No abstract

A growing number and proportion of students rely on student loans to assist with the costs of postsecondary education. Yet little is known about how first-generation students use federal loans to finance their education. In this article, we examine each of the decisions that culminate in student indebtedness: the decision to apply for aid, whether to borrow, and how much to borrow. We find significant differences by generational status at each step of the student borrowing process. First-generation students are more likely to apply for financial aid, borrow, and take out larger loans than their peers, after controlling for a rich set of covariates for costs and financial resources. We find that student characteristics cannot fully explain these observed differences in borrowing outcomes across generations.

has operated under a voluntary "race-neutral" admission policy for the past 2 decades. Using frame analysis theory, we examine university documents and interview data from 11 campus administrators responsible for diversity efforts to understand how diversity is framed at the institutional and individual levels post-affirmative action. We compare our findings to the broader sociolegal discourses around diversity to present points of convergence and divergence among frames. We find official university framing of diversity has broadened over time to include numerous characteristics, while administrators hold divergent frames depending on their functional area, philosophy, and personal experience. We conclude that divergent frames may reflect and contribute to the challenge of advancing a coherent set of diversity efforts in a post-affirmative action context, where the place of race in institutional policy is muted. As more institutions consider admissions policy devoid of race to avoid protracted legal struggles, it may be especially important for institutions and administrators responsible for diversity efforts to be explicit with one another and with those whom they hire about how they will continue seeking racial equity.

Although it is well established that college entrance exams have become a key factor for admission to selective institutions, less is known about the influence of test scores in relation to other academic factors in the evaluation of a student’s application file. This study conducts a randomized-controlled trial to determine whether providing students’ test scores in context—how they perform relative to their school and neighborhood peers—increases the likelihood that admission officers ( n = 321) would recommend admitting low-socioeconomic status (SES) applicants. The study also examines how including a personal admission essay that conveys grit, or ability to persevere in the pursuit of long-term goals, influences admission decision making. Admission officers in the contextual condition were significantly more likely to accept both the low-SES and high-SES applicant than those without contextual information on test scores; however, they were not more likely to accept applicants who convey grit in their personal essays.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine whether there are differences in beginning doctoral students’ perceptions of the disciplinary knowledge required to be successful in doctoral education and identify pre-doctoral characteristics and experiences that explain these differences. Design/methodology/approach This study relied on survey data of first-year PhD students enrolled at a large, research-intensive university. Survey responses were matched to institutional information, missing data were imputed and responses were weighted to account for groups’ differential probabilities of being included in the analytical sample. The authors used regression analysis to examine the relationship between students’ background characteristics, anticipatory socialization experiences, academic performance and perceived levels of disciplinary knowledge. Findings The study findings indicated significant differences in doctoral students’ perceived levels of disciplinary knowledge. Students who identify as female or URM had significantly lower levels of perceived disciplinary knowledge than students who identify as male or non-URM. Moreover, several anticipatory socialization experiences were significantly and positively related to perceived disciplinary knowledge. Originality/value While there is evidence that doctoral students start graduate school with varying identities and experiences, little is known about how students perceive their abilities and knowledge. This study reported that students differ in their self-assessment of disciplinary knowledge as they embark on doctoral work with implications for academic identity development and student success.