Inclusion and Intersecting Inequality: First Generation Students at - PDF document

Inclusion and Intersecting Inequality: First Generation Students at Elite Colleges Janel Benson Colgate University Elizabeth Lee Ohio University ¡ 1 ¡

ABSTRACT Although sociologists have long shown that some forms of college socioeconomic mobility or reproduction come through cultural and social learning, we still lack nuanced examinations of how students’ racialized, gendered, and classed backgrounds co- influence their social experiences on campuses. We also lack data on how institutional processes shape students’ experiences. We examine both points by asking two specific questions: First, how do differently-situated first generation students negotiate the social contexts of elite predominantly white college campuses? Second, through what processes and pathways do these students develop a sense of belonging and do these strategies vary by race and gender? We utilize a multi-method approach that pairs 40 first generation college student interviews at an elite northeastern university with survey data from the National Longitudinal Study of Freshman. We find pathways to inclusion differ by race and gender among fgen students and institutionally supported pathways, such as athletics and summer bridge programs, play a powerful role in shaping these differences. Due largely to athletic participation, white men and to a lesser extent non-white men are more likely to be pulled into mainstream social life compared to their female counterparts, giving them more opportunities for cross-class interaction. Participation in summer bridge programs facilitates inclusion for non-white women, but it connects these women to peers from similar rather than different backgrounds. Fgen students without institutionally supported access points, however, struggle the most with inclusion. ¡ 2 ¡

INTRODUCTION First-generation college students (fgens) have increasingly become understood as a disadvantaged population relative to continuing generation peers. As a group, they obtain lower outcomes on average than continuing generation peers during college across multiple measures: they are less academically prepared, less likely to graduate within four years, less likely to participate in extracurricular programming, and less likely to be satisfied with college experiences (Hoxby & Avery 2013; Pike & Kuh 2005). Recognizing these vulnerabilities, elite colleges have taken great strides to recruit and support fgen students by offering strong financial aid and investing in student support services, making them ideal locations for fgen students to obtain socioeconomic mobility: they boast higher fgen graduation rates—nearly on par with advantaged peers--and provide a stronger launch into professional careers than less selective colleges (Bowen et al. 2005; Carnevale & Rose 2004). Despite these investments and strong graduate outcomes, fgen students nonetheless continue to reap lower returns to their elite educations compared to their more advantaged continuing generation peers, obtaining fewer post-graduate degrees and lower earnings (Bowen et al. 2005) for reasons that are not understood. To understand this puzzle, we look within the black box of higher education to examine inclusion pathways within the experiential core --with whom and in what contexts students spend their time--as critical sites of social mobility and reproduction that offer valued symbolic resources and social networks. Although scholars have become more attentive to students’ social lives, we still don’t have a fully realized understanding of how stratification processes unfold in these areas. How, precisely, are some students 1

better able to negotiate social venues or relationships than others? Broader higher education literature suggests two areas, in particular, that may contribute to understanding fgen students’ experiences with greater precision. First, although sociologists have for decades examined the ways that racialized position and gender shape students’ access to educational opportunities, such examinations are not fully taken up within the literature on low-SES students—scholars largely focus on fgen students as a cohesive group rather than considering key sources of variation within this growing population. In particular, examinations in which gender takes an important analytical focus (e.g. Hamilton 2014; Holland and Eisenhart 1990) do not typically compare across gender groups, focusing on discussions of the shared experiences of students within gendered categories (e.g. Lee 2016; Armstrong & Hamilton 2013). Second, scholars have largely left aside examinations of the institutional-level processes that support or constrain fgen students. Although patterns of fgen vs. continuing generation usage of institutional resources, ranging from study abroad and internships to personal conversations with faculty members, have been clearly documented (Stuber 2009, 2011, 2015; Martin 2009, 2012; Aronson 2008; Walpole 2003), we have fewer examinations of how fgen students actually negotiate college structures and, conversely, of the way that elite colleges are structured in ways that are more negotiable by students who come from more affluent backgrounds. Most research of fgen students focuses on individual-level deficits without considering how macro-level institutional structures and practices shape opportunities for inclusion (Armstrong & Hamilton 2013; Khan 2011; Lee 2016). 2

In this paper, we take up both sets of questions utilizing both quantitative data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Freshmen (NLSF) and qualitative data gathered from interviews with 40 students at Hilltop College (HC, a pseudonym), an elite campus in the Northeast. We make two primary contributions. First, we elaborate differences in social inclusion pathways among first-generation students by race and gender, allowing a much more finely-textured and comprehensive analysis than currently exists. Second, we analyze the institutional pathways through which students locate social inclusion: how did students make friends and other social connections, and to what extent did these pathways vary by race and gender? In so doing, we focus not only on the student’s status but the question of the social structure within which they locate a niche: in other words, we examine not only integration but with whom, treating these social locations as key venues for learning and advantage (Hamilton 2014). LITERATURE REVIEW Elite colleges as venues for social acclimation Elite colleges play important roles as disrupters of cross-generational disadvantage: graduates from these institutions obtain strong outcomes in terms of lifetime earnings and occupational status (Bowen et al. 2005), but in order for students to benefit from such a membership, they must be able to form ties with peers, both friendships and broader social networks. Friendships and a feeling of “belonging” on campus (Ostrove & Long 2007; Pittman & Richmond 2008) are also crucially related to students’ more immediate outcomes, predicting likelihood of pro-academic behavior and graduation alike. Such findings suggest the strong importance of the social world and acclimation with peers. However, as critics have pointed out, models of campus 3

integration are most applicable to White male middle-class students, suggesting that the meaning and process of acclimation into an institution functions differently for students depending on multiple aspects of background and institutional context (Guiffrida 2006). What does this mean for fgen students on elite campuses, spaces in which most of their peers are from middle- or upper-SES households (Carnevale & Rose 2004), and how might this vary with intersectional gendered and racialized identities? First-generation students on campus A small but growing number of works on low-socioeconomic students—including fgens—attending four-year colleges and universities show the ways these students manage interactions within predominantly-middle or upper-class settings. Armstrong and Hamilton (2013), for example, focus on class differences among women living in a so- called party dorm at a public university. Their findings illustrate the way that these young women’s backgrounds shape their abilities to participate in the social life of their peers, to get advice about career and academic choices, and after college in their social connections that support access to jobs. Stuber (2011) takes up a similar question, examining the ways students both conceptualize and participate in extracurricular activities, such as clubs, internships, or study abroad. Here again, we see that a student’s socioeconomic background shapes pathways through college and beyond in substantial ways. Lee (2016) and Hurst (2010) each examine the ways low-SES students manage the experiences of class inequality on campus, Lee focusing on cross-class friendships and Hurst on students’ class identities relative to their families and natal class positions. Each shows how students must locate strategic approaches for dealing with day-to-day life on campus, including the emotional complications raised by class mobility. 4