Differences exist between high schools in their commitment to and efforts toward guiding and aiding students in their postsecondary pathways; however, little is known about how the curricular experiences of high school students, and the related messages they receive, shape their sense of university readiness and postenrollment persistence behaviors and decisions. Although Latino students have struggled to succeed in college, few qualitative studies elaborated their experiences as they transition into universities. This is problematic given that Latino students are not a uniform group and often originate from differing high school contexts. The messages Latino students interpret about college-going while in high school can have bearing on their subjective framings of the challenges they later face that could threaten their university persistence.
Purpose
We explore how Latino students originating from various high school types experience the university transition process and their first year at a four-year university. We focus on the extent to which Latino students of different socioeconomic status (SES) levels and curriculum placement report the presence of either “college-for-all” or gatekeeping norms at their high school to understand the influence of such norms on their university persistence. Lori Diane Hill's “college-linking” approaches also serve as a framework for the influence of high school contexts in promoting certain norms for these Latino students.
Research Design
This two-part qualitative study includes 131 Latino students attending a broad access university. Data were analyzed from essays and two sets of semistructured interviews. First, we describe how these messages shape their perspectives regarding their university aspirations. Second, we examine how their self-assessment transforms during their first year of university study and its relevance to their persistence decisions and behaviors.
Results
Findings indicate that students were differentially exposed to a college-for-all or gate-keeping ideology based on their high school SES and curriculum placement. Once at the university, students reflected on these past high school messages, reinterpreting and applying them to their first-year university experience. Generally, students exposed to college-for-all messages described feeling deceived about their readiness, whereas those exposed to gatekeeping felt inadequate and doubted their ability to persist through first-year challenges.
Conclusions
Recommendations consider the implications that college-linking and high school messages may have on persistence decisions. We reconceptualize notions of university readiness by infusing new subjective components not addressed in prior research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanC. (2002). The relationship between urbanicity and educational outcomes. In TierneyW. G. & HagedornL. S. (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 35–61). Albany: State University of New York Press.
2.
AdelmanC. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education.
3.
AstinA., & OsegueraL. (2004). The declining equity of American higher education. Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321–341.
4.
AttinasiL. C. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans' perception of university attendance and the implications for freshman-year persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 60(31), 247–277.
5.
AuerbachS. (2002). Why do they give the good classes to some and not to others? Latino parent narratives of struggle in a college access program. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1369–1392.
6.
AuerbachS. (2007). From moral supporters to struggling advocates: Reconceptualizing parent roles in education through the experience of working-class families of color. Urban Education, 42(3), 250–283.
7.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Inglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8.
BowenW. G., & BokD. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
9.
BowlesS., & GintisH. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.
10.
CabreraA. F., & La NasaS. M. (2000). Understanding the college-choice process. In New directions for institutional research: Understanding the college choice of disadvantaged students(vol. 107, pp. 5–22). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
11.
CejaM. (2004). Chicana college aspirations and the role of parents: Developing educational resiliency. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3(4), 1–25.
12.
ChoyS. P. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence, and attainment(Statistical Analysis Report, NCES 2001-126). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
13.
CicourelA., & KitsuseJ. (1964). The educational decision-makers. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
14.
CoffeyA., & AtkinsonP. (1996). Concepts and coding. In CoffeyA. & AtkinsonP. (Eds.), Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies (pp. 26–53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
CorbinJ., & StraussA. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
CreswellJ. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Deil-AmenR., & Lopez-TurleyR. (2007). A review of the transition to college literature in sociology. Teachers College Record, 109(10), 2324–2366.
18.
Deil-AmenR., & RosenbaumJ. (2002). The unintended consequences of stigma-free remediation. Sociology of Education75(3), 249–268.
19.
Deil-AmenR., & TevisT. (2010). Circumscribed agency: The relevance of standardized college entrance exams for low SES high school students. Review of Higher Education, 33(2), 141–175.
20.
DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
EkstromR. B., GoertzM. E., & RockD. (1998). Education and American youth. Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.
22.
FallonM. V. (1997). The school counselor's role in first-generation students' college plans. School Counselor, 44, 385–393.
23.
FineM. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public high school. Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
FreemanK. (1997). Increasing African Americans' participation in higher education: African American high-school students' perspectives. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 523–550.
GándaraP. (1995). Over the ivy walls: The educational mobility of low-income Chicanos. Albany: State University of New York Press.
27.
GándaraP., & ContrerasF. (2009). The Latino education crisis. The consequences of failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
GándaraP., & OrfieldG. (2006). Introduction: Creating a 21st-century vision of access and equity in higher education. In GándaraP., OrfieldG., & HornC. (Eds.), Expanding opportunity in higher education: Leveraging promise (pp. 1–15). Albany: State University of New York Press.
29.
GlaserB., & StraussA. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
30.
GonzálezK., StonerC., & JovelJ. (2003). Examining the role of social capital in access to college for Latinas: Toward a college opportunity framework. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2(2), 146–170.
31.
HamrickF., & StageF. (1998). High minority enrollment, high school-lunch rates: Predisposition to college. Review of Higher Education, 21(4), 343–357.
32.
HearnJ. (1984). The relative roles of academic, ascribed, and socioeconomic characteristics in college destinations. Sociology of Education, 57, 22–30.
33.
HillL. D. (2008). School strategies and the “college-linking” process: Reconsidering the effects of high schools on college enrollment. Sociology of Education, 81, 53–76.
34.
HosslerD., BraxtonJ., & CoopersmithG. (1999). Understanding student college choice. In SmartJ. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research(vol. 5, pp. 231–288). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
35.
HurtadoS., InkelasK., BriggsC., & RheeB. (1997). Differences in college access and choice among racial/ethnic groups: Identifying continuing barriers. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 43–75.
36.
KarabelJ. (2006). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston, MA: Mariner Books.
37.
KarenD. (1990). Toward a political-organizational model of gatekeeping: The case of elite colleges. Sociology of Education, 63, 227–240.
38.
KarenD. (1991). Politics of class, race, and gender: Access to higher education in the United States, 1960–86. American Journal of Education, 99, 208–237.
39.
KarenD. (2002). Changes in access to higher education in the United States, 1980–1992. Sociology of Education, 75(3), 191–210.
40.
KirkJ., & MillerM. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qualitative research methods (vol. 1). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41.
KirstM., & VeneziaA. (2004). From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success in postsecondary education.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
42.
KuhG., KinzieJ., SchuhJ., Whitt, E., & Associates (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
43.
MasseyD. S., CharlesC. Z., LundyG. F., & FischerM. J. (2003). The source of the river: The social origins of freshmen at America's selective colleges and universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
44.
McDonoughP. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
45.
McDonoughP. (1998). Structuring college opportunities: A cross-case analysis of organizational cultures, climates, and habiti. In TorresC. & MitchellT. (Eds.), Sociology of education: Emerging perspectives (pp. 181–211). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
46.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
47.
OakesJ. (1987). Secondary school tracking: A contextual perspective. Educational Psychologist, 22, 129–153.
48.
O'ConnorC. (1997). Dispositions toward (collective) struggle and educational resilience in the inner city. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 593–629.
49.
O'ConnorC. (1999). Race, class, and gender in America: Narratives of opportunity among low-income African American youth. Sociology of Education, 72(3), 137–157.
50.
OrfieldG., MarinP., & HornC. (Eds.). (2005). Higher education and the color line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.
51.
PascarellaE. T., & TerenziniP. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
52.
PernaL. (2004). The key to college access: Rigorous academic preparation. In TierneyW., CorwinZ., & CoylarJ. (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 113–134). Albany: SUNY Press.
53.
PernaL. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. Higher Education Handbook of Theory and Research, 21, 100–139.
54.
PernaL., & JonesA. (2013). The state of college access and completion: Improving college success for students from underrepresented groups. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
55.
PernaL. W., Rowan-kenyonH. T., ThomasS. L., BellA., AndersonR., & LiC. (2008). The role of college counseling in shaping college opportunity: Variations across high schools. Review of Higher Education, 31(2), 131–159.
56.
PernaL. W., & TitusM. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 485–518.
57.
PersellC. H., CatsambisS., & CooksonP. W. (1992). Differential asset conversion: Class and gender pathways to selective colleges. Sociology of Education, 65(2), 208–225.
58.
PersellC. H., & CooksonP. W.Jr. (1985). Chartering and bartering: Elite education and social reproduction. Social Problems, 33(2), 114–129.
59.
PrattP. E., & SkaggsC. T. (1989). First generation college students: Are they at greater risk for attrition than their peers?Research in Rural Education, 6, 31–34.
60.
RosenbaumJ. (1976). Making inequality: The hidden curriculum of high school tracking. New York, NY: Wiley.
61.
RosenbaumJ. E. (1986). Institutional career structures and the social construction of ability. In RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 139–171). New York, NY: Greenwood.
62.
RosenbaumJ. E. (2001). Beyond college for all: Career paths of the forgotten half. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
63.
RosenbaumJ. E., Deil-AmenR., & PersonA. E. (2006). After admission: From college access to college success. New York, NY: R. Sage Foundation.
64.
ReynoldsJ., StewartM., MacDonaldR., & SischoL. (2007). Have adolescents become too ambitious? High school seniors' educational and occupational plans, 1976-2000. Social Problems, 53(2), 186–206.
65.
SchneiderB., & StevensonD. (1999). The ambitious generation: America's teenagers, motivated but directionless. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
StevensM. L. (2007). Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
68.
TerenziniP. T., SpringerL., YaegerP. M., PascarellaE. T., & NoraA. (1996). First-generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37, 1–22.
69.
TierneyW. G., & HagedornL. S. (2002). Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students. Albany: State University of New York Press.
70.
TintoV. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
ValenzuelaA. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth & the politics of caring.Albany: SUNY Press.
73.
VargasJ. (2004). College knowledge: Addressing information barriers to college. Boston, MA: The Education Research Institute. Retrieved from http://www.teri.org
74.
WalpoleM. (2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences and outcomes. Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 45–73.
75.
WalpoleM., McDonoughP., BauerC., GibsonC., KanyiK., & ToliverR. (2005). This test is unfair. Urban Education, 40(3), 321–349.
76.
WathingtonH., BarnettE., WeissmanE., TeresJ., PretlowJ., & NakanishiA. (2011). Getting ready for college: An implementation and early impacts study of eight Texas developmental summer bridge programs. National Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.7916/D8MG7MJQ
77.
York-AndersonD., & BowmanS. (1991). Assessing the college knowledge of first-generation and second-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 116–122.
