Abstract and Introduction
This paper is a synthesis of research on the college
student experience for students from low socioeconomic
backgrounds (hereafter referred to as low SES) in terms of access,
experience, and persistence at elite institutions. In terms of access
it is generally known that low-SES students often do not possess
the resources that high-SES students utilize to gain admittance into
elite institutions, where the application process is typically
competitive. According to Hoxby (2012), low-SES students tend to
shy away from applying to elite institutions due to sticker shock,
that they will not obtain support from their parents, or that they
will not fit in with the student body, whom they often stereotype
as being elitist (Hoxby 2012; Mullen 2009). The reality is that many
low-income and low-resource students either avoid applying to
elite institutions altogether or they do so only after chance
intervention by an attentive college counselor or adult role model.
As a result, elite institutions, particularly the Ivies, cannot get low
SES students in the doors despite outreach attempts such as
waiving tuition (Hoxby 2012; JBHE 2003; McDonough 1997).
For low-SES students who are admitted to and who
enroll in elite institutions, the transition from high school to college
is often arduous: although elite institutions are working tirelessly
to recruit high-achieving low-SES students they offer little support
for them once they arrive on campus. The needs of these students
are often left unmet, as this population tends to focus more on
academics than their high-SES peers (Leone 2004). This population
often feels the pressure to succeed when they consider their
familial and socioeconomic background: for them, failure is not an
option. Stuber (2009) found that they focus on hard work and
academic achievement as their ticket to success rather than
networking and forming connections.
Despite potential population-specific difficulties that
low-SES students experience while at college (Hess 2007; WinkleWagner 2009), low SES students at elite institutions do persist at
the same rate that their high SES counterparts do, particularly
compared to their counterparts who attend institutions that
depend on tuition and fees for revenue. More research is required
on the topic of persistence for low-SES students at these
institutions, however.
High-Achieving, Low-SES Students by Race
Source: Hoxby 2012
Overlooked and Underserved: The
College Experience for Low-Income
Students at Elite Institutions
Kimberly White
The Lack of Access and Choice for LowSES Students
Alon (2009): “Class inequality in higher education is probably
ubiquitous, given the cumulative effect of inequality in
kindergarten through high school…”
Hess (2007): “’I was told ‘here is how you do it,’ and
I
went and did it for myself.’”
McDonough (1997): “The high-SES students on average filed
ten applications, while the low-SES students filed two to
three applications.”
I don’t fit in on campus, and I don’t belong
back home…
Hess (2007): “…they often experience difficulties adjusting to
college, identity confusion, and family tensions. These issues
become exacerbated for working class students who attend
private colleges and universities.”
“I was embarrassed to have my parents come to visit
me. They weren’t like the other kids’ parents…I would always
tell them not to come to things.”
Percent
Asian-American
Winkle-Wagner (2009): “Ariel, a first-year, first-generation,
undecided major, described her time in college as, ‘an
Latino
experience of culture
shock.’“
Black
0
20
40
60
80
Mullen (2009): “‘…because at first I think everyone here was
gonna be very snobby and not realistic and not down to earth.’”
Hoxby (2012): “…Harvard's policy change had very little effect--at
least, very little short-term effect--on the income composition of
its class. We estimate that it
increased the number
of low-income students by approximately
15 in a class of more than 1600.”
Mullen (2009): “Thus, patterns of stratification in higher
qualified
students’ educational decision‐making.”
education may be explained in part by
Low-SES Students at
Princeton
Source: JBHE (2003)
Stuber (2009): “Tiffany did not see practical benefits in
campus involvement.”
White
Why Not Harvard? It’s free!
“She admitted that she often sent money from her
work study salary home.”
Qualified for Pell Grant
Due to Low Income
Did not Qualify
McDonough (1997): “Public high
schools have effectively divested
themselves of college
advisement. In four of the ten
largest U.S. cities, the
average high school
counselor-to-student
ratio is 1:740.”
Research on Persistence Yields Mixed Results
Hoxby (2012): “they are just as likely to enroll and progress
toward a degree at the same pace.”
Alon (2009): “…Adaptation is particularistic, sensitive to class
differences, and thus unequal by default.”
Kuh (1995): “on-campus work is positively linked to persistence
while off-campus work negatively affects persistence.”