7KH*DSEHWZHHQ(GXFDWLRQDO$VSLUDWLRQVDQG$WWDLQPHQW
IRU)LUVW*HQHUDWLRQ&ROOHJH6WXGHQWVDQGWKH5ROHRI
3DUHQWDO,QYROYHPHQW
*UD]LHOOD3DJOLDUXOR0F&DUURQ.DUHQ.XURWVXFKL,QNHODV
Journal of College Student Development, Volume 47, Number 5, September/October
2006, pp. 534-549 (Article)
3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/csd.2006.0059
For additional information about this article
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/csd/summary/v047/47.5mccarron.html
Access provided by University of Wisconsin @ Madison (16 Jun 2015 17:12 GMT)
The Gap between Educational Aspirations and
Attainment for First-Generation College
Students and the Role of Parental Involvement
Graziella Pagliarulo McCarron Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas
The primary purpose of this study was to examine
if parental involvement had a significant
influence on the educational aspirations of firstgeneration students as compared to the educa­
tional aspirations of non-first-generation students.
Additionally, the study investigated if the
educational aspirations of first-generation
students differed from their actual educational
attainments. Lastly, the study explored the
differences in educational attainment for firstgeneration students by gender, race/ethnicity, and
socioeconomic status. Longitudinal data from a
nationally representative sample of 1,879 students
generated by the National Educational Longi­
tudinal Study 1988-2000 was used as the basis
for analysis.
As the popular axiom decrees, college degrees
serve as “sheepskins” that grant students
automatic social status, more opportunities for
upward mobility, and access to the “American
Dream” (Clark, 2003; Farrell, 2003). Greater
numbers of students from non-college edu­
cated families are realizing that in order to gain
equal footing with their peers, a college degree
is a must (Fallon, 1997; London, 1996; Pratt
& Skaggs, 1989). These first-generation
students are a growing population in higher
education; Kojaku, Nunez, and Malizio (1998)
reported that 47.0% of new students enrolling
in college for the 1995-1996 school year were
first-generation students. As the numbers of
first-generation students in the college environ­
ment become more significant, so do concerns
about their educational aspirations and
attainments within that environment.
Current research suggests that firstgeneration students differ in significant ways
from their non-first-generation peers in areas
including academic preparation, racial/ethnic
demographics, socioeconomic status (SES),
experience of college culture shock, and
family/parental involvement in the collegegoing process (Billson & Terry, 1982; BrooksTerry, 1988; Brown & Burkhardt, 1999;
Fallon, 1997; Horn & Nunez, 2000; Hossler,
Schmit, & Vesper, 1999; Riehl, 1994; Teren­
zini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora,
1996). These differences may play a role in the
educational aspirations and educational
attainments of first-generation students in the
pre-college years, during the college experience,
and in post-baccalaureate pursuits. As such,
the main purpose of this study was to use
longitudinal data to determine if parental
involvement had a significant influence on the
educational aspirations of first-generation
college students as compared to the educa­
tional aspirations of non-first-generation
college students. The primary research question
was:
1. Does parental involvement influence the
educational aspirations of firstgeneration students as compared to nonfirst-generation students?
Graziella Pagliarulo McCarron is Director of Student Development at Metropolitan College, The Catholic University
of America. Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas is Assistant Professor in the Department of Counseling and Personnel Services
at the University of Maryland.
534
Journal of College Student Development
First-Generation Students and Parental Involvement
Two secondary research questions were also
investigated:
2. Do the educational aspirations of firstgeneration students differ from their
actual educational attainments?
McConnell, 2000). As such, this study on this
group’s educational aspirations and attain­
ments may aid practitioners in developing
educational strategies for working with
students of color (Bui, 2002).
3. Is there a difference in educational
attainment for first-generation students
by gender, race/ethnicity, and SES?
Review of Related
Literature
First-Generation Students
For the purposes of this study, the research
questions include several variables (e.g.,
parental involvement, race, gender, and SES)
that current research indicates may be related
to the educational outcomes of first-generation
students. Both the literary context and specific
operationalization of the measures will be
addressed later in this study.
Research on first-generation students has
shown that these students differ from their
non-first-generation peers in a multitude of
ways. In their studies on the racial demo­
graphics of first-generation students, Brown
and Burkhardt (1999), Bui (2002), Choy
(2001), and Horn and Nunez (2000) reported
that first-generation students were more likely
to be ethnic minorities than non-first-genera­
tion students. Additionally, Bui, Nunez and
Cuccaro-Alamin (1998), and Terenzini et al.
(1996) found that first-generation students
were more likely to come from lower-income
homes.
This issue of family income or SES is a
main factor related to the concepts of cultural
and social capital for first-generation students.
In the college-going process, cultural and social
capital are defined as knowledge of the campus
environment and campus values, access to
human and financial resources, and familiarity
with terminology and the general functioning
of a higher education setting (Bourdieu, 1977,
1986; Coleman, 1988; McConnell, 2000;
McDonough, 1997). This knowledge, which
may generally be transmitted through parents,
may be lacking among first-generation students
as their parents did not attend college. This
lack of knowledge may contribute to a sense
of college “culture shock” (Inman & Mayes,
1999). As first-generation students attempt to
integrate academically and socially, they may
experience incongruence between their family
backgrounds and their higher education
Study Significance
Research on first-generation students in the
pre-college and college years is abundant; yet,
the post-college attainments of these students
are barely broached (Grayson, 1995). There­
fore, this study, using longitudinal data, may
assist practitioners in identifying and defining
the holistic needs of first-generation college
students throughout their transitions, espe­
cially as past studies have focused more on the
development of aspirations rather than on the
achievement of aspirations (Hossler et al.,
1999). This study also examined whether
family influences are crucial in first-generation
students’ decision-making. Understanding the
pre-college and college educational aspirations
of first-generation students in the context of
family involvement is important for creating
success opportunities before they begin to think
about college and during the college experi­
ence. Additionally, this research may be
significant because first-generation students
are largely students of color, and the university
enrollment for this diverse group is growing
(Hsiao, 1992, Introduction section, ¶ 1;
September /October 2006 ◆ vol 47 no 5
535
McCarron & Inkelas
institutions (Hsiao, 1992; Tinto, 1987).
This factor of family background certainly
includes parental involvement. Overall,
evidence suggests that first-generation students
encounter a lower perceived level of family
support, a lower level of importance placed on
college by parents, and less knowledge of the
college environment and campus values among
parents (McConnell, 2000; Terenzini et al.,
1996; York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991).
Parents who have earned a college degree are
more likely to transmit the value of higher
education to their children in the form of
knowledge-based resources such as guidance
with SATs and college applications (Fallon,
1997; Hossler et al., 1999; Pratt & Skaggs,
1989; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995;
Terenzini et al.). York-Anderson and Bowman
linked the lack of perceived family support to
added stress for the students, which contrib­
uted to possible attrition.
In addition to family involvement, firstgeneration students’ modest pre-college
academic preparation may also contribute to
attrition (Choy, Horn, Nunez, & Chen, 2000).
Brown and Burkhardt (1999) and Riehl (1994)
found that first-generation students had lower
high school GPAs and scored lower on
standardized tests. Warburton, Bugarin, and
Nunez (2001) found that, compared with
non-first-generation students, first-generation
students were less likely to have taken rigorous
coursework in high school, which Adelman
(1999) cites as a critical key to college entry
and success. Success is certainly an issue of
concern with first-generation students; Choy
(2001) found that first-generation students are
more than twice as likely than non-firstgeneration students to leave four-year insti­
tutions before the second year. Also, Nunez
and Cuccaro-Alamin (1998) found that,
with all else held constant (i.e., SES, atten­
dance status, and institution type), firstgeneration status still had a negative effect
536
on persistence.
Educational Aspirations and Parental
Involvement
Sewell and Hauser (1980) and Qian and Blair
(1999) identified educational aspirations as a
critical variable influencing actual education
obtained. As conceptualized by Farmer (1985),
the degree to which students’ aspirations are
attained depends on a variety of elements
including SES, race, gender, and environ­
mental variables such as the family. Some
researchers have found that this environmental
variable of “family,” in the form of parental
encouragement and involvement, is one of the
best predictors of postsecondary educational
aspirations, especially when factored in
conjunction with the family’s financial situ­
ation (Conklin & Dailey, 1981; Garg, Kauppi,
Lewko, & Urajnik, 2002; Hossler et al., 1999;
Sewell & Shah, 1968; Teachman & Paasch,
1998; Trusty, 1998). Although few studies have
examined the link between first-generation
students’ families and educational aspirations,
exploring this connection is critical to dealing
with retention and achievement issues so
prevalent with this population.
Trusty (1998) partially defined parental
involvement as parents’ attendance at students’
extracurricular activities and parental support
for students’ educational development; he
found the variables to have an impact on
students’ educational expectations. Addition­
ally, he examined the role of SES in conjunc­
tion with parental involvement and found that,
regardless of the impact of SES, parental
involvement influenced educational expecta­
tions. According to Trusty’s research, parents
are a viable source for preventing loss of
students’ aspirations due to a low SES back­
ground; this finding is particularly important
in light of the fact that first-generation stu­
dents are more likely to come from low SES
backgrounds.
Journal of College Student Development
First-Generation Students and Parental Involvement
In alignment with Trusty (1998), Hossler
et al. (1999) defined parental involvement in
terms of parental encouragement (i.e., attitudes
towards education). They found that, with
regard to educational aspirations development,
parental encouragement in the arena of
support with schoolwork was more important
than family income. Garg et al. (2002) also
made the distinction between SES and other
forms of parental encouragement. They found
that SES alone had no significant, direct
influence, yet, combined with parental involve­
ment such as parental concern for school, it
had an impact on the student’s personal
characteristics, including interest in and a
valuing of education.
Clearly, the ability of first-generation
students’ parents to be involved may be
constrained by a host of other variables that
accompany “first-generation” status, such as
lower SES, fewer resources, less parental
integration into the professional workforce,
and less familiarity with the college-going
process (Duggan, 2001; Terenzini et al., 1996;
Warburton et al., 2001). This study examined
a large national and longitudinal database of
American adolescents in order to understand
better the role of parental involvement in both
first-generation and non-first-generation
students’ college aspirations, as well as the
relationship between students’ aspirations and
their educational attainments.
Methods
Sample
This study utilized student survey data from
the National Educational Longitudinal Study
(NELS:88/2000) distributed by the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), a
division of the U.S. Department of Education.
The NELS:88/2000 consisted of over 6,000
variables and included surveys for students,
teachers, parents, and school administrators in
September /October 2006 ◆ vol 47 no 5
a series of data collection waves. Beginning in
the spring of 1988 (with follow-up survey
waves in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 2000), NCES
launched the NELS:88/2000 with a clustered,
stratified national probability sample of 24,599
eighth grade students from across all 50 states
and the District of Columbia. These students
were selected to represent the 3 million eighth
grade students attending private and public
schools in the U.S. during 1988 (Curtin,
Ingels, Wu, & Heuer, 2002). To ensure a
racially and ethnically diverse sample, NCES
over-sampled Hispanic and Asian students
where possible.
The NELS:88/2000 sample of students
for the final year (i.e., 2000) numbered 12,144.
For this study, 1,879 students with firstgeneration status working toward degrees at
four-and two-year colleges or universities (as
of 1994, or two years out of high school) were
chosen. In order to provide a comparison
group of non-first-generation students, an
equal sample size of students who had at least
one parent who earned a bachelor’s degree was
selected randomly from the NELS:88/2000
sample. Additionally, only participants who
responded to all survey waves were selected.
Of the 1,879 students in the first-gener­
ation sample, 42.0% of the participants were
female and 58.0% were male. For the equally
sized, non-first-generation student sample
48.0% of the participants were female and
52.0% were male. White participants consti­
tuted the majority in both samples whereas
Native Americans represented the smallest
racial/ethnic group in the sample. As exhibited
by Table 1, Asian/Pacific Islanders nearly
doubled in proportion from the first-generation
student sample to the non-first-generation
student sample. Hispanic students were over
three times as prevalent in the first-generation
student group than in the non-first-generation
student group and the proportion of Black
students was just a bit larger in the first537
McCarron & Inkelas
Table 1.
First-Generation and Non-First-Generation Students: Race Demographics
First-Generation Students
(n = 1,879)
n
%
n
%
Asian/Pacific Islander
99
5.3
190
10.1
Hispanic
342
18.2
110
5.9
Black
160
8.5
137
7.3
White
1260
67.1
1431
76.2
18
1.0
11
0.6
Native American
generation group.
SES was also investigated as a portion of
the student demographics. The non-firstgeneration student sample showed a signi­
ficantly larger percentage of respondents in the
high SES quartile, over 21.4% as compared to
2.8% for the first-generation student sample.
However, first-generation students constituted
a larger percentage of the lowest SES quartile,
38.7% as compared to 27.6% of non-firstgeneration students.
Variables and Measures in the Study
Several NELS:88/2000 survey items were
utilized to operationalize the following
variables: first-generation student status, nonfirst-generation student status, gender, race/
ethnicity, SES, parental involvement, educa­
tional aspirations, and educational attainment.
First-generation student status was measured
with NELS:88/2000 survey items that asked
respondents, in 1990, how far their fathers and
mothers went in school and included options
ranging from less than high school to terminal
degree completion. Race was measured for
each participant based on responses to one of
six racial categories: Asian/Pacific Islander;
Hispanic; Black, not Hispanic; White, not
Hispanic; Native American; and Other.
538
Non-First-Generation Students
(n = 1,879)
Gender was measured based on two response
choices: male or female.
Additionally, the SES composite measure
was formed by the NELS:88/2000 creators
using a combination of each participant’s
parental education levels, parental occupations,
and family income. The measure categorized
SES into four quartiles, from 1 = low to
4 = high. Parental involvement was measured
by NELS:88/2000 survey items collected from
students in 1990 when they were sophomores
in high school; measures included such factors
as frequency of students discussing plans about
going to college with parents. (For a list of all
parental involvement measures, see Table 2.)
Aspirations of students were also measured as
10th graders in 1990 because research shows
that students formalize educational plans
between 8th and 10th grade, and as 10th
graders, students are more realistic with regard
to aspirations, which may provide better data
(Horn & Nunez, 2000; Hossler & Stage,
1992). As a measure for aspirations, students
were asked how far they thought they would
get in school; the nine response choices ranged
from “less than high school” to “Bachelor’s
Degree” to “Ph.D. or M.D.”
In order to address the second research
question, which broached the differences in
Journal of College Student Development
First-Generation Students and Parental Involvement
Table 2.
Description of Independent and Dependent Variables Used in the Study
Study Variable
NELS:88/2000 Item
Description
Year Measured
Study Response Coding
or Recoding
First-Generation
Student Status
(IV)
How far in school did R’s
father/mother go
1990 (students
as HS
sophomores)
1First-Generation (Father
and Mother completed HS
or less)
2 Non-First-Generation
(Father and/or Mother
attained a Bachelor’s
degree)
Parental
Involvement
Scale (IV)
(a) How often parents
help R with homework
(b) How often discussed
school courses with
parents
(c) How often discussed
preparation for SAT/ACT
with parents
(d) How often discussed
going to college with
parents
1990
1 Never
2 Rarely
3 Sometimes
4 Often
Sex (IV)
Gender
1994 (students
two years out of
HS)
1 Male
2 Female
Race (IV)
Race/ethnicity
1994
1 Asian Pacific Islander
2 Hispanic
3 Black, not Hispanic
4 White, not Hispanic
5 Native American
6Other
SES (IV)
SES recoded by NCES
(composite variable of
parents’ educational
attainment, parents’
occupation, and family
income)
1990
1 Quartile
2 Quartile
3 Quartile
4 Quartile
Educational
Aspirations (DV)
How far in school R
thinks s/he will get
1990
1Less than Bachelor’s
Degree
2 Finish Bachelor’s Degree
3 Finish Master’s Degree
4 Finish Ph.D. or Other
Professional Degree
Educational
Attainment (DV)
Highest postsecondary
education degree
attained
2000 (students
eight years out of
HS)
1Less than Bachelor’s
Degree
2 Finish Bachelor’s Degree
3 Finish Master’s Degree
4 Finish Ph.D. or Other
Professional Degree
September /October 2006 ◆ vol 47 no 5
1 Low
2
3
4 High
539
McCarron & Inkelas
The NELS:88/2000 study took place nation­
ally in the U.S. The paper and pencil surveys
were administered to selected students via
group sessions in 1988, 1990, and 1992,
normally conducted in a school classroom.
NELS:88/2000 also surveyed participants in
two out-of-school rounds (i.e., 1994 and
2000). For these two waves, students had
moved on to postsecondary education, dropped
out, or moved into the workforce. Due to the
dispersion of the subjects, computer-assisted
telephone interview (CATI) were used as were
self-administered surveys and field personnel
administered surveys.
respondent with homework, (b) how often
school courses were discussed with parents,
(c) how often preparation for the ACT/SAT was discussed with parents, and (d) how often
the respondent discussed going to college with
parents. Reliability was tested for the parental
involvement scale via Cronbach’s alpha and
was found to be a modest but acceptable .6469
for the first-generation sample and .6065 for
the non-first-generation sample.
The variables of SES, gender, race, and
respondent perceptions of the importance of
good grades were also factored into the
multiple regression. SES and race variables
were chosen as a result of the prior scholarship
outlining these demographic differences among
first-generation and non-first-generation
students (Brown & Burkhardt, 1999; Bui,
2002; Choy, 2001; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin,
1998; Terenzini et al., 1996). Gender was
chosen as a variable in order to test for
differences between males and females in the
area of attainment as a response to gender
identity issues, which suggest males, particularly
males of color, underachieve when compared
to females (King, 2000). Additionally, “respon­
dent perceptions on the importance of good
grades” was chosen as a variable in order to
determine if self-perceptions could be more
powerful than life circumstances.
Independent variables were entered into
the multiple regression in blocks with the three
blocks designated as follows:
Data Analysis
Block 1: SES, race, and gender;
Means and frequencies were used to convey
demographic information of the first- and
non-first-generation groups. In response to the
first research question, multiple regression was
used to determine if there was a relationship
between parental involvement and educational
aspirations. Parental involvement was measured
with a composite scale consisting of four
variables: (a) how often parents helped the
Block 2: respondent perceptions on the
importance of good grades; and
Block 3: parental involvement.
first-generation students’ educational aspira­
tions and actual educational attainment, firstgeneration respondent answers to their degree
attained as of 2000 (i.e., eight years out of high
school) were analyzed to determine if students
attained the educational aspirations disclosed
in 1990 as high school sophomores. It was also
important to compare post-baccalaureate
educational aspirations (e.g., graduate school)
with attainment. Because the attainment and
aspirations questions were not asked in the
same manner in 1990 and 2000 and because
the response choices also differed, the re­­
searchers recoded the response choices for
consistency. NELS:88/2000 measures for the
all variables are outlined in Table 2.
Data Collection and Analysis
Procedures
540
Parental involvement was entered as the last
block because the researchers wished to test
the relationship between parental involvement
and educational aspirations over and above
demo­graphic and academic differences.
Journal of College Student Development
First-Generation Students and Parental Involvement
The second research question examined
differences in educational aspirations and
educational attainment for first-generation
students. The two main NELS:88/2000
educational variables utilized for this analysis
were students’ educational aspirations as high
school sophomores in 1990 and students’
educational attainment eight years after high
school graduation (i.e., 2000). Both variables
measured educational aspirations and attain­
ment with response choices ranging from “less
than high school” to “terminal degrees,” but
both items varied in format and degree of the
response choices. Therefore, both variables
were recoded into four standard response
choices: (a) less than bachelor’s degree,
(b) finish bachelor’s degree, (c) finish master’s
degree, and (d) finish Ph.D. or other profes­
sional degree. Once the variables were recoded,
crosstabulations and chi-square non-parametric
tests were performed to test for differences in
educational aspirations versus attainment.
Differences in educational attainment for
first-generation students by gender, race/
ethnicity, and SES were also analyzed via
crosstabulations and chi-square non-parametric
tests performed between each demographic
variable (i.e., gender, SES, and race) and the
educational attainment variable. For this
exploration of the third research question, all
racial groups were included in the cross­
tabulation tests except for Native Americans
who constituted less than 1.0% of the sample,
and, therefore, whose responses could not be
widely generalized.
Results
Role of Parental Involvement in
Educational Aspirations
Results of the multiple regression for firstgeneration students, as indicated by Table 3,
showed that the total variance explained by all
of the variables was 16.1%. By a slight margin,
September /October 2006 ◆ vol 47 no 5
more of the variance in educational aspirations
was explained by perception of the importance
of good grades (6.5%) than parental involve­
ment (5.9%). Table 3 also shows that, for
non-first-generation students, the total vari­
ance explained by all of the variables was 8.1%.
More of the variance in educational aspirations
was explained by parental involvement (5.2%)
than any other variable. However, it is
important to note that although the combined
variables explained 16.1% of the variance for
Table 3.
Predictors of First-Generation and
Non-First-Generation Students’
Educational Aspirations
FGSa
NFGS
n = 1,543 n = 1,539
Block 1
Asian Pacific Islander
.124*
.260**
Black
.089
.132
Hispanic
.045
.107
White
.061
.206
Gender
.019
.084***
Socioeconomic Status
.132***
.047
R2 Change
.038
.028
Block 2
Perception of Importance
of Good Grades
.216***
R2
Change
.031
.065
.001
Block 3
Parental Involvement
.247***
.229***
R2 Change
.059
.052
R2 Final Block
.161
.081
F
a
23.920*** 16.777***
FGS = First-Generation Students; NFGS = NonFirst-Generation Students.
*p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001.
541
McCarron & Inkelas
Table 4.
Differences in First-Generation Students’ Educational Attainment
After High School (2000) Among Varying Personal Background Characteristics
Educational attainment eight years after high school (2000)
Less than
Bachelor’s
Degree
Variable
Chi-square
n
%
Finished
Bachelor’s
Degree
n
Finished
Master’s
Degree
%
Finished Ph.D.
or Other Professional Degree
n
%
n
%
Total
Educational Aspirations as High School Sophomores (1990)
c2 = 143.97; df = 9; p = .000
Less than
Bachelor’s
502
85.2
81
13.8
6
1.0
0
0.0
589
Finished
Bachelor’s
422
62.1
236
34.7
19
2.8
3
0.4
680
Finished
Master’s
108
50.0
95
44.0
12
5.6
1
0.5
216
Finished Ph.D.
or Other
112
54.1
87
42.0
7
3.4
1
0.5
207
Total
1144
499
44
5
Gender
c2 = 3.76; df = 3; p = .289
Male
522
69.0
217
28.7
18
2.4
0
0.0
Female
724
69.2
291
27.8
26
2.5
5
0.5 1046
Total
5
0.5
1246
508
44
757
Socioeconomic Status
c2 = 51.54; df = 9; p = .000
Quartile 1 (Low) 525
76.6
144
21.0
14
2.0
2
0.3
685
Quartile 2
452
68.6
185
28.1
21
3.2
1
0.2
659
Quartile 3
245
59.9
155
37.9
7
1.7
2
0.5
409
Quartile 4 (High)
24
48.0
24
48.0
2
4.0
0
0.0
50
Total
1246
508
44
5
Race/Ethnicity
c2 = 39.06; df = 12; p = .000
Asian/
Pacific Islander
52
53.1
41
41.8
4
4.1
1
1.0
98
Hispanic
261
79.3
62
18.8
6
1.8
0
0.0
329
Black
114
76.5
31
20.8
4
2.7
0
0.0
149
White
807
66.6
371
30.6
30
2.5
4
0.3 1212
Total
542
1234
505
44
5
Journal of College Student Development
First-Generation Students and Parental Involvement
first-generation students and 8.1% of the
variance for non-first-generation students,
there are other factors that contribute to
students’ educational aspirations left un­
explained by these models.
Differences in Educational
Aspirations Versus Attainment
The chi-square distributions for first-genera­
tion students showed that 62.1% of the total
sample (n = 1692) of first-generation students
did not attain their original aspirations from
1990 by the year 2000 (i.e., eight years out of
high school). Of the total sample, 40.2%
aspired to finish a bachelor’s degree, but when
surveyed in 2000, only 29.5% actually had
attained a bachelor’s degree. As a base for
comparison, in 1990, 28.4% of the non-firstgeneration sample aspired to finish a bachelor’s
degree, but when surveyed in 2000, 55.9% of
the sample had attained a bachelor’s degree.
For the first-generation group, the greatest
change in aspirations versus attainment
occurred in the “less than a bache­lor’s degree”
category. As Table 4 indi­cates, in 1990, 589
subjects (34.8%) aspired to less than a
bachelor’s degree, but when surveyed in 2000
(eight years out of high school), 1144 subjects
(67.6%) had attained less than a bachelor’s
degree. With regard to post-baccalaureate
pursuits, 207 individuals (12.2%) aspired to
finish a Ph.D. or other profes­sional degree;
yet, only 0.3% actually attained the degree.
Additionally, whereas 12.7% of respondents
aspired to complete a master’s degree, only
2.6% actually achieved the goal. Only 110
participants (6.5%) in the total sample actually
attained higher than their original aspirations.
Further­more, 751 respon­dents (44.4%) in the
sample attained exactly what they aspired to
attain in 1990.
As indicated previously, there was a large
difference in the proportion of first-generation
participants aspiring to “less than a bachelor’s
September /October 2006 ◆ vol 47 no 5
degree” when sampled in 1990 and those who
had attained “less than a bachelor’s degree”
when sampled in 2000. Of the students who
aspired to a bachelor’s degree but did not attain
one, 65.8% did attempt some form of higher
education. As a follow-up analysis aimed at
better evaluating where first-generation
respondents who aspired to but never attained
a bachelor’s degree actually settled in the
educational pipeline, frequencies were calcu­
lated for this group. As Table 5 shows, the
largest proportion (40.9%) of respondents who
did not earn a bachelor’s degree still attempted
some sort of postsecondary education aimed
at a degree other than an associate’s degree or
certificate, but they did not finish. Addition­
ally, 21.2% of those who did not attain a
bachelor’s degree completed an associate’s
degree or certificate at a two-year institution.
Differences in Educational Attainment
by Gender, SES, and Race/Ethnicity
Gender. Crosstabulation results for the
first-generation student sample (n = 1803), as
illustrated in Table 4, showed that firstgeneration males and females tended to have
similar levels of attainment. Although females
Table 5.
Attainment (2000) of First-Generation
Students Aspiring to a Bachelor’s
Degree in 1990 (N = 680)
Degree Status
n
%
278
40.9
Certificate/License
66
9.7
Associate’s Degree
78
11.5
Bachelor’s Degree
236
34.7
19
2.8
3
0.4
Some Postsecondary
Education, No Degree
Master’s Degree
Ph.D. or Other
Professional Degree
543
McCarron & Inkelas
showed slightly higher attainment for degrees
such as master’s and Ph.D.’s, males showed
slightly higher attainment for a bachelor’s
degree; the chi-square test (p = .289) con­
firmed a lack of significant difference.
SES. Crosstabulation results for the firstgeneration student sample (n = 1803) per­
formed to determine the differences between
educational attainment and SES showed that
of the 685 students in the lowest SES quartile,
the largest number, 525 students or 76.6%,
attained less than a bachelor’s degree and
21.0% of the sample finished a bachelor’s
degree. In the highest quartile, although the
total sample number was lower (50 students),
the proportion of students who attained less
than a bachelor’s degree and finished their
bachelor’s degree was the same, 48.0%. Table
4 also illustrates that regardless of SES status,
69.1% of the first-generation students attained
less than a bachelor’s degree.
Race/Ethnicity. Crosstabulations for the
first-generation student sample (n = 1803)
testing differences between educational
attainment and race showed that 76.5% of
Black and 66.6% of White respondents
attained less than a bachelor’s degree. Table 4
also shows that within the Hispanic group,
most respon­dents (79.3%) attained less than
a bachelor’s degree. Within the Asian group
41.8% actually attained their bache­lor’s
degree.
Discussion
Parental Involvement and
Educational Aspirations
Results of the multiple regression for non-firstgeneration students show that parental involve­
ment was clearly the best predictor. For
first-generation students, however, results show
that parental involvement was not the main
predictor (5.9% variance explained)—student
perceptions of the importance of good grades
was (6.5% variance explained). For both
544
groups, parental involvement was still relatively
quite strong in explaining some variance, and,
therefore, this finding supports prior research
that parental involvement is a viable predictor
of postsecondary aspirations (Hearn, 1984;
Inoue, 1999; Sewell & Shah, 1968).
Overall, although parental involvement
emerged as a sound predictor, much of the
variance was left unexplained. These gaps in
variance explained could be attributed to
several factors. First, the manner in which
parental involve­ment was operationalized may
not have been inclusive enough of other factors
that make a difference in student aspirations.
For example, this study examined home-based
involvement such as discussions between
children and parents about school matters; yet,
the study did not examine school-based
involvement such as parents taking an active
role in interacting with teachers, counselors,
etc. Second, the study results may be showing
that the importance of student perceptions
about academics outweighs any lack or
abundance of parental involvement.
Educational Aspirations and
Educational Attainment
In examining actual attainment, 62.1% of the
total sample of first-generation students did
not attain their original educational aspirations
by 2000. In post-baccalaureate pursuits, nearly
25.0% of the respondents aspired to degrees
beyond the bachelor’s degree; however, only
2.8% of the group actually attained those
degrees. In fact, eight years after high school,
67.6% of the first-generation sample attained
less than a bachelor’s degree. As indicated by
Table 4, only 29.5% of the first-generation
sample attained a bachelor’s degree by 2000,
whereas 40.2% aspired to it as high school
sophomores in 1990. These findings suggest
that even with eight years to complete college,
first-generation students either do not go
straight to college from high school or they
Journal of College Student Development
First-Generation Students and Parental Involvement
begin college sometime in the years after high
school but do not eventually finish within
eight years. These results may suggest two
additional points: (a) first-generation students
are not being supported for success adequately
once they are in the college environment and/
or (b) first-generation students are not receiv­
ing clear messages about the demands and
expectations of higher education while at the
high school level.
As a base for comparison, of the non-firstgeneration sample, a surprising 66.0% did not
attain their original aspirations from 1990 by
2000. This finding suggests that although
non-first-generation students may have the
social and cultural capital associated with
parental education, they also fall short of
aspirations.
Educational Attainment by Gender. Table
4 indicates that, by 2000, (i.e., eight years out
of high school) females did not attain at
significantly higher levels than males. The
“gender identity” (King, 2000) trends in
educational attainment, which suggest that
males, particularly males of color, underachieve
when compared to females, did not emerge in
this study. The finding that females showed
slightly higher attainment than males for
degrees such as master’s and Ph.D.’s may be
noteworthy, however.
Educational Attainment by SES. Analysis
by SES for first-generation students, as
indicated in Table 4, showed that most
students fell into the lowest quartile, and, of
those, most (76.6%) attained less than a
bachelor’s degree. Although this result is not
surprising given the earlier discussion of the
role of cultural and social capital in college
success, it is interesting to note that even in
the highest quartile, the same proportion of
students attained a bachelor’s degree as did not
(48.0%). Furthermore, regardless of SES,
69.1% of the first-generation students attained
less than a bachelor’s degree. These results
September /October 2006 ◆ vol 47 no 5
suggest that educational attainment is still
quite limited for first-generation students
despite a high SES. Particularly for high-SES
first-generation students, a bachelor’s degree
may be seen as less of a necessity if their parents
have succeeded financially/professionally
without one.
Educational Attainment by Race. Cross­
tabulations for the first-generation student
sample testing differences between educational
attainment and race showed that across racial
groups, most students attained less than a
bachelor’s degree. Yet, whereas Hispanic
students reported the lowest percentages in the
“finish bachelor’s, master’s, or professional
degree” categories, the Asian student group
reported the largest percentages in these cate­
gories. Although both Asians and Hispanics
may struggle with capital deficits and may
contend with second language issues associated
with immigrant status (Brown & Burkhardt,
1999; Hune, 2002), Asians clearly dominate
in the attainment category, with 41.8%
actually attaining a bachelor’s degree. Perhaps
this attainment is linked to the “American
Dream” work ethic closely connected with the
immigrant roots of the Asian population
(Cheng & Espiritu, 1989). Between 1980 and
1990, the decade leading up to administration
of the NELS:88/2000, the Asian population
nearly doubled in the U.S. due to a high level
of immigration (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
2000).
Implications for Practice
Parental Involvement as a Viable
Predictor of Educational Aspirations
Results presented in this study point to the
positive relationship between parental involve­
ment and educational aspirations. Therefore,
for those first-generation students who rely on
the support and active engagement of their
parents, practitioners must better understand
the role of parents and the struggle students
545
McCarron & Inkelas
may face in negotiating the dynamics of
parental involvement. The constructive
inclusion of parents in the educational process
may serve to not only boost students’ aspir­
ations but also to diminish the negative effects
of college culture shock. As Tierney (1992)
noted, cultural characteristics must be evalu­
ated and it must be understood that the
student’s home culture is just as valuable as the
college culture.
Because parental involvement was tied to
students’ educational aspirations as measured
in high school, college staff working in areas
such as recruitment must reach out to students
and their families via open houses, orienta­
tions, and high-school to college bridge
programs. Delivering such programs may work
to encourage more school- and home-based
involvement (Gardner, 1996). Additional
workshops may include parent education
programs, student-parent counseling sessions,
and more inclusive programming catering to
ESL households and immigrant families
(Fallon, 1997).
Postsecondary Degree Completion in
a Non-Traditional Timeframe
For the most part, first-generation students
did not attain the degree to which they aspired
by their eighth year out of high school. These
findings suggest that first-generation students
may desire an education; however, extenuating
life situations may compromise completion of
their postsecondary degrees in the traditional
timeframe. Therefore, it is possible that firstgeneration students may delay or temporarily
discontinue their college educations at some
point in time. Thus, they would then become
“adult learners” with very different needs than
those of a traditional undergraduate. Accord­
ingly, practitioners should provide support for
adult learner circumstances such as full-time
jobs, children, and partners. “Learning and
teaching” may need to be redefined to include
546
child day care, campus work placement
programs, online courses and advising, acceler­
ated coursework, student services with evening
hours, and more comprehensive career coun­
seling. Additionally, advisors and other
practitioners should encourage and validate
these first-generation students as they strive to
realize their aspirations (Rendon, 1994).
Degree Completion: First-Generation
Students as Transfer Students
Nearly 22% of the first-generation respondents
achieved an associate’s degree or certificate at
a two-year institution; therefore, if these
students continue on in the postsecondary
pipeline, they may be entering four-year
institutions as part of the transfer student
population. In fact, the Kojaku et al. (1998)
study showed that, for the 1995-1996 school
year, 52.0% of first-generation college students
enrolled in community colleges. As such,
practitioners at both two-year and four-year
institutions should consider developing
stronger partnerships to support the educa­tion­
al pursuits of these first-generation transfers
via articulation agreements, scholarships, and
guidance with transfer credits. Additionally,
practitioners may reflect on providing more,
“all-inclusive” advising, bridge programs, parttime student support programs, more thorough
orientation sessions, assistance with deciphering
and obtaining financial aid, guidance for
family and life issues, and clearer guidelines
for success (Gardner, 1996; Rendon, 1995).
Limitations of the Study
In this study, all first-generation students were
included in the sample as determined by
parents’ education. Therefore, students who
identified as first-generation may have had
older siblings who already experienced college
and provided cultural and social capital to their
younger sisters or brothers. A second limita­
tion is that although Asian and Hispanic
Journal of College Student Development
First-Generation Students and Parental Involvement
students were over-sampled in the original
NELS: 88/2000 study, there was no mention
of over-sampling for Black/African American
or Native American students. For Native
American participants, especially, the larger
sample included so few that it was difficult to
generalize to this population, and, thus, Native
Americans were removed from crosstabulation
analyses examining racial differences. As a
third limitation, it is important to note that
although the first- and non-first-generation
student samples were equal in size (i.e., 1,879
students), the samples were not balanced in
terms of race and gender make-up; the
proportions were different for each sample
group. Readers should thus take this limitation
into consideration when interpreting the
study’s results.
Directions for Future
Research
Based on the results from this study, future
scholarship could examine additional variables
as predictor factors for educational aspirations,
particularly parental involvement and per­
ceptions of the importance of good grades.
Together, these two variables explained 12.4%
of the variance. Such studies could also add
school-based parental involvement measures,
which assess parent behaviors such as parent
attendance at school activities or programs on
educational opportunities and postsecondary
aid and parent discussions with college aid
representatives (Trusty, 1998). Additionally,
researchers might consider expanding the
“student perceptions of good grades” vari­
able to include actual grades and academic
performance.
Second, additional research could be done
to explore the interactions of gender and race
as predictors of academic success. Such a study
would complement current research, some of
which was mentioned in this study, pointing
to potential imbalances between male and
September /October 2006 ◆ vol 47 no 5
female achievement, especially in the case of
minority males. A recent study published by
the American Council on Education noted
that males are falling behind their female
counterparts in enrollment and achievement,
and this gap is most relevant to African
American and Latino men at a socio-economic
disadvantage (King, 2000; “The ominous
gender gap,” 1999). This study would be
especially relevant in the first-generation group
in which students of color, as well as those of
lower SES, are so prevalent.
As a natural connection to the suggestion
above, a third area of research would include
closer examination of the success and retention
of first-generation students of color, in general.
The needs these students bring to the higher
education environment are multi-faceted,
including issues of family, finances, and
cultural roadblocks. This study has shown that
first-generation students of color, particularly
Hispanics, lag in comparison to their non-firstgeneration counterparts in educational attain­
ment. Retention models should be re-evaluated
and redefined to include the richness and
complexities first-generation students of color
bring to college (Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora,
2000).
It is through future research that scholars
and practitioners can assess the experiences of
first-generation students and work to serve and
educate this special population more com­
prehensively. First-generation students may
face several academic and non-academic
challenges on the way to achieving. However,
it is to these students’ credit that they dream
of attaining an education and pioneering
beyond the bounds known to their families.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad­
dressed to Graziella Pagliarulo McCarron, Metropolitan
College, 334 Pangborn Hall, The Catholic University
of America, 620 Michigan Avenue, NE, Washington,
DC 20064; pagliarulo-mccarron@cua.edu
547
McCarron & Inkelas
References
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity,
attendance patterns, and Bachelor’s degree attainment.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.
Billson, J. M., & Terry, M. B. (1982). In search of the silken
purse: Factors in attrition among first-generation students.
College and University, 58, 57-75.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social
reproduction. In J. Karabel & A. Halsey (Eds.), Power and
ideology in education (pp. 487-511). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of
education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Brooks-Terry, M. (1988). Tracing the disadvantages of firstgeneration college students: An application of Sussman’s
option sequence model. In S. K. Steinmetz (Ed.), Family
and support systems across the life span (pp. 121-134). New
York: Plenum Press.
Brown, H. E., & Burkhardt, R. L. (1999, May). Predicting
student success: The relative impact of ethnicity, income, and
parental education. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of
the Association of Institutional Research, Seattle, WA.
Bui, K. V. T. (2002). First-generation college students at a
four-year university: Background characteristics, reasons for
pursuing higher education, and first-year experience. College
Student Journal, 36, 3-11.
Cheng, L., & Espiritu, Y. (1989). Korean businesses in Black
and Hispanic neighborhoods: A study of intergroup relations.
Sociological Perspectives, 32, 521-534.
Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college:
Postsecondary access, persistence, and attainment (NCES Rep.
No. 2001-126). Washington, DC: National Center for
Educational Statistics.
Choy, S., Horn, L., Nunez, A., & Chen, X. (2000). Transition
to college: What helps at-risk students and students whose
parents did not attend college. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 107, 45-63.
Clark, W. A. (2003). Immigrants and the American Dream:
Remaking the middle class. New York: Guilford.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human
capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Conklin, M., & Dailey, A. (1981). Does consistency of parental
educational encouragement matter for secondary school
students? Sociology of Education, 54, 254-262.
Curtin, T., Ingels, S., Wu, S., & Heuer, R. (2002). NELS
1998/2000: Base year to fourth follow-up data user’s manual.
Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Duggan, M. (2001, November). Factors influencing the first-year
persistence of first-generation college students. Paper presented
at the meeting of the North East Association for Institutional
Research, Cambridge, MA.
Fallon, M. V. (1997). The school counselor’s role in firstgeneration students’ college plans. The School Counselor,
44, 385-393.
Farmer, H. S. (1985). Model of career and achievement
motivation for women and men. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 32, 363-90.
548
Farrell, C. (2003, September 3). Remembering the value
of education. Scripps Howard News Service. Retrieved
December 2, 2003, from http://web.lexis-nexis.com/
universe/document?_m = d2173b6be0708911a2b0fd7a
b4f20a7d&_docnum = 3&wchp = dGLbVtb-zSkVA&_
md5 = 17bf3ef4d8713dddaa6e883570a71884
Gardner, J. N. (1996, November/December). Helping America’s
first-generation college students. About Campus, 31-32.
Garg, R., Kauppi, C., Lewko, J., & Urajnik, D. (2002). A
structural model of educational aspirations. Journal of Career
Development, 29, 87-108.
Grayson, J. P. (1995). The first generation at York University
(Report No. ISBN-1-55014-286-0). Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Institute for Social Research. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED404902)
Hearn, J. C. (1984). The relative roles of academic, ascribed,
and socioeconomic characteristics in college destinations.
Sociology in Education, 57, 22-30.
Horn, L., & Nunez, A. M. (2000). Mapping the road to college:
First-generation students’ math track, planning strategies and
context of support (NCES Rep. No. 2000-153). Washington,
DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college:
How social, economic, and educational factors influence the
decisions students make. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Hossler, D., & Stage, F. (1992). Family and high school
experience influences on the postsecondary educational
plans of ninth-grade students. American Educational Research
Journal, 29, 425-451.
Hsiao, K. P. (1992). First-generation college students (Report No.
EDO-JC-00-04). Washington, DC: Office of Education
Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED351079).
Hune, S. (2002). Demographic and diversity of Asian American
college students. In M. K. McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A.
N. Alvarez, S. Lee, & C. T. H. Liang (Eds.), Working with
Asian American college students (pp. 11-20). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Inman, E. W., & Mayes, L. D. (1999). The importance of being
first: Unique characteristics of first-generation community
college students. Community College Review, 26, 3-22.
Inoue, Y. (1999). The educational and occupational attainment
process: The role of adolescent status aspirations. New York:
University Press of America.
King, J. (2000). Gender equity in higher education: Are male
students at a disadvantage. Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
Kojaku, L. K., Nunez, A., & Malizio, A. (1998). Descriptive
summary of 1995-1996 beginning postsecondary students:
With profiles of students entering 2- to 4-year institutions.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of
Educational Research and Improvement.
London, H.B. (1996, November–December). How college affects
first generation students. About Campus, 1, 9‑13, 23.
McConnell, P. (2000). What community colleges should do to
assist first-generation students. Community College Review,
28, 75‑87.
Journal of College Student Development
First-Generation Students and Parental Involvement
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class
and schools structure opportunity. New York: State University
of New York Press.
Nunez, A., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation
students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in
postsecondary education (NCES Rep. No. 98-082). Washing­
ton, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
The ominous gender gap in African-American higher education.
(1999). Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 23, 6‑9.
Pratt, P. E., & Skaggs, C. T. (1989). First generation college
students: Are they at greater risk for attrition than their peers?
Research in Rural Education, 6, 31‑34.
Qian, Z., & Blair, S. (1999). Racial/ethnic differences in
educational aspirations of high school seniors. Sociological
Perspectives, 42, 605‑625.
Rendon, L.I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students:
Toward a new model of learning and student development.
Innovative Higher Education, 19, 33-51.
Rendon, L.I. (1995, March). Facilitating retention and transfer
for first-generation students in community colleges. Paper
presented at the New Mexico Institute Rural Community
College Initiative, Espanola, NM.
Rendon, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical
considerations in the study of minority student retention in
higher education. In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student
departure puzzle (pp. 127‑156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt
University Press.
Riehl, R. J. (1994). The academic preparation, aspirations, and
first-year performance of first-generation students. College
and University, 70, 14‑19.
Sewell, W., & Hauser, R. M. (1980). The Wisconsin longitud­
inal study of social and psychological factors in aspirations
and achievements. Research in Sociology of Education, 1,
59‑99.
September /October 2006 ◆ vol 47 no 5
Sewell, W., & Shah, V. (1968). Social class, parental encour­
agement, and educational aspirations. American Journal of
Sociology, 73, 559‑572.
Stanton-Salazar, R., & Dornbusch, S. (1995). Social capital
and the reproduction of inequality: Information networks
among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology of
Education, 68, 116‑135.
Teachman, J. D., & Paasch, K. (1998). The family and
educational aspirations. Journal of Marriage and Family,
60, 704‑714.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E.
T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-generation college students:
Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.
Research in Higher Education, 37, 1‑22.
Tierney, W. E. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student
participation in college. Journal of Higher Education, 63,
604‑617.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures
of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Trusty, J. (1998). Family influences on educational expectations
of late adolescents. Journal of Educational Research, 91,
260‑270.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Demographic trends in the
20th century. Retrieved December 2, 2003, from http://www.
census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4.pdf
Warburton, E. C., Bugarin, R., & Nunex, A. (2001). Bridging
the gap: Academic preparation and postsecondary success of firstgeneration students (NCES Rep. No. 2001-153). Washington,
DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
York-Anderson, D., & Bowman, S. (1991). Assessing the
college knowledge of first-generation and second-generation
college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32,
116‑122.
549