continued to impact concerns about student financial aid and securing employment (Aronson et al., 2015; Chen & Yur-Austin, 2016). To manage these concerns, students focus on finding any job which often results in underemployment or malemployment as Tanzi (2021) discovered “41% of recent college graduates” (para. 5) are working in jobs that typically do not require a college degree. Not only does this impact a student’s ability to begin living independently, because nearly 50% of recent graduates return to their parent’s homes instead of relocating (Friedman, 2019), but it also contributes to psychological well-being as a young person’s experience of “unemployment and underemployment lead to increased depression and reduced self-esteem” (Galambos, et al., 2006 p. 352). Cassidy and Wright’s (2008) research supported these ideas in finding that 34% of underemployed graduates could be classified as clinically distressed.

Additionally, exiting the university fully armed with knowledge of adulting practices could reduce the student loan default rate. Currently, “11% of new graduates default in the first 12 months of repayment” (Hanson, 2021, para. 1). As students exit with a more thorough knowledge base of loan type (i.e., subsidized, unsubsidized, public, private), loan servicers, grace periods, delaying payment with deferment or forbearance, types of repayment plans, student loan forgiveness plans, and estimated payments (Lowry, 2017), they may be more equipped to handle their student loans and less likely to default. Default rates can cause institutions of higher education to lose their eligibility for federal financial aid if their default rate is “30 percent or higher three years in a row or if their rate hits 40 percent” (Butrymowicz & Kolodner, 2019, para. 6).

These findings mirror Schriver and Teske’s (2020) research that identified top stressors for graduating students as “making enough money, financial planning for my future” (p. 85). Likewise, Allen and Taylor (2006), Silver and Roksa (2017), Silver et al. (2021), and Yazedjian et al. (2010) all identified financial issues as major concerns for graduating students. Financial worries were most often connected to conversations about basic needs like finding a place to live, buying groceries, navigating workplace benefits, and geographical uncertainty.

Pistilli et al. (2003) developed a senior concerns survey which yielded four major concerns by graduating seniors including loss and change and availability of helping systems. Pistilli et al. (2003) specifically identified several tenets related to social network change that included leaving friends behind, establishing new friendships, changes in identity, the end of being a student, and changes in helping systems. Similarly, Kelsen (2019) specifically wrote about students living alone, often away from their support systems for the first time Schriver and Teske (2020) reported transition stressors that included starting a family, relocating, coping with the loss of college friends and identities, and transition to a professional identity. 

Students are woefully unprepared to navigate the changes and loss to their interpersonal support networks (Kelsen, 2019; Pistilli et al., 2003; Schriver & Teske, 2020). Schlossberg (1984) noted both interpersonal and institutional support systems are necessary for successful transition. Pistilli et al. (2003) identified four specific worries students had upon graduation: (a) leaving others/being left, (b) establishing new friendships, (c) changes in identity, and (d) the end of the student lifestyle.

Students do not want to leave networks created during their time at college (Allen & Taylor, 2006; Yazedjian et al., 2010) because it is difficult and causes emotional difficulty (Wilt et al., 2016). This difficulty can be magnified when students find themselves alone after graduation (Schriver & Teske, 2020). Wilt et al. (2016) discovered this loneliness lowered recognition of a student’s meaning of life, which has been linked to psychological well-being at every stage of life; the lack of meaning has been associated with “anxiety and depression, suicidal ideation, boredom, drug and alcohol use and excessive gambling” (p. 165). 

Davis and Myers (2012), Pistilli et al. (2003), Schlossberg (1984), and Schriver and Teske (2020) referenced the loss of helping systems (i.e., interpersonal relationships, families, and faith communities) as transitions occur. Lane (2016) took the research a step further and found family attachment style was key when examining the levels of stress college students felt as they transitioned out of college. Those with an insecure attachment style had more worry about careers, overcoming loss, and establishing new networks (Young-Jones et al., 2021). Establishing new networks can also cause significant stress because students live away from their support systems, often for the first time (Kelsen, 2019). 

Students had great concern and expressed emotional loss regarding the upcoming changes in social networks because of graduation. These findings are supported by Pistilli et al. (2003), Allen and Taylor (2006), and Yazedjian et al. (2010), who found students do not want to leave networks created during their time at college. College is often a time when emerging adults find and develop their true selves. Their social networks are no longer uncontrolled because of simple circumstance; instead, they choose their new social networks. These findings are on par with Arnett’s (2000) knowledge of emerging adulthood, where humans focus less on their self and prefer a deeper level of intimacy with others. Schriver and Teske (2020) found these network changes can be magnified when students find themselves alone after graduation, as clearly articulated by one student who was very concerned about how they would engage in decision making and dealing with life’s hardships without their roommates of 3 years. 

Students are highly encouraged to be involved with on-campus groups; Kilgo et al. (2016) found student involvement shows a “significant, positive link with end-of-fourth year psychological well-being” (p. 1047). Yet, leaving these groups without a structured exit proved to be stress inducing and most dealt with the stress by simply not talking about their upcoming departure. This behavior supported Davis and Myers’ (2012) research in which seniors in a sorority created a rule that prohibited “discussion or acknowledgement of their imminent departure” (p. 205). Again, higher education encourages involvement and participation early on, but leaves the ending unscripted. 

 These conflicting experiences were supported by Davis and Myers (2012) who discovered while students reported sadness and excitement, they simultaneously expressed a “practical readiness to leave, giving up and deidentifying with their role” (p. 208). Although students are thinking about their future in positive ways, they still have high concern about their future employment and financial solvency.

If members do not have good experiences upon leaving organizations, they will not respond with a “prosocial voice or loyalty” (Naus et al., 2007, p. 695), which lies contrary to organizational loyalty and is imperative for an active alumni base. Davis and Myers (2012) found efforts focused on structured exit may result in long-term identification with an organization, which is essential. This reminiscence strengthens the identifying narrative in the organization (Jablin & Krone, 1994). Wilt et al. (2016) found the narrative function of storytelling was especially important as students faced the graduation transition because it provided “unity and purpose” (p. 165) between current and former students, faculty, and staff. The narrative account offered by the leaver is valuable to the stayer as they work to improve the organization and recruit others to the organization (Jablin & Putnam, 2004). 

During the exit phase, Jablin and Putnam (2004) found leavers will tell stories to stayers about what the organization was like when they first joined. This storytelling helps to develop stronger connections between those who stay and those who go and is an important part of disengagement (Davis & Myers, 2012). These positive feelings and stories may also help maintain relationships between graduates and faculty/staff members (Jablin & Krone, 1994); Stephenson and Yerger (2013) discovered leavers who strongly identify with an alma matter can provide support for organizations in the form of monetary donations, advocacy, or volunteerism. Additionally, Wendlandt and Rochlen (2008) discovered having a strong alumnus can increase the likelihood of job placement for graduates by connecting alumni and students.

Several researchers have focused on discovering insights on the importance of building positive, supportive relationships among staff, faculty, students, and alumni (Koenig-Lewis et al., 2016; Saraih et al., 2018; Snijders et al., 2019; Stephenson & Yerger, 2013). Stephenson and Yerger (2013) found a connection between alumni giving and student affairs as “satisfaction with student affairs and age were both positively and statistically significant as related to the choice to donate . . . for every one-point increase in satisfaction with student affairs, the odds of donating increased by 11.4 percent” (p. 772). Additionally, the 2014 Gallup-Purdue Index Report revealed that alumni are 8.7 times more prone to be emotionally attached to their college if they feel their college has “prepared me well for life out of college” (p. 21) and 8.1 times higher if the alumnus feels the college is “passionate about the long-term success of its students” (p. 21). Additionally, understanding the impact of helping undergraduates network with alumni for the process of career attainment should not be underscored (Yang & Gysbers, 2007).

Without this transitional assistance, students may leave the university with a negative disposition. This was evidence in Aronson et al.’s (2015) qualitative studies where students reported the university left them “High and dry after graduating,” “no help with placement,” “I was on my own” showing there is definitely a mismatch between student expectations and experiences (p. 1107). Davis and Myers (2012) found without management of the departure process, leavers may experience organizational cynicism. As Cassidy and Wright (2008) discovered, this transition, when not experienced smoothly, can have long term consequences because of damage to a student’s motivation for achievement that carries into the workplace. An exit program could provide necessary resources to increase career readiness while reducing cynicism and long-term damage to motivation. 

A  transition program could help support the general wellness of students as they enter the workforce. The Gallup-Purdue Index Report (2014) gauged the wellness of college graduates in their life’s purpose, social, financial, community, and physical elements. Within these categories, only 11% of graduates were thriving in all five elements and more than “one in six graduates are not thriving in any” (p. 6). This poll studied more than 30,000 college graduates across the United States and shows most students are graduating without confidence to navigate multiple elements of their life. Additionally, it was found that the odds of thriving in all categories doubled when graduates felt their institution prepared them for life beyond college (Gallup-Purdue Index Report, 2014). The existence of an exit program could help to provide this preparation, thereby increasing confidence.

Final moments of a student’s college experience will stay with them as they move into the workforce. An exit program would help support students in their transition, thereby reducing their stress and increasing their positive disposition toward the university. The Gallup-Purdue 2014 Index Report supports these ideas. This survey found employed graduates were 8.7 times more apt to be emotionally attached to their college if they felt the college prepared them for life outside of college. Additionally, Davis and Myers (2012) found that a structured exit may result in the long-term identification with an organization and Stephenson and Yerger (2013) discovered alumni who identify strongly with their alma mater often provide monetary, advocacy, or volunteer support. 

Offering workshops with industry professionals who are also alumni may help in two ways. Flynn (2022) discovered networking as the most often cited way to gain full time employment at 85% and 95% of professionals agreed that “face-to face connections” (para. 3) are key to long term career success and relationships. Cocieru et al., (2024) concurred, their findings showed that creating the ability to network with alumni made students more comfortable asking for advice and even job opportunities. Second, involving alumni as presenters may help close the gender gap in many of the results of this research. As Obukhova and Kleinbaum (2022) discovered women, on average, “reach out to 63% more alums than men do” (p. 208). Literature has demonstrated that network strongly relates to achievement of career goals and advancement (Bazine et al., 2024; Simmons et al., 2022)

An exit/transition program in students’ final semester could increase satisfaction and promote a stronger emotional bond with their soon to be alma mater. This bond may also translate to higher legacy admissions when sharing this bond with children. Workman (2015) discovered the impact of family as alumni on admission to higher education as high levels of involvement by parents is common in the current generation. 

During their 1st year, students often receive coordinated resources such as 1st-year programs, extended orientations, and living learning communities (Gardner & Van der Veer, 1998; Hunter et al., 2012; Jablin & Putnam, 2004; Kuh, 2008; Mayhew et al., 2016; National Orientation Directors Association, n.d.; Rall, 2016; Sizer, 2002). As students progress through their academic career, they are expected to build capacity to locate and use those supports on their own; eventually, with the hope that students develop a sense of self-efficacy in their academic learning and life skills. Schlossberg’s (2011) research showed offering supports and strategies during transition are directly related to a person’s sense of well-being. 

Developing transition programs could encourage coordination (Roksa & Silver, 2019) among university staff and faculty because a variety of topics have been touted as worthy of exploration. These topics may include “expectations about graduation and life beyond, differences between college and the workplace, professionalism, adapting to workplace cultures” (Wendlandt & Rochlen, 2008, p. 162), the process of career ascertainment (Allen & Taylor, 2006; Joy, 2000; Yazedjian et al., 2010), navigating network changes (Wendlandt & Rochlen, 2008; Yazedjian et al., 2010), and financial literacy (Yazedjian et al., 2010). Some of these topics can be easily pursued by student affairs professionals, but others can be left to faculty who have personal relationships with students. 

Several studies (Roksa & Silver, 2019; Wendlandt & Rochlen, 2008; Yazedjian et al., 2010) found integrating transition programs in the academic curriculum should be considered a best practice, because the classroom is where students begin looking for resources (Silver et al., 2021; Silver & Roksa, 2017) as student have preexisting relationships with many faculty members (Silver et al., 2021; Young-Jones et al., 2021). In 2015, the Gallup-Purdue Index Report revealed students who reported having a professor who cared about them as a person, made them excited about learning, and encouraged them to pursue their dreams were twice as likely to be engaged in work after graduation. Additionally, it would meet the needs of all diverse groups, especially first-generation students (Silver & Roksa, 2017) who may be fearful or reticent to seek out resources on their own. Yazedjian et al. (2010) took the idea a step further and advocated exit programs as a required part of an internship or practicum.

Collaboration between academic and student affairs has received much attention in recent years. The most significant finding from Gulley’s (2017) research was that student affairs and academic affairs worked best together when each understood how they fit into the institutional mission and understood each other’s purpose. This cooperation and communication stood in the face of “competing missions” and relationships “convoluted and laced with territorialism, insecurity, and inferiority complexes” (Gulley, 2017, p. 465).  Young-Jones et al. (2021) agreed in their discovery of how faculty members and academic advisors could create conditions that “foster optimal conditions” (p. 66) for students as they transition from higher education into the workforce. Students experiencing senioritis are less focused on coursework because they increase their efforts on career exploration, financial adjustments, and dealing with network changes. 

 Cho and Sriram (2016) advocated for three themes as student affairs professionals and academic faculty cross boundaries for student success. These themes include interpersonal relationship development, program development and modification, and organizational culture. An exit program would encourage stronger development of all three themes. Faculty and student affairs staff could build relationships to develop and modify programs that benefit students all while showing all stakeholders that organizational culture can both support and encourage such collaboration.

Roksa and Silver’s (2019) findings showed most students do not use university resources, such as career services, as they transition from the university. Roksa and Silver (2019), Wendlandt and Rochlen (2008), and Yazedjian et al. (2010) all agreed that integrating career focused information within the academic curriculum should be considered a best practice, because the classroom is where students begin looking for resources (Silver & Roksa, 2017). Additionally, students have higher levels of trust and preexisting relationships with many faculty members (Silver et al., 2021; Young-Jones et al., 2021). Infusing an exit program within the university’s curriculum, may ensure all students access to information in the most supportive way; in current classrooms with trusted faculty.

Muñiz and Eimerbrink’s (2018) research supported collaborative work as “classroom interventions were an effective strategy to assist students in career counseling” (p. 114). The Gallup-Purdue Index Report (2014) indicated that graduates were more likely to be engaged in the workplace if they had a professor who “cared about them as a person, made them excited about learning, and encouraged them to pursue their dreams” (p. 4). An exit program initiated in the classroom could further increase a student’s affiliation with professors who intentionally care about their transition from the university, which then may create stronger engagement at work. 

An exit program would require collaboration among university units, colleges, and programs. This coordination could strengthen the university by creating a culture of collaboration instead of competition. Stephenson and Yerger (2013) found a connection between alumni giving and student affairs as “for every one-point increase in satisfaction with student affairs, the odds of donating increased by 11.4 percent” (p. 772). With budget cuts, career services staff have become more focused on securing employment rather than long-range career planning. To balance the work of an exit/transition program, all campus units could collaborate. Career services staff could share their knowledge about the job search and workplace to classes when faculty must be absent. Financial aid representatives could encourage stronger financial literacy, advising personnel could help students articulate what their degree enables them to do, human resources could teach students about benefits, and alumni relations could provide resources and ideas to help students stay connected after graduation. 

This collaboration is not just between academic and student affairs. This type of programming could also engage faculty in important academic boundary crossing work. Students could meet faculty members from across departments: business faculty to learn about taxes and investing, communication faculty to learn about social media presence, or English faculty to assist in writing personal statements for resumes or graduate school entry. Programming could involve alumni who are versed in these topics and who are interested in continuing to give time and talent, something young alumni are able to give when they may not yet be able to provide monetary contributions. 

This collaboration should begin immediately because Workman (2015) discovered first-year students are immediately concerned about financial security. Muñiz and Eimerbrink (2018) further supported the conclusion that students’ exit should be viewed as a transition instead of a singular event because it would allow for “carefully planned preparation, and an extended phase of adjustment to work and other life roles” (p. 111). Additionally, Aronson et al. (2015) reported that the “optimal approach” for career development would be to begin early and “seek out opportunities that serve as stepping stones” to help students gradually make the transition from school to career (p. 1099). The University of North Texas at Dallas began a Career Readiness Education program with goals that include aligning career activities with curriculum, creating a coherent experience for students, and fostering cooperation among “faculty, students, and university service departments” (Muñiz & Eimerbrink, 2018, p. 118). Although still in its infancy, the program is currently attached to reaffirming the University’s accreditation. 

Froggé and Woods (2018), Goodman et al. (2012), Muñiz and Eimerbrink (2018), Roksa and Silver (2019), Silver and Roksa (2017), and Yazedjian et al. (2010) all found that first-generation, historically marginalized, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students experience transition tensions differently than other students.  Aronson et al’s (2015) research discovered that when compared to their peers, women and first generation students were less likely to be employed in full-time opportunities. Providing a space for these students to explore post-graduation plans is imperative because their conversations and experiences are not focused on exploration or travel; instead, they are focused on emotional, financial, and task responsibility to their families upon graduation (Roksa & Silver, 2019; Silver & Roksa, 2017). Students often experience a tension in re-identification as conflict arises between who they want to be and expectations held by parents (Silver et al., 2021). Many of these students’ parents may not have the background to help students assimilate into the professional, white-collar workforce (Agliata & Renk, 2008, Silver et al., 2021; Young-Jones et al., 2021). These students are also the least likely to find campus resources or make use of them (Roksa & Silver, 2019; Yazedjian et al., 2010; Young-Jones et al., 2021). 

Providing programming in the academic arena may meet the needs of diverse groups, especially first-generation students who may be fearful or reticent to seek out resources on their own (Silver & Roksa, 2017). Although some may be able to navigate the change with their support networks, many students do not have the community to support the transition. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2020), college enrollment among historically marginalized populations continued to rise from 2000 to 2018. In this 18-year span, enrollment increased 6% among students who identified as Black, 14% as Hispanic, 3% as Asian, 8% as American Indian/Alaska Native, and 14% among those who report two or more races. An exit program may provide significant advantages to first-generation, historically marginalized, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students.

Students who identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native or two or more races may be more vulnerable upon leaving the institution than other students because their families have been left out of structural privileges. Even if organizations are not permitted to discriminate against workers, they are also not required to provide the same level of benefits to employees of different classifications; often workers with lower salaries have less vacation time, differing health insurance coverage, or work-sponsored retirement programs (Society of Human Resource Management, n.d.). The Center for First Generation Student success reported for the 2015–2016 class, “the median income for first generation students’ parents is $41,000; that same income for second+ generation students is $90,000” (RTI International, 2019, line 4). The difference in income shows a disparity that likely exists in benefits offered through the workplace.

Additionally, Roksa and Silver (2019) found that historically marginalized are the least likely to find campus resources or make use of them. Young-Jones et al.’s, (2021) also found that many support structures are “well-intentioned but lack empathy or specific encouragement” (p. 75) for students whom higher education is new, complex, and difficult to navigate. A curriculum-infused exit program would provide pertinent information to all students, regardless of demographics. To be more inclusive, programs should have an emphasis on sociocultural learning in what Davidson (2010) referred to as working “in conjunction with beliefs, values, and habits of mind that form an individual’s identity” (p. 251) by engaging entire support networks (Jablin & Putnam, 2004) as students attempt to navigate multiple sources of information, which often clash with familial expectations and advice (Silver et al., 2021). Agliata and Renk (2008) advocated involving parents in these transitional conversations because it encouraged a strong support bond as families worked together to help their young people fulfill their potential during a period of change. This learned communication may foster more support and assistance during future times of stress (Agliata & Renk, 2008).

Finally, in an effort to simply gain full-time employment historically marginalized/underestimated students often find themselves being underemployed which can also be referred to as overqualification, overeducating, or an educational mismatch. Students who experience this phenomenon more likely come from working-class backgrounds (Steffy, 2017) while those who come from more privileged backgrounds hold off if they are not finding the perfect opportunity and use the time to self-explore and further develop passions. This may serve to “further entrench patterns of social inequality” (Steffy, 2017, p. 472).

Pistilli et al. (2003) developed a senior concerns survey which yielded four major concerns by graduating seniors one of which was the search for a career, Aronson et al.’s (2015) research yielded three majors concerns, students reported job ascertainment/career development was the largest concern. The absence of programming related to these concerns leaves students with much uncertainty as they prepare to exit the university.  Taub et al. (2006) supported Lane’s (2016) reference to career ascertainment as the most “psychologically salient concern for seniors” (p. 121). This process may have long-term implications as Yang and Gysbers (2007) postulated that the first search sets the basis for future search strategies and self-perceived success which support’s Bandura’s (1986) ideas of enactive attainment or that having success is the most powerful source for eventual self-efficacy. Yazedjian et al. (2010) and Frippery (2020) found students felt pressure to have a clear plan after graduation and believed having a degree would be a direct line to a fulfilling, meaningful career (Pistilli et al., 2003; Schriver & Teske, 2020; Servaty-Seib, 2014; Silver & Roksa, 2017). What a student chooses to study may also impact their career search and transition strategies (Edmonds et al., 2024).  Taub et al. (2006) and Kelsen (2019) focused on the impact of specific majors on the job search and discovered students in STEM majors often had a clearer path toward career fulfillment, whereas students who had majors in more general fields of study (e.g., communication, sociology, anthropology, political science) had higher anxiety about graduation and the job search because they did not have clear delineated career paths.

Heppner (1991) identified five psychological capabilities students need to have a successful career transition:  readiness or the motivation to progress to career, confidence or the self-efficacy related to a successful transition, control or the amount of power one believes they have in the search for career, support or the resources available to assist in the process of the transition, and decision independence of their self-perception of autonomy in the decision making processes related to career. Using these capabilities Yang and Gysberts (2007) discover two major findings.  First, individuals with the greater of these psychological capabilities “experienced less stress, made more progress in their career transitions, and had a clearer vocational identity” (p. 159).

Students leave higher education without being prepared for assimilation into organizations and often exhibit poor skills in securing and starting new careers and navigating organizational culture (Jablin & Krone, 1994; Muñiz and Eimerbrink (2018); Schriver & Teske, 2020; Wendlandt & Rochlen, 2008). Elber (2020) and Kelsen (2019) focused on the lack of real-world experience students have when graduating, unrealistic expectations of ending up with a dream job, and troubles adapting to the full-time workplace culture. Wendlandt and Rochlen’s (2008) and Aronson et al.’s (2015) research extended these ideas as they defined areas in which students were unprepared: organizational culture, interpersonal relationships, structure, feedback, collaborative work, time management, workplace schedules, and goal development. Most notable from this list is organizational culture as the “cultural change from the university environment to the workplace dramatically affects the transitions experience” (Wendlandt & Rochlen, 2008, p. 153). Indeed, Scott et al. (2008) agreed even finding that the first year in a career establishes “an individual’s career framework and influences long-term professional development and satisfaction” (p. 75). Edmonds et al., (2024) conceptualized a situation in which universities work with organizations to tailor support.  This collaborative effort would be beneficial to employers as it would provide “insights into intervention and for how long they may need to support new hires” (p. 6).

This lack of knowledge is not unique to young adults. Many adulting concepts are not widely understood in the public. For example, health insurance is a relatively new concept. It was not until the 1980s when managed healthcare and self-insurance employer plans emerged (Morrisey, 2013). Edward et al. (2019) discovered health insurance literacy is severely lacking and claimed, “Compared to adults between ages 44 and 64 years, young adults between ages 18 and 24 years were 151% more likely to have inadequate knowledge of terms and 44% more likely to have inadequate confidence in using health insurance” (p. 252). Glassburn’s (2020) study supported this lack of knowledge upon finding that most graduates did not receive good training or orientation in their new positions. 

Yet, it is difficult to seek information about something of which you are unaware. The simple question remains how one can formulate a question if they are not aware of what is unknown. Disability insurance is an excellent example of this concept. Students reported low confidence and low stress about disability insurance, yet during interviews, all students admitted not knowing what disability insurance was. If the purpose is unknown, they would not gather information; therefore, they would not experience stress. Yet, disability is wildly important. Cancer is the fourth leading cause of death young adults from ages 20–39 (American Cancer Society, 2020). If diagnosed, a young person would need disability insurance to continue their way of life. 

Additionally, the Gallup Purdue Index Report (2014) found when graduates felt prepared for life outside of college, the odds of them feeling more engaged in work increased “nearly three times” (p. 5). This cultural change can be rooted in generational differences, feedback differential, and goal setting (Twenge, 2017; Wendlandt & Rochlen, 2008). This lack of preparation can also lead to high turnover rates in organizations, which in turn, causes organizations to be wary of hiring new college graduates (Wendlandt & Rochlen, 2008). Better preparing students for their transition out of higher education may result in them being more prepared for their next stage of life (Schlossberg, 1984; Wendlandt & Rochlen, 2008).