Understanding students' parental education beyond first-generation status.

The goal of this study is to explore and compare the experiences and views that community college students face across multiple levels of parental education. The findings demonstrate significant differences across five different parental education levels, arguing that future research ought to expand current notions of parental education beyond a binary comparison (having a college educated parent or not).

Introduction

The goal of this study is to explore and compare the experiences and views that community college students face across multiple levels of parental education. The vast majority of research on this topic, however, has focused on the dichotomous perspective of first-generation versus non-first-generation students. Past studies have well demonstrated that first-generation college students--students who do not have a parent who went to college--often encounter major hurdles in the college process. In comparison to students whose parent(s) attended college, first-generation students experience greater challenges to college access (Choy, Horn, Nunez & Chen, 2000; Education Resources Institute and the Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1997), college involvement (Astin, 1984), institutional connectedness (Arredondo, 1999; Astin, 1984; Terenzini et al., 1994), academic and social integration (Tinto, 1987, 1993), and degree completion (Nunez, & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). As such, first-generation students may be especially susceptible to personal doubts regarding their academic and motivational ability (Mitchell, 1997; Rendon, 1995; Terenzini et al., 1994).

While the barriers are well documented, the reasons for such obstacles are less evident. Some research indicates that first-generation students lack support from family and friends and are academically less prepared for college (Education Resources Institute and the Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1997). Other related factors often associated with first-generation status include minority status (Brown & Burkhardt, 1999; Philippe & Valiga, 2000) and low-income status (Brown & Burkhardt, 1999). These combined factors have been examined as negatively contributing to students' educational aspirations, academic achievement, and academic integration.

While studies have identified the inequities and their possible sources for first-generation students, few studies have examined this group beyond the simple distinction of first-generation status. In fact, very little is known about how student characteristics vary across different levels of parental education (e.g., junior high school, high school, etc.). Therefore, this study seeks to understand how student views and experiences differ by generational status. This study attempts not only to broaden current views of the important role of parental education but also to delve beyond the flat dichotomous perspective (parents having attended college or not) or linear continuum.

Effects of Parental Education

The extant literature identifies socioeconomic status (SES) as a predictor of lowered academic success. This link between parental education and SES has been loosely applied to explain why first-generation students are less successful in attending and succeeding in college (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001; Hossler & Stage, 1999). In other words, first-generation status places students at a unique disadvantage when it comes to college success (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998).

Parental involvement may be directly associated with the information that parents have about college. Parents with firsthand knowledge of postsecondary education may provide their children with better access to information about college, such as course requirements (Choy et al., 2000; McDonough, 1997), and they may know how to acquire the means to finance their children's college education (McDonough, 1997). College-educated parents are typically more aware of the long-term benefits of acquiring a college degree, and thus they share this information with their children (Coleman, 1988). Parents who have not attended college, on the other hand, tend to have less direct knowledge of the economic and social benefits of a postsecondary education. Thus, some of these parents may prefer that their children work rather than attend college. Students whose parents never attended college are sometimes faced with a difficult choice between fulfilling family expectations or obligations and pursuing of a degree (Terenzini et al., 1994; Education Resources Institute and the Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1997). As it pertains to community college students, these students may attend the community college for reasons related to working in a current job, developing computer skills, or entering the workforce (Philippe & Valiga, 2000). Their primary goals were rated as having a secure job or having time for family and friends (Philippe & Valiga, 2000).

Moreover, the difficulties that first-generation students encounter are not solely attributable to their income (Arredondo, 1999). In support of this notion, research demonstrates that low-income students of parents familiar with higher education reported planning to attend college at higher rates than did low-income students whose parents did not attend college (King, 1996). Interestingly, other results indicate that up to 23% of the lowest SES parents can still provide their children with college guidance (e.g., curricular requirements, financial planning, etc.) because of their direct college experiences (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001). Such findings indicate the potent role of parental education beyond the effects of income.

A notable body of literature has established that parents can play a key role in a student's college enrollment and success. Students' degree aspirations are significantly related to whether their parents have a bachelor's degree (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora, 1996). For example, during the sophomore year of high school, expectations to earn a bachelor's degree were more than double for students with two parents who had earned a bachelor's degree, as compared with expectations of first-generation college students (78% versus 36%) (Education Resources Institute and the Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1997). One study reported that parental involvement increases the likelihood of a potential student's meeting the minimal qualifications for college admission by 18% (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2000). Another study concluded that once a student is enrolled in college, commitment to the degree, and ultimately persistence, were affected by the level of parental belief that the student would succeed (Hackman & Dysinger, 1970).

Social Reproduction

The study of parental education may be especially compelling given that it is not only vital in students' college enrollment and success but also has broader social implications: conferring social class and status across generations (Powell & Steelman, 1995). For first-generation students, college education is critical in social mobility (McDonough, 1997). In fact, first-generation students expressed more interest in improving their financial and professional status than did non-first-generation students (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). First-generation students also indicated a stronger commitment to giving their children better opportunities for the future in comparison to their non-first-generation counterparts (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998).

Purpose

Despite the compelling research that has demonstrated the hurdles that first-generation students must overcome and the importance of understanding the implications of parental education on social mobility, student differences across multiple levels of parental education (i.e., beyond a first-generation/non-first-generation dichotomy) have, for the most part, been overlooked.

The objective of this study is to examine and compare the experiences and views that community college students encounter across multiple parental education levels. The main research question was as follows: How do student views and experiences differ by generational status? Our sub-questions were the following: What are some differences among students of different parental education levels by income? What are some differences by race? Which experiences and views of students uniquely reflect their parental education levels?

Community colleges are an ideal setting in which to examine these issues, given that community colleges are well recognized for their diverse student population, encompassing students from a wide range of backgrounds (including parental education levels), educational aspirations, and professional interests. Within this broad pool, first-generation students are most highly represented, with over 50% of all first-generation college students attending a local community college (Littleton, 1998; Philippe & Valiga, 2000; Education Resources Institute and the Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1997).

Methodology

Sample

The representative sample for this study utilized 5,000 students from the nine campuses of the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). LACCD comprises an especially diverse urban population which makes this study an especially useful one in examining how different parental education levels shape community college students' experiences. Moreover, LACCD is one of the largest community college districts in the United States and serves more than 100,000 students.

Information regarding student backgrounds, activities, goals, and views was collected by the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) project during spring 2001. The 47-item questionnaire was developed to reflect issues specific to community college students, based on the extant literature (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Behrs & Smith, 1991; de los Santos & Wright 1990; Hagedorn & Castro, 1999; McCormick & Carroll, 1997; Moss &Young, 1995). The 241 participating classrooms were identified by way of stratified random sampling based on three levels of English courses (two levels below transfer, one level below transfer, and transfer level), occupational programs stratified by gender, remedial courses, regular courses, learning communities, and traditional gateway courses. The validity of the sampling design was assessed by comparing the sample to the entire LACCD population on a number of factors, including ethnicity, primary language, and age. The sample was deemed highly representative of the district's population (Hagedorn, 2002).

Variables and Analytic Procedures

The variable of interest for this study dealt with the following question asked of students: "What is the highest level of formal education obtained by your parents in either the United States or in a foreign country?" The 10 response options were collapsed into 5 categories in order to maintain comparable sample sizes and draw meaningful assessments by multiple levels of parental education. The final categories were as follows: (1) junior high school or less, (2) high school, (3) community college, (4) four-year college, and (5) graduate school. These categories were based on the highest education of either parent. For example, if a student's mother completed her education at a four-year college whereas the father never went beyond a high school education, the student's parental education was noted as four-year college. If a student did not indicate her mother's education level for whatever reason and indicated her father's education as having attended some graduate school, the student's parental education was noted as graduate school.

We began by conducting analyses of variance (ANOVA) in order to compare differences among students of different parental education levels (ranging from junior high school to graduate school). For descriptive purposes, parental education levels were compared by income and race. Previous research has found that the largest differences between first-generation and non-first-generation students were on levels of family income and race (Terenzini et al., 1994). Thus, this study observed how income and race were distributed across multiple parental education levels.

Next, we constructed five logistic regression equations in order to understand which aspects of students' experiences and views reflect parental education level after controlling for students' background characteristics. Four of the dependent variables were designated to distinguish a particular level of parental education from the level directly above or below it. These variables are junior high versus high school, high school versus community college, community college versus four-year college, and four-year college versus graduate school. In addition, we included a fifth dependent variable--first-generation status versus non-first-generation status--in order to assess how student characteristics relate to this more commonly used dichotomy.

Student background characteristics included high school GPA, seven dichotomous variables of ethnicity (Black/African American, Mexican/ Mexican American, Latino/a, North Asian, South Asian, Pacific Islander, and Asian Indian), and income. These background variables were included as control measures. It was especially important to include race and income, as many of the obstacles that first-generation students face are often intricately tied to these two aspects (Brown & Burkhardt, 1999; Philippe & Valiga, 2000). Thus, we included these variables to identify obstacles among students of multiple parental education levels independent of race and income.

Students' experiences and views were primarily selected based on findings from previous research about first-generation students (Arredondo, 1999; Astin, 1984; Choy et al., 2000; Education Resources Institute and the Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1997; Mitchell, 1997; Nunez, & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998; Rendon, 1995; Terenzini et al., 1994; Tinto, 1987, 1993). These variables included the following 10 student-experience variables: working as the primary wage earner, skipping class, using email or internet for homework, hours per week working at a job, hours per week doing housework or childcare, hours per week watching TV, hours per week spending time on campus, hours per week talking with students about non-school-related things, hours per week studying alone at home, and hours per week studying alone in the college library. (See Appendix A for complete variable list and coding schemes.) The following two behavioral factors were also added: interacting with instructors and/or staff (talking with instructor outside class, talking with instructor during office hours, speaking with an academic counselor, asking the instructor questions, and speaking up during class; Alpha = .74) and studying with other students (helping another student understand homework, studying in small groups, phoning or emailing students about studies, hours per week studying with students in this course, hours per week studying with students in other courses; Alpha = .73). (See Appendix B for factor loadings and coding schemes.) Eight variables reflecting students' views included the following: difficulty understanding the English language, grades are a reflection of learning, difficulty because of my race, difficulty meeting deadlines, nervous about attending college, family is more important than career, feelings of belonging at the college, starting an assignment a day before it is due. One additional ideational factor was being determined and confident (expecting to do well, understanding what is taught, completing homework, trying even when frustrated, finishing courses in program of study, being determined to reach goals, believing success is due to effort, learning skills taught in course, feeling satisfaction with working hard; Alpha = .84).

Findings

ANOVA results indicate mostly significant annual income differences across levels of parental education (Table 1). These descriptive findings indicate further that compared to parents with a high school education, the average income for parents with a junior high school education was $3,589 less than parents with a high school education. Compared to parents with a community college education, the average income for parents with a high school education was $928 less than parents with a community college education. The average income for parents with a four-year college degree, however, was $3,748 more than the average income of community college educated parents. The mean income difference between parents attending four-year colleges versus graduate school was $485, but not significant. This finding demonstrates that greater income disparities exist between junior high school educated parents versus high school educated parents and community college educated parents versus four-year college educated parents than between traditional first-generation versus non-first-generation community college students.

ANOVA results also indicate significantly different proportions of minority students across parental education levels (Table 2). Latino/a and Mexican American students were most likely to he of first-generation status, and the greatest proportion of these students had parents with a junior high school level of education or less.

The greatest proportion of African American/Black students had parents with a community college level education; the greatest proportion of White, North Asian, Pacific Islander, and South Asian students had parents with a four-year college level of education.

Logistic Regression Findings

Results of the logistic regression analyses are presented in Table 3. Included in the table are the significant logistic regression coefficients and standard errors for All (first-generation status vs. non-first-generation status), Group A (junior high school parental education vs. high school parental education), Group B (high school parental education vs. community college parental education), Group C (community college parental education vs. four-year college parental education), and Group D (four-year college parental education vs. graduate school parental education).

Each of the five models had statistically significant chi-square values (.001 level). Among the 36 independent variables examined, 16 independent measures were shown to enter at least one of the logistic regression analyses significantly. Almost all of the variables that significantly entered the first regression (column 1) also entered at least one of the other regressions (columns 2, 4, 6, or 8). Moreover, none of the significant variables in the first regression were significant in all the remaining regressions. In other words, among the variables in this study, no single variable that significantly predicts whether a student is first-generation also predicts all of the other levels of parental education.

For the regression analysis comparing first-generation versus non-first-generation status, five race variables, income, and high school GPA significantly entered this equation. More specifically, being Mexican/Mexican American or Latino/a is positively related to being a first-generation student in the community colleges, whereas being Black/African American, Pacific Islander, or Asian Indian is positively related to being a non-first-generation student. First-generation students also tend to have lower income and lower high school GPAs, serve as the primary wage earner, believe that grades reflect learning, feel nervous about entering college yet now feel that they belong at the college, and encounter difficulty understanding the English language. This latter finding may reflect the disproportionately high number of international students taking coursework in the Los Angeles community colleges. It is important to note that these views are significantly related to being of first-generation status regardless of students' race, income, and all the other independent variables in the equations.

While such findings are consistent with previous literature about first-generation students, perhaps more interesting are the different sets of significant predictors across levels of parental education. According to the findings for Group A, race distinguishes between high school educated parents and junior high school educated parents as follows: Black/ African American students are 2.9 times more likely than other racial groups to have parents who attended high school, while Mexican/Mexican American and Latino/a students tend to have less educated parents (when comparing Groups A, B, and C) compared to all other racial groups. Also, believing that the difficulties they encounter are due to their race is a trait more common among students with junior high school educated parents than among students with high school educated parents. The findings for Group B, on the other hand, show that being Black/African American, Pacific Islander, or Asian Indian is positively associated with community college (vs. high school) parental education [Exp(B)= 1.58, 3.68, and 2.27, respectively], while being Mexican/Mexican American and believing that grades reflect learning relate to high school parental education [Exp(B)= .70 and .93, respectively]. The distinct student qualities found when disaggregating levels of first-generation status show that each of these parental education groups notably differs in comparison to the others.

The findings are just as convincing for Group C, comparing four-year college parental education versus community college parental education. As shown in Table 2, students whose parents attended four-year institutions (vs. community colleges) are 1.72 times more likely to be North Asian, whereas students whose parents stopped at the community college are .47 times less likely to be Mexican/Mexican American and .73 times less likely to serve as the primary wage earner. For Group D, having a parent who attended graduate school (vs. four-year college) are 1.09 times more likely to have a higher high school GPA, 1.25 times more likely to struggle with the English language, and 1.12 times more likely to believe that grades reflect learning. Students whose parents stopped at the four-year college tend to be North Asian and less likely to watch TV [Exp(B) = .34 and .98, respectively]. Such findings suggest that although students with four-year college educated parents may have lower high school GPAs in comparison to students with graduate school educated parents, their lower grades may be likely attributable to difficulties with English and not necessarily due to difficulties with the courses.

Overall, the findings of this study show that the predictors of first-generation status differ when disaggregating parental education levels. Distinguishing characteristics differ when comparing within and across these multiple levels, as no similar pattern was found across the five logistic regressions.

Conclusion and Limitations

The findings of this study demonstrate significant differences in students' views and experiences across different levels of parental education, arguing that future research should similarly expand current notions of parental education beyond a binary comparison (having a college-educated parent or not). Previous studies presume that the views and experiences of first-generation students are homogeneous. While this study replicates research findings regarding first-generation students, this study extends beyond previous research by comparing students from multiple parental education levels. This study also examined parental education categorically. The findings clearly indicate that the views and experiences of these students do not relate linearly to levels of parental education as most other studies on parental education assume.

Community college practitioners should consider the unique characteristics of students from different levels of parental education as they devise support programs for students. Possible strategies might include additional financial assistance or work opportunities for students whose parents are not able to afford sending their children elsewhere or students who are primary wage earners for their family. Other resources might include tutoring programs specifically geared towards students whose parents have never attended any institution of higher education. English language is also a major concern for many community college students, including some whose parents are highly educated. These students may comprise international students who might be experiencing adjustment issues similar to a first-generation student.

This study, however, includes some limitations. First, this study solely examined students in the Los Angeles community college district. One can only infer that such differences also exist for community college students in other regions. Second, this study was derived from a large database that was not designed specifically to examine the research question in this study. Thus, this study could have benefited from additional measures that examined a broader range of issues related to parental education levels, such as whether the student still lived with one or both parents and which parent had a greater influence on the student's educational experience. Given this lack of contextual information, parental education categories were determined solely by the highest level of education achieved by either parent. Moreover, this study did not produce an exhaustive list of all the possible views and experiences that can be differentiated by parental education levels. The Nagelkerke [R.sup.2] ranged from .09 to .29. However, this study does make clear that parental education ought to be understood in terms of distinct categories, rather than as a dichotomy (first-generation or not). Each parental education group possesses views and experiences that cannot simply be linearly scaled by education levels, nor do the characteristics of first-generation students readily apply to other parental education groups (as demonstrated by the varying [R.sup.2]).

Future research should further explore the possibly distinct experiences for students coming from each of these parental education levels, particularly at other types of institutions in other regions. Whether there are unique distinctions across multiple parental education levels for students in four-year colleges, for example, remains unknown. Moreover, the findings of this study can be further explored by way of qualitative inquiry. In-depth interviews, for instance, can provide much deeper meanings and interpretations about the differences this study has already uncovered.

Appendix A
Variable List and Coding Schemes

Dependent Variables                     Coding Scheme

Junior High School or Less              Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

High School                             Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Community College                       Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Four-Year College                       Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Graduate School                         Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

First-Generation Status                 Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = junior high school or less,
                                        high school, 2 = community
                                        college, four year college,
                                        graduate school

Independent Variables                   Coding Scheme

Race/Ethnicity: White/Caucasian         Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Race/Ethnicity: Black/                  Dichotomous variable:
African American                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Race/Ethnicity: Mexican/                Dichotomous variable:
Mexican American                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Race/Ethnicity: Latino/a (1)            Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Race/Ethnicity: North Asian (2)         Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Race/Ethnicity: South Asian (3)         Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Race/Ethnicity: Pacific Islander (4)    Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Race/Ethnicity: Asian Indian (5)        Dichotomous variable:
                                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Average income                          Fourteen-point scale:
                                        1 = Less than $6,000,
                                        to 14 = $200,000 or more

Average grade in high school            Nine-point scale:
                                        1 = D or lower (Poor),
                                        to 9 = A or A+ (Extraordinary)

Yourself as primary wage                Dichotomous variable:
earner in family                        1 = not marked, 2 = marked

Skipping class                          Six-point scale:
                                        1 = 0, to 6 = five or more
                                        times in past 7 days

Using email or internet                 Six-point scale:
for homework                            1 = 0, to 6 = five or more
                                        times in past 7 days

Hours per week: Working at a job        Nine-point scale:
                                        1 = 0, none, or didn't have
                                        time, to 9 = 46 hours or more

Hours per week: Doing housework         Nine-point scale:
or childcare                            1 = 0, none, or didn't have
                                        time, to 9 = 46 hours or more

Hours per week: Watching TV             Nine-point scale:
                                        1 = 0, none, or didn't have
                                        time, to 9 = 46 hours or more

Hours per week: Spending time on        Nine-point scale:
this campus (including time in class)   1 = 0, none, or didn't have
                                        time, to 9 = 46 hours or more

Hours per week: Talking with            Nine-point scale:
students about non-school-related       1 = 0, none, or didn't have
things                                  time, to 9 = 46 hours or more

Hours per week: Studying alone          Nine-point scale:
at home                                 1 = 0, none, or didn't have
                                        time, to 9 = 46 hours or more

Hours per week: Studying alone          Nine-point scale:
in the college library                  1 = 0, none, or didn't have
                                        time, to 9 = 46 hours or more

Difficulty understanding English        Five-point scale:
language                                1 = not a problem
                                        to 5 = very large problem


Grades are a reflection of learning     Five-point scale:
                                        1 = strongly disagree,
                                        to 5 = strongly agree

Things are harder for me because        Five-point scale:
of my race                              1 = strongly disagree,
                                        to 5 = strongly agree

I have difficulty meeting deadlines     Five-point scale:
                                        1 = strongly disagree,
                                        to 5 = strongly agree

I felt nervous about attending          Five-point scale:
college                                 1 = strongly disagree,
                                        to 5 = strongly agree

Family is more important than           Five-point scale:
career                                  1 = strongly disagree,
                                        to 5 = strongly agree

I feel that I belong at this college    Five-point scale:
                                        1 = strongly disagree,
                                        to 5 = strongly agree

I start an assignment day before        Five-point scale:
it is due                               1 = strongly disagree,
                                        to 5 = strongly agree

Academic involvement:

Interaction with instructors            Five-item factor
and/or academic counselors              (see Appendix B)

Academic involvement:                   Five-item factor
Studying with others                    (see Appendix B)

Views: Determined and confident         Nine-item factor
                                        (see Appendix B)

(1) Includes South American, Central American, and Other
Latino/Hispanic.

(2) Includes Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.

(3) Includes Thai, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese.

(4) Includes Filipino, Samoan, Hawaiian, Guamanian, and
Other Pacific Islander.

(5) Includes South Asian (Indian subcontinent), Arab,
and American Indian.

Appendix B
Factors Loading, Coding Schemes, and Cronbach's Alphas

Factor                                                        Loading

Academic involvement: Interaction with instructors/
academic counselors (a = .74)

  Class-related activity in past week (for course in
  which student completed survey): Ask the instructor
  questions (1)                                                 .78

  Class-related activity in past week (for all courses):
  Talk with an instructor before or after class (1)             .72

  Class-related activity in past week (for course in
  which student completed survey): Speak up during class
  discussions (1)                                               .68

  Class-related activity in past week (for all courses):
  Talk with an instructor during office hours (1)               .63

  Class-related activity in past week (for all courses):
  Speak with an academic counselor (1)                          .53

Academic involvement: Studying with others (a = .73)

  Hours per week: Study with students from this course (2)      .74

  Class-related activity in past week (for all courses):
  Study in small groups outside of class (1)                    .71

  Hours per week: Study with students from other courses
  (not this course) (2)                                         .62

  Class-related activity in past week (for course in which
  student completed survey): Telephone or email another
  student to ask a question about your studies (1)              .59

  Class-related activity in past week (for all courses):
  Help another student understand homework (1)                  .44

Views: Determined and confident (a = .84)

  View: I expect to do well and earn good grades in
  college (3)                                                   .72

  View: Understanding what is taught is important to me (3)     .71

  View: It is important to me to finish the courses in my
  program of studies (3)                                        .71

  View: I feel most satisfied when I work hard to achieve
  something (3)                                                 .70

  View: I am very determined to reach my goals (3)              .68

  View: Success in college is largely due to effort
  (has to do with how hard you try) (3)                         .64

  View: I keep trying even when I am frustrated by a
  task (3)                                                      .60

  View: I always complete homework assignments (3)              .55

  View: I know I can learn all the skills taught in
  college (3)                                                   .46

Note. Students' raw scores on items to comprise each factor were summed
to compute factor scores. In the event that items within a factor were
scaled differently (e.g., the items in "Academic involvement: Studying
with others"), students' scores were standardized and then summed to
compute factor scores.

(1) Six-point scale: 1 = 0, or didn't have time,
to 6 = 5 or more times.

(2) Nine-point scale: 1 = 0, none, or didn't have time,
to 9 = 46 hours or more.

(3) Seven-point scale: 1 = strongly disagree,
to 7 = strongly agree.

Table 1
Average Yearly Income Among Levels of Parental Education

                        JHEP        HSEP        CCEP
                      (n = 958)   (n = 979)   (n = 619)

Income                 $21,533     $25,122     $26,050

Difference from       $3,589 *     $928 *     $3,748 *
group just above it

                        FYED        GSEP
                      (n = 612)   (n = 490)

Income                 $29,798     $30,283

Difference from         $450         N/A
group just above it

Note. JHEP = junior high school educated parent; HSEP = high
school educated parent; CCEP = community college educated parent;
FYED = four-year college educated parent; GSEP = graduate school
educated parent.

* p < .05.

Table 2
Students' Race Across Parental Education Levels
(percentage within race/percentage within educational level)

                   JHEP              HSEP              CCEP

Race           % Race   % Educ   % Race   % Educ   % Race   % Educ

White/
Caucasian        4.9      3.2     23.5     15.6     22.7     23.2

Black/
African
American         6.4      3.1     28.1     13.9     30.2     23.1

Asian Indian     6.7       .6     27.0      2.5     20.2      2.9

Latino/a        34.9     24.4     29.7     21.2     12.6     14.0

Mexican/
Mexican
American        50.3     64.3     27.5     35.9     12.0     24.2

North Asian     11.9      3.1     29.4      7.8     14.3      5.8

Pacific
Islander         3.4       .5      8.3      1.3     16.6      3.9

South Asian     11.0       .8     24.7      1.9     24.7      2.9

                   FYED              GSEP

Race           % Race   % Educ   % Race   % Educ

White/
Caucasian       25.9     27.8     23.0     13.9

Black/
African
American        21.7     17.4     13.6     14.1

Asian Indian    19.1      2.9     27.0      5.3

Latino/a        10.6     12.3     12.2     18.3

Mexican/
Mexican
American         6.0     12.8      4.1     11.2

North Asian     31.0     13.3     13.5      7.5

Pacific
Islander        42.1     10.4     29.7      9.5

South Asian     26.0      3.2     13.7      2.2

Note. Decimals were rounded to the tenth. JHEP = junior high school
educated parent; HSEP = high school educated parent; CCEP = community
college educated parent; FYED = four-year college educated parent;
GSEP = graduate school educated parent.

Table 3
Summary of Logistic Regression Analyses for Significant Variables
Predicting Parental Levels of Education

                                   All
                               (1st Gen vs.    Group A       Group B
Variables                         Other)     (JH vs. HS)   (HS vs. CC)

                               Exp(B)   SE   Exp(B)   SE   Exp(B)   SE

Black/African American         1.41 **  .15  2.90 *   .31  1.58     .20
Mexican/Mexican American        .23 *   .11   .25 *   .17   .70     .16
Latino/a                        .48 *   .12   .43 *   .18   .74     .18
North Asian                    1.17     .17  1.51     .29   .96     .26
Pacific Islander               5.35 *   .28  1.99     .60  3.68 *   .36
Asian Indian                   3.43 *   .25  2.60     .55  2.27 *   .30
Income                         1.13 *   .02  1.07 **  .03  1.06     .03
High school GPA                1.06 **  .02   .99     .03  1.03     .04
Primary wage earner             .81 **  .10   .82     .13  1.02     .13
Skip class                     1.12 **  .05  1.07     .08  1.13     .07
Hours per week: Watch TV       1.06 *   .06  1.04     .07  1.03     .09
Problem: English language       .82 *   .02   .89     .03   .82 **  .03
Grades reflect learning         .92 *   .03   .99     .03   .93 **  .04
Difficulties due to my race     .97     .03   .90 *   .04  1.02     .04
Was nervous about college       .95 *   .02   .99     .03   .98     .03
Feel I belong at this college   .91 *   .03   .98     .04   .95     .04

                                 Group C       Group D
Variables                      (CC vs. 4YR)  (4YR vs. GS)

                               Exp(B)   SE   Exp(B)   SE

Black/African American          .68     .20   .71     .22
Mexican/Mexican American        .47 *   .19   .64     .24
Latino/a                        .89     .20   .93     .21
North Asian                    1.72 **  .26   .34 *   .26
Pacific Islander               1.32     .27   .97     .25
Asian Indian                   1.08     .27   .91     .30
Income                         1.06     .04  1.02     .04
High school GPA                1.01     .04  1.09 **  .04
Primary wage earner             .73 **  .15  1.14     .17
Skip class                      .97     .08  1.00     .08
Hours per week: Watch TV       1.01     .10   .98 **  .10
Problem: English language       .92     .04  1.25 **  .04
Grades reflect learning         .93 **  .04  1.12*    .04
Difficulties due to my race     .97     .04  1.04     .05
Was nervous about college       .97     .03   .95     .04
Feel I belong at this college   .98     .05   .95     .05

Note. 1st Gen = First Generation; JH = Junior High School;
HS = High School; CC = Community College; 4YR = Four-Year
College; GS = Graduate School. Nagelkerke [R.sup.2]:
[R.sup.2] = .29 for All; [R.sup.2] = .20 for Group A;
[R.sup.2] = .09 for Group B; [R.sup.2] = .10 for Group C;
[R.sup.2] = .10 for Group D.

* p < .01. ** p < .05.

TRUCCS has been funded by the Field Initiated Studies Program of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Institutional Research and Improvement Grant No. R305T000154 and the Lumina Foundation, Grant #1415.

References

Arredondo, M. (1999). First-generation college students at a selective, four-year institution: Transition to college, adjustment in college, and self-image. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 35-64.

Behrs, T. H., & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students: The influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in Higher Education, 32, 539-556.

Burkhardt, R. L., & Brown, H. E. (1999, May/June). Parental education, income, and ethnicity: What is the unique contribution of first-generation status in predicting student success? Paper presented at the annual AIR 1999 Forum, Seattle, WA.

Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa, S. M. (2000). Overcoming the tasks on the path to college for America's disadvantaged. In A. F. Cabrera, & S. M. La Nasa (Eds.), Understanding the college choice of disadvantaged students (pp. 5-22). New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 107. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cabrera, A. F., & La Nasa. S. M. (2001). On the path to college: Three critical tasks facing America's disadvantaged. Research in Higher Education, 42(2) 119-150.

Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.

Choy, S. P., Horn, L. J., Nunez, A., & Chen, X. (2000). Transition to college: What helps at-risk students and students whose parents did not attend college? In A. F. Cabrera, & S. M. La Nasa (Eds.), Understanding the college choice of disadvantaged students (pp. 45-64). New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 107. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

de los Santos, A. G., & Wright, I. (1990). Maricopa's swirling students: Earning one-third of Arizona State's bachelor's degrees. Community, Technical and Junior College Journal, 60(6), 32-34.

Education Resources Institute and the Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1997). Missed opportunities: A new look at disadvantaged college aspirants. Boston: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED420257)

Hackman, J. R., & Dysinger, W. S. (1970). Commitment to college as a factor in student attrition. Sociology of Education, 43, 311-324.

Hagedorn, L. S., & Castro, C. R. (1999). Paradoxes: California's experience with reverse transfer students. In B. K. Townsend (Ed.), Understanding the impact of reverse transfer students on community colleges (pp. 15-26). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 106. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hagedorn, L. S., Maxwell, W. E., & Moon, H. S. (2002). Research on Urban Community College Transfer and Retention: The Los Angeles TRUCCS Project. Report by the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students Project. Available from http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/truccs/

Hossler, D., & Stage, F. K. (1999). Family and high school experience influences on the postsecondary education plans of ninth grade students. American Education Research Journal 29, 425-451.

King, J. E. (1996). The decision to go to college: Attitudes and experiences associated with college attendance among low-income students. Washington DC: College Board.

Littleton, R. (1998). Developmental education: Are community colleges the solution? Unpublished manuscript.

McCormick, A. C., & Carroll, C. D. (1997). Transfer behavior among beginning postsecondary students: 1989-94 (Report No. NCES-97-266). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED408929)

Mitchell, K. (1997). Making the grade: Help and hope for the first-generation college student. ERIC Review, 5(3), 13-15.

McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Moss, R. L., & Young, R. B. (1995). Perceptions about the academic and social integration of underprepared students in an urban community college. Community College Review, 16(4), 47-61.

Nunez, A., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education (NCES Publication No. 98-082). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Pascarella E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Philippe, K. A., & Valiga, M. J. (2000). Faces of the future: A portrait of America's community college students. Washington DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

Powell, B., & Steelman, L. C. (1995). Feeling the pinch: Child spacing and constraints on parental economic investments in children. Social Forces 73(4), 1465-1486.

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. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED383369)

Terenzini, P. T., Rendon, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L., et al. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research in Higher Education, 35, 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, 1-22.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jenny J. Lee is an assistant professor at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Arizona. [e-mail]

Linda J. Sax is Associate Professor-in-Residence in the Department of Education, Director of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program, and Associate Director of the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles. [e-mail]

Karen A. Kim is a lecturer and an evaluator of the NSF FOCUS! partnership at the University of California, Irvine. [e-mail]

Linda Serra Hagedorn is an associate professor and the associate director of the Center for Higher Education Policy Anlaysis at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. She is also the Director of the TRUCCS Project. [e-mail]