Persistence of First-Generation College Students

Patricia Somers, Associate Professor, University of Missouri - St. Louis

pasomers@umsl.edu

Shawn Woodhouse, Assistant Professor, University of Missouri - St. Louis

Jim Cofer, Vice President for Finance and Administration, University of Missouri System

This research was sponsored by a grant from the American Educational Research Association which received funds for its "AERA Grants Program" from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Educational Statistics and the Office of Educational Research and Improvement under NSF grant #RED-9452681. Opinions reflect those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agency.

Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Meeting in Sacramento, California, November 2000.

The Persistence of First-generation College Students

Abstract

This study examined the impact of background, aspirations, achievement, college experiences, and price on the persistence of first-generation (F-gen) and continuing-generation (C-gen) college students at four-year institutions using NPSAS:96 (n = 24,262). We found differences between the two groups on the effect size for almost all of the significant variables. First-generation students were more sensitive to financial aid and averse to student loans than their peers. However, even variables such as high income, high test scores, and high grade point average, which similar studies have found to be significant and positively associated with persistence, did not influence the persistence of F-gen students in this study. We suggest that in addition to the variables in our model, the concepts of boundary spanning, cultural capital, and habitus can explain some of the differences between the two groups of students.

Persistence of First-generation College Students

Introduction

Since the inception of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) (20 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.) access to higher education for poor and talented students through grants and loans has been a federal policy priority (Keppel, 1987; Kimberling, 1995). Yet, through a series of philosophically incoherent, incremental, and unrelated amendments common to public policy development in the United States (Cates, 1997; Gill & Saunders, 1997), the primary purpose of federal financial aid has shifted to providing loans as the primary vehicle for students to finance their education regardless of family income or need.

How has the shift in federal financial aid policy affected first-generation (F-gen) students who are an estimated 31% (Grayson, 1997) of U.S. college and university students? Previous research on first-generation students has been limited (Terenzini, et al., 1996) with little research on the impact of federal financial aid on first-generation student success.

Why is the issue of first-generation students important? There are two reasons. First, with the shift from grants to loans as the main source of federal financial aid, there is an increased awareness that loan burden may be unbearable for first-generation and low-income students. The second reason is that with the strict legal scrutiny of minority scholarships and affirmative action in admissions, a suitable proxy for ethnicity is being sought. First-generation student status is one such proxy.

This study uses NPSAS:96 to study the persistence of first generation (F-gen) students as compared to continuing-generation (Pratt & Skaggs, 1989) (C-gen) students. Our model incorporates the factors background, aspirations, achievement, college experiences, price, and accumulated detbload to explore the within-year persistence of four-year college and university students.

Federal Financial Aid Programs

The Higher Education Act of 1965 consolidated several previously enacted anti-poverty measures with programs whose major intention was the provision of access to higher education for poor and talented students (Keppel, 1987; Kimberling, 1995 ). HEA '65 created two new financial aid programs: the Educational Opportunity Grant (EOG) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1070b-1070b-3, 34 C.F.R. Part 676) and the Guaranteed Student Loan Program (GSL) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1087aa-1087hh, 34 C.F.R. Part 674) (Kimberling, 1995). The primary objective of the 1965 Act was equalizing educational opportunity for socioeconomically disadvantaged students by providing equal access to higher education for all students.

The passage of Middle Income Student Assistance Act (MISSA) (Pub. L. No. 96-49) in 1978 was a fundamental shift in federal financial aid policy and philosophy. Easily accessible, non-need based aid became available to large numbers of middle- and upper-income students on a quasi-entitlement basis. Federal student aid outlays increased by 59 percent between 1977-78 and 1980-81 (Hearn, 1993). The lower-income targeted, need-based, grant-oriented federal policy period came to an end.

The 1992 Reauthorization of HEA (Pub. L. No. 102-325) cemented the shift in federal policy from a commitment to promote access through need-based grants to a broader strategy of loans regardless of family income or need. What resulted was the most far-reaching changes since the HEA 1965 legislation. The relaxed eligibility for government subsidized loans resulted in an increase of two million additional students receiving loans between 1990 and 1996, with a concomitant 92 percent increase in money borrowed. With only a 16 percent increase in the Pell grant program, the imbalance between loans and grants worsened (Hartle, 1996).

While the original intent of the federal aid programs was to help low-income students though grants, the evolution of aid policy has shifted this purpose to helping all students, regardless of income, through loans. Middle- and upper-income students, who are more likely to have college-educated parents, have benefitted from these changes.

Background on First-generation Students

Who is a first-generation college student? For the purposes of this study, we designate first-generation college students as those individuals whose parents' educational level is a high school diploma or less. While a sibling or cousin may have attended a postsecondary institution, the student is in the first generation in the immediate family to attend college (Nunez, & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). The label we assign to non-first-generation students is "continuing generation" (Pratt & Skaggs, 1989) or "Cgen." C-gen students are those who have at least one parent with some postsecondary education.

The best descriptive study of first-generation students used the 1989-90 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:90/94) and the longitudinal component of the National Postsecondary Student Study of 1990 (NPSAS:90) (Nunez, & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). The sample for that study included students in four-year, two-year, and less-than-two-year institutions. There were striking differences between the F-gen and other students. First- generation students were more likely to be older, have lower incomes, be married, and have dependents than their C-gen peers. In general, Fgens were as likely to be in remedial classes as C-gen students. First-generation students were less likely to graduate or be enrolled in college in 1994 (55% v. 71% of all BPS students).

On several BPS:90 measures, first-generation-students were different from their peers. Fgens were more likely to say that "being well off financially" and "providing their children with better opportunities" were very important to them personally. Fgens were more likely to report these factors as important to their choice of college: obtaining adequate financial aid, being able to complete coursework quickly, living at home, and working while attending school. Further, the reputation of the institution was less important for F-gen students.

In terms of college involvement, first-generation students were less socially integrated than their peers based on a composite index of contact with faculty outside of class, going places with school friends, and participation in clubs or assistance centers on campus. First-generation students also had lower social integration scores, a composite index based on attending career-related lectures, participating in study groups, talking with faculty, or meeting with an academic advisor. Nunez and Cuccaro-Alamin concluded that "even when controlling for many of the characteristics that distinguished them from their peers, such as socioeconomic status, institutional type, and attendance status, first-generation student status still had a negative effect on persistence and attainment" (1998, p. iv).

Previous Studies

As indicated previously, there is little literature on the persistence of F-gen students (Terenzini, et al., 1996). Much of the literature is practice oriented (London,1996; Riehl, 1994) or surveys two-year college students (Padron, 1992; Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Tulsa Junior College, 1995; Windham, 1996). Receipt of financial aid is often mentioned in the description of F-gen students, but is not studied as a separate variable (Gill, 1992; Hudson, 1991;Windham, 1996). This section reviews the relevant literature on persistence of first-generation college students.

Several studies explored the psychological roadblocks F-gen students face. London (1989) expanded the discussion of educational mobility processes and structures by adding the more "intimate dynamics of educational mobility" (p. 168). London used separation theory (Stierlen, 1974) and role assignment theory as a means of explaining family dynamics, particularly the separation processes that accelerate during late adolescence. London's interviews of first-generation college students suggested that the separation drama that is played out in all families in late adolescence is different for F-gen families:

. . .college-educated parents also bind, delegate and expel their children. However, when separation and struggles occur in such families, they are, I suspect, less likely played out around whether to go to college (unless the child decides not to go) than around where to go to college, choice of academic major, grades, life-style, personal appearance or some other idiosyncratic matter. (1996, p. 167)

In another article, London (1992) said that first-generation students live on the margins (Park, 1950) of two cultures ". . .never quite wanting or willing to break with their past, even if permitted to do so, and never fully accepted, because of prejudice in the culture where they seek a place" (p. 7).

A study of students from desegregated high schools adds additional insight on boundary spanning. Phelan, Davidson, and Cao (1991) developed the multiple worlds model to describe four ways in which high school students bridge the gap between home and school. The first is congruent worlds/smooth transitions. In this type, ". . .values, beliefs, expectations, and normative ways of behaving are, for the most part, parallel in both worlds" (p. 229). The second type is different worlds/boundary crossing managed. In this situation, ". . .students' perceptions of boundaries between worlds do not prevent them from managing crossings or adapting to different settings" (p. 232). The third type is different worlds/boundary crossings hazardous. For these students, the border crossing are hazardous, "A student may do well academically in a class where the teacher's interaction style, the student's role, or the learning activity are similar to what takes place within the students' peer and/or family worlds." (p. 237). The final type is border impenetrable/boundary crossings insurmountable. For some students, "When a border crossing is attempted, it is frequently so painful that over time, these students develop reasons and rationales to protect themselves from future disasters" (p. 242). While this study described boundary crossing between school and family life in high schools, we believe that the findings also apply to F-gen college students, particularly those who live at home and commute. In our discussion, we expand upon the idea of boundary crossing.

In research on urban college students, Piorkowski (1983) identified survivor guilt as a barrier to academic success for first-generation college students. She defined the phenomenon as guilt of having survived an emotional or psychosocial "death." First-generation students experienced this death as stagnation at the emotional level. They tended to focus on the question, "why should I succeed when they failed?" According to Piorkowski, "survivor status tends to create conflict" (p. 620), which for these students was manifest as psychic numbing or depressive withdrawal. One of the students Piorkowski interviewed summed up the situation:

If you come from a family that didn't make it, you feel you shouldn't. . .When I'm around my family I feel that I don't have any right to talk about anything positive. It's got to be something negative. (p. 621)

Terenzini, et al. (1994) also explored the organizational and interpersonal dynamics, mechanisms, and processes through which students make the transition from work or high school to college through a qualitative study of 132 entering students at four colleges. They concluded that "The process is a highly interrelated, web-like series of family, interpersonal, academic, and organizational pulls and pushes that shape student learning (broadly conceived) and persistence" (p. 61). For C-gen students, the passage to college was rooted in the educational attainment of parents and family and the most threatening disjunction was interpersonal. For first-generation students, however, ". . .going to college constituted a major disjunction in their life course. . .they were breaking, not continuing a family tradition" (p. 63, emphasis in the original). As a result, many of the students seemed to be deferring involvement in campus life until they were sure that they could compete academically.

Terenzini et al. (1996) studied the experiences of F-gen students. Fgens are more likely to be low income, be Hispanic, have weaker cognitive skills, have lower degree aspirations, have been less involved in high school, and are more likely to have children. Fgens also take longer to complete a degree and have less encouragement from families. Terenzini et al. recommend "Bridge" programs, collaboration between high schools, community colleges, and colleges, intensive academic support, and "validating experiences" for Fgens to encourage their success.

Sociological literature has long examined how family background influences educational aspirations and attainment. Blau and Duncan (1967) and Sewall and Hauser (1975) found strong relationships between parents' education and a student's educational aspirations. Tseng (1971) discovered that socioeconomic status was tied to the educational aspirations of high school seniors. Coleman (1976) found that parents' education influenced the educational attainment of low-income youth. York-Anderson and Bowman (1991) discovered that second-generation students perceived more support from their families for college attendance than did first-generation college students, and as a result, had higher college knowledge scores.

The research explored here has laid strong foundations for the examination of first-generation student persistence. However, the research points to the lack of information on the impact of financial aid on the persistence of first-generation students.

Conceptual Framework

The framework for this study came from sociology and economics. Sociological theory (Alexander & Eckland, 1975; Blau & Duncan, 1967; Coleman, 1976; Eckland & Alexander, 1980; Parsons, 1959; Thomas, Alexander, & Eckland, 1979; Tseng, 1971; Sewall & Shah, 1967; Sewall & Hauser, 1975; Trent & Medskar, 1968; Wolfle, 1985) suggests that background, family, academic ability, and aspiration variables should be included in any research on student persistence. From economic theory (Becker, 1964; Denison, 1964; McPherson, 1982; Okun, Ruehlman, Karoly, 1991; Rusbult, 1980; Schultz, 1960) comes the notion that students invest in their education. Student aid and demand studies (Corrazini, Dugan, & Grabowski, 1972; Hoenack & Weiler, 1975; Hopkins, 1974; Stafford, Lindstedt, & Lynn, 1984; Tannen, 1978) indicate that students "purchase" more education when prices are lower and less when prices are higher. Subsidies, in the form of student financial aid, lower the net cost of attendance. This conceptual framework suggests a model that includes the factors of background, aspirations, achievement, college experiences, and prices.

Research Questions

The following research questions were addressed in this study:

• How did background affect within-year persistence of undergraduate, four-year F-gen and C-gen students in 1995-6?
• How did college experiences affect within-year persistence of undergraduate, four-year F-gen and C-gen students in 1995-6?
• How did financial aid and price affect within-year persistence of undergraduate, four-year F-gen and C-gen students in 1995-6?

Method

Our study used as a model the work of St. John and Associates (Andrieu & St. John, 1993; Hippensteel, St. John, & Starkey, 1996; St. John & Andrieu, 1995; St. John, 1994a, 1994b, St. John & Starkey, 1995). The model developed by St. John, et al. included background, achievement, aspirations, college experiences, financial aid, and price.

Cofer, Somers, and Associates have used NPSAS:93 and NPSAS:96 in a series of persistence studies that added debtload and other variables to the St. John model. Cofer and Somers (1997, 1999a) first introduced thresholds of debt and total debtload to the model.

Data

This study used the National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey of 1995-96 (NPSAS:96) restricted database to compare the effect of financial aid on persistence for first-generation (F-gen) and continuing-generation (C-gen) students. The NPSAS:96 database was adjusted in two phases to arrive at the study sample. The first phase consisted of eliminating all two-year college students, and the second phase eliminated all records that indicated a "missing value" for the variable that identified whether tuition was paid for one semester or in total. Full-year, full-time tuition was calculated based on semester charges. Therefore, calculation of tuition for those students who had a missing value for the variable that identified the payment method was not possible.

Sample

All four-year undergraduate students were included in the sample (n = 24,262 ). The sample was bifurcated into two cohorts: first-generation and continuing-generation. For the purposes of this study, we defined first-generation students as those whose parents had an educational level of a high school diploma or less. There were 15,972 C-gen and 8,290 F-gen students.

When using large national databases, the use of variable weighting is recommended. For this study, we used the DASWT1 variable from the NPSAS database (U.S. Department of Education, 1997).

Model Specifications

The dependent variable was within-year progression of students from the fall of 1995 to the spring semester of 1996. Thirty-six independent variables within six factors were included in the analysis (Table 1). The factors were background, aspiration, achievement, institutional characteristics, college experiences, current year price and subsidies, and accumulated debtload.

Several dichotomous background variables were included in the model: three ethnicity variables (African American, Hispanics, and "Other" were compared to White students), gender (males were compared to females), two age variables (under 22 and over 30 were compared to students 22-30), two income categories (under $11,000 and over $60,000) were compared to students whose income fell between $11,000 and $60,000. The income categories represented the parent's income if the student was dependent and the student's income if the student was independent. In addition, dependency status, marital status, disability, and two variables dealing with high school completion (no high school degree and GED/certificate holders were compared to students holding a high school degree), were included in the model.

Three variables related to student aspirations and achievement were examined: aspiration for a college degree, aspiration for an advanced degree, and aspiration for completion of some college were compared to those students not aspiring to a college degree.

Twelve college experience and institutional characteristic variables were included in the analysis: three class academic variables (juniors, sophomores, and seniors were compared to first-year students), and whether a student resided on campus, received any hours of remediation, attended school full-time, or worked full-time were included. Two institutional characteristic variables were included in the analysis: doctoral institutions were compared to non-doctoral granting institutions and public institutions were compared to private institutions.

Careful analysis of the data revealed that a large number of cases were missing the GPA variable. To adjust, a method developed by Somers (1992), using a series of dummy variables was employed. Three grade point variables (High GPA, Low GPA, and No GPA) were compared to GPA between High and Low. High GPA represented those students having a GPA of 3.0 or higher, and Low GPA represented those students having a GPA of 2.5 or less. The GPA score cutoffs were determined by previous studies to maintain consistency (Cofer, 1998; Cofer & Somers, 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b) .

Four price and financial aid variables were included in the model: full-time, full-year tuition, current year grants/scholarships, current year loans, and current year work-study. Each of the price and financial aid variables were continuous and divided by 1,000 for compatibility with prior studies.

The total amount borrowed for education was divided by 1,000 to arrive at accumulated debtload statistics, and this same variable was separated into high debt, medium debt, and low debt. As with other categorical variables in the analysis, a frequency distribution of NPSAS:96 was examined and divided into thirds. High debt was represented by total amount borrowed for education over $6,000, low debt was less than $2,500, and those amounts between $2,500 and $6,000 were designated as mid-range debt. Students with these threshold amounts were compared to students with no debt.

Finally, the outcome variable was persistence to the spring semester of 1996. This variable was also coded dichotomously.

Statistical Method

To describe the relationship between an outcome (dependent) variable and one or more explanatory (independent) variables, statistical regression methods are used. Regression techniques are used to find the "best fit" between the explanatory variables and the outcome variable. In a linear regression model, two assumptions are important. The first is that the variables are continuous. The second is that the relationship between an outcome variable and independent variables is expressed by a straight line. Both of these assumptions are violated when the outcome is dichotomous (Cabrera, 1994).

For a model where the outcome variable is dichotomous, the standard OLS regression formula can seriously mis-estimate the dependent variable. For a model where the outcome variable is dichotomous, logistic regression is used. Since a student chooses to persist or not, the outcomes are dichotomous: either yes or no (coded as 1 or 0). The resulting graph of the relationship is not a straight line, but a curved line bounded by 0 and 1.

The basic logistic regression equation is:

exp(₀ + ₁X₁ + ₂X₂ + ... + _nX_n)

P = E(Y|X) = ----------------------------------------------

1+ exp(₀ + ₁X₁ + ₂X₂ + ... + _nX_n)

Regardless of the values of the constants _i or the variables X_i, this equation still results in values between zero and one, because of the properties of the natural logarithm. The value P can also be thought of as a probability measure that the outcome variable will be 1 (yes). This is precisely what a dichotomous model requires.

Logistic regression solutions are found indirectly through an iterative process of comparing two log-likelihood functions, beginning with a tentative solution, and repeating the process with small changes to see if the solution can be improved. The process is halted when the next step in the iteration provides a negligible improvement in the solution (Menard,1995).

The beta coefficients are converted to delta-p's using a method recommended by Peterson (1984). The delta-p measures change in the dependent variable. For dichotomous variables, the delta-p provides a measure of the extent to which the outcome was likely to change if a student had the specified characteristic. For example, a delta-p of 0.10 for Fgens is interpreted as increasing the probability of enrollment by 10 percentage points for this group. With continuous variables, the delta-p is interpreted as meaning that a change in a unit measure will change the probability of the outcome by a certain percentage. For example, a delta-p statistic of .09 per $1000 of grants for Fgens indicates that the probability of persistence of this group increases by 9.0 percent per $1000 of financial aid awarded. The delta-p is particularly useful in financial aid policy studies because of its ease in application.

Results

The results (Table 2) show striking differences in the effect size of the delta Ps between first-generation and continuing-generation students. For comparison purposes, the coefficients and delta Ps for the total population are also included. Twenty variables were significant in the F-gen model, twenty-three were significant in the C-gen model, and twenty-seven were significant in the Total model.

Background variables. For the F-gen model, four variables were significant. Students who declared their race as "other minority" (e.g., multi ethnic) were 9.85 percentage points (p.p.) more likely to persist than white F-gen students. Those over the age of 30 were 5.76 p.p. less likely to persist than students in the age range of 22-30. Low-income students were 10.03 p.p. less likely to persist than their middle-income counterparts.

For C-gen students, Hispanics were 2.26 p.p. less likely to persist than non-Hispanics. Students who were under age 22 were 0.63 p.p. more likely to persist than those in the age range of 23-29. High-income students were more likely to persist (3.04 p.p.) than middle-income students. Students who were dependent financially were 2.08 p.p. more likely to persist than financially independent students.

Aspiration/achievement variables. For first-generation students, two of the aspiration and achievement variables were significantly associated with persistence. Students aspiring to advanced degrees were 9.46 p.p. more likely to persist. Those aspiring to a Baccalaureate degree were 17.11 p.p. more likely to stay in college.

The findings for C-gen students were similar to F-gens on the aspiration and achievement variables. Students aspiring to an advanced degree were 2.61 p.p. more likely to persist and those aspiring to a Bachelor's degree were 5.31 p.p. more likely to persist. In addition, students with higher test scores were more likely to persist (2.08 p.p.) as well as students with lower test scores (2.22 p.p).

College experience variables. Eight of the college experience variables were significant for Fgens. Sophomores (16.63 p.p), Juniors (9.2 p.p.), and Seniors (28.48 p.p.) were more likely to persist as compared to first-year students. Students living on campus were 5.43 p.p. more likely to persist. Students who took a full-time course load were more likely to persist (15.26 p.p.) while those who worked full-time while attending school were less likely to persist (-9.39 p.p.). Those students with low GPAs (-18.24 p.p.) or missing GPAs (-19.22 p.p.) were less likely to persist.

While most of the same variables were significant for C-gen students, the size of the delta Ps was much smaller. Sophomores (.10 p.p.), Juniors (5.38 p.p.), and Seniors (8.36 p.p.) were more likely to persist than first-year students. Carrying a full-time course load encouraged persistence (6.64 p.p.) while working full-time discouraged persistence (-4.54 p.p.). Students with low (-9.01 p.p.) or missing (9.19 p.p.) grade point averages were less likely to stay in school. Finally, students attending a doctoral institution were more likely to persist (2.06 p.p.) than students at other types of four-year institutions.

Price variables. Once again, the effect size for the price variables was larger for first- generation students. For every $1,000 increase in tuition, F-gen students were -.00004 percent less likely to persist. Current-year financial aid was positively associated with persistence. Students were 5.0, 5.03, and 6.08 percent more likely to persist per $1,000 in aid received in grants, current-year loans, and Work-Study awards respectively.

C-gen students responded in like manner to the price variables, although the coefficients were significantly smaller for the subsidy variables. C-gen students were -.0005 percent less likely to persist per $1,000 in tuition. Financial aid coefficients were all significant, positive, and small. C-gen students were more likely to persist by 1.35 percent for every $1,000 in grants, 1.10 percent per $1,000 in current year loans, and 2.96 percent per $1,000 in work study funds.

Accumulated debtload variables. All levels of accumulated debtload were significant and negatively associated with persistence for F-gen students: -10.0 p.p. for high levels of debt, -14.41 p.p. for middle levels of debt, and -13.29 p.p. for low levels of debt. All levels of accumulated debt were significant and negatively associated with persistence for C-gen students: high debt (3.25 p.p.), medium debt (-2.39 p.p) low debt (-1.94 p.p.).

Discussion

The findings of this study tend to confirm the previous qualitative studies of first-generation college students. Fgens are "living on the margins" of two cultures (London, 1992). Some variables traditionally associated with college success are either not significant or have small effect sizes for F-gen students.

First, for the background variables, low-income and multi-ethnic F-gen students are less likely to persist. Even students from high-income families don't have an advantage when it comes to college persistence.

Second, in similar studies, the delta P for aspiration to an advanced degree is usually significant and large (Cofer, 1998; Cofer & Somers, 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b). Students who have high aspirations are less likely to be discouraged by small setbacks. This is the case for both Fgens and Cgens in this study. However, the more interesting statistic is that Fgens who aspire to a bachelor's degree are twice as likely to persist as their peers with advanced degree aspirations. We believe that this is a reflection of the generally lower levels of educational aspiration that families and Society encourage for Fgens.

Third, the delta Ps for the college experience variables are large for F-gen students. Seniors were much more likely to persist than first-year students. This reflects the difficult transition and "boundary spanning" during this crucial first year. Fgens who had low or missing GPAs are much more likely to drop out. As the qualitative studies suggest (London,1992; Piorkowski, 1983; Terenzini, et al., 1994), Fgens may be more discouraged by low academic performance and don't have the confidence to remain in school and improve their academic performance. However, Fgens who attend school full time or reside on campus are more likely to stay in school. Added together, these findings suggest that during the crucial first year, Fgens need academic and social support. Further, if they attend school full time and live on campus, they improve their chances of success.

Fourth, price and accumulated debtload variables paint a mixed picture. The delta Ps were significant and in the same direction for all students. The differences between Fgens and Cgens on current year price variables were relatively small. The startling difference, however, was for accumulated debtload. The largest delta P for the Fgens was at the lowest level of debt, although the figures were high for all three levels of debt. This suggests a real aversion to debt on the part of first-generation college students and their parents.

What is remarkable about these results is the departure from the norm. Typically, high-income, high GPA, and test scores are significantly associated with persistence (Cofer, 1998; Cofer & Somers, 1999a, 1999b, 2000a, 2000b); not so for Fgens. These traditional advantages are not significantly associated with persistence for first-generation college students. This reinforces previous findings that F-gen students don't start college with the same advantages as their C-gen peers. Fgens are less likely to come from homes where college attendance is taken for granted. Indeed, the main conflict between the F-gen student and parents may be whether to attend college. In addition, Fgens are debt averse, avoiding accumulated debtload even at the lowest level. This may be a reflection of their limited knowledge of and family history with student loans.

The research by Phelan, Davidson, and Cao (1991) sheds more light on the difficulties that F-gen students face. In their multiple worlds model, students have the most success in spanning their home and school lives when there is congruence between the values, beliefs, and expectations (models 1 or 2). For C-gen students, this congruence is more natural: their parents, and in some cases siblings, already have had some experience with postsecondary education. The educational values and expectations of the family are likely to encourage college attendance and persistence. However, juggling multiple worlds is more difficult for F-gen students. While some may come from homes that value postsecondary educations, many Fgens lack this kind of support. The differences between the values and expectations of their two worlds is likely to cause significant dissonance. As a result, their boundary spanning behavior is more like that of models 3 and 4: boundary crossings hazardous or boundary crossings insurmountable. Using this approach, students who are in the last two categories are less likely to persist in college unless they are engaged in the life of the campus through living on campus, doing well in specific courses, finding support from a faculty member, or finding a "social niche."

A closely related explanation of the different behaviors of F-gen and C-gen students is rooted in Weberian theories of status groups and intergenerational status transmission (Weber, 1978). This consists of two elements: cultural capital (Bourdieu,1977a) and habitus (Borrdieu,1977b). Of the former, McDonough (1997) says,

Those with high cultural capital have clear strategies of how much and what kind of schooling each generation should have. A student's disposition toward school is important because to maximize or conserve cultural capital one must be willing to consent to the investments in time, effort, and money that higher education requires. Parents transmit cultural capital by informing offspring about the value and process for securing a college education, and its potential for conversion in the occupational attainment contest. (p. 9)

Habitus (Bordieu, 1977b) is an internalized system of beliefs that one obtains from his or her environment. McDonough elaborates,

. . .habitus is a common set of subjective perceptions held by all members of the same group or class that shapes an individual's expectations, attitudes, and aspirations. Those aspirations are both subjective assessments of the chances for mobility and objective probabilities. They are not rational analysis, but rather are the ways that children from different classes make sensible or reasonable choices for their own aspirations. (1997, p. 9)

Thus, differences between the educational attainment of first-generation and continuing-generation students can be explained in part through cultural capital and habitus. C-gen students, who have greater contact with college graduates, have higher educational expectations from those around them and these experiences have been internalized. F-gen students, on the whole, have fewer chances to develop and maximize cultural capital and habitus.

Conclusion

This study examined the impact of background, aspirations, achievement, college experiences, and price on the persistence of first-generation (F-gen) and continuing-generation (C-gen) college students at four-year institutions. We found differences between the two groups on the effect size of almost all of the significant variables. First-generation students were more sensitive to financial aid and averse to student loans than their peers. However, even variables such as high income, high test scores, and high grade point average, which similar studies have found to be significant and positively associated with persistence, did not influence the persistence of F-gen students in this study. We suggest that in addition to the variables in our model, the concepts of boundary spanning, cultural capital, and habitus can explain some of the differences between the two groups of students.

Table 1

Model Specifications

References

Andrieu, S. C., & St. John, E.P. (1993). The influence of prices on graduate student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 34(4), 399-425.

Alexander, K. L., & Eckland, B. K. (1975). Basic attainment processes: A replication and extension. Sociology of Education, 48, 457-495.

Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to higher education. New York: Columbia University Press.

Blau, P., & Duncan, O.D. (1967). The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley.

Bourdieu, P. (1977a). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel and A.H. Halsey. Power and Ideology in Education (pp. 487-511). New York: Oxford Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977b). Outline of a theory of practice. Trans. by R. Nice. Cambridge, England: Oxford Press.

Cabrera, A. F. (1994). Logistic regression analysis in higher education: An applied perspective. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 225-56) New York: Agathon Press.

Cates, C. (1997). The science of "muddling through." In L. Goodchild, C. D. Lovell, E. R. Hines, & J. I. Gill (Eds.), Public Policy in Higher Education, ASHE Reader Series (pp. 206-216). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing.

Cofer, J. (1998). Decade of Indecision: The Impact of Federal Policy on Student Persistence, 1987-1996. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Little Rock, AR.

Cofer, J. (1998). A decade of indecision: The effects of federal student financial aid policy from 1987 to 1996 on within-year persistence of four-year undergraduate students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

Cofer, J. & Somers, P. (2000a). A comparison of the influence of debtload on the persistence of students at public and private colleges. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 30(2), 39-58.

Cofer, J., & Somers, P. (2000b). Within-year persistence of students at two-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 785-807.

Cofer, J. & Somers, P. (1999a). An Analytical Approach to Understanding Student Debtload Response. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 29(3), 25-44.

Cofer, J. & P. Somers. (1999b). Deeper in Debt: The Impact of the 1992 Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act on Within-year Persistence. Paper presented at Association for Institutional Research Forum, Seattle, Washington.

Cofer, J., & Somers, P. A. (1997, October). Mortgaging their future: Debtload and undergraduate persistence. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Coleman, J. (1976). State projections of low-income youth in the USA: Changes over time and a look to the future. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.

Corrazinni, A. D., Dugan, D., & Grabowski, H. (1972). Determinants of distributional aspects of enrollment in U. S. higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 43, 39-50.

Denison, E. F. (1964). Measuring the contribution of education, and the residual, to economic growth. Paris: Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation.

Eckland, B. K., & Alexander, K. L. (1980). The National Longitudinal Study of the high school class of 1972. Research in the Sociology of Education and Socialization, 1, 189-222.

Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-318, § 1, 86 Stat. 235 (1972).

Education Amendments of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-325 § 1, 106 Stat. 459 (1992).

Gill, W.E. (1992). Bowie State University Student Support Services Admitted Students Survey: 1991. ED345125.

Gill, J. I., & Saunders, D. (1997). Conducting policy analysis in higher education. In L. Goodchild, C. D. Lovell, E. R. Hines, & J. I. Gill (Eds.). Public Policy in Higher Education, ASHE Reader Series (pp. 206-216). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing.

Grayson, P.J. (1997). Academic achievement of first-generation students in a Canadian university. Research in Higher Education, 38(6), 659-676.

Hartle, T. W. (1996). Reauthorization of the higher education act. Educational Record, 66(2),19-21.

Hearn, J. C. (1993). The paradox of growth in federal aid for college students: 1965-1990. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Handbook of Higher Education Theory and Practice. New York: Agathon.

Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. § 1001 et. seq. (West 1990).

Higher Education Act of 1965, H. R. Rep. No. 675, 89^th Congress, 1^st Se. 35 (1965).

Hippensteel, D.G., St. John, E.P., & Starkey, J.B. (1996). Influence of tuition and student aid on within-year persistence by adults in 2-year colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 20, 233-242.

Hoenack, S. A., & Weiler, W. C. (1975). Cost-related tuition policies and university enrollment. Journal of Higher Education, 10, 332-360.

Hopkins, T. D. (1974). Higher education enrollment demand. Economic Inquiry, 12, 53-65.

Hudson, B. (1991). The long-term performance and retention of preparatory division transfer students: 1983-1990.

Keppel, F. (1987). The higher education acts contrasted, 1965-1986: Has federal policy come of age? Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 49-67.

Kimberling, C. R. (1995). Federal student aid: A history and critical analysis. In John Somer (Ed), The academy in crisis: The political economy of higher education (pp. 69-94). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

London, H.B. (1989). Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and their families. American Journal of Education, February, 144-170.

London, H.B. (1992). Transformations: Cultural challenges faced by first-generation students. In Zwerling, L.S., & London, H.B., First-Generation Students: Confronting the Cultural Issues (pp. 5-11). New Directions for Community Colleges, 80, Winter. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

London, H.B. (1996). How college affects first-generation students. About Campus, 1(5), 9-13, 23.

McDonough, P.M. (1997). Choosing Colleges: How Social Class and Schools Structure Opportunity. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

McPherson, M. S. (1982). Higher education investment or expense? In J. C. Hoy, & M. H. Bernstein, (eds.), Financing higher education: The public investment. Boston: Auburn House.

Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-106. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Middle Income Student Assistance Act, Pub. L. No. 95-566, § 1, 92 Stat. 2402 (1978).

Nunez, A.M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation college students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education, NCES 98-082. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

Okun, M. A., Ruehlman, L., & Karoly, P. (1991). Application of investment theory to predicting part-time community college student intent and institutional persistence/departure behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 212-220.

Padron, E.J. (1992). The challenge of first-generation college students: A Miami-Dade perspective. In L.S. Zwerling & H.B. London (eds.). First Generation Students: Confronting the Issues (pp.71-80). New Directions in Community Colleges, No. 80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Park, R.F. (1950). Race and Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Parsons, T. P. (1959). The social class as a social system. Harvard Educational Review, 29, 297-318.

Peterson, T. (1984). A comment on presenting results of logit and probit models. American Sociological Review, 50(1), 130-131.

Phelan, P., Davidson, A.L., & Cao, H.T. (1991). Students' multiple worlds: Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer, and school cultures. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22, 224-250.

Piorkowski, G.K. (1983). Survivor guilt in the university setting. Personnel and Guidance Journal, June, 620-621.

Pratt, P.A., & Skaggs, C.T. (1989). First generation college students: Are they at greater risk of attrition than their peers? Research in Rural Education, 6(2), 31-34.

Richardson, R.C., Jr., & Skinner, C.F. (1992). Helping first generation minority students achieve degrees. In L.S. Zwerling & H.B. London (eds.). First Generation Students: Confronting the Issues (pp. 29-43). New Directions in Community Colleges, No. 80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Riehl, R.J. (1994). The academic preparation, aspirations, and first-year performance of first-generation students. Colleges and Universities, Fall, 14-19.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Satisfaction and commitment in friendships. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 11, 78-95.

St. John, E. P. (1994a). The influence of debt on choice of major. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 24(1), 5-12.

St. John, E. P. (1994b). The influence of student aid on within-year persistence by traditional-age students in 4-year colleges. Research in Higher Education, 35(4), 455-480.

St. John, E. P., & Andrieu, S. C. (1995). The influence of price subsidies on within-year persistence by graduate students. Higher Education, 29(2), 143-168.

St. John, E. P., & Starkey, J. (1995). The influence of prices and price subsidies on within-year persistence by students in community colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(2), 149-165.

Schultz, T. W. (1960). Capital formation by education. Journal of Political Economy, 86, 571-583.

Sewall, W. H., & Hauser, R. M. (1975) Causes and consequences of higher education: Models of the status and attainment process. In W. H. Sewall, R. M. Hauser, & D. L. Featherman (Eds.), Schooling and achievement in American society (pp. 9-27). New York: Academic Press.

Sewall, W. H., & Shah, V. P. (1967). Socioeconomic status, intelligence, and the attainment of higher education. Sociology of Education, 40, 1-23.

Somers, P. A. (1992). A dynamic analysis of student matriculation decisions in an urban public university. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Department of Educational Leadership, Foundations, and Counseling. New Orleans, LA, University of New Orleans.

Stafford, K.L., Lindstedt, S.B., & Lynn, A.D.(1984). Social and economic factors affecting participation in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 55, 590-607.

Stierlin, H. (1974). Separating Parents and Adolescents. New York: Quadrangle Books.

Tannen, M. B. (1978). The investment motive for attending college. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 31, 489-497.

Thomas, G. E., Alexander, K. L., & Eckland, B. K. (1979). Access to higher education: The importance of race, sex, social class and academic credentials. School Review, 2, 133-156.

Terenzini, P.T., Rendon, L.I., Upcraft, M.L., Millar, S.B., Allison, K.W., Gregg, P.L., & Jalomo, R. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research in Higher Education, 35(1), 57-73.

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), 1-22.

Trent, J. W., & Medskar. L. L. (1968). Beyond highschool. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tseng, M.S. (1971). Social class, occupational aspirations, and other variables. The Journal of Experimental Education, 39(4), 88-92.

U. S. Department of Education. (1997). National postsecondary student aid study, 1995-96 (NPSAS:96) methodology report (NCES Technical Report No. NCES 98-073). Washington, DC: Author.

Weber, M. [1920] (1978). Economy and Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Windham, P.A. (1996). Demographics: Diversity in more forms; Student demographics now and later. Paper presented at Annual Conference of Southern Association of Community College Research. ED398591.

Wolfle, L. M. (1985). Postsecondary educational attainment among whites and blacks. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 501-525.

Tulsa Junior College. (1995). New student survey results, Fiscal Year 1995. Ed388343.

York-Anderson, D.C., & Bowman, S.L. (1991). Assessing the college knowledge of first generation and second generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32(2), 116-122.

Table 2

Results for F-gen, C-gen, and all students

Significant at p<.05 Significant at p<.01 Significant at p<.001