First-generation students’ underperformance at university: the impact of the function of selection

Abstract

According to recent research, university not only has the role to educate and train students, it also has the role to select the best students. We argue that this function of selection disadvantages first-generation students, in comparison with continuing-generation students. Thus, the mere activation of the function of selection should be sufficient to produce achievement differences between first-generation and continuing-generation students in a novel academic task. Furthermore, we propose that when the function of selection is salient, first-generation students would be more vigilant to a cue that may confirm their inferiority, which should explain their underperformance. In the present experiment, participants were asked to complete an arithmetic modular task under two conditions, which either made the function of selection salient or reduced its importance. Participants’ vigilance to a threatening cue (i.e., their performance relative to others) was measured through an eye-tracking technique. The results confirmed that first-generation students performed more poorly compared to continuing-generation students only when the function of selection was salient while no differences appeared in the no-selection condition. Regarding vigilance, the results did not confirm our hypothesis; thus, mediation path could not be tested. However, results indicated that at a high level of initial performance, first-generation students looked more often at the threatening cue. In others words, these students seemed more concerned about whether they were performing more poorly than others compared to their continuing-generation counterparts. Some methodological issues are discussed, notably regarding the measure of vigilance.

‘Where there is a will, there is a way’: Belief in school meritocracy and the social‐class achievement gap

“…The results also suggest that the moderation of the link between BSM and performance by SES (i.e., negative for low SES, non‐significant for high SES) increases with self‐efficacy. Although unexpected, this result is coherent with some findings showing that low SES students who seem to suffer the most from their status are, surprisingly, those who achieve quite well in the system (Jury, Smeding, Court, & Darnon, ; Jury, Smeding & Darnon, ). A potential explanation is that students who have both low SES and low self‐efficacy might disengage from academics.…”

Belief in school meritocracy as a system-justifying tool for low status students

“…Depending on the condition, students are either reminded of the important selection process that occurs at the university or told that the main goal of university is to allow everybody to succeed. Previous research has shown that low status students' performance decreases when the selection process of university is made salient (Jury et al, 2015) or when assessment practices focus on selection (Smeding et al, 2013). Moreover, the school system grants them (or not) a chance to achieve upward mobility, and they are consequently particularly dependent on it, all the more so as the selection process is made salient.…”

“…Indeed, several authors have identified that the educational system serves not only an educational function, but also a selection function (Darnon et al, 2009, 2012; Jury et al, 2015). The selection function of the school system refers to the fact that, in Western societies, the school system has been ascribed the role to assign pupils at various positions, which highly differ in terms of wealth, status, power, and prestige (Duru-Bellat and Tenret, 2009).…”

The Experience of Low‐SES Students in Higher Education: Psychological Barriers to Success and Interventions to Reduce Social‐Class Inequality

“…Recent work on the social‐class achievement gap in higher education demonstrated that low‐SES students endorse more damaging forms of achievement motivation (i.e., avoidance‐oriented goals) than high‐SES students. More specifically, first‐generation college students are more likely to be afraid of failure (Bui, ) and thus more likely to endorse performance‐avoidance goals in college (i.e., trying not to be outperformed by others, Jury, Smeding, Court, & Darnon, ; Jury, Smeding, & Darnon, ) than continuing‐generation students. Moreover, in competitive departments (e.g., civil engineering), first‐generation college students are more likely to experience less fit and consequently, more difficulty in maintaining mastery‐goal endorsement (i.e., desire to progress, to master tasks), compared with continuing‐generation students (Sommet, Quiamzade, Jury, & Mugny, ).…”