FIRST-GENERATION, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS’ NONMONETARY HIGHER
EDUCATION EXPECTATIONS AND OUTCOMES
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Education
(Higher Educational Leadership)
by
Vincent G. Martinez, II
SPRING
2014
© 2014
Vincent G. Martinez, II
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
FIRST-GENERATION, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS’ NONMONETARY HIGHER
EDUCATION EXPECTATIONS AND OUTCOMES
A Thesis
by
Vincent G. Martinez, II
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
José Chávez, Ed.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Geni Cowan, Ph.D.
Date
iii
Student: Vincent G. Martinez, II
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
, Department Chair
Susan Heredia, Ph.D.
Date
Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
iv
Abstract
of
FIRST-GENERATION, LOW-INCOME STUDENTS’ NONMONETARY HIGHER
EDUCATION EXPECTATIONS AND OUTCOMES
by
Vincent G. Martinez, II
Brief Literature Review
Relevant literature outlines the challenges first-generation, low-income students
face to attain bachelor’s degrees and participate in the white-collar American workforce.
The literature then transitions to the nonmonetary benefits of higher education. Firstgeneration, low-income students who are encouraged to attend college are often told that
college will bring them both “personal and material success” (Greatorex-Voith, 2008, p.
5). This creates an expectation from students who pursue and complete a degree that they
will find gainful employment and a higher quality of life after graduation. However,
roughly half of all recent college graduates are either unemployed or work a low-wage
job that does not require a college degree (Vedder, 2013).
Statement of Purpose
This thesis sought to explore first-generation, low-income students’ nonmonetary
higher education expectations and outcomes to find out whether this student population is
v
receiving the quality of education they deserve to live freely and happily. This study was
concerned with three research questions:
1) What do first-generation, low-income students expect from their higher education
before entering college?
2) What challenges do first-generation, low-income students face in order to attain a
bachelor’s degree?
3) What nonmonetary outcomes do first-generation, low-income students experience
from their higher education after they graduate with a bachelor’s degree?
Methodology
The study used Creswell’s (2012) qualitative research design and employed
coding analysis and processes. The study utilized a case study format. Four in-depth,
semi-structured interviews were conducted. Data were utilized to develop narratives
from the case studies and themes were identified in the narratives to answer each research
question.
Conclusions and Recommendations
First-generation, low-income students want to be able to gather social and cultural
capital that can be translated into a higher quality of life. They often fulfill that goal.
However, they face many systemic barriers along the way, primarily financial, but also
cultural and educational. Recommendations include increasing grant-based financial aid,
increasing college outreach, and utilizing wealthy citizens to increase the tax base in
order to fund all public primary and secondary schools comparably to the wealthiest
vi
public primary and secondary schools and ensure a more equitable education for all
students despite their socioeconomic status.
, Committee Chair
José Chávez, Ed.D.
Date
vii
DEDICATION
To anyone who actually reads this.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To everyone who helped get me where I am today, thank you.
To my love, Heather: you are a beautiful and brilliant woman. You are the reason I care
and keep going. You have done more for me than I could ever thank you for in words.
You remind me what is possible with a strong will and a love for humanity. I love you.
To my mother, Monica Martinez: thank you for giving me rides to and from campus, and
for understanding why I had to live at home without paying rent for all those years. I love
you.
To my father, Vicente Gene Martinez: thank you for driving me to the rich
neighborhoods when I was a kid, for showing me those houses, pointing at them, and
saying “You want to live in one of those houses? Get an education.” I love you.
To everyone who opened their homes to me when I could not stand the noise at my
mother’s house and had nowhere else to go, thank you.
To my graduate professors Dr. Jose Chavez and Dr. Eugenia Cowan: thank you for
reinvigorating my intellectual spirit by giving me the opportunity to be a part of this
program and write a thesis, for believing in my potential, and for making me grow up.
To my editor, Meredith Linden: thank you for working with me on such short notice, and
for putting up with my neuroticism (spelling?).
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication .................................................................................................................. viii
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
Background ...........................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ......................................................................................4
Significance of the Study ......................................................................................6
Definition of Terms...............................................................................................7
Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis .......................................................8
Summary ...............................................................................................................9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................11
Introduction .........................................................................................................11
Part I: Expectations .............................................................................................12
Part II: Persistence ..............................................................................................19
Part III: Outcomes ...............................................................................................25
Rationale for the Study .......................................................................................29
Summary .............................................................................................................30
3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................32
Introduction .........................................................................................................32
Setting of the Study.............................................................................................32
Research Design..................................................................................................33
Limitations of the Study......................................................................................36
Summary .............................................................................................................36
4. DATA AND FINDINGS .............................................................................................38
Introduction .........................................................................................................38
x
Presentation of Data ............................................................................................39
Themes ................................................................................................................46
Findings and Interpretation of the Data ..............................................................53
Summary .............................................................................................................55
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................57
Summary .............................................................................................................57
Conclusions .........................................................................................................59
Recommendations ...............................................................................................61
Appendix A. Interview Protocol ..................................................................................65
Appendix B. Letter of Consent ....................................................................................68
References ....................................................................................................................70
xi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
A Nation at Risk (Gardner, 1983), the landmark report from the U.S. Department
of Education, states that every citizen is entitled to an education. It warns that America’s
education system is mediocre, inequitable, and must change if America is to remain
competitive. However, there has never been truly equitable access to education in
American history (Northern Working Man’s Declarations, 1834); this remains true today,
especially for those whose parents were not college educated and whose household
income is below the poverty line (Harper & Quaye, 2008).
Although the Constitution promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, this
can never be realized if education is not equitably accessible. Equitable access means
everyone has the opportunity to pursue a good education. Achieving equitable access
necessitates not just having schools but having good schools, and life outside of school
must be conducive to education. Poverty and all its hardships are not conducive to
education. Despite this, students who wish to seek education and who come from
impoverished backgrounds find ways to persist, although little is known about what
motivates these students to attain college degrees (Gofen, 2009). They battle the odds to
pursue, persist through, and attain an education in the hope that they may have a better
life once they have finished – something that those from higher income levels take for
2
granted (Hacker & Dreifus, 2010). Sadly, these hopes are more usually dashed than
realized.
More than 8 of 10 high school sophomores expect to go to college (Domina,
Conley, & Farkas, 2011). But what do they expect? Due to a lack of knowledge, most
students have misconceptions and sometimes unrealistic expectations about college
(Stern, 1966; Venezia, Kirst, & Antonio, 2003). Unrealistic expectations may have
serious negative consequences (Smith & Wertlieb, 2005). More people than ever are
enrolling in college with community colleges taking on most of this extra demand for
higher education since the economic downfall of 2008 (Fry, 2009). The students are
mostly first-generation, low-income students who represent approximately one out of
every four students enrolled in higher education (Somers, Woodhouse, & Cofer, 2004).
Such students are overrepresented at community colleges (Striplin, 1999), yet, as a
population, are underrepresented in higher education (Walpole, 2003).
With so much demand for education, it would be reasonable to expect society is
reaping great benefits. Ironically, demand for higher education seems to be creating
more problems than benefits. Student debt is rising from increased loan borrowing, and
the students who actually graduate have more debt after graduation because of this
burden (Hacker & Dreifus, 2010). The cost of education is rising rapidly while grant aid
remains inadequate to cover the costs of most universities, translating into higher debts
and more work hours for low-income students who must compensate for the lack of grant
aid (Richburg, 2013; Walpole, 2003).
3
Students are going through great troubles in their attempts to succeed, yet they are
not consistently successful. First-generation, low-income students are at a much greater
risk of dropping out of college (Thayer, 2000). Only two out of every three firstgeneration, low-income students attending a university graduate within six years; at
community colleges, this ratio is one out of three (Richburg, 2013). Knowledge about
what influences such students is beginning to emerge. Parents, teachers, and counselors
all play a role in influencing students’ expectations to attend college (Sewell, Haller, &
Portes, 1969; Stage & Hossler, 1989; Venezia et al., 2003). Parental expectations have
the greatest influence on the educational expectations of students (Stage & Hossler,
1989). For example, when parents know about the cost of college and the types of
financial aid available, their children tend to have higher expectations about attending
college (Perna, 2006). Such an example is particularly important because finances are
the biggest barrier to persistence through higher education (Somers et al., 2004). For
first-generation, low-income students, there are clearly many barriers to attaining a
degree. However, simply attaining a degree does not mean that one has accomplished
their higher education goals.
Success in higher education is not limited to degree attainment. Much of the
literature talks about the return on investment gained from a college degree, typically in
terms of a comparison between the cost of education and the salary one earns after
graduating; this is an important measure. However, nonmonetary measures of what one
gains from higher education should also be further assessed to provide a more
4
comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of higher education. Enke and Ropers-Huilman
(2010) and Peluchette (1993) discussed such nonmonetary returns on investment from
higher education and called for further research on the subject. Current research lacks
discussions targeted specifically at first-generation, low-income students and does not
talk about how nonmonetary outcomes compare to nonmonetary expectations. Therefore,
this thesis seeks to explore first-generation, low-income students’ nonmonetary higher
education expectations and outcomes to find out whether this student population is
receiving the quality of education they deserve to live, be free, and be happy.
Statement of the Problem
First-generation, low-income students who are encouraged to attend college are
often told college will bring them both “personal and material success” (Greatorex-Voith,
2008, p. 5). Such a myth is born from a lack of knowledge about, and experience with,
the higher education system; for students who pursue and complete a degree, this myth
creates an expectation that they will find gainful employment and a higher quality of life
after graduation. However, roughly half of all recent college graduates are either
unemployed or work a low-wage job that does not require a college degree (Vedder,
Denhart, & Robe, 2013) – at a time when there are more college students than ever before
(Fry, 2009) with more debt than ever before (Fry, 2012). Further examination of
nonmonetary expectations and outcomes from higher education experienced by firstgeneration, low-income students who graduate college is necessary to ensure colleges and
5
universities provide what they are charging for: a better life. Therefore, this study seeks
to answer three research questions:
1. What do first-generation, low-income students expect from their higher education
before entering college?
2. What challenges do first-generation, low-income students face to attain a
bachelor’s degree?
3. What nonmonetary outcomes do first-generation, low-income students experience
from their higher education after they graduate with a bachelor’s degree?
Significance of the Study
This study about first-generation, low-income students’ perceived nonmaterial
returns from higher education comes at a time when President Obama’s administration is
looking at how to best fund colleges and universities. President Obama’s college
scorecard is one major outcome of this effort. The scorecard seeks to guide parents and
students to make the best choice about where students should attend college so they can
get the most out of their investment (Obama, 2013). The scorecard provides facts about
every post-secondary institution in the United States, such as graduation rates and amount
of debt upon graduation. The scorecard and other attempts to measure higher education
outcomes are currently debated by those who oppose or are highly skeptical of perhaps
oversimplified, objective monetary measures of higher education (Carlson, 2013).
6
This study seeks to add to current debates about how to measure higher education
outcomes by providing data from former first-generation, low-income students who have
received a bachelor’s degree regarding what they expected to receive upon entering
higher education compared to what they say they got out of it. Other studies have
focused solely on monetary or labor-market outcomes of recent college graduates (Kane
& Rouse, 1995; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). Such conclusions generalize the
monetary outcomes from higher education, which limits perspectives about the purpose
of higher education and treats all first-generation, low-income students as belonging in a
single category regardless of where they attained their bachelor’s degree or what they
studied. College Measures’ (2013) study found drastic differences in income between
bachelor’s degree recipients depending on their undergraduate major. Such findings beg
a question: if we know specific majors are more profitable – for instance, engineering –
then why are students pursuing other less marketable degrees? Thus, this study seeks to
fill gaps in the literature regarding nonmonetary outcomes from higher education by
examining more specific information from participants about their expectations and
outcomes from higher education.
Definition of Terms
Attainment
Defined as those who completed a program and earned a degree (Berkner, Horn,
Clune, & Carroll, 2000)
7
First-generation College Student
One whose parents do not possess at least a bachelor’s degree from an accredited
college or university
First-generation, Low-income Student
One who meets both definitions of first generation and low income
Low-income (euphemism for poor) College Student
One whose household income is below either the federal poverty line, $25,000 per
year for a family of four (United States Department of Health and Human
Services, 2013), or below the income level established by a student’s college or
university that would determine them to be in significant need of financial aid
Persistence
Defined as those who continued enrollment until they completed a program
(Berkner et al., 2000)
Return on Investment
Refers to the nonmonetary returns gained from attending and graduating from
college
Socioeconomic Status
Defined as parental education and occupation, cultural capital, family income
(money earned through work), and family wealth (assets) (Cabrera & La Nasa,
2001)
8
Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis
Chapter 2 of this study is a comprehensive literature review of what firstgeneration, low-income students are told to expect from higher education from parents,
teachers, and counselors during high school and how that compares to what they perceive
they got out of their experience with higher education once they have graduated with a
bachelor’s degree. It focuses specifically on nonmonetary returns on investment by
discussing theories of social and cultural capital.
Chapter 3 details the methodological approaches to data collection and analysis
used in this study. This study used a qualitative methodology; in-depth, semi-structured
interviews were used to collect data. Data were analyzed through a process of
segmentation, coding, and categorization to find similar themes and patterns in
participants’ responses to questions about their expectations of, and outcomes from, their
higher education.
Chapter 4 provides a qualitative analysis of the data and explanations of the
findings from the data collected through participants’ in-depth, semi-structured
interviews. It focuses on the major themes that emerged through the analytical process
and their categorical subsidiaries.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion of possible solutions to the major and minor
problems found during the course of this study regarding the expectations and outcomes
experienced by first-generation, low-income college students. The chapter concludes with
9
suggestions for future research regarding this topic and population. Appendices and
references follow the final chapter.
Summary
Measuring outcomes from higher education should include monetary and
nonmonetary benefits. Existing measures are not enough since there are less tangible
factors that go along with the investment one makes to attain a college degree besides
income after graduation. Such factors apply especially to first-generation, low-income
students who make significant sacrifices to attain such degrees – sacrifices in addition to
those of middle and high-income students. If first-generation, low-income students seek
out higher education and attain degrees, gainful employment should follow. If it does
not, then the product America’s institutions of higher education are selling is of
questionable value, since what these students want is little more than to be gainfully
employed. The gainful employment of these students is nowhere near guaranteed, yet
first-generation, low-income students continue to seek out higher education. Thus, it is
worth investigating whether the nonmonetary higher education expectations of these
students matches their outcomes and to question whether college was worth the
investment of money, time, mental energy, and social repercussion. If these students are
not being given suitable jobs after graduation, then perhaps they are pursuing higher
education for reasons other than financial return. After all, these students are forgoing
10
earnings and often going into significant amounts of debt to be educated. This study
investigates whether these graduates got what they paid for.
11
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Demographically, the student most likely to graduate from college is a white
middle-class female who speaks English as a first language (Adelman, 2006). For
students who grew up middle class, especially those whose parents attained bachelor’s
degrees, college is assumed to be a rite of passage (Hacker & Driefus, 2010). However,
this is not the case for those who grew up with parents who did not attain college degrees,
especially if they grew up in poverty. First-generation, low-income students – the
euphemism for this population – are more likely than continuing generation and middle
to high-income students to have the following characteristics: older, female, disabled, an
ethnic minority, born outside the United States, non-native English speakers, single
parents, have dependent children, have a high school equivalency diploma, and be
financially independent from their parents (Choy, 2001; Engle & Tinto, 2008). Such
students are also more likely to delay entry into higher education, attend college closer to
home, live off campus, attend part time, and work full time (Choy, 2001; Engle & Tinto,
2008). First-generation, low-income students are approximately 24% of the
undergraduate population (Engle & Tinto, 2008); this population is growing in higher
education (Fry, 2009). However, these students are underrepresented in higher
12
education, overrepresented at community colleges, and less likely to attain degrees
(Walpole, 2003).
Such students attend college seeking the benefits they are assured will come their
way once they attain degrees. Such benefits are both monetary and nonmonetary,
including better jobs with higher pay but also intangible benefits such as self-confidence
and self-esteem (College Measures, 2013; Inman & Mayes, 1999). This literature review
outlines the challenges these students face to attain degrees, starting from secondary
school through attainment, and then moves on to discuss what happens after students
attain bachelor’s degrees to place the obstacles these students face to participate in the
white-collar American workforce into context. The literature review focuses on these
issues and then transitions to the nonmonetary benefits these students may enjoy from
their higher education.
Part I: Expectations
Unequal educational opportunities in America are structural and based on class
and race (Tierney, Colyar, & Corwin, 2003). It is no surprise, then, that social class
affects educational expectations and outcomes (Walpole, 2003). Low-income students
have particularly low educational expectations, often aspiring to vocational rather than
bachelor’s or graduate degrees (Paulsen & St. John, 2002; Pike & Kuh, 2005); this is due
in part to the lack of self-confidence these students possess in their own academic
13
abilities, as they often think of themselves as intellectually inferior and academically
incapable (Bratlinger, 1993).
Over 60% of these students make up their minds about whether to attend college
by ninth grade, with these aspirations decreasing each subsequent year of secondary
school (Domina et al., 2011; Stage & Hossler, 1989). More students than ever before are
expecting to attain a bachelor’s degree (85%); a professional I degree, such as an
engineering degree (40%); or a professional II degree, such as an MD, JD, or PhD (30%)
(Goyette, 2008). However, traditional high school tracks that would guide students along
paths to such degrees are mostly gone, putting students in jeopardy of not being able to
secure either higher education or work (Kane & Rouse, 1995). If these students are to
succeed at attaining degrees and keeping pace with the rest of America’s students, they
must be given the means necessary to access and succeed in higher education; this
happens partially through the encouragement and help of parents, teachers, and
counselors.
Parents
There is a strong link between the education level of parents and the education
level of their children (Gofen, 2009) because parents who are college educated have the
experience and means with which to help their children with the process of getting into
and getting through college. Students whose parents are not college educated who do
succeed in higher education tend to have strong families (Gofen, 2009). Generally, the
more parents encourage their children to pursue higher education and the more involved
14
parents are in the education process the more likely they are to aspire to, qualify for,
apply to, enroll in, attend, and persist through college to attainment (Cabrera & La Nasa,
2001; Choy, 2001; Sewell et al., 1969; Stage & Hossler, 1989). Parents have the
strongest influence over students’ higher education aspirations (Stage & Hossler, 1989).
However, not all low-income parents encourage their children to pursue higher education.
Low-income parents who do not encourage their children to pursue higher education
generally do not understand the benefits of higher education due to a lack of experience
with higher education themselves (most low-income parents are not college graduates) or
because they have not been given proper information about college’s long-term benefits
(Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001; Taylor et al., 2011).
When parents discourage their children from pursuing higher education, it is often
because they think college is too expensive; when parents are given information about
financial aid, they are typically much more supportive of their child’s pursuit of higher
education (Perna, 2006). Low-income parents rely on information about higher
education from teachers and school counselors but often do not receive such information
(Lynch & O’Riordan, 1998). Parents may also discourage their children from pursuing
higher education if they do not believe their children are academically or intellectually
capable of college work – information for which they also rely on teachers and school
counselors (Lynch & O’Riordan, 1998).
Low-income parents who encourage their children to pursue higher education but
do not have the economic resources necessary to ensure success typically help their
15
children with the process of getting into college in any way they can (Ceja, 2006). When
first-generation, low-income students’ parents cannot help, other members of that
student’s communal network may act as a proxy, assuming they know someone who has
gone through the college process (Ceja, 2006). Low-income parents are often limited in
the amount of information and support they can give their children about college and
must often defer to teachers and counselors to give the support necessary for their
children to aspire to college.
School Personnel
First-generation, low-income students must often rely on educational
professionals at their school for guidance and encouragement to aspire to higher
education. Students are much more likely to talk to their teachers about college than their
parents or counselors (Venezia et al., 2003; Walpole, 2003). Thus, it is important for
teachers to offer such encouragement to ensure first-generation, low-income students
aspire to higher education. Unfortunately, students whose families have a low income
and a low socioeconomic status are often looked down upon by educators and are too
often assumed to be disinterested in education or incapable of college work (Lynch &
O’Riordan, 1998). Besides teachers, students may also receive their aspirations to pursue
higher education from school counselors.
Counselors can have a significant positive affect on low-income students’ higher
education aspirations (McKillip, Rawls, & Barry, 2012). Counselors can offer advice on
whether to pursue higher education, how to pursue it, and how students can finance their
16
higher education (McDonough, 2005). Gandara (2002) found individual counseling
increases the rates of application to college. Unfortunately, most students do not receive
college advice from school counselors as there are often not enough counselors to go
around (Tierney et al., 2003). Most counselors are consumed with bureaucratic tasks that
take up most of their time, and some do not see college advising as a significant or
particularly important part of their job (McDonough, 2005). Even if a student is able to
see a counselor for college advice, they often do not receive honest or candid advice
about whether college is their best option (Boesel & Fredland, 1999; Rosenbaum, Miller,
& Krei, 1996). Such factors put low-income students at a particular disadvantage, since
they often rely on information about college from school counselors who are in short
supply at the very schools low-income students are most likely to attend.
Institutional Structures
“In a democratic society that values education, there should be access to higher
education for all students. Yet low-income, first generation students still do not have
equitable access” (Harper & Quaye, 2008, p. 244). Despite the necessity of a college
education in the labor market, accessing higher education is a challenge in itself for lowincome students due to a lack of resources and guidance (Zuekle, 2008). Students who
receive no guidance about higher education or who start planning for their higher
education later in childhood are often at a higher risk to fail in their pursuit of a college
degree (Alexander & Cook, 1979).
17
Aspiring to higher education and accessing it are distinctly different challenges
for first-generation, low-income students. Although they may aspire to degrees, if these
students are not properly prepared for college, they may find themselves in even more
disadvantaged positions. Therefore, they must be sure to qualify for, apply to, and
(assuming they are accepted into an institution of higher education – although community
college is always a fallback if they attained a high school diploma or its equivalent) enroll
in college. All of these actions are challenges for first-generation, low-income students
that affect their likelihood of attaining degrees in a reasonable amount of time.
Students hoping to get into an institution of higher education must meet criteria
that qualify them for entry. Meeting these qualifications for college correlates with
socioeconomic status (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001). Less than 1% of students actually
know all these qualifications, and only one third meet the qualifications to enroll in a
four-year institution by their senior year of high school (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001;
Venezia et al., 2003). Low-income students are most at risk of not meeting these
qualifications, often taking less rigorous courses of study – usually lacking in math and
reading coursework – and have less support in assuring they qualify for college (Attewell
& Domina, 2008; Choy, 2001; Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996;
Venezia et al., 2003). Students who lack in math coursework are far less likely to
succeed in higher education, putting low-income students who do not receive rigorous
math courses in high school at a further disadvantage. However, low-income students
who receive rigorous math courses in high school still attain degrees at lower rates than
18
middle and high-income students (Choy, 2001). But in general, rigorous coursework in
high school is a good predictor of future success in higher education (Domina et al.,
2011). Beyond coursework, students must also take standardized tests, such as the SAT
or ACT, to qualify for more selective institutions. Low-income students often do not
receive the necessary support to succeed in these tests, making them less likely to qualify
for more selective institutions (Choy, 2001).
Due to the lack of information these students are given about qualifying for
college, they often believe they are not qualified and have several beliefs about what it
means to be college ready. They often believe their low-income status disqualifies them
from higher education (Oliverez & Tierney, 2005; Venezia et al., 2003). However, even
if low-income students do technically qualify for college, they are still far less likely to be
prepared for the realities of college work (Fry, 2009).
College application rates vary in direct relation with socioeconomic status
(Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001). Even if low-income students do apply to college, they are
less likely to apply to, or attend, selective institutions they are academically qualified to
attend (Baum & Payea, 2004) because of a lack of information about financial aid in
addition to other social barriers these students face when attempting to access higher
education (Forsyth & Furlong, 2003).
College enrollment is strongly linked to parents’ education and family income
(Choy, 2001). When college costs are seen as too high – especially in relation to
financial aid – first-generation, low-income students are far less likely to enroll in higher
19
education (Fitzgerald, 2003; Kim, 2010). First-generation, low-income students who
enroll in higher education are likely to defer enrollment rather than enroll right after high
school (Venezia et al., 2003). Only one of every three first-generation, low-income
students will enroll in college and, among them, only one in seven can expect to attain a
bachelor’s degree (Bedsworth, Colby, & Doctor, 2006).
According to Fry (2009), currently more students are enrolled in higher education
than ever before; this surge of enrollment started in 2008 when the United States’
economy collapsed. The increase in enrollment occurred entirely at community colleges,
and many of the enrollees were first-generation, low-income students. The students were
enrolling in such great numbers in part because they increasingly believed a higher
education was necessary to get a job or career that would yield gainful employment
(Boesel & Fredland, 1999; London, 1992). The students hoped for better lives for
themselves and their families and saw higher education as a means through which they
might achieve these hopes. Once first-generation, low-income students access higher
education, they must then persist through it, facing many challenges unique to this
population.
Part II: Persistence
The American system of higher education does not effectively promote success
for first-generation, low-income students (Advisory Committee on Student Financial
Assistance, 2012). Students must beat statistical odds to attend institutions of higher
20
education (London, 1989). In general, first-generation, low-income students are less
likely to persist (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Thayer, 2000). As discussed earlier,
financial aid is the major barrier to success for first-generation, low-income students;
when students are supported financially, they have higher rates of persistence
(Lotkrowski, Bobbins, & Noeth, 2004). When financial aid is unavailable or inadequate,
students are far less likely to persist. Low-income students often do not receive financial
support from their families, which negatively effects persistence (Choy & Premo, 1996);
these students often must finance their education by working.
Many first-generation, low-income students work full time, which can decrease
the likelihood of persistence (Somers et al., 2004). Working may positively affect
persistence but only if it is solely for the purpose of paying the cost of education, if the
student is working on campus, and if the students’ academic goals are being met (Kuh,
1995). However, many first-generation, low-income students must work regardless of
the cost of education to support themselves and their families, which may also discourage
students from persisting (Taylor et al., 2011). Even if a student is working, they may not
be able to fully pay for the cost of their higher education, necessitating loans and
generating debt that negatively impacts persistence (Somers et al., 2004).
Persisting through and completing the first year (meaning the student has
completed a number of units equivalent to one full year) significantly increases
persistence for low-income students (Adelman, 1999). However, students with additional
responsibilities brought about by a lack of financial aid are at risk of what Adelman
21
(2006) referred to as swirling, meaning they are technically enrolled and participating in
higher education but are likely not getting much closer to attaining a degree and, thus, are
not actually persisting. Swirling is a major challenge facing first-generation, low-income
students who generally take longer to complete degrees (Terenzini et al., 1996).
First-generation, low-income students persist and attain degrees at rates relative to
financial assistance, the type of institution they attend, the remedial coursework they
must complete, the multiple roles they must balance, and the support programs in place to
help these students mitigate their challenges in and out of the classroom. Most other
developed countries provide a significantly higher percentage of public funding to those
pursuing higher education. For instance, Finland and Norway provide 96% of the costs
publicly (Baum & Payea, 2004). In the United States, students are often forced to pay
much of their way through higher education. Financial aid in the form of grants has
significantly decreased while income has not increased, making loans the norm for
paying tuition and fees (Choy & Carroll, 2000). Therefore, more students than ever
before are going into debt (Fry, 2010). Because tuition is rising and income is not,
students are also taking on more debt than ever before to pursue higher education (Choy
& Carroll, 2000; Gladieux, 1996). Because of this lack in financial aid, students are often
less likely to attain degrees (Harper & Quaye, 2008; Lynch & O’Riordan, 1998;
Richburg, 2013).
Low-income students often choose which institution of higher education they will
attend based on its cost, which often keeps academically qualified and capable first-
22
generation, low-income students from attending more selective institutions. Firstgeneration, low-income students often attend less selective colleges because they are
more affordable and closer to home (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Paulsen & St.
John, 2002). Despite their academic qualifications, these students often attend their local
community college, due in part to a lack in financial assistance (Inman & Mayes, 1999).
First-generation, low-income students are more likely to attend community
colleges, where they are disproportionately represented (Baum & Payea, 2004; Choy,
2001; Kane & Rouse, 1995; London, 1992; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Nunez &
Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004; Paulsen & St.
John, 2002; Striplin, 1999). Before recent years, only 3 in 10 first-generation, lowincome students first enrolled in four-year institutions (Choy, 2001). However, colleges
and universities in the United States are increasingly less willing to give aid to firstgeneration, low-income students and are pushing them to first attend community college
(Wang, 2013).
Students at community colleges are far less likely to attain degrees. More than 8
in 10 students at community colleges either drop out or are still enrolled after three years
(Berkner et al., 2000). Only 25% of these students will transfer to a four-year institution
(Striplin, 1999).
It has been shown that students who attend more selective institutions have better
outcomes once they attain degrees (Pascarella, Smart, & Smylie, 1992). Unfortunately,
many first-generation, low-income students are unable to access a more selective
23
institution of higher education because of their socioeconomic status (Greatorex-Voith,
2008). Community colleges do not offer the level of opportunity similar to more
selective and elite higher education institutions (Stern, 1966). One result is that firstgeneration, low-income students are pushed into lines of study offering significantly less
cultural capital (Forsyth & Furlong, 2003).
First-generation, low-income students are put at further risk of attrition when they
must take remedial courses; 63% of community college students and 40% of university
students take at least one remedial course during their first semester (Smith & Wertlieb,
2005). Students who take remedial courses, especially in math and reading, are
significantly less likely to attain degrees. First-generation, low-income students are more
likely to need such remedial coursework (Adelman, 1999).
First-generation, low-income college students must also balance multiple roles
while attending college, such as work and familial responsibilities (Hsiao, 1992). Such
challenges are in addition to the responsibilities traditional students face (London, 1989).
Richardson and Skinner (1992) found that first-generation, low-income students are
typically not trained to manage their time well, creating a further strain on their ability to
play multiple roles while attending college. Such stress often results in lower grade point
averages for these students (Walpole, 2003). However, these students typically take just
as many units per semester as non-first-generation students (Inman & Mayes, 1999).
First-generation, low-income students must often work full time while attending
college (Fry, 2009; Lynch & O’Riordan, 1998; Pascarella et al., 2004; Paulsen & St.
24
John, 2002). They must also balance familial responsibilities; they face feelings of guilt
for attending college instead of focusing solely on work and family, which may create
familial strains (Hsiao, 1992; London, 1989). In addition to work and family, students
face additional challenges on campus, including culture shock and an inability to
participate in activities outside the classroom that are important for persistence (Inman &
Mayes, 1999; London, 1992; Pascarella et al., 2004; Paulsen & St. John, 2002; Somers et
al., 2004; Walpole, 2003).
College completion is stagnant or falling (Advisory Committee on Student
Financial Assistance, 2012); this is especially true among first-generation, low-income
students (Fitzgerald, 2003). Among all higher education institutions, 6 of 10 students
graduate. Those who complete 30 or more units have a 70% graduation rate; those who
attend highly selective institutions have a 90% graduation rate (Adelman, 1999). Firstgeneration, low-income students are far less likely to attain college degrees than middle
or high-income students, and this gap has widened over time (Forsyth & Furlong, 2003;
Markus, Ryff, Carhan, & Palmersheim, 2004; Thayer, 2000). They earn degrees at a
lower rate, and only 30% of first-generation, low-income students who aspire to a
bachelor’s degree ultimately attain one (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Nunez & CuccaroAlamin, 1998). The longer these students stay in college, the less likely they are to attain
degrees, especially if they have been enrolled in college for more than five years (Choy,
2001); this makes timely graduation even more important. Otherwise, students may drop
out of college, possibly leaving themselves in a worse position than before entering.
25
Leaving college before graduation has significant monetary and occupational
consequences such as burdensome student-loan debt and decreased employment
opportunities (Tinto, 1987). Those who do not complete college would have been better
off pursuing other paths but instead are now burdened by loan debt (Boesel & Fredland,
1999). First-generation students are more likely to drop out of college and less likely to
return (Choy, 2001). If first-generation, low-income students persist through college,
they will attain degrees and enjoy their rewards.
Part III: Outcomes
College graduates typically earn more and are more likely to be employed, but
college graduates are earning less than they used to since the economic collapse of 2008
(Baum & Payea, 2004; Fry, 2012). Choy (2001) and Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin (1998)
found similar early labor-market outcomes between first generation and non-first
generation college graduates, while Gofen (2009) found first-generation students had
lower early labor-market outcomes. However, simply attaining a college degree does not
guarantee one a job (Boesel & Fredland, 1999). What seems to matter most is not where
one went to college but what one studied (College Measures, 2013). For example,
majoring in engineering will generally yield significant returns, while majoring in
journalism will probably yield significantly less returns (Ibid.).
What first-generation, low-income students expect out of their higher education in
terms of monetary return is financial stability (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). Despite
26
the rising cost of higher education, college graduates reported it to be worth the price,
saying they earned significantly higher wages: $20,000 more per year (Taylor et al.,
2011). Typically, low-income students have lower incomes after graduating than middle
and high-income students (Walpole, 2003). Socioeconomic mobility is also far less
common for those who grew up poor (Baum & Payea, 2004). Besides income, the other
monetary outcome of higher education is debt.
More students than ever before owe student-loan debt and this number has
doubled in the past two decades (Fry, 2010, 2012). Such loan debt is highest and most
burdensome among first-generation, low-income students (Fry, 2010, 2012).
Furthermore, the number of students who owe $100,000 or more is becoming more
common (Hacker & Dreifus, 2010). However, the benefits of a college education cannot
be fully expressed in terms of income and debt. The intangible, nonmonetary outcomes
are of particular importance, especially during times when early labor-market outcomes
from college graduates are uncertain and unclear.
The monetary benefits of a higher education are fairly straightforward. The
nonmonetary benefits, however, are more difficult to assess and measure but just as
important to understand (Baum & Payea, 2004). According to Hacker and Dreifus
(2010), part of the nonmonetary benefits of a higher education should be to deepen our
understanding of the world through an intellectual expedition or cultural journey. Kuh
(1993) identified five domains with which some of the nonmonetary benefits of a higher
education can be assessed: personal competence, practical and vocational competence,
27
cognitive complexity, knowledge and academic skills, and altruism and estheticism.
Such terms help put into context what is meant by nonmonetary outcomes.
The nonmonetary benefits reported by college graduates are a higher quality of
life; better health; increased civic participation; more leisure time; open-mindedness;
being more cultured, more rational, and less authoritarian; decreased prejudice; enhanced
knowledge of world affairs; enhanced social status; less reliance on public assistance;
intellectual growth; and personal maturation (Baum & Payea, 2004; Markus et al., 2004;
McSwain & Davis, 2007; Rowley & Hurtado, 2002; Taylor et al., 2011). However, it is
not clear whether all these benefits are gained from attending college or if they existed
prior to attending college as a condition of one’s social class. Such nonmonetary benefits
are then, theoretically, passed down to the next generation (Baum & Payea, 2004;
Rowley & Hurtado, 2002). The nonmonetary benefits conform to theories of success that
go beyond traditional ideas of monetary wealth, instead defining success as having
choices and the right to make those choices, a sense of competence, self-esteem, being
able to manage multiple roles, and having a sufficient social network (O’Toole, 1993;
Peluchette, 1993).
In terms of nonmonetary outcomes from their higher education, first-generation,
low-income students report it is important to them to be able to provide their children
with better opportunities (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). Such nonmonetary benefits
translate to the acquisition and maintenance of social and cultural capital. Despite the
generally positive monetary yield that comes from having a graduate degree, and despite
28
the increasing importance of getting a top-level position, first-generation, low-income
students are less likely to pursue graduate or first-professional degrees (Choy, 2001;
College Measures, 2013; Engle & Tinto, 2008; Walpole, 2003). Only one in four firstgeneration students enrolls in graduate programs (Choy & Carroll, 2000).
Theories of social and cultural capital are often used to help explain some of the
unique challenges faced by first-generation, low-income students (Harper & Quaye,
2008). Bourdieu (1973, 1998) stated that cultural and social capital are means through
which individuals attain socioeconomic status. One way such capitals are attained is
through acquiring education. However, if the education system is inequitable toward
those with considerably less monetary wealth, students of low-income backgrounds will
not be able to attain such capital, leaving them in poverty. “The educational system
provides by contributing to the reproduction of the structure of class relations and by
concealing, by an apparently neutral attitude, the fact that it fills this function” (Bourdieu,
1973, p. 57). If first-generation, low-income students cannot access cultural and social
capital, their potential gains in socioeconomic capital and social mobility are
compromised, even if they attain a college education, since a degree in itself does not
qualify one to advance in social status, especially if it comes from a less selective
university or is in a subject that does not yield gainful employment. Thus, social and
cultural capital are used as a theoretical framework for the study’s discussion on firstgeneration, low-income students’ nonmonetary higher education expectations and
outcomes to put into context the purpose and payoff of a college degree for such students.
29
Rationale for the Study
The purpose of this literature review is to illustrate the nonmonetary outcomes of
higher education that first-generation, low-income students may experience. Normally, a
literature review on the topic of the nonmonetary outcomes of higher education would be
merely an extended version of the discussion on nonmonetary outcomes. However,
because the first-generation, low-income student population faces such significant and
unique challenges, the bulk of the literature review focused on those issues. Such focus
provided a context for the discussion of nonmonetary benefits by creating an underlying
dialogue comparing the higher education expectations and outcomes these students
experience while acknowledging the challenges these students face to attain degrees. To
attain a college degree, these students overcome severe systemic disadvantages. If and
when they attain a bachelor’s degree, they face an uncertain labor market that may or
may not provide them with gainful employment. If these graduates are not provided with
gainful employment, it does not logically follow that they would be able to fully enjoy
the nonmonetary benefits of their higher education since their primary goal in attaining
such an education is to escape poverty. Therefore, researchers must acknowledge these
challenges to understand that a discussion about nonmonetary benefits from higher
education for this population comes only after these students begin to rise in
socioeconomic status by investing newly gained cultural and social capital, which
requires income. If such facts are not acknowledged, then discussions about
nonmonetary benefits from higher education become, arguably, largely irrelevant.
30
Little is known about what motivates first-generation, low-income students to
attain degrees (Gofen, 2009). Theorists have called for further research concerning firstgeneration, low-income students’ higher education aspirations, experiences, expectations,
participation, attainment, and outcomes (Choy, 2001; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006;
McSwain & Davis, 2007; Paulsen & St. John, 2002). The purpose of such research is to
create better solutions for allowing these students to succeed, instead of continuing to
tinker at the margins (Tinto, 2005). Although these students account for a quarter of the
total student population, they are paid little attention in research (Walpole, 2003).
Summary
In A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zinn (2010) stated, “In the
metropolis, art, literature, education, science, flowered in the Golden Day; in the
industrial towns children went to work with their fathers and mothers, schools…were
only promises” (p. 215). In Acres of Diamonds, Russell Conwell – minister, best-selling
author, Yale law school graduate, and founder of Temple University – stated the
following:
I sympathize with the poor, but the number of poor who are to be sympathized
with is very small. To sympathize with a man whom God has punished for his
sins…is to do wrong…let us remember there is not a poor person in the United
States who was not made poor by his own shortcomings. (Conwell & Shackleton,
1915)
31
America’s system of higher education creates barriers for first-generation, lowincome students. The barriers hinder the progress toward attainment for these students.
Students must be given better opportunities to access, persist through, and benefit from
higher education. If they are not given these opportunities, then America is wasting a
great deal of its human capital. By educating citizens of low socioeconomic status,
America could add literally millions more to its educated workforce. However, as is
currently the case, America does not adequately incentivize first-generation, low-income
college students to pursue and persist through its institutions of higher education.
Instead, it seems America is creating a generation of both undereducated and
overeducated indentured servants: either those who have not gone to college (usually
because college is too expensive) or those who have attained college degrees yet become
slaves to the debt they owe for attaining them, without much hope for gainful
employment for either group. Thus, this study focused on whether first-generation, lowincome students – specifically, those who have graduated from an accredited university
in Northern California – are succeeding after they graduate, whether their expectations of
higher education met their outcomes, and whether the struggles they persisted through to
attain a bachelor’s degree were worth the payoff.
32
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Data for this study were collected in early 2014. The purpose of this research was
to provide the intellectual community with a better understanding of what firstgeneration, low-income students expect from their higher education, what they must do to
attain a bachelor’s degree, and what they actually get out of higher education other than
economic capital. This research provides scholars, higher education administrators, and
policymakers with information that will help them to better serve the first-generation,
low-income student population in attaining college degrees and achieving higher qualities
of life than before they graduated from college.
Setting of the Study
This study was conducted at a large public university in Northern California.
Four demographically eligible participants were purposefully selected for the study.
Participants graduated from universities with Pell Grant recipient rates ranging from 16%
to 49%. Four in-depth, semi structured interviews were conducted via
telecommunication. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained prior to data
collection.
33
Research Design
Population and Sample
Each participant in this study had to meet several criteria. To be designated as a
first-generation student, neither of their parents could possess a bachelor’s degree. To be
designated as a low-income student, they had to grow up in a household with an income
below the federal poverty line (United States Department of Health and Human Services,
2013). Each participant also had to be a graduate of an accredited university in Northern
California. Four participants meeting these demographics were ultimately selected for
this study.
Design of the Study
This study used Creswell’s (2012) qualitative research design and employed a
systematic coding analysis and processes. The study utilized a case-study format. Four
in-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain insight into the higher
education experiences of first-generation, low-income students. A qualitative approach
was chosen to allow participants to share their experiences through personal narratives,
providing the researcher with robust, detailed data.
Data Collection Procedures
Participants of this study were purposefully invited to participate based on their
demographic profiles. This study included four participants, all of whom met the
designations of first-generation student, low-income student, and were graduates of an
accredited university in Northern California.
34
Instrumentation
This study was concerned with the following three research questions:
1. What do first-generation, low-income students expect from their higher education
before entering college?
2. What challenges do first-generation, low-income students face to attain a
bachelor’s degree?
3. What nonmonetary outcomes do first-generation, low-income students experience
from their higher education after they graduate with a bachelor’s degree?
A literature review was developed using these questions as a guide. A questionnaire of
29 questions was then developed using the research questions and literature review as
guides.
The first question in the questionnaire concerned the level of education of the
participants’ parents. The second, third, and fourth questions concerned the role the
participants’ parents, high school teachers, and high school counselors played in getting
the participant into college. The fifth question concerned the participants’ expectations
of higher education prior to entry. The sixth question concerned the challenges the
participants faced to get into college. The seventh question concerned the participants’
level of college readiness upon entry. The eighth and ninth questions concerned the age
of the participants upon entering college, where they attended college, and what they
studied in college. Questions 10 through 16 concerned the types of help the students
received to get through college as well as the challenges they faced while attending.
35
Question 17 concerned the participants’ motivation to attain a bachelor’s degree.
Questions 18 and 19 concerned the number of years the participant took to complete their
degree and their age upon graduating. Question 20 concerned the amount of debt the
participant had upon graduating from college. Question 21 concerned the participants’
employment status after graduating from college. Questions 22 and 23 concerned the
students’ perceived socioeconomic status after graduating from college. Question 25
concerned the participants’ attendance of graduate school. Question 28 asked the
participants to reflect on what could have made their journey to attaining a bachelor’s
degree easier. Finally, Questions 24, 26, 27, and 29 concerned the participants’ perceived
nonmonetary higher education outcomes. The interview protocol is located in Appendix
A. Data were analyzed following their collection.
Data Analysis Procedures
Data were analyzed using Creswell’s (2012) coding process. Once data were
collected, they were transcribed; once transcribed, data were read over several times.
After several readings, data were segmented into groups based on their shared
similarities. Segmented groups of information were then labeled with codes for the
purposes of identification. Coded groups were then removed of overlap and redundancy.
Finally, coded groups were collapsed into themes. Data were destroyed following their
analysis and the publication of this study.
36
Limitations of the Study
Although the qualitative data in this study may be consistent with current
literature regarding first-generation, low-income college students, the study’s small
sample size may not make it easily generalized to that entire population. Race, ethnicity,
and gender – although acknowledged as part of the demographic data collection process –
were deemphasized in this study for the purposes of talking about and highlighting
socioeconomic class. The pursuance and attainment of graduate education and graduate
degrees were also acknowledged but deemphasized to focus on undergraduate education
aspirations, persistence, and attainment.
Summary
This study was conducted in early 2014 at a large public university in northern
California and used a qualitative case-study method, ultimately selecting four
participants. The participants were all first-generation, low-income college students who
graduated from an accredited university in Northern California. Each participant was
individually interviewed using a 29-item questionnaire. The interviews were semi
structured, with each question asking for specific information while leaving room for
open-ended responses, positive digression, and constructive tangents. Data were
analyzed using a standard qualitative method that dissected interview protocol responses
into codes, segments, and themes. This study was conducted with limited resources and
37
may not be easily generalizable to the general population because of its small sample
size, even though findings were consistent with the current literature.
38
Chapter 4
DATA AND FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to further existing research on first-generation, lowincome college students and to specifically explore their nonmonetary higher education
expectations and outcomes with an emphasis on undergraduate educational attainment.
Chapter 4 discusses the data collected for this study and provides an analysis of that data.
Data were collected from participant narratives, which were used to establish common
themes; findings were then drawn from those common themes. Data collected for this
study were qualitative. Data were collected via in-depth, semi-structured interviews with
four participants. All participants met the criteria of having first-generation, low-income
status during their undergraduate years. All participants attended accredited colleges and
universities in Northern California and attained bachelor’s degrees. This study was
concerned with three major research questions:
1. What do first-generation, low-income students expect from their higher education
before entering college?
2. What challenges do first-generation, low-income students face to attain a
bachelor’s degree?
3. What nonmonetary outcomes do first-generation, low-income students experience
from their higher education after they graduate with a bachelor’s degree?
39
Chapter 4 presents the data collected for this study, the findings resulting from the
data, and the interpretation of the data. Data are presented in the form of a narrative from
each participant. Themes that emerged from the data are presented and analyzed. An
objective interpretation of the data follows.
Presentation of Data
Each participant had to meet certain demographic criteria. Each participant had to
be a first-generation, low-income student during their undergraduate years. Each
participant also had to be a graduate of an accredited four-year institution of higher
education in Northern California and the recipient of a bachelor’s degree. Four
participants meeting these criteria participated in the study.
An in-depth, semi-structured interview was conducted with each individual
participant using a uniform interview protocol, which can be seen in Appendix A. The
interview protocol was developed around several themes that emerged during the review
of the literature, including the following: the role of parents, school personnel, and
educational institutions in helping students get to and get through college; higher
education expectations; challenges to educational attainment; and higher education
outcomes. Participants were asked each question and given as much time as needed to
answer. Supplementary probe questions were asked to allow each participant an
opportunity to elaborate on their answers. Prior to interviews, each participant received,
signed, and submitted a letter of consent to the researcher (see Appendix B). Institutional
40
Review Board approval was given prior to the collection of data. Data collected from
interviews were used in part to build narratives for each participant.
Participant Narratives
Participant A. Participant A grew up in a low-income house with a mother who
had an 11th grade education and a father who had a sixth grade education. Participant A
was encouraged by his parents, teachers, and counselors to attend college. His parents
told him to achieve more in his education than they did. He attended college right after
secondary school. Participant A attended a public state university with a Pell Grant
recipient rate of 49%. Along with some financial assistance from his parents, he financed
his education with Pell Grants, migrant-worker program funds, and a sports scholarship.
Participant A also worked a part-time, on-campus job while attending college. He
engaged in activities outside the classroom and took on several leadership roles as an
undergraduate. It took Participant A five years to graduate with a Bachelor of Arts in
Communication Studies, which he attained in 1999. He also took out a small student
loan while attending, which he was able to pay back just a couple years after graduating
with his bachelor’s degree.
College had a significant positive effect on Participant A’s life. During his senior
year in college, he took an internship that would later lead to the full-time position he
currently holds as an Instructional Case Manager for the county’s Office of Education.
As a result of attending college, Participant A has matured and grown as a person through
the ability to question and challenge several previously held assumptions about others; he
41
accepted growth as a continual process and was able see himself as a role model. He
experienced several nonmonetary benefits from his higher education, including the ability
to see issues from multiple perspectives, being more politically aware, seeing the greater
impact of his decisions, being more health conscious, having better time-management
skills, and being able to attend graduate school to pursue his master’s degree. Participant
A viewed the acquisition of student loan debt as the biggest drawback of attending
college. He believed getting his bachelor’s degree would have been easier if he had
better preparation in math during high school, had more access to information about
college, and had more college outreach at his high school.
Participant B. Participant B grew up in a low-income house with a mother who
had a GED. Her mother insisted she attend college so she could to do better than her
mother and escape poverty. She was actively discouraged from attending college by
many teachers and counselors until she transferred schools halfway through her
sophomore year of high school. She was then actively encouraged to attend college by
teachers and counselors who provided substantial help to get her into college. Participant
B attended a private nonprofit research university with a Pell Grant recipient rate of 16%.
She financed her education with Pell Grants; institutionally granted scholarships; and a
small student loan, which she has been able to repay since graduating with her bachelor’s
degree. While attending, she worked full-time jobs during summers. She engaged in
activities outside the classroom and took on several leadership roles as an undergraduate.
42
After four years in college, Participant B graduated in 2010 with a Bachelor of Arts in
History.
College had significant effects on Participant B’s life. She overcame many
challenges to graduate from college, including a general lack of finances. While
attending, she experienced culture shock when interacting with peers of high
socioeconomic status for the first time; this became a source of anxiety for her, as she had
to find ways to balance this university’s culture, and the socioeconomic culture of most
of her university peers, with her own.
Participant B experienced many benefits from her higher education. She has been
relatively financially stable and knows she will always be able to get a job because of the
institution she attended. She also experienced many nonmonetary benefits as well. Such
nonmonetary benefits include a higher awareness of class issues, more cultural capital, an
increased knowledge base, access to intellectual resources, the ability to code switch,
more self-confidence, an appreciation for academic pursuits, and the ability to attend
graduate school and attain her master’s degree. Participant B viewed her experience of
strained relationships between herself and her family and friends back home and the
bigotry she experience from her undergraduate peers for being a first-generation, lowincome student as the biggest drawbacks of attending college. Participant B believed
attaining a bachelor’s degree would have been easier if she had better math education in
primary and secondary school; access to remedial math coursework during her
undergraduate years (her institution did not offer such courses); more college outreach
43
during secondary school; more resources for first-generation, low-income students at
universities; more awareness of those resources, if available; and access to internships
accommodating first-generation, low-income students’ limited resources.
Participant C. Participant C grew up in a low-income household with a mother
who dropped out of high school. Her mother encouraged her to succeed in her education.
She was encouraged to attend college by her teachers in primary school but not in
secondary school. Her counselors were not concerned with whether she attended college,
only that she graduated from high school. She was, however, encouraged to attend
college when a college outreach program came to her school. She was also encouraged
to transfer to a four-year university by college counselors. She attended college right
after secondary school. She attended her local community college first and then
transferred to a public research university with a Pell Grant recipient rate of 32%. She
financed her education with Pell Grants, extended opportunities program performancebased stipends, and student loans. She worked a part-time job while attending university.
In addition to working while attending, Participant C also took on a leadership role
during her senior year of college. After five years in college, Participant C graduated in
2011 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Art Practice.
Participant C faced significant challenges to get through college, including limited
finances, inadequate primary and secondary math preparation, working while attending,
and culture shock. She took out $14,000 in student loans and has only recently been able
to begin making payments on those loans as her income only recently became sufficient
44
for her to do so. She only took Algebra I and Geometry during high school and had to
take remedial math courses during her years at community college. Participant C worked
a part-time job in retail during her years at university, which eventually became the fulltime position she holds now, except in a higher capacity. She experienced culture shock
while attending university due to having peers of middle and high socioeconomic
statuses, which eventually conditioned her to hide her experiences and background.
Despite the challenges Participant C faced, she eventually earned her bachelor’s
degree and has experienced many benefits from her higher education. Such benefits
include a certain level of cultural capital and the education necessary to ensure her future
employment. Other nonmonetary benefits include increased self-confidence and selfesteem, technical competency, a more informed worldview, a wider knowledge base,
sharper critical-thinking skills, and better resource-management skills. For Participant C,
some drawbacks to attending college include incurring a significant amount of studentloan debt, majoring in a non-lucrative field, and foregoing work experience. Attaining a
bachelor’s degree would have been easier for Participant C if she had better financial
assistance, better math education, better access to information about college, and more
college outreach while in high school.
Participant D. Participant D grew up in a low-income house with a mother who
had a first grade education and a father who had a fifth grade education. Her parents
actively discouraged from attending college. Her teachers did not encourage her either.
Her high school counselors, however, did offer some help in the college process, offering
45
information about college admissions and helping her get into a community college
geometry class. Attending that class encouraged her to attend community college after
graduating from high school. A college outreach coordinator who visited her school
during her senior year also helped encourage her educational aspirations. She attended
college with the expectation that she would have much better job and career prospects
after attaining a bachelor’s degree and that her occupation would provide her with a
middle-class income.
Participant D’s high school did not prepare her well for college, and she struggled
through it. Since she did not have any information about financial aid, including the
types of aid available or how to apply or qualify for them, she received no financial
assistance. Instead, she financed the first four years of her undergraduate career by
working two part-time jobs with work hours equaling one full-time job. Only during her
last and fifth year did she receive Pell Grant assistance. She lived with her parents during
her years at community college and then with her siblings while she attended university.
She had a great deal of familial and household responsibilities and was unable to
participate in activities outside the classroom due to her other responsibilities as a
student, as an employee, and in the home. Such responsibilities had a negative effect on
her ability to persist, but she stayed motivated by the prospect of having a better life once
she graduated.
Participant D had to take remedial courses in English during her first year at
community college. While attending university, she experienced culture shock from the
46
lack of ethnic diversity and, specifically, from the lack of representation of her particular
ethnic group. While attending college, she did not expect to experience such strains in
her relationships with family members and friends. After graduating in 2009 with a
Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice, she got a part-time, on-call job as a Probation
Aid. While the job paid well, the hours were inconsistent and it was not full-time.
Attending college gave Participant D the ability to make more thoughtful
decisions, a sense of independence, better life- and resource-management skills, and new
experiences that influenced her worldview. Participant D would have had an easier time
earning her bachelor’s degree if she had better financial assistance, information about
how to get financial assistance, and more guidance from school personnel and college
graduates. However, she felt college was worth her investment despite the stress and
struggle she endured, if only for the better potential career opportunities.
Themes
Based on the interviews conducted, four major themes emerged. The themes
were the role of parents, school personnel, and educational institutions in helping students
get to and get through college; higher education expectations; challenges to educational
attainment; and higher education outcomes.
The Role of Parents, Teachers, and Counselors
Three participants had parents who encouraged their children to do better in
education than themselves. Only one participant was not encouraged to attend college by
47
her parents. Due to a general lack of knowledge and experience with education, and
higher education in particular, participants’ parents were unable to provide participants
with good information or support about the college process while participants were in
high school. One participant was given some information about college from other
family members who had experience with higher education. One participants’ mother
told her college would provide her with an environment of like-minded intellectuals. The
most help participants’ parents were able to provide with the college process was help
filling out forms for financial aid.
Encouragement from teachers to attend college varied with each participant. Only
one was encouraged throughout primary and secondary school. One participant was
encouraged to attend college in primary but not secondary school. One participant was
passively discouraged from attending college, and one participant was actively
discouraged from attending college by teachers and other school staff. Participants who
were not encouraged to attend college in secondary school enrolled in college because of
college outreach programs that visited their high schools during their senior years.
Encouragement from counselors to attend college also varied with each
participant but less so than with encouragement from teachers. Only one participant was
encouraged by his counselors to attend college. The other three participants were not
encouraged to attend college. One participant’s counselors were only concerned with her
high school graduation. One participant was passively discouraged from attending
48
college, and one participant was actively discouraged from attending college by her
counselors.
The Role of Secondary School
Of the four participants, only one felt his high school adequately prepared him for
college. The other three participants responded that their high schools did not adequately
prepare them for college. In terms of math education, only one participant took and
passed Calculus I. One participant took and passed Algebra II. Two participants only
advanced as high as Algebra I and Geometry.
Higher Education Expectations
As a result of earning a bachelor’s degree, participants generally expected to be
able to obtain a white-collar job or career with compensation adequate to be considered
middle class. Participants also expected their bachelor’s degrees to be their permanent
ticket out of poverty. However, participants’ nonmonetary higher education expectations
varied. One participant expected to be able to expand his social network. One
participant wanted to be intellectually engaged. One participant simply wanted access to
materials necessary for making art. One participant wanted to earn a degree so she could
help others realize their life goals. Generally, participants’ nonmonetary expectations
were neither their primary goals nor their primary motivations for pursuing a bachelor’s
degree.
Participants’ motivations for attaining a bachelor’s degree varied. However, all
participants reported the potential for a better life for themselves and their future families
49
as a primary motivating factor. Other factors included intellectual fulfillment and an
academic credential from a particular institution of higher education.
Challenges to Educational Attainment
Participants reported experiencing many significant challenges in attaining
bachelor’s degrees. Finances were reported as the most significant challenge to attaining
a bachelor’s degree. Other challenges in attaining a bachelor’s degree included social
complications with family and friends as a result of attending college, having to work to
pay for attending college, having to take remedial coursework during college, and having
to deal with culture shock experienced while attending college.
Finances. Participants reported inadequate financial resources as the most
significant challenge in attaining a bachelor’s degree. All participants reported having no
financial support from their families during the college application and enrollment
process and little to no financial support from their families during their undergraduate
years. However, participants reported receiving significant amounts of financial aid,
including Pell Grants, Cal Grants, EOPS stipends, institutional or sports scholarships, and
migrant-worker program funds. Despite receiving financial aid, all but one participant
graduated with some amount of student-loan debt. The highest amount of student-loan
debt upon graduation was $14,000. Other participants owed $5,000 and $1,200 upon
graduating. Complications arising as a result of inadequate financial aid included an
inability to take unpaid internships during participants’ undergraduate years. The
50
participant with the highest student-loan debt upon graduation was the only participant
who has been unable to pay off her debt since graduating.
Social complications. All participants reported some level of social complication
arose as a result of attending college. All participants reported having social
complications with family members who were not college graduates. Social
complications included an inability to discuss college life with family members who
lacked college experience. Two participants reported having these same social
complications with friends who did not go to college. In some cases, these social
complications resulted in the termination of certain relationships, mostly with friends
who did not go to college.
Culture shock. All participants reported experiencing culture shock during their
undergraduate years. Three of the four participants reported experiencing culture shock
resulting from a lack of socioeconomic diversity on campus. Participants reported this
culture shock had a negative impact on their persistence, as well as a negative impact on
their ability to make friends, network, and participate in extracurricular activities during
their undergraduate years. Participants also reported this culture shock had lasting
impacts permanently affecting their worldview and their ability to interact genuinely with
people of middle to high socioeconomic status.
Working while attending. All participants had to work during their
undergraduate years to pay for college. Three of the four participants worked part time;
one participant worked two part-time jobs equivalent to one full-time job. One
51
participant worked full time during summers. Only one participant worked on campus
and reported that job had a positive impact on his persistence. Other participants reported
work had at least a somewhat negative impact on their ability to persist.
Remedial coursework. All but one participant reported having to take at least
one remedial course during college. Two participants took remedial math, and two took
remedial English. The participant who did not take remedial courses was unable to do so
because her institution did not offer such courses.
Higher Education Outcomes
None of the participants had a parent with a high school diploma. The highest
level of education among the parents of the four participants was a high school
equivalency certificate. The lowest level of education among the parents of the four
participants was first grade. Two of the four participants in the study attended
community college first. The undergraduate majors of the participants were history,
communication, art practice, and criminal justice. Since graduating with bachelor’s
degrees, three of the participants attended graduate school. Only one participant
graduated with an advanced degree. All three participants who went on to graduate
school pursued a master’s degree at the same university where they attained their
bachelor’s degrees.
Two of the four participants considered themselves to now be middle class. The
other two participants considered themselves either poor or working class. Of the two
participants who considered themselves middle class, one was a relatively recent graduate
52
who graduated within the last five years while the other graduated in the late 1990s.
However, all participants reported college had a positive effect on their overall financial
stability as their bachelor’s degrees qualified them for a larger pool of jobs and careers.
Participants experienced expected and unexpected nonmonetary outcomes. In
terms of expected outcomes, participants reported college had either a positive effect on
their critical-thinking skills, a positive effect on their overall knowledge base, or both.
Participants also reported that college changed their overall worldview; all participants
reported an increased awareness of world issues and an increased ability to see issues
from multiple perspectives. Participants reported experiencing significant personal
growth as a result of attending college. Participants reported being more confident,
health conscious, better at managing their resources, and having better access to
intellectual resources. One participant reported seeing himself as a role model as a result
of attending college. One participant reported having better and more stable relationships
as a result of attending college. Two participants reported that college had a negative
impact on their health but only while attending. Overall, participants reported a higher
quality of life as a result of attending college.
Participants’ unexpected nonmonetary higher education outcomes included
experiencing socioeconomic diversity, increased confidence, self-sufficiency, increased
social networks, the ability to code switch, the acquisition of social and cultural capital,
and disconnection from family and childhood friends.
53
Participants reported several unexpected drawbacks of attending college. The two
drawbacks most reported were debt and stained relationships with family members.
Other drawbacks included experiencing and witnessing bigotry from peers, foregoing
work experience, and majoring in non-lucrative fields of study. However, all participants
reported college was a worthwhile investment.
Findings and Interpretation of the Data
This section utilizes the narratives from the case studies and the themes identified
in the narratives to answer each of the following three research questions:
1. What do first-generation, low-income students expect from their higher education
before entering college?
2. What challenges do first-generation, low-income students face to attain a
bachelor’s degree?
3. What nonmonetary outcomes do first-generation, low-income students experience
from their higher education after they graduate with a bachelor’s degree?
What do First-Generation, Low-Income Students Expect From Their Higher
Education Before Entering College?
First-generation, low-income students want a degree leading to a white-collar,
well-paying job that leads to a good career. They expect a bachelor’s degree to function
as a permanent ticket out of poverty. They also want to be able to extend their
socioeconomic status to their family, especially their children. They want higher
54
education to be intellectually fulfilling and engaging and to assist them in acquiring
knowledge, critical-thinking skills, friends, and social networks. In short, firstgeneration, low-income students want to be able to gather social and cultural capital that
can translate into a higher quality of life.
What Challenges do First-Generation, Low-Income Students Face to Attain a
Bachelor’s Degree?
First-generation, low-income students must often navigate the system of higher
education without much help. College outreach and summer bridge programs exist but
are limited and scattered. As a result, many highly academically qualified students are
often left with attending community college as their only option. Many of these students
are not provided with a high quality math education in high school, which may limit what
they can study in college. Due to extraordinarily limited financial resources, paying for
college is often a struggle for these students. Financial aid exists but is too limited to
cover most costs. As a result, these students work out of necessity, often compromising
potential study time in exchange for work hours.
While attending college, many first-generation, low-income students experience
culture shock from interacting with middle to high-income peers for the first time. Such
culture shock creates a barrier to persistence, since it’s difficult for these students to
adjust to college life and participate outside the classroom. Interacting with those of
higher socioeconomic status while retaining the ability to interact with their own
55
communities often creates a tension between first-generation, low-income students and
the contexts in which they find themselves.
What Nonmonetary Outcomes do First-Generation, Low-Income Students
Experience From Their Higher Education After They Graduate With a Bachelor’s
Degree?
First-generation, low-income students often fulfill their goal of having a relatively
better life. Students leave college with better job prospects, a higher income, increased
social and cultural capital, better critical-thinking skills, increased knowledge, selfconfidence, life skills, an informed worldview, and personal growth. For these students,
major drawbacks of attending college include debt, familial strains, trauma caused by
culture shock, and a limited job pool caused by majoring in less lucrative fields.
However, first-generation, low-income students who attain bachelor’s degrees believe
their investment in higher education was worthwhile.
Summary
This chapter described the data collected for this study and provided an analysis
of that data. All three research questions were answered. First-generation, low-income
students’ nonmonetary higher education expectations and outcomes were generally met.
The students simply wanted their education to lead them and their families out of poverty
and into a higher quality of life; of those who persisted to attainment of a bachelor’s
degree, most achieved that goal. However, academic achievement in higher education is
56
often coupled with several challenges emerging simply from growing up poor and with
parents who did achieve higher educations. Such challenges are burdensome,
overwhelming, and unnecessary but arise out of the lack of resources given to these
students. Although first-generation, low-income students reported being generally
satisfied with their higher education and stated their investment was worthwhile, more
must be done to ensure the success of this population. First-generation, low-income
students are a population too large to ignore, and ensuring their success is imperative for
the future success of the United States.
57
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Findings from this study were consistent with much of the literature on firstgeneration, low-income students. Participants were given unequal and inequitable access
to education, which is a structural, class-based problem in the United States (Tierney et
al., 2003). All but one participant were encouraged by their parents to pursue higher
education, which perhaps explains their success in attaining a bachelor’s degree. It has
been shown that students who are encouraged to attend college by their parents are more
likely to aspire to, apply to, enroll in, and persist through their undergraduate years to
attainment (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001; Choy, 2001; Sewell et al., 1969; Stage & Hossler,
1989). However, all but one participant reported a lack of encouragement to attend
college from their primary and secondary school teachers, a common problem for
students of low socioeconomic status (Lynch & O’Riordan, 1998).
When students are not actively guided toward and prepared for college, they often
take less rigorous coursework in secondary school, leading to deficiencies in math
(Attewell & Domina, 2008; Choy, 2001; Terenzini et al., 1996; Venezia et al., 2003).
Only one participant in this study took calculus prior to enrolling in college. Also, all but
one participant took at least one remedial course in either math or English during their
first year of college. Half of the participants attended their local community college first,
58
despite their academic abilities or preparation – also common for first-generation, lowincome students, especially if they are offered inadequate financial assistance (Inman &
Mayes, 1999). Such students are not given the needed financial assistance, despite
evidence that shows students who are supported financially have higher rates of
persistence (Lotkrowski et al., 2004).
In addition to inadequate finances, first-generation, low-income students deal with
other problems when pursuing higher education. Such problems include familial
responsibilities, culture shock, and having to work while attending. Such problems make
it difficult to engage in activities outside the classroom, which are important to
persistence (Inman & Mayes, 1999; London, 1992; Pascerella et al., 2004; Paulsen & St.
John, 2002; Somers et al., 2004; Walpole, 2003). Such additional restraints on already
limited resources result in less time for first-generation, low-income students to study,
likely pushing them into less rigorous courses of study (Forsyth & Furlong, 2003).
Perhaps this helps explain why none of the participants in this study majored in science,
technology, engineering, or a math-based field.
First-generation, low-income students expect to gain financial stability from their
higher education (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). As the data show, students want to
escape the poverty they endured during their childhoods. However, in addition to a
higher paying middle-class job, higher education also offers other nonmonetary benefits
as well (College Measures, 2013; Inman & Mayes, 1999). Such nonmonetary benefits
include a higher quality of life; better health; increased civic participation; more leisure
59
time; open-mindedness; being more cultured, more rational, and less authoritarian;
enhanced knowledge of world affairs; enhanced social status; less reliance on public
assistance; intellectual growth; and personal maturation (Baum & Payea, 2004; Markus et
al., 2004; McSwain & Davis, 2007; Rowley & Hurtado, 2002; Taylor et al., 2011). Most,
if not all, of these nonmonetary benefits are reflected in the responses of this study’s
participants.
In agreement with Taylor (2011), this study’s findings show that despite the
dramatic rise in the cost of a higher education in recent decades, participants reported
their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree was worthwhile and worth the investment.
Participants reported having better job prospects and generally better lives because of
attending college and attaining a four-year degree. However, the participants of this
study are demographically rare. Only one of every three first-generation, low-income
students enrolls in college; of those, only one in seven can expect to attain a bachelor’s
degree (Bedsworth et al., 2006). Mathematically, this works out to a roughly 4%
graduation rate for first-generation, low-income students in the United States. More must
be done to ensure the success of these students.
Conclusions
Most first-generation, low-income students do not persist to attainment of any
college degree, much less a bachelor’s degree (Bedsworth et al., 2006). According to the
participants of this study, many benefits came from attaining a bachelor’s degree.
60
However, participants had to persist through a lack of financial assistance; a lack of
support and encouragement to attend college from schools, school personnel, and
sometimes their parents; having to work while attending; and having inadequate
academic and social preparation for college to experience those benefits.
Attaining a bachelor’s degree is much more likely for students of higher
socioeconomic status than for students of lower socioeconomic status (Fitzgerald, 2003).
As shown from the data, even when first-generation, low-income students pursue higher
education, they are often limited to less rigorous courses of study due to inadequate
academic preparation, especially in math. As seen in the data, such lack of academic
preparation requires them to take remedial courses, making the road to attainment longer
and the likelihood of majoring in a field requiring math beyond high school less likely.
All but one participant took remedial math in college (the one who did not was not given
the opportunity to do so), the average time to graduate with a bachelor’s degree among
the participants was five years, and none of the participants’ undergraduate majors
required math beyond the high school level.
With the cost of education rising, income stagnating, and financial assistance
increasingly loan-based, first-generation, low-income students experience increasingly
more personal financial burden when pursuing higher education (Choy & Carroll, 2000).
Such financial burdens on individuals pursuing higher education often leads to lower
rates of graduation (Harper & Quaye, 2008; Lynch & O’Riordan, 1998; Richburg, 2013).
By not offering adequate financial incentives for students to pursue higher education, the
61
United States will only further compromise its ability to succeed in the global economy
by allowing millions of underutilized citizens to remain in poverty simply because of
inequitable access to education.
Recommendations
Recommendations include increasing financial assistance and increasing college
outreach. There is not enough financial assistance for college in the form of grant aid,
and there simply needs to be more to ensure the success of students (Fitzgerald, 2003;
Gladieux, 1996; Kim, 2010; Lynch & O’Riordan, 1998; Richburg, 2013). There is also
not enough college outreach at the secondary schools first-generation, low-income
students most likely attend (Gladieux, 1996; Lynch & O’Riordan, 1998; Swail, 2000;
Thayer, 2000; Venezia et al., 2003). College outreach can come in the form of summer
bridge programs, college outreach workshops, or just accessible information – all of
which either helped participants in this study access and persist to attainment or were
requested by participants to help future students.
As seen from this study, students who are given information about college and/or
helped with the process of getting into or adjusting to college are more likely to succeed.
However, even if they attend college, a lack of financial assistance in the form of grant
aid puts them at a much higher risk of dropping out and not finishing their degree
(Lotkrowski et al., 2004). Even though the participants of this study were college
graduates, they all responded that providing more college outreach and more financial aid
62
in the form of grants would have made the process of getting a bachelor’s degree much
easier. More action is needed by policymakers, administrators, and the academic
community in general to ensure these students get what they need to be successful.
A third recommendation is to make the education system more equitable by
providing financial resources to primary and secondary schools serving primarily lowincome students equal to the financial resources available at wealthier schools.
Theoretically, this would allow now underfunded schools to provide a higher quality of
education to their students. Doing so would give a more equitable educational
opportunity to children in poverty. Such measures could also increase their rate of
application to four-year institutions, creating more meritocratic competition in the college
application and admissions process and potentially allowing more low-income students
the opportunity to attend more than just their local community college. If they received a
higher quality of math education during primary and secondary school, they would
achieve higher rates of college graduation (Domina et al., 2011).
Participants from this study reported a need for more financial aid and a general
increase in financial resources for low-income students. Many states already allocate a
substantial portion of their budget to funding education. As of 2013, California allocates
54.5% of its budget toward education (Brown, 2013). The percentage of the budget
allocated for education is already substantial, so if the current allocation is not enough to
provide an equitable quality of education to all students, then there is a clear deficiency in
the base from which allocations are made. Thus, the problem goes beyond budget
63
allocation and into the tax base. A larger tax base should be established to provide better
educational opportunities to all students. However, the rise in the tax base would need to
come from a source that would not be significantly affected by such an increase, namely
the wealthiest among the taxpayers.
Recommendations for Further Study
Two recommendations for future research emerged from this study. The first
recommendation is for future researchers to conduct a study similar to this one and to
obtain data from a larger number of first-generation, low-income students. A larger
sample would make this study’s findings more easily generalizable to this population;
further studies could also use a quantitative rather than qualitative approach, if
appropriate. The second recommendation is for future researchers to conduct a study
investigating the reasons why education is inadequately funded for low-income
populations, perhaps utilizing policymakers as participants to collect data. As seen from
this study, current funding structures are inadequate to offer equitable education to all
students, especially those from low incomes and low socioeconomic status. Therefore,
such research may offer a clearer perspective on how to change existing funding
structures than would a study looking solely at figures from previous budgets or which
used only low-income students as participants.
64
APPENDICES
65
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol
1) What level of education do your parents possess?
2) In what ways did your…
A) Parents encourage you to go to college?
B) Teachers encourage you to go to college?
C) Counselors encourage you to go to college?
3) When you were in high school, what did your…
A) Parents tell you about college?
B) Teachers tell you about college?
C) Counselors tell you about college?
4) How did your…
A) Parents help you get into college?
B) Teachers help you get into college?
C) Counselors help you get into college?
5) What did you expect to get out of college?
A) What did you expect other than money?
6) What other challenges did you face to get into college?
7) How well did high school prepare you for college work?
A) What was the highest level of math you completed in high school?
8) How old were you when you began attending college?
66
9) Which college(s) did you attend?
A) What was your major?
10) What kinds of financial assistance were you given to pay for college?
A) How much financial assistance were you given to pay for college?
B) How much did you take out in student loans?
11) Did you work while attending?
A) Did you work part-time or full-time?
12) Where did you live while attending college?
13) Other than student, what roles did you play while attending college (i.e. parent)?
A) What affect did these multiple roles have on your persistence through college?
14) What remedial courses did you have to take during college?
15) How did you adjust to college culture?
A) Did you experience culture shock while attending college?
B) Did that culture shock have any lasting affects?
16) What other challenges did you face to get through college?
17) What motivated you to get a bachelor’s degree?
18) How many years did you spend in college to get your bachelor’s?
19) What age were you when you graduated from college?
20) How much debt did you have after graduating from college?
A) Have you been able to pay off your student loan debt?
B) How long did it take you to pay off that debt?
67
21) Where did you work after graduating from college?
A) In what capacity did you work?
22) Would you describe yourself as middle-class?
23) How has college effected your financial stability?
24) How has college affected your…
A) View of the world?
B) Critical thinking?
C) Quality of life?
D) Personal growth?
25) Did you attend graduate school?
A) Where did you study?
B) What did you study?
C) Why did you decide to go to graduate school?
26) What did you get out of college that you were expecting?
A) What did you get that you were not expecting?
27) What have been the biggest benefits from attending college?
A) What have been the biggest drawbacks?
28) What would have made the process of getting a bachelor’s degree easier?
29) Was college worth the investment?
68
APPENDIX B
Letter of Consent
December 1st, 2013
Dear Participant,
You are being invited to participate in a research study about the nonmonetary
higher education expectations and outcomes of first generation, low-income students.
Vincent Martinez, graduate student of education at Sacramento State University, will be
conducting this research. The objective of this research is to further understand how first
generation, low-income students’ nonmonetary higher education expectations compare to
their nonmonetary higher education outcomes with a focus on the barriers these students
must break in order to attain bachelor’s degrees. This research is being conducted at
Sacramento State University. Each interview is being conducted with a first generation,
low-income student who graduated with a bachelor’s degree from an accredited
university in Northern California.
There are no foreseeable risks associated with participating in this study.
However, you may feel some emotional discomfort when answering interview questions.
You will neither be charged nor compensated for participating in this study. The
information you provide will assist the researcher in understanding students who grew up
poor with parents who did not finish college, their expectations of higher education, the
obstacles they overcome to attain a bachelor’s degree, and the outcomes they experience
from higher education, with a specific emphasis on nonmonetary returns. The
information collected may not benefit you directly, but what is learned from this study
will be beneficial to students, colleges and universities.
The researcher is requesting for you to participate in one semi-structured
interview to answer questions about your experiences as a first generation, low-income
student who has attained a bachelor’s degree. This interview will take approximately
ninety minutes, and will be recorded and later transcribed for the purposes of abiding by
standard data collection and analysis practices, and to ensure the integrity of the data.
Your interview and identity will remain anonymous in order to protect your right
to privacy and safety. The researcher will use pseudonyms for this reason. Any
recordings produced from this interview will be destroyed immediately after this research
is published.
If you have any questions, concerns, or complaints about this research, contact
Vincent Martinez at 916.712.4701, vgmartin2@gmail.com, or vm437@csus.edu. You
may also contact the faculty advisor for this research, Dr. José Chávez, at (number) or
(email).
Your participation in this research is voluntary. You may choose not to
participate, and may decline to continue participating at any time. The researcher reserves
the right to discontinue your ability to participate in this research at any time. By signing
69
below, you consent to understanding the risks involved in this research and agree to
participate. I have read this letter, understand the risks involved in this research, and have
received a copy of this form:
Name in Print
Signature
Date
70
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns,
and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school
through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2012). Pathways to success:
Integrating learning with life and work to increase national college completion
(Report to the U.S. Congress and Secretary of Education). Washington, DC.
Alexander, K. L., & Cook, M. A. (1979). The motivational relevance of educational
plans: Questioning the conventional wisdom. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42(3),
202-213.
Attewell, P., & Domina, T. (2008). Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic
performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(1), 51-71.
Baum, S., & Payea, K. (2004). Education pays 2004: The benefits of higher education for
individual and society. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Bedsworth, W., Colby, S., & Doctor, J. (2006). Reclaiming the American dream. Boston,
MA: Bridgespan.
Berkner, L., Horn, L., Clune, M., & Carroll, C. D. (2000). Descriptive summary of 199596 beginning postsecondary students: Three years later. Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES 2000-154).
71
Boesel, D., & Fredland, E. (1999). College for all? Is there too much emphasis on getting
a 4-year college degree? Research Synthesis. Washington, DC: National Library
of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department
of Education.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. K. Brown (Ed.),
Knowledge, Education, and Cultural Change: Papers in the Sociology of
Education (pp. 71-84). London: Tavistock.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Bratlinger, E.A. (1993). The politics of social class in secondary school. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Brown, Jerry. (2013). Governor’s budget summary 2013-14. California Department of
Finance. Retrieved from
http://www.dof.ca.gov/documents/FullBudgetSummary_web2013.pdf
Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks
facing America’s disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 119-149.
Carlson, S. (2013). How to assess the real payoff of a college degree. Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Is-ROI-the-RightWay-to-Judge/138665/
72
Ceja, M. (2006). Understanding the role of parents and siblings as information sources in
the college choice process of Chicana students. Journal of College Student
Development, 47(1), 87-104.
Choy, S. P. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access,
persistence, and attainment. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Choy, S. P., & Carroll, C. D. (2000). Debt burden four years after college (NCES 2000188). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department
of Education.
Choy, S. P., & Premo, M. D. (1996). How low-income undergraduates financed
postsecondary education 1992-1993. Statistical Analysis Report, NCES 96-161.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
College Measures. (2013). Higher education pays: But a lot more for some graduates
than for others. Retrieved from Collegemeasures.org
Conwell, R. H., & Shackleton, R. (1915). Acres of diamonds. New York: Harper &
Brothers.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Domina, T., Conley, A., & Farkas, G. (2011). The link between educational expectations
and effort in the college-for-all era. Sociology of Education, 84(2), 93-112.
73
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income,
first-generation students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of
Opportunity in Education.
Enke, K. A., & Ropers-Huilman, R. (2010). Defining and achieving success: Perspectives
from students at Catholic women’s colleges. Higher Education in Review, 7, 1-22.
Fitzgerald, B. K. (2003). The opportunity for a college education: Real promise or hollow
rhetoric? About Campus, 8(5), 3-10.
Forsyth, A., & Furlong, A. (2003). Access to higher education and disadvantaged young
people. British Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 205-225.
Fry, R. (2009). College enrollment hits all-time high, fueled by community college surge.
Washington, DC: Pew Research Center Publications.
Fry, R. (2010). The rise of college student borrowing. Washington, DC: Pew Research
Center Publications.
Fry, R. (2012). A record one-in-five households now owe student loan debt. Pew Social &
Demographic Trends. Retrieved from
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/09/26/a-record-one-in-five-householdsnow-owe-student-loan-debt/
Gandara, P. (2002). A study of high school Puente: What we have learned about
preparing Latino youth for postsecondary education. Educational Policy, 16, 474495.
74
Gardner, D. P. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: The National Commission on
Excellence in Education, U.S. Department of Education.
Gladieux, L. E. (1996). College opportunities and the poor: Getting national policies
back on track. The Center for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education and
the College Board, Washington, DC.
Gofen, A. (2009). Family capital: How first‐generation higher education students break
the intergenerational cycle. Family Relations, 58(1), 104-120.
Goyette, K. A. (2008). College for some to college for all: Social background,
occupational expectations, and educational expectations over time. Social Science
Research, 37(2), 461-484.
Greatorex-Voith, S. (2008). Class and inequality in higher education: The experiences of
low-income students in elite higher education contexts (Unpublished masters
thesis). Available at
http://haas.stanford.edu/files/PDFs/PSSP_Honors_Thesis/pssp08_GreatorexV_Thesis.pdf
Hacker, A., & Dreifus, C. (2010). Higher education?: How colleges are wasting our
money and failing our kids---and what we can do about it. New York: Macmillan.
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (Eds.). (2008). Student engagement in higher education:
Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. New
York: Routledge.
75
Hsiao, K. P. (1992). First-generation college students. ERIC Digest (ED351079). Los
Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges.
Inman, W. E., & Mayes, L. (1999). The importance of being first: Unique characteristics
of first generation community college students. Community College Review,
26(4), 3-22.
Kane, T. J., & Rouse, C. E. (1995). Labor-market returns to two-and four-year college.
The American Economic Review, 85, 600-614.
Kim, J. (2010). The effect of prices on postsecondary access: An update to Heller. Higher
Education in Review, 7, 23-46.
Kuh, G. D. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom.
American Educational Research Journal, 30, 277-304.
Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with
student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66,
123-155.
London, H. B. (1989). Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and
their families. American Journal of Education, 97(1), 144-170.
London, H. B. (1992). Transformations: Cultural challenges faced by first‐generation
students. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1992(80), 5-11.
Lotkrowski, V., Bobbins, S., & Noeth, R. (2004). The role of academic and nonacademic
factors in improving college retention. ACT Policy Report.
76
Lynch, K., & O’Riordan, C. (1998). Inequality in higher education: A study of class
barriers. British Journal of Sociology of education, 19, 445-478.
Markus, H. R., Ryff, C. D., Curhan, K. B., & Palmersheim, K. A. (2004). In their own
words: Well-being at midlife among high school-educated and college-educated
adults. In O. G. Brim, C. D. Ryff, & R. C. Kessler (Eds.), How healthy are we?: A
national study of well-being at midlife (pp. 273-319). Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
McCarron, G. P., & Inkelas, K. K. (2006). The gap between educational aspirations and
attainment for first-generation college students and the role of parental
involvement. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 534-549.
McDonough, P. M. (2005). Counseling and college counseling in America’s high
schools. In D. A. Hawkins & J. Lautz (Eds.), State of College Admission (pp. 107121). Washington, DC: National Association for College Admission Counseling.
McKillip, M. E., Rawls, A., & Barry, C. (2012). Improving college access: A review of
research on the role of high school counselors. Professional School Counseling,
16(1), 49-58.
McSwain, C., & Davis, R. (2007). College access for the working poor: Overcoming
burdens to succeed in higher education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher
Education Policy.
77
Northern Working Men’s Declarations. (1834). The man. Retrieved from
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documentsweb/week10/workingmen1829.html
Nunez, A. M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates
whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: U.S.
National Center for Education Statistics.
Oliverez, P. M., & Tierney, W. G. (2005). Show us the money: Low-income students,
families, and financial aid. Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis. Los
Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). Firstgeneration college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and
outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 249-284.
Pascarella, E. T., Smart, J. C., & Smylie, M. A. (1992). College tuition costs and early
career socioeconomic achievement: Do you get what you pay for? Higher
Education, 24, 275-290.
Paulsen, M. B., & St. John, E. P. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the
financial nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher
Education, 73(2), 189-236.
Peluchette, J. V. E. (1993). Subjective career success: The influence of individual
difference, family, and organizational variables. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
43(2), 198-208.
78
Perna, L. W. (2006). Understanding the relationship between information about college
prices and financial aid and students’ college-related behaviors. American
Behavioral Scientist, 49, 1620-1635.
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A
comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. Journal of Higher
Education, 76, 276-300.
Obama, B. (2013). State of the union. Retrieved from Whitehouse.gov.
O’Toole, P. (1993, November). Reaching for more: How people are taking the best parts
of their lives to make a better whole. Working Woman, 100, 50-53, 96-97.
Richardson, R. C., & Skinner, E. F. (1992). Helping first‐generation minority students
achieve degrees. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1992(80), 29-43.
Richburg, H. (2013). Helping students pay for college – and achieve better outcomes.
Policy Brief, MDRC.
Rosenbaum, J. E., Miller, S. R., & Krei, M. S. (1996). Gatekeeping in an era of more
open gates: High school counselors’ views of their influence on students’ college
plans. American Journal of Education, 104, 257-279.
Rowley, L. L., & Hurtado, S. (2002). The non-monetary benefits of undergraduate
education. In D. R. Lewis & J. Hearn (Eds.), The Public Research University:
Serving the Public Good In New Times (pp. 207-229). Lanham, MD: University
Press of America.
79
Sewell, W. H., Haller, A. O., & Portes, A. (1969). The educational and early occupational
attainment process. American Sociological Review, 34(1), 82-92.
Smith, J. S., & Wertlieb, E. C. (2005). Do first-year college students’ expectations align
with their first-year experiences. NASPA Journal, 42(2), 153-174.
Somers, P., Woodhouse, S., & Cofer, J. (2004). Pushing the boulder uphill: The
persistence of first-generation college students. NASPA Journal, 41(3), 418-435.
Stage, F. K., & Hossler, D. (1989). Differences in family influences on college
attendance plans for male and female ninth graders. Research in Higher
Education, 30, 301-315.
Stern, G. G. (1966). Myth and reality in the American college. AAUP Bulletin, 408-414.
Striplin, J. J. (1999). Facilitating transfer for first-generation community college students.
ERIC Digest. Retrieved from ERIC. (ED430627)
Swail, W. S. (2000). Preparing America's disadvantaged for college: Programs that
increase college opportunity. New Directions for Institutional Research,
2000(107), 85-101.
Taylor, P., Parker, K., Fry, R., Cohn, D. V., Wang, W., Velasco, G., & Dockterman, D.
(2011). Is college worth it?: College presidents, public assess value, quality and
mission of higher education. Washington, DC: Pew Social and Demographic
Trends.
80
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). Firstgeneration college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive
development. Research in Higher education, 37(1), 1-22.
Thayer, P. (2000, May). Retaining first generation and low income students. Opportunity
Outlook, 2-8.
Tierney, W. G., Colyar, J. E., & Corwin, Z. B. (Eds.). (2003). Preparing for college:
Building expectations, changing realities. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Higher
Education Policy Analysis.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2005). Taking student success seriously: Rethinking the first year of college.
Paper presented at the Ninth Annual Intersession Academic Affairs, California
State University, Fullerton (pp. 05-01). Fullerton, CA.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2013). Federal Register.
78(16). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-24/pdf/201301422.pdf
Vedder, R., Denhart, C., & Robe, J. (2013). Why are recent college graduates
underemployed? Washington, DC: Center for College Affordability and
Productivity.
81
Venezia, A., Kirst, M., & Antonio, A. (2003). Betraying the college dream: How
disconnected K-12 and postsecondary education systems undermine student
aspirations. Policy Report from Stanford University’s Bridge, 2-12. Stanford,
CA: Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research.
Walpole, M. (2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college
experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 45-73.
Wang, M. (2013, September 11). Public colleges’ quest for revenue and prestige squeezes
needy students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from
https://chronicle.com/article/Public-Colleges-Quest-for/141541/
Zinn, H. (2010). A people’s history of the United States: 1492 to present. New York:
HarperCollins.
Zuekle, E. (2008). College enrollment rate increases, but financial challenges bring
uncertainty. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.