High-Achieving African American Students and the College Choice Process: Applying Critical Race Theory 9780367352684, 9780429330278

Citation preview

High-Achieving African American Students and the College Choice Process

By critically examining the legal, institutional, and social factors that prohibit or promote students’ college choices, this book undermines the notion that African American students and their families are opposed to formal education and reveals structural barriers which they face in accessing elite institutions. For African American students, unequal education is rooted in the legacy of slavery and of the history of institutional and structural racism in the United States. The long legacy of racism in education cannot be dismissed when reflecting on the college choice experiences of African American students today. Authors uniquely apply critical race theory (CRT) to analyze the college selection process of high-achieving African American students and highlight the similarities and differences within an impressive group of students, thus challenging the deficit notions of African American students as perpetual underachievers. They also show that contrary to general assumptions, African American parents are inclined toward providing their sons and daughters higher education at elite higher education institutions in the United States. The decision is often influenced by an analysis of factors including the allocation of school resources, parental attitudes, university recruitment, campus outreach, and affordability. The issues of discrimination on the grounds of race, class, and gender often play a vital role in decision-making process. This text will be of great interest to graduate students, researchers, academics, professionals, and policy-makers in the field of race and ethnicity in higher education, sociology of education, equality and human rights, and African American studies. Thandeka K. Chapman is Associate Professor in the Department of Education Studies at the University of California, San Diego, USA. Frances Contreras is Associate Professor in the Department of Education Studies at University of California San Diego and Associate Vice-Chancellor for Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, USA. Eddie Comeaux is Associate Professor of Higher Education at the University of California, Riverside, USA. Eligio Martinez Jr. is Clinical Assistant Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs in the School of Educational Studies at Claremont Graduate University, USA. Gloria M. Rodriguez is Associate Professor at the University of California, Davis School of Education, USA.

Routledge Research in Educational Equality and Diversity

Books in the series include: Gender in Learning and Teaching Feminist Dialogues Across International Boundaries Edited by Carol A. Taylor, Chantal Amade-Escot and Andrea Abbas Nationality and Ethnicity in an Israeli School A Case Study of Jewish-Arab Students Dalya Yafa Markovich Intersectional Pedagogy Creative Education Practices for Gender and Peace Work Gal Harmat Schools as Queer Transformative Spaces Global Narratives on Sexualities and Genders Jón Ingvar Kjaran and Helen Sauntson Promoting Academic Readiness for African American Males with Dyslexia Implications for Preschool to Elementary School Teaching Edited by Shawn Anthony Robinson & Corey Thompson High-Achieving African American Students and the College Choice Process Applying Critical Race Theory Thandeka K. Chapman, Frances Contreras, Eddie Comeaux, Eligio Martinez Jr., and Gloria M. Rodriguez For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Research-in-Educational-Equality-and-Diversity/book-series/ RREED

High-Achieving African American Students and the College Choice Process Applying Critical Race Theory Thandeka K. Chapman, Frances Contreras, Eddie Comeaux, Eligio Martinez Jr., and Gloria M. Rodriguez

First published 2020 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Taylor & Francis The right of Thandeka K. Chapman, Frances Contreras, Eddie Comeaux, Eligio Martinez Jr., and Gloria M. Rodriguez to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this title has been requested ISBN: 978-0-367-35268-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-33027-8 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by codeMantra

Group Dedication We dedicate this book to all the African American students and families, and communities of color, who attempt to navigate the college choice process as a pathway for personal, community, economic, and social mobility. We continue to support your pursuits toward racial justice and your efforts to increase access and opportunities for success in Black and Brown communities. Personal Dedications I dedicate this book to my nieces and nephews who thrive as the next generation of African American leaders, activists, and whatever you wish for yourselves and your families: Caleb Payne, Hattie Gaines, Miles Simms, Joshua Payne, Kendall Gaines, Aaliyah Brown, Taryn Payne, Maya Simms, Peyton O. Pressley, Daniel Armstrong, Jared O.C. Pressley, and Jada Armstrong. I love every minute of being a part of your individual journeys. The Sky is the limit! —Thandeka K. Chapman To Francisco Javier and Victoria Guadalupe. May you grow up to be leaders, innovators, and strong advocates for justice. —Frances Contreras To my parents, Eligio Martinez Sr. and Ofelia Martinez. To all the young men that I have worked with and mentored in California, Washington, and Texas. And the memory of Dr. Berky Nelson, I wish you were here to read this. —Eligio Martinez Jr.

To my family, friends, students, and colleagues. I continue to learn and be inspired by all of you. —Eddie Comeaux To the educators and student affairs professionals who, often without accolades or recognition, have been the champions of educational access and support for generations of brilliant and amazing African American college students. —Gloria M. Rodriguez

Contents

List of Figures and Tables Foreword

ix xi

WA LT E R R . A L L E N

Preface

xv

T H A N D E K A K . C H A PM A N

Acknowledgments

xix

1

Introduction: The Status of African Americans in Postsecondary Education 1

2

Critical Race Theory, Mixed Methods, and a Conceptual Model of the African American College Choice Process 15

3

What Makes a Student a High-Achiever? A Profile of African American Students’ Academic Preparation and Planning for College 28

4

The Strongest System of African American Student Support: The Influences of Family and Kinship Ties 43

5

Opportunity to Enroll: The Roles of Counselors and Teachers in the African American Student College Choice Process 57

6

Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention: Institutional and Structural Factors Influencing Diversity in Higher Education 78

7

Complexities of Cost: Navigating Affordability in the College Choice Process 92

viii Contents

8

Addressing Issues of Race and Racism in the College Choice Process 109 Appendix: Students Pseudonyms and Colleges Bibliography Index

121 123 147

Figures and Tables

Figures 1.1

High school and bachelor’s degree attainment for Black population aged 25 years and older: 1974–2018 6 1.2 Percentage distribution of educational attainment of adults aged 25 and older, by race/ethnicity: 2016 7 1.3 Six-year outcomes by race and ethnicity 8 1.4 Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds with a bachelor’s or higher degree, by race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2018. National Policy Context for African American College Access and Choice 8 1.5 A history of University of California admissions policies post-affirmative ­ action 10 1.6 Student Academic Preparation and Educational Partnerships (SAPEP) State & UC funds, select years, 1997–2014 10 2.1 Tenets of critical race theory 16 2.2 Conceptual model of African American college choice 24 7.1 Average published tuition and fees in 2018 dollars by sector, 1988–1989 to 2018–2019 95

Tables 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 6.1 6.2

Students’ Generation status in the United States 31 Mother’s Level of Education 33 Father’s Level of Education 33 Number of AP Courses Taken in High School 34 Student Awards and Leadership 35 Key Activities in High School 35 Percentages of Black Students at Selective Public Institutions 79 White–Black Gap between Students Awarded Bachelor’s Degree in U.S. States 80 6.3 Student Survey Responses to the Importance of Diversity 85 7.1 Importance of College Cost on Making College Decisions 96 7.2 Importance of College Cost on Making College Decision by Mother’s Education Level 98

Foreword Walter R. Allen1

Why do so many of California’s high-achieving African American students choose not to attend the University of California (UC)? This book addresses this vitally important question. African Americans have been, and continue to be, alarmingly scarce on the most prestigious campuses in the UC system. The problem of Black underrepresentation on UC campuses has persisted since 1976 when African Americans were 5.3% of undergraduate enrollment at UC Los Angeles and 4% at UC Berkeley. By 2015, 40 years later, Blacks had declined to only 3% of undergraduates at UCLA and 2.1% at UC Berkeley (Allen, McLewis, Jones and Harris, 2018). Of course, the exception to this rule is the proliferation of African American blue-chip athletes on these campuses. Interestingly, similar patterns of persistent, dramatic Black student underrepresentation at the elite public universities are repeated across the nation. After briefly opening their doors more widely to Black students during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the nation’s public flagships rushed to again raise hurdles that disproportionately blocked Black access. Despite, or perhaps in response to, record success in Black student college enrollment and graduation rates, widespread actions were taken to slow or turn back progress. The mechanisms employed included court decisions weakening or banning affirmative action programs, state referendums against affirmative action, declining student financial aid, state divestment from higher education, greater emphasis on standardized testing, increasing levels of campus racial hostility, and a host of other factors. African American students are consistently and severely underrepresented at flagship public campuses across the nation regardless of state demographics. For example, in the four states where the total number of Blacks exceeded three million, Black undergraduate enrollment at the flagship campus only reached double digits in New York (16.6%), Florida (4.8%), Georgia (7.6%), and Texas (4.2%). In states where Blacks were at least 30% of total population, they reached double-digit undergraduate enrollment at the flagship, but in all cases these percentages were

xii Foreword considerably below their fraction of the state’s population— Georgia 7.6%, Maryland 12.7%, Louisiana 12%, and Mississippi 13% (Allen, McLewis, Jones, Harris, 2018). What has followed these dismal statistics is much public hand wringing and beating of breasts regarding these stubbornly persistent problems. However, dominant narratives absolved higher education institutions, their policies, practices, and officers of responsibility for this dire situation. Instead we are told, through conclusions implicit or explicit, structural or individual, and “scientific” or “popular,” that the problem rests with Black people themselves—their psyches, families, institutions, and culture. If only Black people would take advantage of the myriad opportunities, work harder, complain less, and be smarter, they too could enter public flagships and prosper in greater numbers like Whites. In short, we are asked to believe that America has placed race in the rear-view mirror and moved on to become a truly color-blind society. Justice Harry Blackmun’s sagely notes, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way” (Bakke v. University of California Regents, 1978). These authors channel Justice Blackmun’s wisdom to vigorously reject the myth that race no longer matters in America. By so doing, they “speak truth to power.” With clear-eyed courage, the book places race, racism, racial discrimination, and anti-Black ideology at the center of the college choice process among “high-achieving” Black students. This book uses critical race theory (CRT) to show how attitudes, policies, and practices rooted in color-blind ideology inexorably create and reinforce racial disparities on the UC’s most selective campuses. CRT helps to “unpack” how race is interwoven with educational access, inequitable resources, and personal decisions. It focuses on historical, socioeconomic, and political contexts to better understand how laws, high school and family resources, university policies and practices, and other social factors shape the college decisions of African American high-achievers. Race and racism impact African American students in all areas of life. These authors reject disingenuous explanations of Black scarcity on UC campuses that ignore or underplay race. Blacks encounter severe deficits and barriers at each stage of the educational pipeline: from early childhood poverty to restricted preschool opportunities to academic tracking in elementary school to underresourced, segregated high schools to limited college access and success rates. African Americans have faced a “360-degree wrap-around” of educational disadvantages, designed to deny Blacks their humanity, freedom, and opportunities for success in order to preserve White supremacy under oppressive systems such as slavery, Jim Crow segregation, mass incarceration, and untouchable caste status. High-achieving African American students in California expressed profound disappointment with the UC’s highly selective campuses for failing to fully value their accomplishments. Ironically, elite

Foreword  xiii private universities and colleges, many with far greater academic prestige than the UC institutions, actively pursue and attract these uniquely talented, promising Black high-achievers. The UC has been plagued by the low numbers of Black students who enroll and graduate. Much time and many resources have been devoted to addressing this problem, only to be frustrated again and again. This book analyzes and reports problems related to the failure of the UC high-selectivity campuses to recruit and enroll high-achieving African Americans, the majority of whom graduated from California high schools. Fortunately, the authors then go on to articulate how to address such problems in the future. Not only does this research offer valuable lessons for the UC, it also provides information helpful to other state higher education systems struggling with similar issues. This book is an excellent addition to the literature on race, equity, K-12, and higher education. The authors are to be complimented for successfully merging rigorous, critical, empirical research with effective, applied practice in this book. This research provides essential guidance for the UC’s highselectivity campuses on how to win the intense competition for the state’s high-achieving African American high school graduates.

Note

Preface Thandeka K. Chapman

We began the research process for this book in 2015 as a result of community outrage and institutional concerns regarding the limited numbers of African American students on University of California (UC) campuses. Initially we were tasked with understanding why African American students were not choosing to attend UC schools where they were accepted. As we discuss in Chapters 1 and 3, students who are accepted to UC schools are academic high-achievers who have dedicated a tremendous amount of time and effort toward preparing themselves to be highly competitive college applicants. These students are indeed impressive. At first, the problem was framed as resting on the shoulders of Black students, families, and communities. The UC system consists of nine highly selective universities with top-ranked programs, notable research and scholars, and well-resourced campuses. What about students’ decision-making processes would sway California’s best and brightest African American students to matriculate elsewhere? What is going on with these students and families? These were not our questions, but the questions that were brought to us by our UC funding agencies. To answer these questions, Frances Contreras and Thandeka K. Chapman designed a comprehensive mixed method study and invited scholars from across the UC system to become part of the research team investigating these questions. As we surveyed and interviewed African American students who decline UC admissions, we realized that we had to reverse the questions and apply a critical race theory lens to K-12 and higher education institutions, historic systemic racism, and larger social and economic issues that impact the college choice process for African American students. The questions became, “Why aren’t the UCs choosing African American students? What is going on within UC campuses that has prevented them from recruiting, admitting, and courting these high-achievers for California’s highly selective pubic institutions?” After the data collection and analysis was completed, the answer was clear. African American students were not choosing UCs because the UCs were not choosing them. Other colleges and universities spoke to the needs and desires of the students and their families. State colleges, highly selective, and elite universities showed the students that they were

xvi Preface valuable through heavy recruitment efforts, need-based and merit-based scholarships, campus resources focused on African American students, and an established presence of racial diversity. These students are not making bad choices. The public universities that do not accept them and support them are making bad choices. Given our change of direction in examining the college choice process, the report received mixed reactions. Yet, the report has been put to good use as a tool to facilitate changes at institutional levels across the UC schools. For example, African American alumni groups have used the report to advocate for changes in the UC admissions process. Several UCs have created recruitment and retention initiatives and accrued substantial philanthropic financial gifts specifically aimed to increase the percentages of Black students on their campuses. Importantly, the tensions between highly selective public universities and service to African American communities in their states are not unique to California. As we discuss in Chapter 6, this is a problem for all but a few U.S. states. Whereas public universities are expected to reflect the diverse racial demographics of the state, most highly selective universities fail to meet the bar of representation for non-White students.

How We Contributed to the Book We wrote this book in a multiple-author platform as a display of solidarity and support for the work we each contributed to this project. Many thanks to Frances Contreras, who secured funding for this project and brought the four satellite primary investigators, Thandeka K. Chapman, Eddie Comeaux, Malo Hutson, and Gloria Rodriguez, on board to conduct the research and coordinate the writing of the final report. All primary investigators supervised a team of two to three graduate students from their UC campus to conduct the interviews and data analysis. The study could not have been completed without Eligio Martinez Jr. who organized the data collection and analysis, oversaw the logistics for the entire project, and supervised graduate and undergraduate researchers. With regard to the writing of the book, all the authors conceptualized the themes, theory, and chapters for the text. All the authors peer-edited and reviewed multiple book chapters. The recommendations in the final chapter were written by the authors who wrote the preceding chapter on specific themes. Frances and I wrote the majority of the chapters with Eddie Comeaux concentrating on Chapter 6 and contributing to Chapter 2. Eligio Martinez Jr. contributed several sections to Chapters 2–5; he organized the list of tables and graphs and moved the manuscript toward completion by completing several tasks. Gloria Rodriguez contributed to the construction and writing of Chapter 7. For me, the first author, this book is a labor of love that required me to take on many responsibilities and roles over multiple years.

Preface  xvii

Our Hope for the Book We write this book to bring attention to the complexities of the college choice process for African American students and underscore the institutional and structural changes that are required to foster racial justice in college admissions. Additionally, we emphasize the systemic barriers to African American student success that originate in our K-12 schools. It is our hope that the information in this book influences the decisions of institutional, local, national, and federal education policy-makers, and educates families of color about the college choice process. Thandeka K. Chapman

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the University of California (UC) Council of Vice Chancellors of Student Affairs, UC San Diego Chancellor Pradeep Khosla, and Dr. Juan Gonzalez for financially supporting the data collection, analysis, and publication of the Project EXCEL report. Thank you for your commitment to the recruitment and retention of African American students on UC campuses. We have been fortunate to work with an amazing editorial team at Routledge, and we thank them for their ongoing support and encouragement throughout the development and production of this text. We would like to thank Dr. Malo Hutson from UC Berkeley and the UC students who worked on the original research project. The data collection and analysis would not have been possible, nor as rich, without their work. Aida Aliyeva—UC Riverside; Nallely Arteaga—UC Riverside; Tina Bachman—UC Riverside; BernNadette Best-Green—UC Davis; Chalisse Fortson—UC San Diego; Chantal Hildebrand—UC Berkeley; Tia Madkins—UC Berkeley; Bertin Solis—UC Santa Barbara; Lorraine Wilkins—UC Davis.

1

Introduction The Status of African Americans in Postsecondary Education

Over the past 65 years, since the Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka Kansas 1954 decision that made the segregation of public institutions illegal in the United States, we have witnessed an ongoing rise and fall in the numbers of African American students matriculating through predominately White institutions (PWIs) of higher education. African Americans remain invested in higher education as a vehicle for the social and economic mobility of individuals, families, and communities. According to the National Center for Data and Statistics, 58% of African American high school students transition to college within three years of completing high school (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ d18/tables/dt18_302.20.asp), and in 2017, 33% of African American males and 39% of African American females were enrolled in two- or four-year colleges and universities. Yet, while African Americans comprise 14% of the population, only 8.3% of all high school completers who are enrolled in higher education are African American. Moreover, there remains an 11% gap between White student and African American student enrollment. With regard to highly selective public colleges and universities, whose missions are tied to serving their state populations, higher education has yet to achieve racial equity in admissions or the retention of students from racially marginalized communities. Even as these universities demonstrate various levels of commitment toward increasing the numbers of Black and Brown students on their campuses, they continue to fall short of deeply investing in racial equity and justice for students of color. Although we use the University of California (UC) system admissions policies and processes to explore the enrollment discrepancies between White and African American students, we underscore the endemic nature of race and racism in higher education in the United States and in England, where Black Caribbean populations continue to struggle to access British state schools (Hoskins & Ilie, 2017; Warikoo & Fuhr, 2014). As highly selective universities struggle to value the contributions that Black students make to their campuses, and ultimately to local, national, and global communities, we offer our readers our insights into

2 Introduction the experiences of African American high-achievers as they shape themselves into highly competitive college applicants.

What Do We Mean by “High-Achieving”? High-achievers are typically characterized as students who perform well in their high school context across a series of indicators that indicate college readiness and the likelihood of college transition. These variables typically include a student’s grade point average, Scholarship Aptitude Test (SAT)/American College Testing (ACT) scores, and enrollment in a rigorous high school curriculum such as Advance Placement Exams, Honors, International Baccalaureate program, or dual enrollment courses, as well as active participation and holding leadership positions in extracurricular activities such as sports, music, drama, or campus organizations. For this study, students who complete A-G requirements, which are a series of courses that students take to be eligible for college admission to public universities in the state; students who receive admission to a UC institution; and students who are in the top 12.5% of their graduating class are identified as high-achievers. In Chapter 3, we provide an extensive profile of the students’ accomplishments, families, and the intersectional diversity within this designated population.

Why Focus on High-Achieving African American Students and Highly Selective Institutions? A focus on high-achievers allows us to interrogate issues of race and racism within the college choice process, from a position of academic strengths and future successful career potential, which these students now hold. Oftentimes, the narrative surrounding the inequitable numbers of African American students at highly selective universities focuses on the perceived academic shortcomings of African American students and the lack of academic preparation that leads to the limited retention of students of color. By focusing our book on African American high-achievers, we subtract this argument about student inadequacies and focus on the institutional, structural, and historical impacts that shape the college choice process for African American students. We ask the question, “When achievement and motivation are of no concern, what are the factors that guide the decision-making processes of African American students?”

Why College Selectivity Matters? While most educators would agree that attending college, any college, is an important goal of the K-12 pipeline, examining the barriers facing students who attempt to access highly selective state institutions is important because all colleges are not created equal. It has been well documented

Introduction  3 that a higher education degree from selective institutions provides avenues for academic, economic, and social advancement in the United States (Carnevale & Rose, 2004; Contreras, 2012). Researchers have also found that African Americans, Latinos, and Native American students are less likely to attend highly selective institutions (Alon & Tienda, 2007; Carnevale & Rose, 2004). Higher education experiences at selective institutions provide avenues for academic, economic, and social advancement in the United States. Students attending selective or highly selective universities are not only exposed to elite educational offerings and cutting-edge faculty and leaders, but they also have shorter times to degrees and higher college completion rates (Carnevale & Rose, 2004; Contreras, 2012). Students who attend highly selective undergraduate institutions become part of a network of alumni that further advances their social and professional networks beyond higher education (Bowen & Bok, 1998). Students who attend highly selective institutions as undergraduates are more likely to go on to graduate school for their master’s, professional, and/or doctoral degrees (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Carnevale & Rose, 2004; Gándara, 2012), although this has been found to vary by major fields of study. Attending highly selective colleges also translates into higher lifetime earnings and positive social and health effects (Loury & Garman, 1995; Witteveen & Attewell, 2017) when compared to peers from the same ethnic groups. In their study of baccalaureate income levels for graduates from elite, highly selective, selective, and nonselective schools, ten years after graduation, Witteveen and Attewell report, With ten years of potential labor market experience, graduates from the most selective colleges earn about $13,000 more annually compared to graduates from average selective colleges…. The 2008 BA graduates also experienced earnings disadvantages relative to the most elite college graduates four years after graduation: 6.7 percent (very selective), 11.4 percent (selective) and 7.4 percent (less/nonselective)…. In our most conservative counterfactual model, earnings were 21% lower in the lowest selectivity colleges compared to the most selective; they were 13.4% lower in selective versus the most selective colleges, and earnings were even 11.3% lower in the next to highest selectivity category. (2017, pp. 159–164) However, significant differences exist between Whites and Asians earning higher wages than African Americans or underrepresented communities with comparable degrees from elite institutions (Cancio, Evans, & Maume, 1996; Zhang, 2008). Additionally, selective colleges represent an important “signal” of rigorous academic work and social prestige,

4 Introduction which makes their alumni more competitive candidates for jobs and graduate school. Unfortunately, highly selective and elite institutions of higher education have become increasingly difficult for students to gain admission. White students from high-income backgrounds, for example, have a competitive advantage in the admissions game compared to students from first-generation, low-income, or racially underrepresented backgrounds. Understanding high-achieving African American students is therefore an important step toward ensuring that these high-achievers are afforded the opportunities they have earned with their records of achievement.

Recognizing and Challenging “Undermatching” For African American students, the pathway to higher education has not been linear, and college choice knowledge varies depending on the socioeconomic status of students and the high school context (Allen, Bonous-Hammarth, Teranishi, & Dano, 2005). Higher education literature on college access, transition, and choice processes has found that African American, Chicano/Latino, and Native American students possess limited access to selective institutions, which relates to students attending low-resourced K-12 schools and students’ socioeconomic positions (Allen, Bonous-Hammarth,  & Suh, 2004; Contreras, 2012; Gándara, Orfield, & Horn, 2005; Jayakumar, Vue, & Allen, 2013; Perez & McDonough, 2008). In addition to the growing body of college choice literature, this study also draws from emerging higher education literature on “undermatching,” which asserts that underrepresented first-generation students of color are more likely than their peers to attend less selective institutions, even if they are high-achievers and competitive for admission to highly selective or elite institutions (Gándara et al., 2005; Hoxby & Avery, 2013). However, the challenge with the construct of “undermatching” assumes that students should be choosing a particular institutional type, which disregards the realities of equitable access, institutional and structural constraints, and student agency to determine what college is the best fit for them. Due to a range of factors including, cost, debt aversion, lack of information on academic programs, desire to remain close to home, limited financial resources, limited social capital, or “college knowledge,” underrepresented first-generation students are more likely to come from families and communities that believe college is college and may not fully understand the tangible benefits to attending highly selective institutions. Students may also not be fully aware of the fact that less selective institutions have longer time-to-degree completion average rates, higher dropout rates, larger class sizes, commuter campuses, and offer less financial aid packages than selective or elite institutions.

Introduction  5 The failure to admit African American students to highly selective public universities suggests that there is a need to rethink both the purpose and mission of public higher education and to examine the current selection processes for admissions in order to ensure basic principles of inclusion, fairness, and equity. But “rethinking,” without an authentic strategy for achieving equity, will not lead to significant change. Comeaux and Watford (2006) reminded us that “system-wide, present admissions outcomes reflect negatively on the future of racial and ethnic equality in the state” (p. 3), and that high-achieving and deserving African Americans are not being granted admissions to our most selective state campuses (Comeaux & Watford, 2006; Contreras, 2005). We are still witnessing an access dilemma and inherent flaws in the selection process for admissions to the most selective campuses for many talented, historically excluded African Americans.

Context for African Americans in Higher Education The demand for a college degree has never been greater in the United States and in global contexts. Yet, access to college, particularly selective colleges and universities, remains elusive. As a result, upward generational mobility for African Americans has been hampered in the United States, which contributes to income inequality and stalled economic progress across generations. In a recent report from the Brookings Institution, Reeves and Pulliam (2019) examined upward mobility among African American children compared to Whites across generations. These differences threaten the development and sustainability of an African American middle class population. Black children in the first income quintile are 17 percentage points more likely to stay in the first income quintile as adults compared to random—nearly twice the chance of poor white children. Conversely, rich black children do not have the same advantages as rich white children. Black children from the top income quintile are in fact two percentage points less likely to stay in the top quintile compared to random. While white children at the top have a substantial glass floor to help them stay at the top, the chances of black children staying at the top are less than random. (Reeves & Pulliam, 2019, p. XX) Historically, access to educational services, equity, and investment in African Americans has been established through the legal arena (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education) or through mandated federal policy changes (e.g., Civil Rights Act of 1964). The history of African American higher education was based on a combination of a segregated system of higher

6 Introduction education through the development of over 40 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) between 1865 and 1890 (Drewry  & Doermann, 2003). Higher education college choice, therefore, has historically been predicated on this history of segregation and limited access. HBCUs were founded to provide access to higher education for African American students and have a history of serving a critical mass of African American students using an asset-based, culturally responsive approach to pedagogy and student engagement (Drewry & Doermann, 2003). HBCUs, as a system of largely private institutions, were also in part responsible for economic and social mobility for the community, increasing postsecondary options, and raising education attainment rates. Today, these colleges remain a strong draw for high-achieving African American students ranging in academic prestige and rigor (Arroyo, & Gasman, 2014). The number of HBCUs cannot solely meet the academic and social needs of the African American student population, nor do all African American students desire to attend HBCUs. Despite the historical and current assets of HBCUs, while due to the historical efforts of HBCUs and select public policy levers, African American BA degree attainment remains low across the United States (Nichols & Schak, 2019). Data from 1974 to 2018 show limited progress in bachelor’s degree attainment, especially given the increasing demand for a college-educated population to enter into an increasingly competitive national and global workforce (Figure 1.1). In fact, in 2016, 21% of adults aged 25 or older had earned a bachelor’s degree, while 31% had earned a high school diploma. These data on the distribution of educational attainment show the majority of 100 25-29 years old

High School or higher

90 80

25 years and over

70 Percent

60 50 40 30 20

Bachelor’s Degree or higher 25-29 years old

10 0 1973

25 years and over 1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

2003

2008

2013

2018

Figure 1.1 High school and bachelor’s degree attainment for Black population aged 25 years and older: 1974–2018. Note: The race data for Black since 2003 represent those who indicated only one racial identity. Source: U. S. Census Bureau 1974–2002 March Current Population Survey, 2003–2018 Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey.

Introduction  7 Percent 100 80 60

31

8

40

0

27 13

Total1

9

15

18

28

27

33 15

Black

9

34

25

26

10

35

33

13

17

8

25

15 13

Hispanic

15

7 12

31

8

54 34

25

21

White

18

6 8

21

20

21 35

Asian

Race/ethnicity

22

Bachelor’s or higher degree Associate’s degree Some college, no degree High school only Less than high school completion

9

Pacific American Two or Islander Indian/ more races Alaska Native

Figure 1.2 Percentage distribution of educational attainment of adults aged 25 and older, by race/ethnicity: 2016. Source: NCES, 2018. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_RFA.asp. National Profile of African Americans in Higher Education.

African Americans (46%) with a high school degree or less education level. The data further show relatively stagnant progress in educational attainment for 25- to 29-year-olds from 1973 to 2018 (Figure 1.2). African Americans in higher education are therefore underrepresented across the United States and their attendance percentages remain far lower than their state composition (Nichols & Schak, 2019). For example, in California African Americans comprise only 3.6% of undergraduates in public higher education compared to constituting over 7% of high school graduates aged 18–49 years old (Nichols & Schak, 2019). The six-year college completion data from the National Clearinghouse show the challenges to timely college attainment rates. In 2017, out of over 335,000 African American students, 28.7% of college students had earned their bachelor’s degree, while over 44% were no longer enrolled in college. These data represent institutional and systemic failures to serve African American students in public higher education, and they suggest the need for greater institutional responsiveness to meet the needs of their African American student population (Figure 1.3). Trends in educational attainment for African Americans show progress between 2000 and 2018; yet, a considerable gap between the White population and African Americans exists, as well as between African Americans and Asian Americans (Figure 1.4). College choice in higher education has not always been a right for African Americans. Historically, African Americans could only access postsecondary institutions specifically established with the mission of educating African Americans, the HBCUs. Additional national policies helped to promote higher education access in Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) for African Americans. These include the GI Bill of 1944, one of the earliest higher education government grant programs

8 Introduction 100% 90%

20.0% 30.5%

80%

60%

13.2%

50%

12.8%

12.2%

19.2% 17.4%

40%

26.9% Not Enrolled

16.8%

70%

11.2%

Still Enrolled

14.5%

Completed at Different Institution Completed at Starting Institution

10.2%

9.3%

30% 51.0%

43.4%

20%

47.5% 35.6%

28.7%

10% 0%

35.0%

44.6%

Overall Asian Black Hispanic White (N=2,824,569) (N=136,309) (N=335,894) (N=322,205) (N=1,631,850)

Figure 1.3 Six-year outcomes by race and ethnicity. Source: National Student Clearinghouse, 2017. Percent 100 90 80

71

70 60 50 40 30

44 37 29

34 18

20

23

15

10

10 0

27

21

Total

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Raco/ethnlcity 2000

16 16

Pacific American Two or more races Islander Indian/Alaska Native

2018

Figure 1.4 Percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds with a bachelor’s or higher degree, by race/ethnicity: 2000 and 2018. National Policy Context for African American College Access and Choice. Source: Digest of Education Data Statistics, NCES, 2018.

for service members. This bill is considered one of the most impactful policies that helped to support and develop an African American middle class and generations of college graduates. In 1961, Executive Order 10925 was signed by President Kennedy, establishing a federal affirmative action policy, whereby government contractors were prohibited from all forms of discrimination in public contracting and hiring. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed by President Johnson, solidified the order by outlawing discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and gender. Earlier, the Brown v. Board of

Introduction  9 Education, Topeka, Kansas Supreme Court decision ended segregation in public spaces, which was critical for African American to access institutions of higher education in the United States. The Pell Grant, established as part of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 1965, was introduced as a federal grant program designed to expand access and opportunity in higher education. Pell Grants have long been considered one mechanism that has helped African American students and students of color from low-income and working-class families to access higher education. However, African American families vary in levels of income and education, limiting the impact of financial need-based grants and scholarships.

California Policy Context Because the study focused on students who applied to a UC campus, it is important to provide background and context for admissions for California, a state that consists of the fifth largest African American population in the country (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Access for African American first-time undergraduates across the UC system, and particularly the flagship institutions, is at historic lows. Since the passage of Special Policy-1 in 1995 and Proposition 209 in 1996, the number of African American students enrolled in the UCs has been steadily declining (Allen, 2005; Contreras, 2012; Gándara, 2012; Martin, Karabel, & Jaquez, 2003). As many scholars have contended over the past two decades following the ban on affirmative action, there is simply no substitute for including race in college admissions decisions. However, given California’s constrained policy environment, it is important to fully understand where the UC system has been, what initiatives it has attempted, and what options exist given the Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003 Supreme Court decision and California Proposition 209 (Teranishi & Briscoe, 2008). Figure 1.5 highlights the myriad of policies implemented following the two anti-affirmative action initiatives in 1995 and 1996. While the UC system has attempted to look at students through comprehensive and holistic review processes, such scoring and review mechanisms have not yielded greater African American admissions, nor have they increased underrepresented student diversity at the highly selective and moderately selective UC campuses. Another response to the ban on affirmative action has been K-12 outreach. After the stark decline in African American and underrepresented student admissions to highly and moderately selective UCs in 1996, a task force report identified four strategies to increase the enrollment of educationally disadvantaged students to the UC (Gándara, 2012). The recommendations included the following: (1) expand existing student-centered programs; (2) invest in new partnership programs, creating partnerships between UC campuses and 50

10 Introduction

UC Admissions Policy Continuum 1995 UC Regents expands Adopts SP1&2

1996 2003 CA Voters

2001 2011 UC Implements

2012 UC Adopts

UC Regents endorse

UC

Pass Prop 209

ELC to Top 4% of High School Grads

Comprehensive Review

“Holistic Scoring” in Comprehensive Review

ELC program to Top 9%

Figure 1.5 A history of University of California admissions policies postaffirmative action. 140000 120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0

1997-98 2000-01 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2011-12 2013-2014

Figure 1.6 Student Academic Preparation and Educational Partnerships (SAPEP) State & UC funds, select years, 1997–2014. Source: UC Office of the President (2015). Budget for Current Operations, 2015–2016, p. 213.

underperforming schools; (3) expand informational outreach; and (4) create an evaluation team to assist in studying the impact of outreach efforts (Gándara, 2012, p. 6). At the same time, these goals established by the UC increased its outreach budget from $60 million to $120 million. However, after 2001, this level of investment has steadily declined (Figure 1.6).

Contributions of This Book to the Study of African American College Choice At a time when a focus on the educational experiences and outcomes for successful African American youth is limited, and generational progress appears stalled, this book focuses on the decision-making processes of African American high-achievers who are well on their way to becoming the trailblazers and leaders of their generation. African American students succeeding in school and successfully transitioning to higher

Introduction  11 education is a story rarely read or heard in today’s social, economic, political, and educational contexts; yet, a subset of African American youth in this nation is thriving. Using critical race theory (CRT) as an analytical lens, the authors examine the legal, institutional, and community factors that prohibit and/or support the college choice decisions of high-achieving African American students. The main themes and objectives that are intricately tied to the mission of critical race scholars in education are as follows: (1) to use academic scholarship to contribute to the social, political, and economic empowerment of racially oppressed groups; (2) to use our knowledge, privileges, and resources as higher education faculty of color to facilitate greater racial justice for communities of color; (3) to counter deficit understandings and racialized myths of students of color; and (4)  to more clearly understand the structural and institutional barriers racially marginalized students face in the public education system in the United States. This book is an exploration of African American students’ decision-making processes within the contexts of race and college access. The obstacles students face when accessing elite college options, in part, explain their ultimate decisions to choose particular state and private schooling options. African American students’ decisions are not made in an acontextual or colorblind vacuum; rather their decisions are bounded by state and federal laws and university policies and practices that intersect with issues of race, class, and gender. The primary objectives for the book are as follows: • • • •

To counter deficit notions of African American students and their families through storytelling To interrogate institutional and structural barriers facing access and equity for students of color in education To explore the complexities of race and racism within African American students’ college choice decisions To offer bold recommendations toward generating greater equity and access to higher education for students of color

The authors explicate African American students’ decision-making processes within the institutional and structural contexts of higher education in the United States. CRT is used to frame the college-going processes of African American students because many of the issues the students encountered were impacted by race. Throughout the book, the authors make the case that school resources, students’ and parents’ decision-making criteria, and higher education institutional practices are influenced by historic and current instantiations of race and racism. Moreover, the authors believe that detailing the experiences of high-achieving African American students and showing many strengths and thoughtful processes of these students and their families serves to

12 Introduction counter deficit discourses of African American students and families as being disinterested from academic excellence and higher education goals. Importantly, this book is timely and relevant, given the current national policy framework and higher education contexts in which African American students remain grossly underrepresented at highly selective colleges and universities.

A Model of African American College Choice We propose a model for African American college choice and agency based on the responses from 718 survey respondents and 74 individual interviews with students who were transitioning to college. The central components of our model of African American college choice and agency are rooted in the complexity surrounding the current political climate, legacy of exclusion and institutionalized racism, and individual resiliency and agency of the African American high-achievers profiled in this book.

Organization of the Book To begin our exploration into the experiences of African American high-achievers, we discuss our CRT framework, research methods, and conceptual model in Chapter 2. We use CRT as an analytical tool to present an intersectional profile of high-achievers and ascertain the social, political, and historical factors impacting the college choice process for African American students. We also explain the Hossler–Gallagher’s college choice model that we use to explain the stages of the college choice process. Next, as a form of transparency, we share our research methods, data collection plan, and overview of the participants. Lastly, we bring these empirical and theoretical components together in a conceptual model of African American College Choice. In Chapter 3, we use the data from the participant survey and interviews to create a profile of African American high-achievers. The profile highlights the similarities and differences within this impressive group of students and challenges deficit notions of African American students as perpetual underachievers. We describe the multiple strengths the students bring to the college choice process and why we define this group of students as high-achievers. Using Tara Yosso’s Cultural and Community Wealth framework to explain student resilience and students’ forms of capital, we explore how students navigated Hossler and Gallagher’s three stages of the college choice process. We continue to construct our profile of African American high-achievers in Chapter 4 with a look at the roles of parents and family in the process. We include the voices of parents to better understand how parents

Introduction  13 interact with their children during the search and decision-making stages of the process. In Chapter 4, we underscore the disparate experiences of first-generation students compared with their second-plus-generation peers. In this chapter, we continue to counter deficit understandings of African American students and families, and show the complexity within African American communities. Chapter 5 begins our examination of institutional and systemic barriers students face in the college choice process. In this chapter, we discuss the influences of race and racism in the K-12 system, which shape student outcomes at an early age. The majority of the chapter focuses on how counselors, teachers, peers, and school resources enhance and/or limit student access to vital information about elite colleges and universities. We articulate how students’ opportunities for success are impacted by their school contexts and how intersections of race and class in these contexts stratify students’ experiences in the college choice process. In Chapter 6, we explore the college admissions and decision-making processes of African American students. A brief review covers relevant literature on access and choice for college-bound African American students, giving special attention to admissions and affirmative action policies. We also highlight the particular significance of the campus racial climate for African American students when they choose postsecondary institutions. Through counterstories, we reveal that African American students were generally acutely aware of the university landscape and were poised to make decisions in their own best interests. During a time of high-stakes admission standards, we also discovered that many of these students were denied access to their priority UC campuses and were cascaded down to less selective campuses. At the same time, unwelcoming and hostile racial climates as well as systemic racism created roadblocks for deserving students as they made decisions about whether to pursue selective UC campuses. These students decided to attend selective colleges and universities that demonstrated a commitment to diversity, inclusion, and fairness in practice. Chapter 7 focuses on the critical issue of college affordability as an important construct influencing college choice. In this chapter, we discuss the issue of cost as a barrier to college access while also considering the role financial aid plays in college choice. In addition, this chapter addresses the unique considerations these African American high-achievers made around the issue of affordability. Namely, we describe students’ concerns for incurring debt, placing financial burdens on their families, and the levels of financial resources offered by the institutions. In Chapter 8, we provide a summary discussion of the historic events and policies that have led us to the current contexts of access and education for African American students. To inform African

14 Introduction American communities about the college choice process, as well as provide guideline to increase access and equity on public highly selective college campuses, we share our recommendations for institutions and systems of higher education. It is our sincere hope that these distinctly different audiences—students and parents and higher education policy-makers—will gain insights into the college choice process that will lead to increased numbers of African American students at highly selective public universities.

2

Critical Race Theory, Mixed Methods, and a Conceptual Model of the African American College Choice Process

We use critical race theory (CRT) to explain the complicated interactions between African American students’ decision-making and the institutional and structural components, impacted by issues of race, which influence their college choice process. CRT helps us to unpack how issues of race and racism are manifested in various aspects of education and how these issues allow or deny students opportunities for success. CRT originated in the 1960s to challenge common stereotypes and misperceptions of racial minorities, to reconsider the historic roles of people of color, to explain the structural barriers associated with race and racism, and to examine the political and social contexts of legal doctrine in the United States (Crenshaw, 1988; Delgado, 1984; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). Scholars in education have been using CRT to examine racial injustice and oppression in education policy and practices for 25 years (LadsonBillings & Tate, 1995). Ladson-Billings and Tate adapted CRT to deconstruct the systemic “social-structural and cultural significance” (1995, p. 50) of race and its deep impact on the education experiences of racial minority families in the United States. They argued that the undertheorization of race, given the historical and endemic contexts of racism, has prevented scholars from fully identifying the social, economic, and cultural factors that influence the creation and articulations of state and federal education policy, district and community relationships, and classroom practices. Studies by Duncan (2000), Solorzano and Delgado Bernal (2001), Fernandez (2002), and Rolon-Dow (2005) focus on K-12 students and public school classrooms. Other studies (André-Bechely, 2005; Auerbach, 2007; Villenas & Deyhle, 1999) focus on the counterstories of families of color negotiating various education pathways. Scholars using CRT have focused on administrators’ (Alemán, 2006; Evans, 2007; McCray, Wright, & Beachum, 2007) and teachers’ experiences and beliefs (Chapman, 2007; DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Lynn, 2002) that impact the classroom experiences of students of color. In higher education, CRT also has been used to examine institutional policies (Donahoo, 2008; Harper, Patton, & Wooden, 2009; Parker & Lynn, 2002; Taylor, 2000). As well, scholars have employed a CRT

16  Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods

CRT

Racial Realism

Critque of Liberalism Colorblindness

Experiential Knowledge

Story and Counterstory

Racial Justice

Whiteness as Property

Intersectionality

Interest Convergence

Figure 2.1 Tenets of critical race theory.

analytical lens to explore the experiences of faculty (Espino, 2012; Griffin, Ward, & Phillips, 2014; Pittman, 2012; Turner, Gonzales, & Wong, 2011), campus racial climates (Harper, 2012; Jayakumar, Howard, Allen, & Han, 2009;Yosso, Smith, Ceja, & Solorzano, 2009), student experiences (Comeaux, 2013; Gildersleeve, Croom, & Vasquez, 2011; Harper, 2009; Solorzano, Villalpando, & Oseguera, 2005), and athlete experiences (Comeaux, Griffin, Bachman, & Porter, 2017; Cooper & Hawkins, 2014; Donnor, 2005), and interrogate K-12 postsecondary pipeline barriers (Solorzano & Ornelas, 2002; Yosso, 2006). CRT in education has several tenets, or constructs, that scholars use to examine how institutional, political, and social contexts impact structured learning environments and student outcomes (Figure 2.1). These tenets may target specific moments, events, perceptions, and actions in education; yet, because of the complexities of education, the tenets often overlap and complement each other in scholars’ explanations of schools and schooling. We use the tenets of racial realism, intersectionality, interest-convergence, and counter-story to explain how African American students’ college choice processes are interwoven with their racialized selves.

Racial Realism People might question how the college choice process differs for African American students, particularly for those students who have financial and social resources like many of the students interviewed for this study. Our answer to this question starts with W.E.B. DuBois’s concept of double- consciousness. He states, After the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world, – a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at

Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods  17 one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his twoness, – an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder. (1903, p. 3) If we believe (and we do) that African American students and families experience almost their entire lives through the lens of double- consciousness, it follows that the college choice process for African American students is also influenced by this duality. From a CRT perspective, we believe that historic events and present-day contexts of race and racism lead African American students and their parents to consider criteria for schools and colleges that White students are less likely to consider. We also believe that African American students’ choices are culled by institutional and structural racism that begin at birth, in the forms of women’s health care and housing discrimination, and continues throughout their matriculation through K-16 schools in the forms of, but not limited to, segregation, school policy and finance, tracking, discipline practices, adult relationships, and higher education policies and practices (Chapman, 2014). When we talk about African Americans and college choice, we consider how race and racism exist throughout the education pipeline and shape the opportunities available to African America students. Racism is “a systematic set of theories and legally sanctioned institutionalized practices deeply embedded in the American polity and endorsed at the highest levels of the land” (Mills, 1998, p. 12). Those who believe in racial realism assert that the historical construction of race, that is to limit the humanity of non-White people through pseudoscience and mythology, continues to manifest itself through institutions, social systems, and societal outcomes that constrict opportunities for racial minority groups to achieve racial justice (Bell, 1992; Mills, 1998). Scholars who apply a CRT framework position “race” at the center of their analysis because they understand that “systemic racial privilege has been an undeniable (though often denied) fact in recent global history, and exploring an ontology of race will contribute to (though not exhaust) our understanding of social dynamics” (Mills, 1998, p. 44). While race stands at the center of any CRT analysis, we know that to deliver a more comprehensive understanding of the experiences of these amazing young people, we also must explain how race intersects with other social factors, such as gender and social class to produce stratified student outcomes.

Intersectionality Intersectionality is an attempt to articulate how different social indicators such as gender, class, sexuality, age, disability, and religion interact

18  Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods with race to create moments of marginalization and privilege, individualism and collectivism, and power and oppression (Crenshaw, 1991). Rather than being static, intersectionality is a dynamic process that manifests itself differently as the context of specific situations and actors change. Intersectionality means that at the same time African American students’ experiences in the college choice process are impacted by race, gender, college generation status, and parental income can facilitate further marginalization or privilege. In CRT in education, several scholars have attempted to provide an intersectional analysis of race and racism in public education. Dixson and Dingus (2008) have analyzed the confluence between gender and race with regard to Black women teachers as constricted professionals and student advocates. Researchers (Lynn, 2002, 2006) have explored the tensions between gender and race that Black male teachers experience in public schools. Other critical race scholars have documented the gendered experiences of Black boys (Berry, 2008; Brown & Donnor, 2011; Donnor, 2005; Duncan, 2002; Howard, 2008; Muhammad, 2008; Vaught, 2004), Black girls (Muhammad & Dixson, 2008), Chicanas (Malagon & Alvarez, 2010), and Latinos(as) (Bernal, 2002; Covarrubias, 2011) in racially homogeneous and diverse school settings. Crenshaw’s three types of critical race intersectionality become salient to dismantling common sense narratives of African American communities so that we can more clearly understand how issues of race and class undermine racial justice. Generally, Crenshaw’s (1991) concept of intersectionality is applied to race, gender, and other social identities. Yet, for this study, we found it most useful to explain the different college choice processes of first- and second-plus-generation African American students. In the college choice literature, researchers often identify students by their parents’ levels of college education. The terms “first-generation” and “second-plus-generation” are political, research, and institutional codes meant to monitor generational progress, convey privilege, focus recruitment efforts, and disseminate funding. The definition of first generation is that neither of the student’s parent holds a college degree, which often relates to new immigrant status and a lower income. Second+ generation means at least one parent has a bachelorette degree. We use the term second-plus-generation status to challenge racial stereotypes about low African American investment in higher education (King, 2006); and we emphasize that many African American students are third- and fourth-generation college-bound, since Black people have been receiving baccalaureate degrees in the United States since 1823. Representational Intersectionality Representational intersectionality focuses on stereotype constructions that impact individual and group identities and shape relationships both

Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods  19 within and outside racially constructed groups (Crenshaw, 1991). Film and media representations of formerly educated Black people are largely negative, causing many African American students, particularly Black men to question their decision to pursue higher education (Adams-Bass, Stevenson & Kotzin, 2014; Harper, 2009). While research shows that Black students struggle to find and build supportive networks on predominantly White campuses, first-generation students often have a more difficult transition into these settings (Lee & Kramer, 2013). Structural Intersectionality Structural intersectionality focuses on the subordination of men and women due to the interplay between socially constructed roles and institutional norms policies and practices public and private spaces. In the study, several forms of structural intersectionality represent barriers for African American students. In Chapters 4, 5, and 7, we pay particular attention to the difference experiences of low-income, first-generation African American students and second-plus-generation students. Although we did not find significant gender differences in how the students navigated the college choice process, we uncover an interesting gender and education dynamic among the parents. In the survey, we found that 72% of students whose fathers have a bachelorette degree (n = 128) also had mothers with the same or higher education background, but only 59% of the students whose mothers have a baccalaureate degree (n = 143) have fathers with the same background or higher. This leads us to believe that African American students with fathers who are college graduates are more likely to have a mother of the same education level or higher, whereas there is more variability in fathers’ education when we examine the mothers who have a college degree. Interestingly, when we remove the degree criteria, we found that 63% of the students who have mothers with a high school diploma, some college, or a two-year degree (n = 322) have fathers with similar education backgrounds. In the case of both genders, fathers were more likely to have children with someone of their same education background or higher, while the same phenomenon only applied to mothers who did not hold a college degree. This finding is limited, and in need of more research, but it marks a more nuanced assessment to the relationship between parental degree attainment and the profile of high-achieving students. Political Intersectionality Political intersectionality occurs when students must choose to represent one social identity, namely, race, over other background characteristics (Crenshaw, 1991). In Chapter 3, we attempt to dismantle monolithic perspectives of African Americans as a homogeneous group and underscore

20  Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods the nature of within group diversity, which leads to political intersectionality. African American high-achievers hail from diverse family structures, geographic contexts, linguistic abilities, and cultures. While we ourselves fall prey to discussing African American high-achievers in generalities, their diverse attributes influence their experiences in the college choice process and the college choice final decisions.

Counter-story Our analyses of the interviews with African American students and parents are counter-stories about African American students and their parents. Counter-stories are narratives or composite stories that speak to power in an effort to defy myths, derail stereotypes, and expand people’s notions of the human condition. These stories reveal various forms of student agency, resistance, and accommodation, which often reflect specific cultural ways of knowing and behaving that students develop overtime, and in concert with their families and communities (Bernal, 2002; Fernandez, 2002). In the field of education, scholars use storytelling or counter-stories to show how K-12 students of color grapple with discrimination and structural injustice in academic situations (Duncan, 2002; Fernandez, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 2004). Education scholars such as Villenas and Dehyle (1999), Fernandez (2002), and Delgado Bernal (1998) use the counter-stories of families and K-12 students of color to contest common stereotypes that make people of color seem uninterested in academic success and intellectualism. In addition, a number of scholars have employed storytelling, counterstories, and narratives in higher education research. Some have primarily aimed to capture, illuminate, and validate the voices and lived realities of college students of color (Buenavista, 2018; Harper, 2009; Hubain, Allen, Harris, & Linder, 2016; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002a) and faculty of color (Croom, 2017; Garrison-Wade, Diggs, Estrada, & Galindo, 2012; Griffin et al., 2014; Patton & Catching, 2009). Other scholars have used this methodological tool to examine administrators and faculty of color and Historically Black Colleges and University (HBCU) presidents (Moffitt, 2017; Oliva, Rodriguez, Alanis, & Quijada, 2013; Williams, Burt, Clay, & Bridges, 2019). Because the stories counter deficit discourses that blame low college enrollment on African American students, families, and their culture, they become counter-stories that provide a more nuanced explanation of African American students’ actions. Counter-stories of African American students and parents explain how students navigate issues of race and socioeconomic status to select higher education institutions to fit students’ academic, social, and emotional needs. For example, firstgeneration students revealed that they received minimal support from the school counselors when attempting to find colleges and universities

Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods  21 that fit their needs. Because these students did not have the more extensive resources of second-plus-generation students, they found themselves researching higher education by themselves, with little or no help from knowledgeable professionals who could properly guide their choice process. The amount of work students put into the college choice process challenges discourses about African American students’ lack of investment in higher education and encourages us to look more closely at the impacts of underresourced high school settings.

Valuing the Experiential Knowledge of Scholars of Color and People of Color Critical race scholars in education contend that people of color, as racialized subjects, often have distinctly different understandings of policy, classroom practices, school events, and relationships (Ladson-Billings, 2000; Yosso et al., 2009). People of color experience the world differently from White people, and those differences have created bodies of experimental knowledge that have been under-explored in education research. Valuing experiential knowledge, from the positions of the researcher and the participants, often produces data that explain the perceptions and actions of people of color. Given their own experiences as racialized subjects, critical race scholars are likely to begin with research questions focused on how institutional contexts and structural oppression produce particular educational outcomes, rather than decontextual questions focused on student behavior, which are frequently laced with deficit assumptions.

Interest Convergence Interest convergence is the political outcome of struggles between the political power bloc and politically marginalized groups attempting to gain greater, more equitable access to legal, political, and social institutions. Both groups may claim success in the outcome of the struggle. “The interest of Blacks in achieving racial equity will be accommodated only when it converges with the interests of whites” (Bell, 1995, p. 22). The compromise always serves a greater purpose for those holding privileged and powerful positions. Interest convergence allows minority groups to gain greater access to social equity, but often by sacrificing something yet unknown and unforeseen (Irvine & Irvine, 2007; Milner & Howard, 2004). These sacrifices are identified years later as researchers document the outcomes of policy reforms at the state, district, and institution levels. In the case of high-achieving African American students, the interests of the State, to produce a professional workforce that generates fiscal state support, converge with the interests of African American communities

22  Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods to increase social and economic growth for African American families. Interest convergence is a tenet we use to explore whose interests are being served by particular policies that grant African American students’ access to higher education. We also use it to question the stratification of African American students into less selective University of California (UC) schools, while the UC system appears to implement more policies to increase access to highly selective UC institutions. As discussed in Chapter 1, although California state policies are expected to increase the numbers of students of color in the UCs, the actual limited implementation of these policies maintains racial and socioeconomic segregation in the most selective UC institutions, that is, Berkeley, San Diego, and Los Angeles.

Hossler and Gallagher’s College Choice Model In the field of education research, we found that many scholars have used the Hossler–Gallagher model (1987) to explain the college choice process. In this model, students move through three stages: predisposition, search, and choice. The predisposition stage includes parental expectations and encouragement, college-bound curricula and extracurricular activities, and student ability. The search stage entails students collecting information about programs, campus visits, college recruitment efforts, and applying to institutions of higher education. In the third stage of the model, students are accepted or denied admission to colleges. Once they know their actual choices, students gather extensive information to select the college or university of their choice (Hossler & Gallagher, 1987). These three stages are not fixed, nor are their individualized; they are fluid and interactive with the final decisions involving input from friends, kinfolk, and parents (Myers & Myers, 2012). Past research supporting Hossler and Gallagher’s three-stage model has mainly focused on middle-class students who choose to attend colleges and universities (Freeman, 2004). McDonough, Antonio, and Trent (1997) and Hurtado, Inkelas, Briggs, and Rhee (1997) offered earlier challenges to the Hossler and Gallagher model. McDonough et  al. (1997) asserted that African American students displayed different college choice patterns for HBCUs and predominantly Whites institutions (PWIs), while Hurtado et al. (1997) looked at the structural barriers embedded in the college choice process for students of color. Allen, Bonous-Hammarth and Suh (2004) appear among the first comprehensive models of college choice, specifically for African American students, in which academic, economic, and social influences are recognized. Additionally, Perna (2006) and Pitre, Johnson, and Pitre (2006) published college choice models that elucidate the impacts of social economic and policy contexts, higher education contexts, school and community contexts, and student habitus in the college choice process. Although

Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods  23 researchers continue to stretch our understandings of the choice process (Jayakumar, Vue, & A llen, 2013), there remains a clear need for additional and complementary studies to offer more robust explanations of how historically marginalized students choose postsecondary pathways.

Conceptual Model We integrated CRT, our research findings, and previous research on the college choice process to create a new model of the African American college choice process. Taken from our analysis, the themes of family, high school contexts, racial and social contexts of PWIs, and affordability comprise the major components in our African American college choice model. We discuss each of these themes in a discreet format, that is, chapter by chapter, to share how the intersections of class and gender influence the college choice process, and explain the specific institutional and structural factors that create opportunities and barriers for African American students. The students’ familial contexts greatly influence the quality of their choice process, those involved in the process, and their financial limitations. The high school context, intrinsically connected to the range of familial choices for housing and accessing school choice options, serves as a gatekeeper for some students and positive support for others. Familial and high school contexts significantly affect the types of relationships students form with potential colleges and universities, as well as the criteria students and families use to make their higher education selections. Lastly, while affordability infiltrates every theme, the complexities of cost and finance deserve to be disclosed and examined as extensive institutional and structural barriers in the college choice process (Figure 2.2). Each theme is distinct and includes subthemes that branch out from each of the central concept. Yet, the themes overlap and sometimes replicate within other themes. While elements of our model are not new (Allen et al., 2004; Perna, 2006; Pitre, 2006), what makes the model unique is how the relationships in and among the themes are influenced by historic and contemporary elements of race and racism. The contexts of race and racism are infused in the fishbowl of students’ formal schooling experiences and life in the United States. For African Americans, this means the students start with pathways that have been restricted by historical events, government policies, and institutional practices meant to cull their individual success and the success of A frican American communities. Yet, we recognize the agency of students and families in this process. Because we examined high-achieving students, we must emphasize the plethora of college choices these students fought to have during this process. In the next section, we discuss student demographics and pertinent information as we explain the data collection and analysis process.

24  Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods

RACISM

RACE African nal and Social C ontexts of Highe r Educatio n

American

State an

d Federa l Policies

College Choice

Family Background and Systems of Support

RACE

RACE

RACISM

RACISM

Institutio

K-12 S ch Schoo ools and l Conte xts

R AC IS M

Figure 2.2 Conceptual model of African American college choice.

How We Gathered and Analyzed the Information: Research Methods Using surveys and interviews, we collected data from high-achieving, college-bound African American students and their parents. We received a grant from the UC Council of Vice Chancellors of Student Affairs and the UC San Diego to conduct a large-scale survey of all African American students who were admitted to at least one of the nine UC campuses in Fall 2015 (n = 3,537). We used student demographic information (e.g., residence status, race/ethnicity, gender) to identify participants who met the selection criteria and to ensure they were qualified to address the research questions. Survey participants (a) self-identified as African American, (b) were admitted to a UC institution, and (c) elected not to attend a UC institution. The final criterium, declining an invitation to attend a UC school, was generated from the original, primary research question: Why are high-achieving African American students from California declining invitations to attend UC schools? As discussed in the Preface, the initial invitation for the study originated with university officials in an effort

Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods  25 to increase the numbers of African American students attending UC institutions. We conducted this study to better understand how institutional and structural elements within the K-16 pipeline influence the decision-making processes of this highly recruited student population.

Quantitative Data Collection In August 2015, we administered a survey of 34 Likert-scale questions to all of the African American students admitted to the UC for Fall 2015 (n  =  3,537). The survey items covered a series of questions related to their academic background, high school extracurricular activities, family background, college choice process, family and peer support, and their primary considerations for choosing a college. In addition to Likertscale questions, we included one open response question, which asked the respondents what advice would they give to the UCs to strengthen their recruitment of high-achieving African American students, such as themselves. We received 718 student responses to the survey, with the majority of the responses coming from students who graduated from high schools in California (n = 574) and the remaining students (n = 144) from across 22 states. The majority of the respondents (n  =  677) are considered “true freshman” because they are applying to college during their senior year of high school. Throughout the book, we present an analysis of all survey responses, including respondents from out-of-state. As part of our profile of African American high-achievers, we discuss student demographics and their college process in Chapter 3. In Chapter 4, we use the survey responses to support the qualitative data we present on familial support and parent participation. In Chapter 6, we share students’ responses to questions about campus diversity. Lastly, we use the survey to highlight how students factor in cost when making their final college decision in Chapter 7.

Qualitative Data Collection In order to conduct interviews across California, we expanded the research team from 3 researchers at UC San Diego to include 12 researchers across four regions of California. To privilege the epistemologies of Black and Brown scholars, two of the five principal investigators (PIs) are African American men, one PI is an African American woman, two PIs are Latinas, and one PI is Latino. The graduate and undergraduate students who collected and analyzed data are all people of color. Because our initial question focused on why California residents were not choosing to attend UC schools, we solicited California high school completers as participants and offered a $25 gift card to participate in an individual interview. As a result, we conducted in-depth individual

26  Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods phone and in-person interviews with 74 African American students who were in their first semester of college. The interview sample consisted of 56 females and 17 males from across the six geographic regions/metropolitan areas in California: Berkeley, Oakland, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, San Diego, Sacramento, and the Central Valley. Five males and 21 females identified as first-generation college students. Twelve males and 35 females identified as second-plus-generation college students, with 29 of the students having two parents with at least a baccalaureate degree, 22 students with one parent with a graduate degree, and 10 students whose parents both have postbaccalaureate degrees. The students we interviewed attended an impressive and diverse array of colleges and universities (Appendix). These interviews generated rich counter-stories highlighting how institutional barriers shaped their decision-making processes. We used the survey participants’ responses and a review of the literature on college access and choice to develop the student interview protocol. The interview questions expounded on specific survey questions and probed for additional information that required qualitative data collection. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes to 1 hour. The interview protocol contained questions related to college choice, including the availability of financial aid, college affordability, university reputations and campus climate issues, as well as the extent to which family, peer, teacher, and counselor dynamics influenced their decisions about where to enroll. For example, the authors asked questions such as the following: How did you learn about college? Did you discuss and weigh your college options with your parents? What was the focus of these conversations? What role did a sibling or other family member play in your college choice process? What role did your teacher(s) play in your college choice process? Counselors? Other school staff members? How important was climate/perceived diversity to your final college decision (e.g.,  racial diversity of students, faculty, staff, message from community)?

Parent Interviews To capture African American parental perspectives and experiences with college choice, and to better understand the multiple and complex factors involved in the college choice process, individual phone interviews and one focus group interview with two participants were conducted with six mothers and one grandmother. The participants had children who were among the students we interviewed and students in the survey samples. We solicited participants through snowball sampling by asking student participants to nominate their parents to be interviewed by a member of the research team. Demographic data pertaining to parental education levels and socioeconomic status were captured in both the

Critical Race Theory and Mixed Methods  27 student and PI protocols. All the participants were women. One of the participants received a college degree, five of the participants held advance degrees beyond their bachelorette degree, one parent did not hold a college degree, and one participant, who is her granddaughter’s guardian, did not hold a college degree. Seven participants had daughters, or a grandchild, who participated in the study, and one parent had a son who participated in the study. The interview protocol for the parent study was generated from the coding of the individual student interviews, the analysis of the survey data, and previous research on parental influences on college choice. The interviews ranged from 30 to 90 minutes. The participants represented the four targeted metropolitan areas of California: San Diego, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire (a region of Southern California to the East and South of Los Angeles), and Oakland.

Data Analysis and Trustworthiness After the interviews were transcribed, each research participant was given the opportunity to review his or her interview transcript for accuracy and to ensure trustworthiness of the data (Shenton, 2004). All responding participants agreed that the transcriptions were an accurate depiction of their experiences. In order to maintain consistency in coding and establish inter-coder reliability within and across identified themes, the research team went through a coding calibration exercise (Armstrong, Gosling, Weinman, & Marteau, 1997). This exercise yielded few discrepancies and a high rate of inter-rater reliability across research teams. We analyzed all interview data through open and axial coding to identify emerging patterns and themes. These processes involved reviewing the interviews, comparing participant responses, labeling the responses as particular themes, and categorizing the data. The constant comparative method was utilized to examine the similarities and differences across students’ responses (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). During this process, we regularly reviewed the transcripts to ensure that the identified themes reflected the majority of participants’ accounts. Across the four research teams, we compared and contrasted interpretations in the first order codes until we achieved consensus and were satisfied with the data categorizations. During axial coding, the authors organized open coding categories into smaller related clusters and identified relationships among codes. Throughout the process, we collectively identified and interpreted major themes, locating commonalities and identifying support for these themes among the survey responses and across interview transcripts (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Over the next five chapters, we present our findings to explicate the complexities of the college choice process for African American students.

3

What Makes a Student a High-Achiever? A Profile of African American Students’ Academic Preparation and Planning for College

As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, we define “high-achievers” as students who were accepted to at least one University of California (UC) school. Yet, admission to an elite university is not all that defines these students as high-achievers. These students display high motivation, school and community leadership, and a course of planning for postsecondary education. The enormous amount of work that the students put into their schools, communities, and families shows us why these students are heavily recruited by the range of colleges and universities in the United States. All too often African American students have been positioned as socially, motivationally, and academically limited by their race, their communities, and their culture (King, 2006; Perry, 2003). In the field of education research, the focus on African American student outcomes often emphasizes perceived deficiencies that originate with the students themselves, rather than the institutional and structural factors that shape students’ experiences in K-12 schools and higher education (Griffin & Allen, 2006; Ladson-Billings & Tate; 1995; Solorzano, 1997; Yosso, 2005).

What the Research Tell Us about Student Resilience In the context of formal educational spaces, student resilience is selfefficacy, developed and supported through institutional and social mechanisms, which is necessary for students to be successful, or even sustain a presence in K-12 schools and higher education. Our study confirms previous research findings that high-achieving African American students exhibit high levels of resilience. We recognize that there is a significant body of scholarship focused on African American students’ resistance and resilience, from both K-12 and higher education perspectives. A  brief overview of student resilience at the K-12 and higher education levels helps us think about the college choice process as an in-between space in which students have exhibited resilience to become high-achievers and their need to exhibit this same fortitude to

Profile of African American High-Achievers  29 be successful in college. Additionally, student resilience is not simply a personality characteristic; it is cultivated through institutional and structural resources and campus climates (Allen, 1992). In K-12 spaces, difficult environments are the result of tracking, teacher relationships, interracial and intraracial peer relationships, and school discipline practices, all of which translate into disparate outcomes for African American students. Scholars who use critical race theory (CRT) show that these structural elements often prevent students of color from accessing resources and participating in activities that enhance their learning and social growth, and increase their competitiveness for selective college admissions (Carter, 2008; Diamond, 2006). Scholars in K-12 also document the isolation of high-achieving African American students in advanced classes (Henfeld, Moore, & Wood, 2008; O’Connor, Mueller, Lewis, Rivas-Drake, & Rosenberg, 2011; McGee, 2013). In high schools, African American students exhibit resilience by maintaining their academic focus and creating support systems among their fellow high-achieving African American peers. Similarly, African American college students actively seek out people and safe spaces to foster their resilience (Goodwin, 2016; Griffin & Allen, 2006; Harper, 2009; Kim & Hargrove, 2013). Griffin and Allen provide a definition for resilience at the college level: Resilient students are able to translate difficult environments into a source of motivation by maintaining high expectations and aspirations, being goal-oriented, having good problem-solving skills, and being socially competent. (2006, p. 480) On predominantly White campuses, resources that are designated spaces for African American students, such as a Black Resource Center, give students a safe space to host formal and informal events, find campus and community information focused on Black people, and meet with peers, advisors, and faculty. Human resources, such as Black faculty and staff, contribute to student resilience on college campuses. Students also cultivate resilience by being both socially and academically engaged on campus (Allen, 1992). Lastly, students with strong familial and community systems of support are more likely to successfully matriculate through college (Allen, 1992; Griffin & Allen, 2006).

Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth Framework Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth framework bridges the divide between K-12 and higher education theories of resilience because her framework resonates across the spectrum of students’ K-16 educational experiences. Grounded in CRT, Tara Yosso (2005) critiques traditional

30  Profile of African American High-Achievers views of Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory that are narrowly conceived and fail to recognize the community cultural wealth of racially marginalized groups. Yosso expands on Bourdieu’s work by providing a conceptual framework that defines community cultural wealth as “an array of knowledge, skills, abilities and contacts possessed and utilized by Communities of Color to survive and resist macro and micro-forms of oppression” (p. 77). In her asset-based framework, Yosso outlines six interrelated forms of capital—aspirational, navigational, social, linguistic, familial, and resistant—that Communities of Color possess, but are often absent within traditional notions of cultural capital. According to Yosso (2005), aspirational capital refers to the ability to maintain hopes, aspirations, high expectations, and dreams of success despite perceived structural barriers. Navigational capital refers to the ability to navigate “social institutions not created with communities of color in mind” (Yosso, 2005, p. 80). Social capital can be viewed as networks of individuals, including (but not limited to) family, friends, mentors, and resources available within one’s community to navigate the educational terrain and achieve desired goals. Linguistic capital can be understood as the “intellectual and social skills attained through communication experiences in more than one language and/or style” (Yosso, 2005, p. 78). Familial capital includes the forms of cultural knowledge nurtured among family such as a shared sense of history or memories. Resistant capital refers to “knowledges and skills fostered through oppositional behavior that challenges inequality” (Yosso, 2005, p. 80). Taken together, these forms of capital within the community cultural wealth framework are useful for understanding and explaining the college decision-making processes of African American students. Yosso forwards these forms of capital as student strengths and the strengths of Communities of Color. Yet, these student characteristics speak to the limitations within the college choice process when viewing these forms of capital through the lens of intersectionality. Each source of capital works as a double-edged source in which students’ decisionmaking processes are impacted by the legacy of institutional racism. In each chapter, we examine how students’ aspirational, navigational, social, and familial capital have impacted resource availability, familiarity with higher education, financial constraints, community resources, and K-12 experiences.

Student Diversity African American students are regularly described as a homogenous group, with little attention paid to the representational, structural, and political intersectionality within the group. The social construction of race categorizes groups based on geographic location and phenotypic features. These categories are generated by government entities and

Profile of African American High-Achievers  31 reinforced through societal norms, public policy, and scientific research. In reality, there is vast genetic and cultural diversity underneath the African American, or Black American, racial umbrella. Participants from the study display various forms of social, linguistic, and familial capital that reveal the heterogeneous nature of the African American/ Black social construct. In the survey, we asked the participants to identify themselves as Black/ African American, African, or other. We created the “other” category, with an open response portal so that students could define their identity. From the students who responded to this question (n = 689), 73% (n = 503) identified as Black/African American, 11% (n = 77) chose African, and 16% (n = 109) chose “other.” Within the category of “other,” the respondents identified themselves as biracial Black and Asian, Black and Latinx, Black and White, and “mixed race.” More specifically, students named their specific groups under the larger umbrellas of Asian and Latinx, such as Korean, Vietnamese, Mexican, and Haitian. Representationally, biracial students often have familial capital, such as exposure to multiple languages and cultures, that students with two parents of the same race/ethnicity may not hold. Structurally, these nuances in the identities of biracial students often go ignored in K-12 and higher education, leaving biracial students to cobble together resources and systems of support that represent their multiple identities. Students with different patterns of immigration employ different types of navigational, linguistic, and familial capital. For example, the term Black/African American references a specific familial history of forced migration and generations of slavery in the United States. In our intersectional analysis, we found that a significant number of students who are considered Black/African American are recent arrivals from other countries (see Table 3.1). The greatest percentage of survey respondents, 45%, fit the commonly understood definition of African American. However, 11% of the respondents said they were first-generation Americans, 19% (n = 124) of Table 3.1 Students’ Generation status in the United States # 1

Generation status

First generation (first generation to migrate to the United States) 2 Second generation (children of first-generation immigrants) 3 Third generation and beyond (grandparents immigrated or born in the United States) 4 No immigrant status—family dates back to slave trade 5 Don’t know Total

%

Count

11.01

72

18.96

124

11.16

73

45.26 13.61 100

296 89 654

32  Profile of African American High-Achievers the respondents identified themselves as second-generation Americans, and 11% of the respondents identified as “third generation and beyond.” The choice “third generation and beyond” was meant to include the family histories of multiracial students, students with dual histories of immigration and slavery, and students whose ancestors have lengthy histories in the United States, but perhaps not histories of slavery. Generational status is not just an important aspect of student diversity, but it also marks an institutional trend in higher education and growing structural barrier for African American students with an ancestral history of slavery in the United States. In 2006, researchers documented the growing numbers of immigrant students, labeled as African American, who attended elite U.S. institutions (Massey, Mooney, Torres, & Charles, 2006). According to Massey, Mooney, Torres, and Charles, 27% of Black students attending 28 highly selective colleges and universities had at least one parent who was born outside the United States. Across the United States, 20.9% of all Black undergraduates had at least one parent born outside the United States (Massey, Mooney, Torres, & Charles, 2006). Thus, a more complex articulation of “Black” is necessary so that higher education institutions elevate their levels of commitment to Black students who come from a history of U.S. slavery as well as newly arrived Black immigrant families. Linguistic capital is evident through the number of study participants who speak multiple languages. While 87% of respondents chose English as their spoken language, 10.5% of the students used the “other” category to write in the languages they speak. Among the responses were eight African languages, five Asian languages, Arabic, and Patois. Linguistic capital, in the form of African American code-switching between Black Vernacular English and academic English is well documented (Ball, Skerrett, & Martínez, 2011). However, linguistic capital from international languages is rarely a focus of research on African American students. Significantly, a growing number of students within the African American/Black spectrum are able to engage with linguistically diverse global communities. The structural intersectionality among the participants is evident in their educational backgrounds of their parents. Data on parental education level show that high-achieving students come from a range of parental backgrounds (Tables 3.2 and 3.3). Whereas existing literature has shown that parental levels of education affect college-bound behaviors and the predisposition and search stages of the college choice process (Hamrick & Stage 2004; Workman, 2015), our survey data show that neither the mother’s background nor the father’s background alone appears to be a strong indicator of high achievement. Students from a range of family education backgrounds are able to excel at high academic levels in K-12 schools; yet, as we will discuss in Chapters 4, 5, and 6, students from first-generation and second-plus-generation families have very different experiences in the college choice process.

Profile of African American High-Achievers  33 Table 3.2 Mother’s Level of Education #

Answer

%

Count

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Graduate/professional degree Bachelor’s degree Two-year degree Some college High school Some high school Middle school Grade school or less Don’t know Total

24.96 21.50 9.92 20.90 18.05 2.41 0.30 0.45 1.50 100

166 143 66 139 120 16 2 3 10 665

Table 3.3 Father’s Level of Education #

Answer

%

Count

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Graduate/professional degree Bachelor’s degree Two-year degree Some college High school Some high school Middle school Grade school or less Don’t know Total

24.96 21.50 9.92 20.90 18.05 2.41 0.30 0.45 1.50 100

166 143 66 139 120 16 2 3 10 665

College Preparation: Academic Excellence, Leadership, Honors, and Extracurricular Activities We are able to see more similarities among this group of students when we examine their academic careers. As part of the predisposition stage of the college choice process, participants demonstrated exceptionally strong aspirational capital as they prepared academically and socially for college. Ninety-nine percent of the respondents had higher than a 3.0/4.0 grade point average (GPA), with 80% of the students listing a 3.6/4.0 or higher GPA. Ninety percent of the respondents ranked themselves in the top 20% of their class, and 33% of the students ranked themselves in the top 5% of their class. These students maintained high GPAs while taking multiple advanced placement (AP) courses over time (Table 3.4). The data show that the majority of the survey respondents took three to six AP classes. The number of available AP courses fluctuates within and among schools and districts, with students in under-resourced schools receiving fewer opportunities to take these special courses.

34  Profile of African American High-Achievers Table 3.4 Number of AP Courses Taken in High School #

Please mark the number of AP courses you took in high school

%

Count

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 or more None Total

6.70 9.32 12.66 14.26 11.79 11.64 9.75 6.99 2.91 6.55 7.42 100

46 64 87 98 81 80 67 48 20 45 51 687

Advance Placement courses hold two types of value in the college choice process. These courses give students an advantage in the admissions process, and depending on the university, these courses may translate into college credits. Entering a university with college credits means that students are more likely to graduate in a timely manner or early, add an additional major or minor, and take curricular risks by following their interests in different disciplines. Additional majors/minors and diverse areas of study make these students even more competitive for graduate school and career opportunities. Early time to degree also translates into tuition savings. We cannot make assertions about the average number of AP courses a typical high-achiever might take during high school. But what the data show is that when these courses are available, high-achievers are accessing them as part of Hossler and Gallagher’s stage two in the college choice process. Given the accrued advantages of AP courses, these students are planning well beyond the four-year degree.

Student Honors and Activities By the time they enter college, high-achieving students have received numerous academic honors and awards. Although some of the percentages in these categories, like valedictorian, are not large, we remind ourselves that our sample is a small subset of the identified population of African American high-achievers (Table 3.5). Therefore, in the larger scheme of the population of African American high-achievers across the United States, the numbers of students in these categories swell to impressive numbers. Because we knew that the 13 survey choices barely scratched the surface of the different awards bestowed on high-achieving students, we

Profile of African American High-Achievers  35 Table 3.5 Student Awards and Leadership Did you receive special recognition in high school?

%

Count

Valedictorian Scholar Athlete Award Salutatorian Principal’s List Other Music Award Leadership Award Honors recognition Gates Millennium Scholarship Award Designated as ELC (UC Eligibility in a Local Context) Community Service Award Community Scholarship Church Activity Award AP Medal

2.41 8.99 1.32 12.00 3.73 3.40 10.85 25.59 0.55 2.79 8.88 8.49 2.85 8.16

44 164 24 219 68 62 198 467 10 51 162 155 52 149

Table 3.6 Key Activities in High School Answer

%

Count

ASB officer Sports team(s) Community service Church activity Ethnic activity (e.g., Black Student Union) Talent search/Upward Bound/Student Support Service Newspaper Yearbook Cheerleading Early Academic Outreach Program National Urban league The Links, Inc. Young Achievers Initiative National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Jack & Jill of America Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender organization Debutante Cotillion/Beautillion Advancement Via Individual Determination Program African American male achievement College summit Dual Course Credit enrollment program Reality Changers Other

5.23 18.99 24.66 8.77 8.77 2.66 2.13 3.44 2.47 2.33 0.29 1.02 0.44

108 392 509 181 181 55 44 71 51 48 6 21 9

0.58 1.65 0.63 3.78 0.82 0.58 2.37 0.10 8.28

12 34 13 78 17 12 49 2 171

invited the respondents to name their awards in the “other” response choice. Several students listed the Outstanding Senior Award, National Honor Society, and IB recipient for special recognition as well as other school and community awards. High-achievers are well-rounded students and school leaders (Table 3.6).

36  Profile of African American High-Achievers They participated in sports, music, fine arts, school council, and community service. In smaller numbers, the respondents also participated in various school and community organizations that had a particular focus on race, race and gender, or Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer student groups.

Students’ College Choice Processes The respondents took the search stage of the college application process very seriously. One-third (n  =  219) of the respondents stated that they applied to six to eight colleges and universities, while 50% of the respondents applied to over nine institutions. Such large application numbers are, in part, made possible by the CommonApp and other similar websites. The CommonApp streamlines the application process and minimizes the hassle of multiple submissions by giving students one application portal for multiple colleges. Although some universities require additional materials, the majority of the colleges and universities in the CommonApp require a standardized application, including one of six essay prompts. However, each university sets its application fee, anywhere from $0 to $75.00 per application, plus additional fees are required for certain programs. Students can apply for application fee waivers, but these are not guaranteed. These students use the CommonApp and other websites to their full advantage to secure admission to an elite college or university. Interview participants overwhelmingly used online resources to support their college choice process. Internet searches were the first strategic move when engaged in the search stage of the choice process. Students used the internet to locate programs. For example, Chance said, “I basically went on Google and typed in ‘best political science programs for college.” Other students followed Akida’s method for her search using specific college websites and more general websites such as U.S. World News and Report, College Board, the Princeton Review, Forbes List, and ed.gov statistics. Students looked for information about specific majors and programs, racial diversity, college and program rankings, scholarships, and financial aid. Students’ search processes were both comprehensive and systematic. Anika’s and Malik’s explanations of their research process represent students’ extensive and organized approaches to the college choice process. So I started by just looking at schools that I figured…like I looked at geographic area, what schools that I know that are academically rigorous, that would push me, that I could fit the category…not the category, but fit the demographic, at least GPA-wise, SAT scoreswise, seeing which colleges met my goals as far as what I wanted to study. And then once I narrowed that list down from a million to a

Profile of African American High-Achievers  37 couple, then I looked for different programs, different ways I could visit. I didn’t visit too many just because of financial reasons, and I’ve got so many siblings after me that I need to work around as well. So I did a lot of signing up for publications, and getting information from the schools and just reading through it. But it wasn’t until I finally applied, got in, and then visited where I did get in that I was able to make the final choice of where to go. —Anika, Princeton I was actually able to go to seven different colleges and see which system was the best [for me]. We went to see private schools, we went to some UC’s, and then we went to some CSU’s (California State Universities). My main focus at that point was CSU’s and UC’s. I did that, and then I also did some research on my own, by just researching some different colleges, such as Long Beach and UC Davis. I looked at the demographics, what they had to offer, if they had my major, and if they had my major, what the program would be like, how long the process would take to graduate, would it be four years, would it be five years, what was the financial aid like, and if they could accommodate me as a student. —Malik, CSU Long Beach Students researched and selected colleges based on numerous criteria that were meaningful, or “best” for them. Among the students we interviewed, all of them were highly, if not primarily, concerned with academic excellence at the program major and institutional levels. Students used any and all information available to them to identify colleges and universities that fit their criteria. Many students utilized non-internet sources, such as U.S. postal mail (pamphlets and letters from colleges) in their college search and selection processes. Melahnie explained: I guess the summer before my senior year, even before that I was still getting letters from colleges saying, hey, you should apply here, hey, you should apply here. And I was getting tired of those [letters], so I kind of just picked the single letter that gave the most information and I put it in a chart. And all the things that I wanted in a college, I basically put it in an excel spreadsheet. I filled it in that way and looked up each school to compare and contrast the schools I thought would be best to fit what I want. So that was my entire application schedule was me taking letters that I had gotten or looking on College Board for schools that I hadn’t gotten letters from, but were still in the basis of things I’d want in a college that popped up. I excel sheeted [the information] and that was how I kind of eeny-mineymoed it [inaudible] my college choices. —Melahnie, CSU Long Beach

38  Profile of African American High-Achievers In an age of technology, it is interesting to note how many students found value in paper products. Students accrued pamphlets from visiting college fairs and their counseling offices as well as with mailed letters inviting them to apply to specific colleges and universities. With regard to college mailings, the students explained that any overture or courtesy from a college or university was worth their attention. This initial attention, prompted through mailings, frequently resulted in the student giving previously unknown institutions serious consideration.

Campus Visits The majority of interview participants visited five or more colleges or universities during the search stage of their college choice process. Students who were more financially affluent used both their parents and community organizations to visit distant and out-of-state colleges and universities. When I went to Howard I was with a black religious youth conference called Oracle. I went to USD with a youth group with my church combined with another Black Catholic church called St.  Rita’s. I’ve gone to SDSU many, many times, whether it has been with friends just for recreational purposes or with family for certain types of tests and things like that. —Kennedy, CSU East Bay Students whose parents could not sacrifice the time and/or funds to visit colleges outside their regions relied more heavily on outreach programs and community groups to visit colleges regardless of location. Additionally, students often had the opportunity to do extended precollege programs at different campuses across the state that allowed them to live on campus, take courses, and get a feel for campus life. For students like Nathan, summer residential programs exposed him to campuses that he had not considered. The summer before my senior year they emailed me about a program where you can stay overnight for two nights, and they provide everything for you, and they pay for everything, and they said they had an application for it, and they invited me to apply to it, so I applied to that, I got into the program and I visited for this in October of last year, and I didn’t really know much about this school before coming ‘cause it’s really small and not a lot of people, I guess, now about it. And so I did the program, really liked it, decided to apply, and basically from there I got in and chose to go here. — Nathan, Harvey Mudd University

Profile of African American High-Achievers  39 Nathan also attended engineering camps at larger state universities, but was ultimately drawn to the more intimate climate that small liberal arts colleges provided for him. Moreover, the summer program recruited him and invited him to apply, which helped Nathan feel wanted and facilitated his enrollment process to his university. Similarly, Amare also attended a competitive arts program that allowed him to experience college life and made him realize how comfortable he was on the campus. I don’t know, well, USC (University of Southern California) is one of those names that everybody knows about, but I attended this camp called Grammy Camp, my summer before senior year. And it was really cool. It was this little music camp and it was held at USC. I was in the LA Edition. Thousands and thousands of applicants apply, but they only let in about 100 people in total. I went to that camp, and I was just like, oh my gosh, I would love doing music. I’m not studying music right now, I’m trying to switch in…. But I did the camp and I was just like, wow, I really love this environment. I love the environment of USC and just like the feeling of USC. So I was like, ok, maybe I’ll apply to the music program. I’ve gone to a lot of events at USC throughout the years, so I kind of just got comfortable with the idea of going to USC. But then I always thought, oh, I probably won’t get in because it’s super hard to get in. But once I started looking into it more, I was like, oh, this is really possible to do. A lot of the events that I went to and programs I was involved in helped me become interested in USC. —Amare, University of Sothern California In most cases, campus visits, both before and after students were accepted to the university, became pivotal moments for the students. For some students, the campus visit introduced him or her to an unknown option where they eventually chose to attend college. I knew nothing about it at first. After I got accepted, I was invited to come for a tour. After I came down for a tour was the first time I actually learned about the campus. —Shani, San Diego State University I learned about Georgetown on accident. We [college tour] were visiting Howard and we were in the area. So we decided to go and visit Georgetown as well. That’s when I first had contact with Georgetown…. I think that I would have gone to a UC if I hadn’t stumbled upon Georgetown (on a HBCU college tour). —Yolanda, Georgetown University

40  Profile of African American High-Achievers Participants said that, after weighing factors such as costs and academic programming, visits to campus were instrumental in helping them make their final decision. In Susana’s case, the college visit helped her reject Stanford. … And then Stanford [was my next visit after UC Riverside]. I did a tour, but it was sort of like a bubble. It wasn’t really integrated into the city. So that’s why I didn’t end up going to those two [schools] …. Stanford was my first choice, but I got into both of them [Stanford and Harvard]. I changed my mind at the last minute. I’m going to Harvard, so in a way it was my first choice. —Susana, Harvard Susana’s visits to Stanford, UC Riverside, and Harvard helped her eliminate two of the campuses as college options, and choose the university that was a better overall fit for her. Similarly, even though Evalyn received a better financial package from Harvard than UC Los Angeles, she was still considering staying in California until she visited Harvard. When I came to Harvard for their admit weekend, I liked the campus and the people I met. I liked the people I met at UCLA too, but [Harvard] just fit [me] better. —Evalyn, Harvard During the interviews, students talked about the concept of “fit” in terms of campus size, academics, social programs, campus climate, location, or an amorphous feeling of content. For Amber, and a majority of the participants, definitions of “fit” were tied to the visibility of African American students, staff, and faculty on the campus. Amber explains how she made her final decision to choose Northwestern. I was deciding between Carlton College in Minnesota, which is really small, Northwestern, and the University of California Santa Barbara. And I went to all three… When I came to Northwestern, I saw people all around who were Black. And I sat down…I was like, wow, there are actually Black people here. I just felt a lot more comfortable with that, especially since I came from a school that was very white. I had like four kids in my [high school] class who were Black. I felt like going to either Carlton or UCSB I would really have to go out and find [Black people], like try really hard. And I wouldn’t be in classes where there are tons of black people. It would be like the same thing [as high school]. I wanted an experience where it wasn’t like that. —Amber, Northwestern

Profile of African American High-Achievers  41 In Chapter 6, we discuss issues of diversity and predominantly White institutions (PWIs) in depth; however, it bears mentioning that campus visits played a significant role in students’ perceptions of Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) as welcoming campuses for African American students and influenced their final decisions.

Bridge Programs Beyond the services that students receive at school, a small group of study participants accessed community and university outreach programs that provided them with additional support and preparation for college during the search stage of the process. At minimum, outreach programs planned campus visits and helped students be strategic in the applications process. Such was the case with Jamel who was a part of a community-based mentoring program where he was advised to identify schools that were a good fit for him personally and also identify a safety school in the UC system. We see how a non-profit organization helped shaped Jamel’s choice process when he explained, “Cause Reality Changers told us to pick a school that, if the other schools don’t let you in, you’ll still have an option in the UC system.” The program staff advised Jamel to apply to at least one school that was least selective, which allowed Jamel to have an option within the UC system. Outreach programs encouraged students to explore more college options and become strategic about the admissions process. Tiana had been in Upward Bound and Advancement Via Individual Determination (AVID) throughout her high school years and discussed how her mentor exposed her and her peers to various colleges and universities. [My mentor] was in the Upward Bound math and science program didn’t really influenced my decision to go here, but [how] to enroll in college. No one ever really told me, oh, you should go to this college or anything like that. He showed us colleges, he showed us places, and then I chose which ones I liked from there. —Tiana, University of San Diego Similarly, Jacob discussed how the program he attended exposed him to different types of colleges and promoted higher education. My school had this program for minority students called College Pathway, which went on field trips to different campuses, we went to Berkeley, we went to San Jose State, a lot of other places, and we had presentations, but junior and senior year they really pushed us to go to college. —Jacob, Arcadia University

42  Profile of African American High-Achievers An important aspect of outreach programs is that they promote all levels of higher education entirely and encourage students to go somewhere. This is a stark contrast from admissions recruiters who often target particular students and only promote their institutions. Outreach programs also serviced students who did not have access to counselors and in some cases were the primary source of information for students.

What Becomes Evident in This Chapter The data on African American student diversity depict the flimsy nature of the racial categorization Black/African American as a tool for understanding the lived experiences of these students. Although cultural congruence remains similar among Black students, colleges and universities should consider the various types of Yosso’s capital these students hold. Recognizing students’ complex identities calls for colleges and universities to become more strategic and intentional in their recruitment efforts of this heterogeneous population. What really becomes evident are the copious amounts of effort African American high-achievers put into their preparation and college choice process. These students were preparing early and often to become competitive candidates for elite colleges. Their records of achievement, both academic and social, exemplify focus, planning, passion, and fortitude. African American high-achievers have rigorous approaches to the college search and selection stages of college choice. Their attention to institutional details and their commitment to the search process reveals the same intentionality with which they have engaged with K-12 education to prepare themselves as highly competitive applicants in the process. Rarely, in the field of education do we receive reports and studies depicting African American students operating at such levels of excellence. Yet, we are reminded that even with all their achievements, awards, and accolades, the majority of these students were denied admission to the top three UC schools, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and San Diego. As academics, educators, and members of communities, we tell our children and ourselves that “not everybody can get into” their first college choice. But considering the significant amounts of cultural wealth and resilience exhibited by African American high-achievers, and the dearth of African American students on these campuses, we begin to ask, “Why can’t they all get in?”

4

The Strongest System of African American Student Support The Influences of Family and Kinship Ties

Although there is a significant body of research that identifies A frican American parents as the strongest influences in the student college choice process (NPEC, 2007; Tierney, Tierney, Corwin, & Colyar, 2005), researchers have less knowledge about the interactions between African American students and parents and what African American parents value in institutions of higher education. Throughout the college choice process, African American parental actions counter problematic conceptualizations of authoritarian parenting and call for a more culturally constructed view of African American parenting (Mandara, 2006; Loder-Jackson, McKnight, Brooks, McGrew, & Voltz, 2007; Taylor, Casten, & Flickinger, 1993; Weis, 2002). Moreover, while African American parental behaviors resonate with the literature on college choice parental influence and involvement, their understandings also reflect their racialized experiences and identities as African Americans living in the United States (Ceja, 2006; Freeman, 2004; McDonough, Antonio, & Trent, 1997). As Carla, a parent from Los Angeles, stated, “So our [parents’] responsibility for these children with advantages is to [help them] understand what it means to be Black in America.”

What the Research Tells Us about Familial Influence during the College Choice Process Researchers assert the positive effect parents have on students, across racial and socioeconomic stratifications, when parents heavily participate in the predisposition stage of college choice (Bergerson, 2009; Kinzie et al., 2004; Ng, Wolf-Wendel, & Lombardi, 2014). Researchers also discern that higher levels of parental education are associated with higher levels of college attendance for all racial groups (Al-Yousef, 2009; Cox, 2016; Kutty, 2014; Litten, 1982; MacDermott, 1987). Parents who have not attended college face a significant disadvantage when trying to help their children with college admissions and college choice because they do not have the extensive resources or prior knowledge, used by parents who are college graduates, to help their children with the search

44  Influences of Family and Kinship Ties and choice stages of the process (Goldrick-Rab, Carter, & Wagne, 2007; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Perna, 2007). In the case of parents who do not have college experience, they struggle to access necessary information because they do not share the same networks as more affluent parents (Farmer-Hinton, 2008; Holland, 2010; Kim & Schneider, 2005; MacDermott, 1987; Perna & Titus, 2005; Rowan-Kenyon, Bell, & Perna, 2008; Sandefur, Meier, & Cambell, 2006). When students do not perceive their parents as having the necessary expertise to navigate college choice, they are less likely to trust their parents’ feedback during the second and third stages of the college choice process (Myers & Myers, 2012); this lack of parental knowledge leads students to make decisions with limited parental influence (NPEC, 2007). Using the survey, student interviews, and parent interviews, we found that all parents had significant levels of interaction with their children throughout the three-stage college choice process. Three prominent findings highlight the complexities of African American parental support with regard to helping their children navigate the college choice and admission processes: (1) parental perceptions of race and racism, (2) parental relationships with their children, and (3) parental experiences during the college choice process.

African American Parental Influences In general, parents across all racial groups weigh financial interest, reputation, geography, and college climate as significant factors in college choice (Bergerson, 2009; Litten, 1982; MacDermott, 1987; Ng et al., 2014). African American parents with high-achieving students valued a number of components in higher education institutions. For example, they value quality curriculum, quality instructors, comfortable context, goal setting, and student support resources. While African American parental practices and concerns for the social and emotional well-being of their children reflect the larger body of research on parental influence and involvement, they also maintain a discourse around issues of race and racism that rarely appears in the literature concerning college choice (Freeman, 2004). Early Emphasis on College In the student survey analysis, 32% of the participants responded that college planning with their parents began in elementary or middle school, 21% of the participants began to plan for college in 9th grade, and 39% of the students planned for college in the 10th or 11th grade. Many interview participants commented that their parents talked to them about college before they started first grade, or at least in their

Influences of Family and Kinship Ties  45 elementary years. During the student interviews, the participants overwhelmingly stated that their parents pressed college early and frequently as a requirement, not a suggestion. Second-plus-generation students stated that they remember being acquainted with college at an early age by attending homecoming and family graduation events (Smetana, & Chuang, 2001). Tameka, a postbaccalaureate educated parent, explained, So we talked to them about it from elementary school because for us, at the time when she was little I was working at [College]. So I brought her with me to games and to other stuff. And so she was exposed to the university setting, and so we would talk about. “Well, you have to do really well in school to go to college. And then to get a good job, you need to go to college.” And so we started the conversations really early. —Tameka, the Inland Empire Similarly, students echoed these sentiments and shared how their parents ingrained the expectation of going to college early, often being the first to inform them about college. My parents really have the mentality, especially over the past couple of years, that once you graduate high school, you will go to college, that’s kind of the assumption we have nowadays. I don’t think that’s really the right way you should approach things, but that’s what was fed in to my mind ever since I was a little kid. —Chance, Cal Poly Pomona So I learned from early on I was told by my grandma, my mom, that college was really important in that education is gonna be the gateway to…I didn’t know what social mobility was, but education would mean bigger and better things, and so college was something that I knew I would always do. —Jabari, Dartmouth Parents talked to their children about college and visited college campuses well before their child was ready to apply to college. African American parents said that they began the predisposition and search stages with their children at very early ages; their engagement with these stages was often simultaneous and nonlinear. Race and the Value of a College Education All parent participants articulated the advantages of having a college degree to “get a good job” as a form of social and financial mobility.

46  Influences of Family and Kinship Ties First-generation student participants said that their parents primarily discussed college with them as a means to secure financial stability for themselves and their families. Ruby, a parent without a college degree, explained, We want a different life for her and that’s why she’s going to a university. We’re hoping she’ll have a better life and she won’t struggle so much because she’s going to a university. It’s an emotional process, and it’s a struggle, and it’s not easy. —Ruby, San Diego First-generation parents perceived the financial benefits of a college education as a pathway to an overall “better life” with less hardships than the students currently faced, while second-plus-generation parents viewed a degree as financial stability, maintaining a particular lifestyle, and a form of personal growth. Not only were African American parents aware of the financial power of the baccalaureate degree, they viewed a college education as a means for their children to combat racism in American society. Parents connected their child’s individual success to issues of race and racism because they realized the multiple barriers associated with being African American and not securing a bachelor’s degree. These parents were conscious of the racial struggles facing African American social and economic mobility. Carla, a postbaccalaureate educated parent, explained, African American students are not your 60’s African American students. We still have our huge preponderance of our community that…where parents don’t have education, graduate or advanced degrees or whatever degrees at all. But there’s a problem…you know… —Carla, Los Angeles Parents also were aware of the social stigmas of race and perceptions of their children as less academic or substandard students. Tameka, whose daughter chose a California State University (CSU) over a University of California (UC) school, explains why more African American students are needed at predominantly White institutions (PWIs) to challenge deficit discourses of African American students. And we know race relations still play a part, and people still think that you get to college on some other merit other than your own. And affirmative action has been gone for years, and people still question your validity on those campuses. But the more of us that are there, the less they can question [our validity]. —Tameka, Inland Empire

Influences of Family and Kinship Ties  47 Parents stated that they understood that the mere existence of their high-achieving African American children challenged stereotypes that frame African American children and families as academically and socially deficient (Kim, 2009). Moreover, the parents believed that the presence of high-achieving African American students, such as their children, could be used to reform college campuses. Notably, parents did not want their children to be racially isolated on PWIs. As discussed in Chapter 6, the student participants consistently voiced a desire to attend a school with racial diversity, including a significant population of African American students. Parents shared their child’s desire to matriculate in racially and socially diverse spaces where their children could interact with other groups of people and pursue their multiple interests. Donna and Laura, both college graduates, explain their reasons for wanting their children on racially diverse campuses. It had to be diverse. It had to be diverse. He had to have the opportunity to talk to all different kinds of people…. And we wanted him to be to have an opportunity to meet a whole bunch of different kinds of people. —Donna, San Diego I looked at the statistics. My child is bi-racial (gives categories)…. So I was looking for a more diverse student body. Because the colleges that I looked at were 70–80% White. That’s crazy statistics. So I wanted her to go to a diverse college. —Laura, San Diego The participants stated that they were looking for the visibility of African American students and students from other racial groups because they believe racial and social diversity are necessary components of their children’s overall higher education experience. Parental apprehensions about the racial composition of the campus were related to their concern for their children’s emotional well-being. The parents explained, No, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I’m saying that she doesn’t have…she shouldn’t have to get in to a school and then fight for her existence at that campus. She should be able to feel like, I’ve earned this seat just like you earned this seat, and I don’t need you looking at me crazy because I’m here. —Ayesha, Inland Empire Oh yeah, I talked to her about it [climate] a lot… And I didn’t want her to have that need to feel like she didn’t belong. So I was like, you need to be very careful about the school that you choose, that

48  Influences of Family and Kinship Ties it makes you feel comfortable. Because if you’re not comfortable, you’re not going to do well, and you’re going go home… —Tameka, Inland Empire I’ve been hearing about that [campus racial incidents] too. And we don’t want to go to a school where we’re not wanted and it being seen that we’re not wanted, you know. —Wilma, Los Angeles These parents were concerned that current social, political, and legal conflicts over racial diversity in higher education would negatively affect their children’s experiences. They were keenly aware of deficit discourses about African American students’ capabilities that might make certain campuses more welcoming than other campuses. Parents expressed a desire to see racial diversity expressed in the percentages of students of color and in the types of curricula, programs, and activities tailored to racially underrepresented groups of students. Thus, parents looked for programs that matched the complex racial and social needs of their children. Carla explains, And so when we’re putting our programs together, we still need to compensate for the discrimination that was out there. But we’ve also got to understand that the profile of these kids, who just happen to have dark pigmentation, are fitting different…they have different backgrounds, and their needs need to be met. We need to provide something that excites them, that no other school can do. —Carla, Los Angeles African American parents expressed that they were looking for colleges where their children could be supported as African Americans but also as unique individuals with different sets of academic and social interests and experiences. Parents were aware of the existence of racially unwelcoming campus spaces and encouraged their children to choose universities where the climate was inviting and supportive of African American students. First-Generation Students and Their Parents Even though all African American parents in the study desired copious amounts of information about colleges, parents who did not attend college struggled to access and interpret information about colleges. Ruby stated, I had to learn everything on my own. I don’t know about applying to a university system. That process isn’t familiar to me. If you’re

Influences of Family and Kinship Ties  49 coming from a family like ours- who never had a child that went to a university before, who never had any family members go, I feel like no one really teaches you the process. —Ruby, San Diego Although the parents of the first-generation students remained abreast of the search process, they did not appear to be knowledgeable partners in the college choice process (Ng et al., 2014; Smith, 2008). While both sets of parents heavily stressed attending college, first-generation students stated that their parents were less likely to attend college visits or amass valuable information about college and universities (Litten, 1982; Pope & Fermin, 2003). For example, when asked about the roles parents played in their college choice process, two first-generation students clarified, No, I didn’t [have influence from my parents]. I did, but then I didn’t. I really told them my options, and they didn’t really have an influence on my decision because they were just supporting [me] basically. Like whatever decision [I made] they supported. —Yasmin, Hampton University So my parents, they definitely wanted the best for me, but they didn’t really know a lot specifically about the process. And they supported me through it, but I don’t even think they know how to apply, necessarily, like, they know there’s an application and that there’s a fee and stuff, but they don’t really know a lot outside of that. So I had to do a lot of that myself in that regard. —Gordon, Harvard Seemingly, first-generation students took on the greater burden of the search stage while their parents acted as cheerleaders (Green, 2013). Second- and third-generation students had more detailed and nuanced conversations with their parents about college. Chelsea stated, “Yes, definitely, we [mom and dad] would talk about it [college choices] on a daily basis about where I would want to go.” Moreover, first-generation students were more likely to visit campuses with nonprofit organizations or through school trips, without their parents. Not having a parent as a guide and knowledgeable person is difficult for first-generation students because they do not have a perspective from an adult who knows them intimately and in ways they might not know themselves. Missing a supportive and knowledge adult puts students at risk of making regrettable decisions. Parents of first-generation students also disproportionately faced prohibitive financial barriers. When discussing the significance of financial aid, Dierdra, the grandmother in the study stated, “I mean, because we really don’t have a lot to contribute. We contribute what we can and

50  Influences of Family and Kinship Ties when we can for her.” As discussed in Chapter 7, in multiple instances, students from low-income, first-generation backgrounds were admitted to their top UC school choice, but they declined admission based on the limited financial packages they received from the school. Second-Plus-Generation Students and Their Parents Alternately, college-educated parents appeared more willing and able to take on the financial burden of college. Joseph explained, I mean, they wouldn’t really warn me about financials. They said they had that covered. So they pretty much emphasized me doing well in order to get into college. It was my choice. I had all the power. The just helped me with it. —Joseph, California State University, Northridge Tameka, Ayesha, and Carla also explained how they viewed the child’s college financial aid situation. We have a college fund for you and the means of which to pay for you to go to school, so don’t stress about that. We’ll figure it out. —Tameka, Inland Empire This is college. I pay…we pay for college. I said, “you can…I don’t want you to worry about school.” So wherever she chose to go, I knew I was going to be paying the bill… She didn’t have a budget. It was just like…I just wanted her to be happy because it’s [college] so important. —Ayesha, Inland Empire She got a lot of money from [college], but that wasn’t the deal breaker because we had money. We were ready to fund whatever school it was, we were…you know? We’re going to have soup for the next six years for dinner, but we would make it (laughter). —Carla, Los Angeles College-educated parents were more prepared to tackle the financial costs because they were in better financial positions to pay for college. These parents were able to privilege college reputation and experience over cost as part of their overall investment in the child’s future success. The more financially affluent parents perceived the social and cultural capital of highly selective and elite colleges as “launching” mechanisms for their child’s future career prospects. Additionally, second-plus-generation students said that the elite reputations of their

Influences of Family and Kinship Ties  51 parents’ alma-maters set an elevated expectation of success, which meant they could decide to attend an expensive institution no matter the cost.

African American Fathers as Involved Parents Furthermore, our findings challenge deficit views of African American fathers as uninvolved or missing in the lives of their children. Reynolds (2010) contends that African American male parenting has been underexplored and devalued in education research; yet their presence and influence often manifests itself through various types of support. Students mentioned their fathers as creating the expectations for college attendance. For example, students specifically mentioned their fathers’ roles in their college process. My dad went to college, so it’s just kind of been since I was little, it’s always been said, “You’re going to college. If you want a good job, you’re going to college.” —Jamel, San Diego State University Yeah, I talked to both my parents… But my dad, he’s a truck driver and he’s busy a lot, but we definitely discussed the college I wanted to go to. —Margaret, Knox College My dad tried to stress the fact that people are going to know what Northwestern is, and there’s a huge alumni association. —Amber, Northwestern Though mothers appeared to be more involved in specific aspects of the college choice process, such as vetting colleges and finding putting support structures in place, fathers participated in different capacities for their children. My dad tried not to influence my decision on what college I might want to go to, he helped pay for my college applications, which cost around fifty dollars per application, and sometimes even onehundred dollars. I was really grateful for that… I got a waiver for a few, but I applied for so many that I eventually had to pay out of pocket, or at least my dad paid out of pocket. —Bernard, University of Arkansas Fathers with a college degree often played an equal or bigger role than mothers in helping students research and apply for college.

52  Influences of Family and Kinship Ties It was mostly my dad who helped me research, it’s just a lot of looking at the…you know, the big books that list all the colleges, like the Princeton Review, those types of books, and then my dad has a lot of books about the best art schools in the United States once I figured out that that’s what I wanted to major in, so a lot of looking at those books and then looking at the websites to figure out if they met my [interests]. —Kesi, New York University The majority of students talked about their fathers as a silent but influential figure, and outspoken advocate for particular colleges or universities, and/or a financial supporter. Students solicited their fathers’ opinions and assistance for encouragement and active support even when their fathers were not living in the same households. Students with fathers who attended college more heavily considered their fathers’ input, while students with fathers who had not attended college, more or less, apprised their fathers of their choice activities (Bateman & Kennedy, 1999). Interestingly, among the students we interviewed, we found that second-plus-generation students whose fathers held a baccalaureate degree (n = 36) were more likely to be attending highly selective colleges, whereas the school selectivity for second-plus-generation students whose mothers held baccalaureate degrees (n = 40) fluctuated. A possible answer for this observation is that students whose fathers have a college degree were more likely to also have a mother with a college degree (n = 29), while mothers with a college degree were less likely to have a parental partner with a college degree. Therefore, second-plus-generation students with two college degree achieving parents seemed to have even more support during the college choice process than students with only one parent who attended college.

The Final Stage: College Decisions During the interviews, students and parents discussed disagreements between the parents and children regarding college choices. Discrepancies between students’ and parents’ choices were handled through frequent conversations, fact-finding, and, when possible, campus visits. Similar to the findings from Pratt and Evans (2002) and Murphy (1981), African American parents allowed their children to make the final choice, even when they disagreed with their child’s decision, and had hoped for a different outcome. For example, Malik, whose parents did not attend college, explained, I received a full-ride from UC Santa Barbara, and they [parents] were leaning toward that because, of course, it’s free. And I just sat down with them and told them, well yes, it can be an option. But

Influences of Family and Kinship Ties  53 Long Beach accepted me and it’s a more diverse campus. They have people of my race, they have more to offer than UC Santa Barbara has to offer, even though they are giving me a full-ride. And it took some time for them to accept the fact that I was giving up an opportunity like that. But they eventually became accepting of it, and then accepted my decision. —Malik, CSU Long Beach Barring financial constraints for participants, the students overwhelming stated that their parents trusted them to make the final decision. Regardless of income or generation status, or parental behavior, African American parents felt that is was important for their child to choose his or her college. Carla and Wilma explained, …what I did for my kid was to let her do her research, arrive at her conclusion. I wish it had been [college], but, you know… —Carla, Los Angeles I was giving her choices, and that’s where she chose, you know. I was letting her feel her independence, and that’s what she chose. —Wilma, Los Angeles Parents spoke about their child as smart, a capable young adult who deserved the right to make his/her own decision about his/her future academic pathway. Again, our results regarding the supportive ways that African American parents interacted with their children counter previous research findings that paint African American parents as authoritarian and dismissive of their children.

Familial Influences and Kinship Networks Often described as “kinship networks” (Mwangi, 2015), during the search stage parents reached out to relatives, friends, business affiliates, and members of their various social organizations, such as fraternity brothers and sorority sisters, to design support systems based on the locations of their child’s college choice list. When students chose long distance schools, parents created “villages” to ensure that their child had trusted adults who “looked in on them,” “picked them up for church,” “gave them a home-cooked meal,” or could locate their child within a short period of time. African American parents sought to alleviate their concerns about their child’s well-being and geographical distance by seeking out familial or community connections close to their child’s college choice. Ayesha and Laura describe the types of networks to which they connected their child.

54  Influences of Family and Kinship Ties Yeah, her grandmother, her great grandmother is there, her aunt is there, my first cousin is there, so that…San Diego was like my first choice. —Ayesha, Inland Empire The fact that she has someone who is a year ahead of her and who is from the community, who is very close to the family, is definitely a plus. It makes it easier… I have a village of former students there. So I stayed for five days when I took her, and I reconnected with former students that are living and working in the—area, and made sure that [daughter] connected with them as well. —Laura, San Diego Students also discussed how parents often expressed their desire to have a relative close to them if they choose to go out of state. While relatives did not directly influence the decision of students, knowing that there was somebody nearby made both the parents and students feel more comfortable. These networks not only provide close ties for students who are away from school, but they give parents an adult contact who can rather quickly access their child in times of need. My mother was very upset that I decided to leave, that I wanted to leave California… I applied to ten schools in California and she, but she was, she was worried that I’d go somewhere away. She kind of pushed me. She was like, “If you really, really, really want to leave, I’d rather you go to the University of Chicago.” I have an uncle there and she thought I’d be close to family. Out of all the other out of state options, she thought that would be the best option for me. —Prudence, University of Chicago My parents encouraged me to go [out of state], which was fine with me. I just didn’t want to be somewhere where I didn’t have any family around, the aunt that I spoke of earlier, who went to Harvard, she lives in New Jersey, which is only a couple hours from where I  am right now in Boston. So I guess you could say the most important thing was not just proximity to my immediate family, like my parents, but as long as I had someone near me, that’s what was important. It wasn’t just my parents. —Elise, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Family members also weighed in on students’ decisions when students were admitted to their alma maters particularly private schools and HBCUs (Ceja, 2006).

Influences of Family and Kinship Ties  55 One of my uncle’s, he went here, so he was…once I got into here he was definitely a key mentor in my process as well. —Nathan, Harvey Mudd I have an uncle and two cousins that are alumnae, so through family. —Alicia, Princeton Extended kinship networks also played a role in helping students consider factors outside of cost and distance, such as levels of comfort and climate issues. …well, some members of my family don’t really pay much attention to how the racial climate might affect you, they want everything to be, pretty much you’re on your own. You inspire yourself and we’re here to back you on that. However I do have an aunt. She’s not biologically related to me, but she helped me throughout the college application process, and she’s the one that brought it to my attention, that a lot of your comfortability is gonna come from how much you’re in tune with the racial climate. —Kennedy, CSU East Bay Accessing kinship networks was a primary task that African American parents participated in during the search stage. African American parents sought as much possible support for their children during the search and choice stages of the process. These parental efforts become essential resources to support African American students’ transitions to college and students’ retention rates (Carter, Locks, & Winkle-Wagner, 2013; Tierney, & Venegas, 2006).

What Becomes Evident in This Chapter What makes African American parenting somewhat unique is the dualemphasis African American parents cultivate by seeing their child as both an individual and a member of a racially oppressed group. Given parental concerns about racial climate and systems of support for African American students, the data analysis holds particular relevance to PWIs. Parents of college-bound African American students appear to know their child’s worth as a high-achieving, highly recruited student, and they are unlikely to encourage their child to attend schools with negative racial climates. Indeed, African American parents worried that their child would be the “token black kid at school” (Donna, San Diego Parent) and that limited racial diversity would have a negative impact on their child’s social and emotional well-being and college experience. Despite offers from more prestigious colleges, or colleges of equal reputation, African

56  Influences of Family and Kinship Ties American parents heavily considered their perception of campus racial climate in their final college selections. Additionally, notwithstanding their reservations, African American parents allowed their children to make the final college choice decision because they trusted their child and they constructed “villages” around their child to support her/his needs. These behaviors demonstrate the ways in which African American parents guide and support their children as individuals, while fully acknowledging the needs of their children as racialized subjects. In their examination of the college transition process of high-achieving, low-income students, Hoxby and Avery (2013) state that high-achieving, low-income Latino and African American students are more likely than their peers with similar academic profiles to choose less selective institutions. Smith, Pender, and Howell (2013) suggest that the correlation between parental income and student college entry may result in undermatching, where first-generation students are more likely to attend less prestigious colleges than second-plus-generation students who have similar grades and test scores because they lack a more complex understanding of the distinctions between postsecondary institutions. Perhaps, in part, the lack of targeted parental assistance explains why a larger number of the first-generation student interview participants are matriculating through moderately competitive state schools instead of elite state and private institutions where second-plus-generation students are attending school (Flint, 1992; Carter, Paulsen, & St John, 2005).

5

Opportunity to Enroll The Roles of Counselors and Teachers in the African American Student College Choice Process

High school counselors, in particular, play a significant role in shaping the opportunities that African American students have to attend selective institutions (Freeman, 2004). Not only do these school adults have the potential to influence students’ college choices, but they serve as key actors for completing the admissions and financial aid processes. The crisis of limited college counseling for African Americans begins early with school tracking and institutional structures. Significant numbers of African American students are not labeled as “college material” because the students are not in advanced placement (AP) and honors courses. Studies show that early in their elementary education journeys, African American students, particularly those in racially integrated schools, are less likely to be identified for gifted/talented programs or honors courses (Ford, Harris III, Tyson, & Trotman, 2001). Once students have been tracked into lower level courses, it is almost impossible for them to be promoted to a more rigorous track of study (Oakes, 2005). Students’ original academic placements in the early grades very often define their higher education trajectories by narrowing or expanding students’ possibilities for access to elite institutions. For example, Gordon explained that he started focusing on Harvard as early as fourth grade. At the end of second grade I was placed into this enrichment program, back in my elementary school. The program is for gifted students. And then, I guess, one day we were just asking our teacher, in fourth grade, “What is the next level of math we take?” And then they [teachers and students] were talking about college and it just kind of came up. And I think everyone was joking, like, “Oh, Harvard sure.” So not really knowing much about it, but just that it was prestigious and would lead to a better life made me think about it. The older I got, I kind of saw it as more of a real possibility. —Gordon, Harvard University For Gordon, whose parents used community college transfer pathways into four-year colleges, placement in the elementary gifted instruction

58  Roles of Counselors and Teachers program became a significant and defining moment in his education and future career trajectory. While he most certainly would have heard about Harvard somewhere is school, the conversations in his elementary program placement helped him view Harvard as an option and gave him the means to plan his junior high and high school academics toward his goal. Attending an elite college requires that students plan their academic trajectories very early, beginning with the classes they take in elementary and middle school (Harper & Griffin, 2010; Rose, Woolley, & Bowen, 2013). These early decisions, also known as school tracking, grant students eligibility for particular high school courses that meet college requirements and make them competitive college applicants. For example, in order for California students to attend one of the nine University of California (UC) institutions, the students must “Complete a minimum of 15 college-preparatory courses (a-g courses) with a letter grade of C or better, with at least 11 courses finished prior to the beginning of your last year of high school” (http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/requirements/ index.html). The requirements for these courses are broken down into two years of History, English, Math, laboratory science, and language study other than English; a year of visual/performing arts; and a year of college level electives. Depending on a student’s previous courses in middle school, students in upper academic tracks find it easier to meet this college standard within the time constraints (Deli-Amen & Tevis, 2010). Counselors help students meet college admissions standards and plan students’ academic trajectories (Huerta, 2015). However, given the small numbers of counselors in many under-resourced schools, high school counselors are more likely to direct their attention to students who are considered academically high-achievers, as defined by their academic coursework. In this study, our participants meet the standard of being called “highachievers” through various indicators discussed in Chapter 2. Immanuel explained the system in his school, “Well, we all had different counselors. Students that were on track to go to college, students who had good enough grades and stuff to apply would get called in by a counselor.” These students are strongly positioned for elite college and university placements. We recognize that the students in this data set are culled, at an early age, from the larger population of African American students by systemic racist practices such as tracking. Equally bright high school students who are not labeled as high-achievers are sorted toward less competitive and noncompetitive colleges and universities, or they are left entirely without goals for higher education (Muller, Riegle-Crumb, Schiller, Wilkinson, and Frank, 2010; Rumberger & Palardy, 2005; Southworth  & Mickelson, 2007). Kennedy explains the counseling trend she noticed at her own high school: And throughout high school it [college] wasn’t, it wasn’t really exposed to us unless you’re in higher level classes, which I was. But

Roles of Counselors and Teachers  59 I had friends who were in regular college prep classes, no AP or anything like that, and those who are of African American descent didn’t [know about colleges]. I never heard the word “UC” come out of their mouth, ever. Which made me realize how it’s [elite college] not really publicized. And I don’t know if it’s because of being young Black, African Americans, or whatever, but I noticed that among the youth at my high school who weren’t in higher-level classes. But in speaking with my friends who weren’t in any kind of AP class, they just weren’t, you know, college was just never brought up. And I think it’s a combination of the fact that our counselors at the high school were very curt for the most part. They didn’t take the initiative to expose us to UCs or CSUs unless they thought we were motivated. Some kids just ended up not knowing and going to community colleges. I realized that the college system, especially in the way that it was introduced to me through my counselor, is not necessarily geared toward African American youth. —Kennedy, Cal State East Bay Kennedy describes a phenomenon that is all too common among the experiences of African American high school students—a phenomenon that creates a primary barrier to college attendance for African American youth (Ford, Wright, Sewell, Whiting, & Moore, 2018). Thus, we must see the root of the challenges students face when accessing counselors as the systemic failure in education to identify and support African American students as youth who are capable of rigorous academic work (Solorzano & Ornelas, 2004). Notably, students from first-generation, low-income, racially underrepresented backgrounds are often at a disadvantage in college admissions compared to their more affluent peers (Rumberger & Palardy, 2005). Students who have greater resources and access to counseling services are better equipped to identify colleges and universities that fit their academic and social needs, as well as apply for financial aid to supplement the costs of college. However, African American students who attend better resourced schools encounter different obstacles and barriers related to campus climate and racial bias that impact their access to resources (Chapman, 2014; Griffin & Allen, 2006). Here we see the historic and current realities of race and racism in education. Milliken v. Bradley cemented racial and socioeconomic segregation in urban school districts where the majority of African American students attend public schools. By prohibiting forced desegregation across district lines, White flight to suburban districts pulled financial resources outside urban school districts (Chapman, 2005, 2014). African American students are far more likely to matriculate through racially and socioeconomically, under-resourced, and segregated schools that lack sufficient resources to support them academically (Chapman, 2014). Moreover,

60  Roles of Counselors and Teachers racial bias continues to exist among school adults who perceive African American students as less academically competent and prepared for postsecondary education (Irvine & Irvine, 2007; King, 2006).

What the Research Tells Us about African American Students’ High School Experiences and College Choice Researchers assert that counselors play a vital role in the college choice process (McDonough, 2005). Scholars found that students who saw a college counselor were more likely to apply to college (Belasco, 2013; Bryan et al., 2011). Counselors become more crucial for low-income, first-generation African American students who lack the social and academic capital of their second-plus-generation peers to accrue information and access resources that will benefit their college choice process (Freeman, 2004). Depending on the nature of the counselor’s relationship with the student and the student’s access to qualified counselors, counselors can have positive or negative effects on students’ experiences with the college choice process (McDonough & Calderone, 2006). McDonough and Calderone explain the various ways counselors assist students with preparing for college: (a) structuring information and organizing activities that foster and support students’ college aspirations and an understanding of college and its importance; (b) assisting parents in understanding their role in fostering and supporting college aspirations, setting college expectations, and motivating students; (c) assisting students in academic preparation for college; (d) supporting and influencing students in decision making about college; and (e) organizationally focusing the school on its college mission. (p. 1705) Having counselors who are able to perform these different tasks for students can become the difference between college-bound students and students who do not pursue higher education. To successfully accomplish these tasks, counselors must know individual students and have a positive relationship with them. Students in under-resourced schools have fewer counselors, and often these few counselors are over-burdened with other school tasks, such as standardize test administration (Freeman, 2004; McDonough, 1997). Scholars also note that school counselors are less likely to perceive African American students as college bound (Freeman, 2004; Rose et al., 2013). Additionally, students who perceive their school contexts as non-supportive are less likely to visit counselors, whom they perceive as non-supportive (Washington, 2010). The differences in students’ experiences with counselors possibly contributed to

Roles of Counselors and Teachers  61 many of the first-generation students choosing less selective institutions (Bell, Rowan-Kenyon, & Perna, 2009; Bryan, Holcomb-McCoy, Moore-Thomas, & Day-Vines, 2009; Bryan, Moore-Thomas, DayVines, & Holcomb-McCoy, 2011). Students often access peers to support their goal to attend college and provide information and experiences regarding the college choice process (Jayakumar, Vue, & Allen, 2013). Over the past few decades, researchers have maintained that peer influence positively supports African American high-achievers during their college choice process (Datnow & Cooper, 1998; Griffin & Allen, 2006; McDonough, 1997; Williams & Byan, 2013). Research shows the same-race peers help African American students maintain positive racial identities, stay focused on academics, remain resilient against racism in school contexts, and successfully navigate the college choice process (Howard, 2003; Reis, Colbert, & Hebert, 2005). However, the effectiveness of peer and social networks is impacted by generational status and the quality of the high school that the students attended (Tierney & Venegas, 2006).

Effective Counseling Students were very clear about the attributes of helpful and effective counseling. Students provided a range of tasks they praised their counselors for completing during the process. While the majority of the students relied very little on these school adults, other students worked to build strong relationships with their counselors. Students with the greatest amount of resources had college counseling centers on-site at their schools. Alicia explained, Yes, we had a college and career center, so the woman that oversaw that… I can’t remember her name, but yeah, she mentioned there’s a college fair coming up, or a college visit presentation that you might want to attend, or yeah, she has a pamphlet for a school you don’t know, or how the application process is going. [She would ask] ‘Do you have this, this, and this form in?’… the center was where the presentations were held, where you could pick up pamphlets or read up on places. There were a lot of catalogues for different things. [You could] sign up and find out more about the AP tests and the SAT and the ACT, and all. The majority of the school [used the center] also because that place offered career service information, so maybe the people who were looking to join the Army or to seek technical degree and work experience and stuff. —Alicia, Princeton University

62  Roles of Counselors and Teachers Some students had extensive counseling services in the form of independent counseling offices in their high schools. Prudence provided key details about why she felt she received excellent counseling, from multiple counselors, at her high school. I think it helped me greatly with my college choice. Again, as I said, the idea of the what range of schools I needed to look at, what types of school, what works best for me—big Ivy league or liberal arts colleges, the location of the school or what type of school or what area of study that the school specializes in and stuff like that. All of my counselors helped me with this as well as grading my applications, helping me come to a decision, whether I wanted to do binding early action. A lot with financial aid too, like how to file the financial aid stuff. Honestly, they helped me with even sending, mailing, and faxing things. Our counselors helped me fax my tax returns to eight different schools for free, and they just helped me with that. They were very involved. —Prudence, University of Chicago These offices, or centers, were responsible for multiple tasks such as identifying schools and programs, notifying students about deadlines and scholarships, providing information about college recruiter schedules, notifying the students about trips to colleges, giving workshops, and completing admissions paperwork. Students who received high-quality counseling also had counselors help them with their college essays. Quality counselors also exposed students to a wide array of colleges and didn’t limit students to state institutions. Having a center or office for counseling in itself was not a sufficient standard of quality counseling to meet the expectations of high-achieving African American students. For the students to access their counselors, the students expected the counselor to be a knowledgeable professional. Hannah explained, Yes, we had a career center, but it was kind of like…it’s not that… the lady wasn’t that knowledgeable, but the year prior the lady…the old staff member, she was extremely knowledgeable on college, and stuff like that. —Hannah, Virginia State University Limited knowledge on behalf of counselors also limited the college choices that students had available. Ashanti discussed the value of her counseling services.

Roles of Counselors and Teachers  63 It was just really helpful because we had a lot of staff in there who were very knowledgeable about the college experience and the college choice process, so that helped me a lot throughout the process. —Ashanti, University of Southern California Students recognized and valued their counselor’s professional knowledge in particular areas. They had a college counselor at my high school, she was really helpful with the application process actually, especially with the UC’s [University of California elite school campuses). She knows a lot about the UCs and all the different ways to apply. She was pretty helpful in helping people find [UC] schools they’d fit into. —Azalea, University of San Francisco There was my high school guidance counselor, she was really helpful and told me a lot about a lot of liberal arts schools that I hadn’t given any thought to. —Alicia, Princeton University Students noted the quality of the information and the counselor’s depth of knowledge as necessary attributes of quality counseling. Students were more likely to trust and value counselors who could talk to them about different public and private schools, majors, and programs. When students did not perceive their counselors as helpful, they were less likely to engage with the counseling office for advice or guidance about colleges. For example, a student further explained why he saw his counselor as “not very much” help. He [counselor] wasn’t really used to dealing with private schools, or any students going to private schools, so he struggled. For the [elite school] recommendation letter, you have to fill it out on a separate site. It’s not through the Common App, or anything. They have their own application. So he struggled with filling out the recommendation letter for that. And he didn’t know about this school at all either. —Nathan, Harvey Mudd College Sydney, a student attending a Historically Black College and University (HBCU) also did not utilize her counselor because of the counselor’s limitations. She described her counselor as “a paper pusher.” Sydney explained, “I wasn’t interested in staying in state too much, so she really couldn’t help me out too much.” Sydney’s counselor’s expertise was in California state schools, so Sydeny gave her credit for her knowledge in

64  Roles of Counselors and Teachers these areas; however, Sydney’s interactions with the counselor were limited by the adult’s lack of knowledge outside the California state systems. The students, at minimum, valued counselors who were at least proficient with handling the copious amounts of paperwork for admissions and financial aid. One, among many students, spoke very positively about her experience with the counselor. She said, Yeah, it wasn’t…she never really…I never really needed specific advice on my actual college choice, but she helped more with the logistical things, like sending my transcripts in, and helping me keep up with the reminders. I needed to submit immunization forms, and make sure…just making sure that I was on top of my applications. It was more of that kind of thing, not any actual advice. —Jayla, Wake Forest University The majority of students above described, more limited interactions with their counselors, rather than extensive counseling relationships. The counselors were helpful to like in an administrative role of making sure I got everything submitted, but they didn’t really influence my decision on where to go very much. —Julianna, Cal State Sacramento Notably, second-plus-generation students were more likely than firstgeneration students to see these limited interactions in a positive or neutral light. We contend that this is because second-plus- generation students received ample advice from their parents, siblings, and other knowledgeable kinfolk who supported their college choice process and did not look to their counselors as fulfilling that capacity.

Counselors’ Expectations Oftentimes, both the structure of the school and the racial biases of counselors disrupt the college choice process for African Americanstudents (Allen, Bonous-Hammarth, et al., 2005; Bryan et al., 2009; Muhammad, 2008; Washington, 2010). In some cases, students also reported that the types of help they received from the counselors were based upon low expectations for particular students. Counselors who perceive students as college bound and financially able to afford college provide students with more positive support and higher aspirations for elite college choices (McDonough & Calderone, 2006; Muhammad, 2008). These young ladies’ remarks represent a significant number of students’ experiences where the student’s counselor did not encourage him or her to apply to elite institutions.

Roles of Counselors and Teachers  65 Counselors…well, our counselors weren’t really that involved. They weren’t really involved, but they were, like, distant. They did come up with college choices for me, but it wasn’t as useful. The institutions they came up with weren’t as prestigious as I would like. —Yashida, Cal Poly Pomona They were working against me. There were some cases where I asked to take high level classes and they would recommend that I didn’t because it was too heavy a class load. Or I would say that I was aiming toward higher institutions and they would recommend that I look more at the Cal State colleges and the junior colleges because those would better suit me. —Liana, Brown University While their counselors did speak with them about higher education, the students perceived their counselor’s expectations for them as inadequate and not an accurate match for their potential. In the interviews the students clearly discerned between counselors who helped them set expectations without discouraging applications and counselors whom they felt did not know their potential for success. In many cases, the decision to apply or not apply to an elite school was based on securing a financial waiver for the application fee. The majority of these students were in the top 9% of their graduating class. To these students, like Liana who is attending Brown University, any suggestion that they lower their expectations of being admitted to highly selective institutions was simply offensive.

Varying Levels of Support The number of counselors and the quality of counseling services varied depending on the high school context. A definitive split was found within the data analysis between the counseling experiences of students in well-resourced schools compared to the experiences of students in under-resourced schools. Significantly, students from more affluent backgrounds were more likely to attend schools that had the resources to provide in-depth college counseling services, whereas students from low-income backgrounds were more likely to attend under-resourced high schools. Students Attending High-Resourced Schools Better resourced high schools provided students with complete four-year counseling services that frequently monitored student progress. In some instances, students reported being prepared for college as early as the

66  Roles of Counselors and Teachers eighth grade and entering high school with a road map to complete their college admissions requirements. The district that I went to really pounded college into us, and it was like in eighth grade when they…when both of the high schools came and they did presentations about the high school and class selections, and they went through the entire a-g requirements, every year they went through the a-g requirements, and we had a counselor who always went through the a-g requirements, so my high school was really pushing us to get into a college. —Aaron, Cal State San Marcos Having attended a high-performing school provided Aaron with an opportunity to learn about different requirements early and often. Students, like Aaron, had the support that they needed throughout their four years of college to ensure that they stayed on track. Other students also reported having counselors who would create a road map for students to follow throughout high school. At the beginning of my high school experience my 9th grade year, she [high school counselor] had already set up a map that would include all of my classes that I should take to be ready for college, and each year we would fill out the classes that I was taking and she would suggest any classes that she thinks that I should take, just so that I could be more prepared. By senior year she was just helping me with all of my applications and doing my brag sheet and just keeping up with me and seeing my progress. —Verana, San Diego State University The services provided in this case allowed students to transition into each stage of the college application process easily without any major concerns. Beyond preparing students for their applications, students who attended affluent schools often encountered supportive counselors who provided additional resources beyond simply checking off course lists or reminding them of deadlines. Students reported that some of their counselors would provide them with additional, detailed information about programs and scholarships and encouraged students to apply to them. My counselors helped me through the process, they reminded me of deadlines, when what needed to be turned in, possible scholarships available…Well, we were required to meet with them one-on-one every once in a while, so that’s when we would talk about what I was thinking about doing and where I was thinking about going. —Monifa, Cal State Fullerton

Roles of Counselors and Teachers  67 Other students also reported of the individualized attention that they received from their counselors through meetings that allowed counselors to get to know their students. These meetings also allowed counselors to gain detailed knowledge about students that they used to shape the information sessions and write letters of recommendation. They had a program we went to because they counselors had to write counselors recommendation letters. They asked us questions about what did you participate in and what’s really important to you. so that was a long meeting, and then…what else did I meet with my counselor about…I think I asked him like general questions about scholarship opportunities and that was a good thing that counselors helped me out with too. —Kesi, New York University Students who attended schools with smaller student to counselor ratios had an advantage because their counselors were able to tailor counseling services to each student’s individual needs and interests. Students in schools with dedicated college counseling services were better positioned to foster in-depth relationships with their counselors and utilize more than one counselor in the office. Students Attending Under-Resourced High Schools An overwhelming number of the students interviewed reported attending schools that were under-resourced and received limited support from their school. The lack of comprehensive counseling services at the high school level is supported by the Pathways to Postsecondary Success Report on California students’ college choice process (Solorzano, Datnow, Park, & Watford, 2013). A majority of students stated that their counselors did not provide individualized attention beyond assisting them with the paperwork and submission processes necessary for their college applications. In large part, this was due to the fact that most counselors were overwhelmed with the number of students that they had to serve and were limited in their capacity to do so. Under-resourced schools with large populations of low-income students are likely to have fewer counselors and less resources allocated to help students with college admissions. For example, when asked about the roles played by school counselors Moses stated, “Well my senior year we only had three counselors for a school of 2,000 students. So yeah, we had counselors. I didn’t see them much.” Other students stated similar problems. There aren’t very many counselors, so mainly it was just like getting your paperwork in and making sure you do your application on time. They also wrote down a list of schools, but it wasn’t as helpful as I

68  Roles of Counselors and Teachers thought it was. But I finished applications on time, so they did their job. But it wasn’t helpful based on an individual what I need from a school. —Darlena, Seattle University Well so I had my counselor from my school. But my counselor managed, I want to say like 700, 800 kids because there are only a few counselors for such a larger school…But I think, in the end, they definitely helped me with the paperwork and stuff. But in actually choosing the college it was just me telling them, ‘Oh, by the way, I  got in here. I decided to go to [east coast Ivy League]’ It wasn’t really much of them having an influence on my choice. —Gordon, Harvard University Yeah, we had one college and career counselor, but she was for the whole school, so it was not a lot of one-on-one time. But she would send stuff about scholarships and the deadlines for applications and stuff. They did their best. —Susana, Harvard University We have one college counselor for all the students…. It was a small school. It was like 300 students or a little more. But yeah, it was that one counselor for everyone. And she would tell us where we should be in our application process, she wrote recommendations, or sent their transcripts, or whatever was needed. —Evalyn, Harvard University While students reported receiving support from their counselors, the majority of counselors did not influence the selection of colleges that participants would attend. Aside from providing basic services regarding deadlines and requirements, few students were provided with specific information about colleges that could be a good fit, nor were they given information about scholarships they could apply for as their peers from more affluent schools did. Additionally, counselors in schools with large populations of lowincome students appeared to be more familiar with the California State University (CSU) system and directed their students to focus more attention on CSU choices. As prior research supports, low-income students spent significantly less time with their counselors than middle-income students (Bryan et al., 2009). In many cases students attending well-resourced schools were able to cultivate strong working relationships with their counselors in which the counselors sent students notices about recruitment fairs and application deadlines. This was not the case with students who attended under-resourced schools as they were often referred to colleges that were in close proximity to students.

Roles of Counselors and Teachers  69

Teachers as Counselors Across the interviews students appeared more likely to talk with their teachers about their college choices than their counselors. Researchers have documented that students of color tend to rely on their teachers, rather than counselors, when discussing their college aspirations (Bryan et al., 2009; Jones, 2013; McDonough & Calderone, 2006). Studies show that students of color often have strained relationships with counselors and other school adults, which makes them less likely to seek out their help (Chapman, 2014). In our interviews with the high-achievers, the majority of the students pointed out how specific teachers helped them with the college choice process. Throughout the process, teachers played multiple significant roles. In many instances, teachers dedicated class time to writing and peer-editing college essays. These students received multiple edits and comments on their essays from a knowledgeable adult. Peyton explains, I would say my AP Language Arts and AP literature teacher both helped us prepare for college. My AP literature teacher had tons of college applications in her room every day. She would always push us to go fill out our applications…. She also had us practice writing our UC prompts in class. And my AP Language Arts teacher in my junior year also had us practice our UC prompts at the very last week of junior year because she wanted us to get a head start. That way we’d have a basis and we could work off of it and continue to make it even better. —Peyton, Louisiana State University Students stated that teachers, particularly in honors and AP courses, pushed the expectation of attending four-year colleges in ways that college became a normalized aspect of the school and classroom cultures. I had one teacher, I mean not one, but teachers who encouraged me to apply to higher level schools. —Evalyn, Harvard University A lot of my teachers were saying, oh, you could apply to Berkeley ‘cause you would totally get into Berkeley. And I thought, that’s cool. I thought I should apply there. And I did. —Isis, Point Loma Nazarene Because teachers were more familiar with the academic strengths and weaknesses of their students than the school counselors, teachers readily

70  Roles of Counselors and Teachers pushed academically strong students to aim for elite colleges, such as Harvard, where Evalyn is attending college. Teachers as Emotional Support Students stated that their teachers became part of the support system during the college choice process. The teachers provided emotional support and professional expertise to help students find programs that aligned with the students’ interests. They [teachers] would ask me about what kind of major I want and what I want to be. And then they would suggest good colleges that supported my major and my future. —Nayo, Berkeley City College My teachers helped me with choosing a school mainly for its academic reasons,and how strong it was based on different majors. I talked to my math teacher about which schools were best for engineering. —Darlene, Seattle University Teachers also talked at length with students and helped the students sort through the pros and cons for different schools. I got really close to a couple of my high school teachers. So being able to bounce ideas off of them was really helpful. Like most adults, they didn’t want to tell me where to go, so they were more a listening board for me to get feedback, but not necessarily have them tell me what to do or where to go. —Kesi, New York University I talked mostly to my AP Lit and AP writing teachers because I’m an English major, and they were English majors. They would give me advice, such as Harvard compared to Stanford is just a better place to study liberal arts. —Susana, Harvard University I did have one teacher, she was my middle school biology teacher, and then she taught me in AP biology this year. She helped me discern between different programs at universities and weigh the different options between them, such as the styles of professors. That was a lot of insight that I would never even thought to touch when comparing schools. —Anika, Princeton University

Roles of Counselors and Teachers  71 Students who were able to connect with African American teachers spoke about the emotional benefits of having school adults with the same racial background. They played a huge role because, not only because they graduated from notable colleges and universities, but because I needed their consent for letters of recommendations and just casual recommendation, as well. I wanted to know what their experiences were like. I only had one African American teacher, and she’s biracial, as I am, so we still consider ourselves black. She attended UCLA and I relied on her a lot just for casual conversation. —Kennedy, Cal State East Bay Oh my teachers played a huge role. They were so supportive, especially my Physics teacher and my band teacher, whom were both Black. I think that part of it is because they understood my situation was very different from my peers, many of whom weren’t striving for the same thing as me. They understood the struggles I was going through, and as older Black people, who went through the struggle, they did all they could to help me. They spent a lot of their own personal time doing it. —Moses, University of Rochester Teachers Promoting Their Alma Maters Teachers also promoted their own alma maters through school paraphernalia and shared conversations with the students. Even in their earlier grades, students said that they valued listening to teachers talk about different schools and their experiences in college. My sixth grade teacher, first taught me about an HBCU. She went to Howard, and she told us a lot of information about it. So that’s when I knew that I wanted to go to that school. —Olivia, Howard University My English teacher, she kind of influenced me cause I would tell her about the colleges that I applied to and she always said that San Diego State was a beautiful school, and it had a nice campus. —Shani, San Diego State University They [two teachers] were actually really good about helping me choose which college I wanted to go to, especially one teacher. While talking to her about which schools are better and the programs, and all that stuff, she actually referred San Diego State to me because,

72  Roles of Counselors and Teachers one, she went there, and two because of its standing in the athletic training community. —Addison, San Diego State University CSU campuses produce the majority of California’s teachers, particularly for large urban school systems with overrepresentations of low-income schools. We found that low-income students received more information about the CSU system than UC campuses from teachers and counselors. As with counselors, teachers may highlight CSUs as more feasible financially, given what these school adults know about the economic status of the low-income students in their classrooms. The greater familiarity with CSU from beloved and trusted teachers may be a contributing factor to the high numbers of students who chose to attend CSUs instead of a UC or elite college.

High School Peers as System of Support and Peer Pressure Students in this study spoke about the many ways that they considered friends as supportive and influential. Students gave their friends credit for helping them with everything from emotional support, financial information, and college programs. We spent the most time talking about what are you gonna study. Are you sure you want to study that? We wanted to make sure that our decisions were correct. Then we talked about expenses. We also talked about freaking out over when our college applications were gonna finally come in. And we talked about how we hope that we learn something in college, but also enjoy ourselves as well. —Peyton, Louisiana State University Interestingly, the students made a distinction between “friend support” and “peer support”—the term we originally used in the question. Students talked about how their friends were a part positive component of their support systems but were more likely to discuss the different contexts of high-achievers as negative peer pressure and sources of anxiety. One characteristic that stood out about “friends” was the positive influence that they had over each other. Friends often pushed each other to apply to college or consider applying to certain schools. Friends also filled in gaps about financial aid or specific college program information, applications, and fee waivers. Well, kind of, my best friend was our valedictorian, so she definitely motivated me to do better in school and…yeah, ‘cause we talked often about different colleges, and I learned more from her, like

Roles of Counselors and Teachers  73 different schools I didn’t know about, or didn’t hear about, ‘cause she’s more into the liberal arts, which is this school. —Tiana, University of San Diego They also helped me influence what major I want, and also they showed me different scholarships to try to help me to attend colleges that I wanted to attend, They helped me find everything to help me get to where I wanted to go. —Caleb, Cal State Los Angeles When students did not have access to information on certain programs, their friends readily shared information with them. Students remarked that information sharing was a large part of peer support. Because different students gathered information from different resources, it made sense for them share that knowledge as a way to help their friends make the best possible college choice and acquire financial aid. Students used their friends as “sounding boards” to interrogate their college choices. Friends helped the students consider the strengths and detractors of different institutions. A lot of my friends, we were all in College Apps together, so we would sit down, and be like, “Oh, what are you gonna do? What are looking for?” And then we’d answer each other’s questions. Then even if they heard something bad about it, we would be like, okay, and you’ll take that into consideration. —Jada, Mira Mesa College And we talked about the pros and cons of each…of going to a private school versus going to a UC school. —Nathan, Harvey Mudd College Basically [we talked about] whether to go to a predominantly white school or a Historically Black College. —Hannah, Virginia State University Even in the midst of a highly competitive process, which purposefully pits students against each other, the students were able to rely on each other for support. As this sense of community evolved throughout the college choice process, friends became emotionally safe spaces to discuss their future goals, their anxieties, and their success, and their disappointments. We talked a lot about what school would be our future goals, careerwise, what was a good school for engineering, what was a good school for those hoping to go into politics. We spent a lot of time talking about the kind of culture that we were looking for. Did we

74  Roles of Counselors and Teachers want a place like our high school that was large, or were we hoping for something smaller and more personable than we experienced at our high school. —Alicia, Princeton University Those students whose friends were going through the same process viewed their experience as a collective process. As documented in previous research, navigating the process together created resilience among the African American students while under intense pressure from schools, parents, and community members with high expectations (Griffin & Allen, 2006; Williams & Bryan, 2013). Interestingly, although the students relied on their friends for different types of support during the college choice process, their friend college decisions had minimal impact on their final decisions. Overall, the students we interviewed gave little consideration to having friends from high school carry over to their college or university. While a few students said that it was a positive factor in their college choice, a significant number of students were adamant about not seeing large numbers of students from their old high school at their college. And then when it came to decisions, one of the things I really thought about is where a lot of kids from my schools were going. There were a lot of schools where so many kids went and they all hang out with each other. I didn’t really want that. But at the same time, it kind of helped to think that you would know a few people here, a few people there. —Caleb, Cal State Los Angeles At first, when I was thinking about college I kind of wanted to go to a school where I didn’t know anybody ‘cause I didn’t want to deal with the people that I’d dealt with for the past four years. So I was like, maybe I should go to a school that’s kind of far so I can get rid of you guys and never have to see you again. —Melahnie, Cal State Long Beach The students were looking forward to meeting new people, developing new social ties, and leaving their high school years behind them. In some cases, the students realized early in the college choice process that their friends were not applying to the same elite colleges, and therefore college meant being introduced to an entirely different social context. Peer Pressure The majority of the students mentioned reading their peers’ application essays and discussing colleges as part of their English classes. In this

Roles of Counselors and Teachers  75 respect, the context of the school or the honors/AP programming at the school fostered a college-bound mentality and system of peer support. In some schools and programs, the context of meeting the school goals for success caused students to have severe anxiety and suffer from negative peer pressure. The environment of our school really pushed…really, really pushed going to a brand school, going to the highest level school like Stanford. The teachers didn’t push as much, but just the students around us [pushed]. The parents did [push]. Most of the parents they taught at —, and they probably graduated from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or wherever. They were like [to their children], ‘you have to go to school.’ So those kids would bring that same pressure to school and put it on other students. It’s [perception] changing. People are now like, ok, well, — is a great option, or — is a good option. But some people still have that stigma of a community college. —Riley, Arcadia University I was influenced [by my peers] because they were the ones stressed out. You know, the typical stress, like, oh my gosh, is this [application] gonna get in, or I have to do this interview, and I have to do that work. I was just trying to take it one step at a time so that I didn’t get stressed out, so I didn’t make mistakes. But I felt the pressure from them, from my peers to apply to high caliber Ivy League schools and those private liberal schools that are like baby Ivy Leagues. I got a lot of that from them, and I’m trying to think, did I get any good advice other than stress? I can’t remember. —Sydney, Fisk University Several of the high schools track students’ college admissions and students’ college choices. More than one high school publish the names of all the graduating students and the future academic plans. A large number of students noted that peers and school adults treated them differently after they announced their acceptance offers and later their actual college choice. Those students who were accepted to Ivy Leagues and the top three UC schools were celebrated by the school adults and their peers. School peers and adult school personnel were sympathetic when students did not get into schools such as UC Los Angeles and UC Berkeley because so few students, and even fewer African American students, gain admission to these universities. Although many students were disappointed about attending a Cal State school versus a UC, private institution, or HBCU, students chose this pathway for many reasons: financial, location, diversity, and major. However, students who

76  Roles of Counselors and Teachers selected community colleges as a less expensive financial pathway felt that school adults were disappointed in their decision and their peers negatively judged them.

What Becomes Evident in This Chapter It becomes evident that high-achieving African American students expend significant amounts of time and energy toward the college choice process. These are students who not only maintain excellent grade point averages (GPAs) but commit to the arduous process of selecting and applying to college. This process includes meeting deadlines, taking SAT/ ACT exams, completing paperwork, soliciting adult recommendations, and completing applications with multiple essays. College counselors are important throughout this process. Those students who have ample access to school counselors work closely with these adults to prepare for college, choose institutions, and complete financial aid and scholarship applications. Those students without counseling support carved out systems of support using college bridge programs and non-profit organizations. Regardless of school support, students used their peer networks to gain information about institutions and the choice process in order to supplement their knowledge. What becomes problematic is the imbalance of social capital between students who attend well-resourced schools and are more likely to be affluent and students who attend under-resourced school and are more likely to be low-income. At my school college was a big thing…went…we live pretty much right around the corner from Stanford, everyone…a lot of people, their parents went to very prestigious schools, some of them, their parents taught at Stanford, a lot of people who went to my school went to Stanford, and went to Yale, Princeton, NYU, places we… there was a lot of pressure on us to go to college, preferably a big brand name college. —Riley, Arcadia University Peer knowledge across well-resourced schools and among a diverse mix of first- and second-generation students provides more nuanced and advanced types of support than peer sharing solely among first-generation students who attend under-resourced schools with high levels of poverty. These students are left to “figure it out” among themselves and their families, all of whom as going through a very complex process for the first time. As we saw in Chapter 4, the experiences of low-income African American students are also impacted by the limited accrued

Roles of Counselors and Teachers  77 social capital in the college choice process. Students from more affluent communities had the benefit of visiting campuses with parents and extended family members, but students in under-resourced schools often were dependent on outreach programs and their staff for support and exposure to different campuses.

6

Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention Institutional and Structural Factors Influencing Diversity in Higher Education

Enrollment patterns and degree conferrals for African American students attending U.S. postsecondary institutions have increased significantly in the past several decades. From 1976 to 2013, African Americans increased from 10% to 15% of all students in higher education; between 2003 and 2013, the number of bachelor’s degrees conferred to African Americans increased by 54% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016a, 2016b). Unfortunately, while access has improved, college choice and enrollment among African American students continue to be shaped by both systemic barriers—for example, exclusionary admissions policies and practices, and a hostile campus racial climate—and persistent patterns of racial stratification and inequality (Young Invincibles, 2017). Over the past decade, African Americans have become increasingly concentrated in the least well-funded institutions, such as two-year colleges and less selective four-year colleges and universities, while their White counterparts are increasingly concentrated in well-funded, selective four-year institutions (Perna, 2006). Nationally, African American students remain underrepresented at selective public universities, which are supposed to reflect the demographics of their states (Table 6.1). The discrepancies between public university enrollments and the percentages of Black students in each state have serious implications for racial equity in education. As state colleges and universities, these institutions are tasked with the unique mission to serve the needs of the state and all the communities within the state. Thus, when public institutions fail to adequately represent African American communities, we must identify the barriers to college access, which continue to shape economic and social outcomes for Black students. The gap between the percentages of African American citizens and African American college enrollments also reflects the White–Black gap between baccalaureate degree achievers at public institutions (Table 6.2). In all but 11 states, African American students lag behind White students in baccalaureate degree attainment. When African American students remain underrepresented in public colleges and universities, it stands to reason that a disparity in baccalaureate degree attainment exists between White and Black students in these settings. Our findings

Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention  79 Table 6.1 Percentages of Black Students at Selective Public Institutions State

Number of Selective Public Four-Year Institutions

Undergraduates at Selective Public Institutions That Are Black (%)

Public FourYear Black Undergraduates Attending Selective Institutions (%)

Public FourYear White Undergraduates Attending Selective Institutions (%)

Gap between Black and White Undergraduates Attending Selective Public Institutions

Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Florida Georgia Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin

3 2 1 9 3 1 5 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 8 4 3 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 5 1 1 1

9.1 3.8 4.8 2.2 1.9 5.8 9.7 7.3 6.6 3.7 4.1 9.2 12.2 13.9 3.8 5.5 4.1 12.9 6.3 2.8 7.3 2.4 8.6 5.8 5.6 4.8 2.0 4.5 8.1 6.6 4.5 1.3 7.1 2.6 4.7 2.2

18.8 48.4 9.6 21.5 21.3 21.3 41.4 5.4 18.9 21.5 24.2 42.4 11.2 15.0 10.9 20.0 27.8 10.9 20.2 33.2 21.6 39.8 18.7 10.6 24.0 15.9 20.7 13.2 22.7 6.7 10.6 23.8 21.5 23.2 33.9 15.5

55.7 51.1 32.2 40.1 44.9 36.5 61.4 24.2 28.7 37.0 25.6 35.5 26.5 33.8 24.7 30.1 31.2 38.4 32.5 45.6 31.9 56.7 35.1 50.0 37.2 24.6 22.4 26.9 54.0 23.2 35.9 18.1 46.6 22.0 44.1 20.6

36.9 2.8 22.6 18.5 23.6 15.2 20.0 18.8 9.9 15.5 1.4 −6.9 15.3 18.8 13.9 10.1 3.4 27.4 12.3 12.4 10.4 16.9 16.4 39.4 13.2 8.8 1.7 13.7 31.4 16.5 25.3 −5.7 25.1 −1.1 10.2 5.1

Data reproduced with permission from Nichols, A. H. and Schack, J. O. (2019). Broken Mirrors: Black Student Representation at Public State College and Universities. The Education Trust. EdTrust.org; https://edtrust.org/resource/broken-mirrors-black-representation/.

show that the imbalance in African American populations and public colleges and universities is the outcome of institutional and structural barriers that deny students access to these campuses and shape students’ perceptions of selective public universities as unwelcoming learning environments for African Americans.

Table 6.2 White–Black Gap between Students Awarded Bachelor’s Degree in U.S. States State

Number of Public Four-Year Institutions

Black Certificate and Degree Earners Awarded Bachelor’s Degree (%)

White Certificate and Degree Earners Awarded Bachelor’s Degree (%)

Gap between Share of White and Black Degree/ Certificate Earners with Bachelor’s Degrees

Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Nebraska Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin

14 8 10 32 13 9 2 14 19 3 12 14 3 7 8 16 13 13 15 12 8 13 7 3 13 7 37 16 17 14 9 38 2 13 10 40 5 15 8 10 13

50.0 28.0 31.4 35.2 40.0 48.8 63.8 31.9 30.7 53.7 28.4 45.1 26.8 27.7 49.7 35.1 58.9 40.8 42.5 30.4 34.7 55.7 41.8 45.3 50.9 42.2 46.9 43.1 42.1 43.7 51.0 56.0 63.9 37.3 54.7 40.9 48.4 46.2 25.8 60.2 32.1

60.7 43.1 42.4 43.5 54.1 61.9 71.0 39.7 43.2 58.1 34.0 56.2 41.5 46.3 46.2 49.5 54.0 58.5 58.4 44.0 44.8 53.3 54.9 47.6 57.2 38.3 50.8 44.2 52.6 46.6 50.0 68.3 68.8 56.4 45.9 52.1 43.4 52.4 35.8 59.7 49.3

10.7 15.0 11.0 8.3 14.1 13.1 7.2 7.8 12.6 4.5 5.5 11.1 14.6 18.6 −3.5 14.3 −4.9 17.7 15.8 13.6 10.1 −2.4 13.0 2.4 6.3 −3.9 3.9 1.1 10.5 2.9 −1.0 12.4 4.9 19.1 −8.8 11.2 −5.0 6.2 10.0 −0.6 17.2

Data reproduced with permission from Nichols, A. H. and Schack, J. O. (2019). Broken Mirrors: Black Student Representation at Public State College and Universities. The Education Trust. EdTrust.org; https://edtrust.org/resource/broken-mirrors-black-representation/.

Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention  81 During the search and choice stages, African American students often perceive selective colleges and universities as racially hostile environments because of the ways that the material dimensions of whiteness are evoked on campuses—and the lack of diverse students and faculty members with whom they can relate, trust, and make meaningful connections (Gusa, 2010; Smith, Allen, & Danley, 2007). Researchers have documented that the presence of faculty of color is strongly linked to successful recruitment of students of color, and a more racially diverse faculty can provide a sense of belonging and community for students of color on college and university campuses (Gasman, Kim, & Nguyen, 2011; Jayakumar, Howard, Allen, & Han, 2009). The representation of faculty of color continues to pose major challenges to universities. Currently, 3% of all full-time faculty members, at public and private institutions, in the United States identified as African American (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). For students, the dearth of Black faculty at PWIs signals a limited investment in African American communities and highlights the impact of racism in the upper echelons of the higher education system. Moreover, scholars continue to report that African American students experience uneven mentoring, deficit perceptions of academic ability, and racial microaggressions from White faculty, leading students to seek connections with Black faculty who are more supportive (Harper, 2009; Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). Racial microaggressions, institutional barriers limiting the numbers of students of color, and the value students place on racial and social diversity lead African American students to include racial diversity as an important criterion in the college choice process.

What the Research Tells Us about the Impact of Diversity the African American College Choice Process To begin with, we review in broad strokes the relevant literature on college access and choice for college-bound African American students, giving special attention to admissions and affirmative action policies. We also address the significance of the campus racial climate, broadly defined as the racial history of the campus, its racial composition, and the current views, behaviors, and experiences of faculty, staff, and students regarding race relations (Hurtado, Clayton-Pedersen, Allen, & Milem, 1998). As we will discuss, this is an essential aspect of the racialized experiences of African American students, including their college access and choice processes.

College Decision-Making Processes Scholarship on African American students’ college search and choice stages has devoted some attention to the role of institutional factors on

82  Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention the college decision-making process. We know, for example, that the campus racial climate is an important consideration. African American college students often view their PWI campus environments as isolating and alienating (Smith et al., 2007), and unwelcoming and not reflective of their culture (Rankin & Reason, 2005), racially hostile (Gusa, 2010), and anti-Black (Dancy, Edwards, & Davis, 2018). Likewise, students report feeling a lack of enjoyment and sense of belonging on these campuses (Strayhorn, 2012). For many African American students, these negative views of the campus racial climate make it more challenging to adjust to college life (Locks, Hurtado, Bowman, & Oseguera, 2008). With unwelcoming racial climates at PWIs, African American students are likely to encounter an array of psychosocial stressors that might influence their levels of personal and academic development (Rankin & Reason, 2005). These circumstances may be worsened when they lack supportive social networks and face systemic challenges to both making decisions about college and seeking assistance during college, particularly in today’s highly divisive and racially charged political climate. Since the 2016 U.S. presidential election, there has been an upsurge in hate crimes and racist incidents on college campuses (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). All of these racial climate factors play into many students’ decisions about where to attend college. For example, using a Web-based survey, Cho, Hudley, Lee, Barry, and Kelly (2008) discovered that acceptance of racial diversity was more important to first-generation collegegoing African Americans and Latinos than to students of other races. Relatedly, in a qualitative study of African American high school students’ views on participation in higher education, study participants reported being discouraged when they visited campuses lacking compositional diversity—that is, numerical representation of various racial/ ethnic groups (Freeman, 1997). Related studies have revealed that, in the choice stage, African American students also consider the racial composition of students in residence halls and student organizations (Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1999). Further, Sledge (2012) concluded that students’ perceptions of “racism, discrimination, and prejudice at the university, as well as how the university deals with diversity issues, is important” (p. 8). These perceptions of racial prejudice and discrimination tend to have greater effects on African American students’ levels of institutional commitment compared to their White counterparts (Smith et al., 2007). Despite the contributions of existing studies to our understanding of various factors that influence African American students’ complex college access and choice processes, most are limited in their ability to assess why and how race and racism play a part in the college choice process. There is still much to learn about how African American students choose a college education for themselves. Through the participants’

Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention  83 counter-stories, we share and discuss three themes that emerged from interviews concerning how they decided where to attend college: (1) denial of an arguably deserved spot at a selective University of California (UC) campus, (2) the centrality of perceived racism in the college choice process, and (3) the types of diversity students want on a campus.

Deserving, Yet Access Denied As discussed in Chapter 1, anti-affirmative action policies, such as Proposition 209 in California, have had a lasting impact on highachieving African American students’ access to highly selective institutions (Teranishi & Briscoe, 2008; Watford & Comeaux, 2006). Even highly competitive students, such as California’s African American high-achievers, have had a difficult time getting admitted to the UC of their choice. Using African American student interactions with the UC system, we share the responses of participants who were denied access to their first-choice campuses. Participants’ experiences represent the failure of highly selective universities to recognize the value of the student populations in their states. Melahnie described her disappoint at not being admitted to her mother’s alma mater. I was excited [to apply] because I was like, “Wow, there’s a chance that I might go to a UC school.” I originally wanted to go to UC Irvine because my mother went to Irvine, and got her bachelor’s in sociology. So I was like, yeah, I want to follow up [with admissions], and I want to be an Anteater [the UC Irvine mascot]. And it’s going be great. And it just didn’t work out. —Melahanie, Cal State Long Beach According to the students’ academic profiles, these students were more than qualified for the top UC schools. In fact, some of those denied access to UC Berkeley, UC Los Angeles, and UC San Diego were admitted to highly selective colleges elsewhere. Gordon, who attends Harvard University, explained, “I actually was rejected from UC Berkeley. And at the same time, I was getting into Ivy Leagues early.” Similarly, Elise, a high school valedictorian, was denied admission to UC Berkeley and UCLA but enrolled at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I looked up schools in California, but not very many, because my goal was to not stay in California unless I got into UCLA or Berkeley or Cal Tech.…And so at that point I couldn’t really justify staying in California, especially when I was given the opportunity to choose between two Ivy Leagues. —Elise, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

84  Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention Some participants chose to attend selective private colleges that demonstrated a commitment to admitting and financially supporting African American students. These colleges are not restricted by the same policies as public institutions, giving them more leeway to recruit the best and the brightest from all racial groups. For example, Peyton explained: I was really counting on it [UC Santa Barbara]. It was my first choice because, yeah, I was really excited to go there. And they put me on the waitlist and they said, “We will get back to you no later than May 1st.” I did not get an email from them until July 11, this year, saying that “I’m sorry, but due to space in our college, you will not be enrolled in UC Santa Barbara.” I’m fine with that rejection. I got rejected from UC San Diego, too. And I was a little upset about that.… But then, out here at LSU. It was like, once I signed up [applied], they were like, “Oh, yes, we’ll give you money. Yes, come out here!”. —Peyton, Louisiana State University Indeed, UC’s least selective campuses were the only UC options for many of the high-achieving students in this study. As discussed in Chapter 1, in California African American students in the top 12.5% of their senior class are guaranteed admission to a UC school. What we quickly learned is that the majority of these students were being funneled into the least selective of the UC campuses and being denied admission to the most selective universities. Well, I applied to four UCs. I applied to UC Santa Barbara, UC Merced, UC Irvine, and UC Santa Cruz.…And I really wanted to go to UC Santa Barbara, but I only got into Merced. I didn’t like the area that it was in because it was in the middle of nowhere. It was just not the UC that I wanted to go to. —Riley, Arcadia University Students expressed disappointment and anger that they were cascading out of their preferred UC campuses to lower-tier schools—a pattern with material consequences. As heavily discussed in Chapter 7, when students were admitted to their top choices, the universities did not offer strong financial packages, which also compelled students to go elsewhere. Additionally, when asked about UC recruitment efforts, few students recalled being courted by UC schools in any significant way. Whereas the majority of high-achievers were courted by California State Universities (CSUs) and private colleges and universities through alumni and current student phone calls, paid visits to campus, and multiple emails from admissions offices. For these students, not being admitted to a

Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention  85 highly selective UC, not receiving UC financial support, and not receiving attention from UC schools, while being admitted to highly selective institutions with financial support and solidifying early campus relationships, signaled to students a lack of California’s investment in African American communities. UC admissions holistic admissions policies are promoted as equitable, meritorious, balanced, and impartial. In the wake of Proposition 209, UCs cannot use race as a heavily weighted selection criteria, which forces the system to rely on other criteria with embedded cultural and economic biases. However, the fact these students were admitted to other prestigious institutions underscores and exposes the system’s flawed approach to determining student “merit” as the UCs’ systematic attempts to enact meritocracy (Teranishi, Allen, & Solórzano, 2004). Thus, enactments of meritocracy, in current UC policies aimed to address racial inequities, serve to restrict and exclude racially and socially marginalized groups.

Recognizing Racism at UC The institutional racial climate played an important role in how collegebound African American students in California viewed and described their college choice processes. In the survey data, the vast majority of students reported the importance of campus climate and perceptions of diversity when making final decisions about college (Table 6.3). The student responses varied as the importance of diversity in their college choice. Yet, over 55% of the respondents rated diversity as very important or important, leading us to believe that students incorporated elements of diversity in both the search and choice stages of the process. Some participants, for example, were discouraged by UC reputations for being racially hostile campuses and programs. Importantly, community reputation and what students heard from people outside of formal correspondence with people in higher education influenced students’ perceptions of UC campuses. Table 6.3 Student Survey Responses to the Importance of Diversity #

Answer

%

Count

1 2 3 4

Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Total

17.72 38.61 32.28 11.39 100

56 122 102 36 316

86  Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention I had always heard from my dad about the feeling that students of color had, at least on the Cal campus, that made me a little bit wary when I was applying, and I figured, you know, just look at it and see, and then I figured ultimately with the stories that I had heard and the accounts that I had read of students online that I figured, you know, this might not be the best environment for myself.” —Anika, Princeton Students commented on the racial climate, and through peer and family networks, they were very aware of how current and previous African American students felt about the different campuses (Ceja, 2006). Add empirical support to Yosso’s (2005) familial capital—and the importance of family support in the college choice process. Evalyn noted, “I’ve heard that San Diego, the San Diego environment, can be kind of racist. I think that gave me a biased opinion toward going to a San Diego school or UC San Diego.” Relatedly, some students were aware of particular racist events that occurred on UC campuses. Well, UC Berkeley, I know they had some party where they had the noose hanging on a tree. So when I was researching, that’s one thing that I saw. But there wasn’t anything specific about the other college campuses.… I guess my judgment was kind of clouded after seeing that and doing different research. —Jayla, Wake Forest University Students who were coming from predominately White high schools seemed particularly sensitive to issues of racial climate because they did not want to repeat similar high school experiences. At the time that I was applying and accepting colleges, it was the time where all the incidents of police brutality were happening, and I was really involved with my Black Student Union, and just seeing the responses from my peers.…Because it didn’t seem like anybody cared about Black lives, and there wasn’t really anything that the UCs were saying that appealed to me. There was nothing there for me other than, I guess, a good institution with a name. But college is…that’s four years of you paying to be on that campus surrounded by people. And there was just nothing that the UCs were offering that would make me want—that would make me put up with another four years of being, always feeling uncomfortable in an environment, or always being “that Black person.” —Skyy, Howard University In the interviews, students were concerned with campus racial climate, the numbers of Black students on campus, and the resources devoted to

Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention  87 students of color. Moreover, students like Skyy, who did not believe that the reputations of the UCs overcame negative campus racial climates, were more likely to attend Historically Black Colleges and Universities or CSU campuses. Similarly, students were dissuaded from applying, or did the applications proforma, based on media reputations and news stories. I did not apply to UCLA at all because of…the video [“The Black Bruins,” ] that I saw on YouTube about UCLA’s cutting back on scholarships for minority students, and was putting that into the pockets of the president’s money so that he could take trips wherever he wanted to, whenever he wanted. —Riley, Arcadia University These students were aware of the campus racial climate and refused to accept institutional norms and values that were not aligned with their interests and expectations. They opted to enroll at other selective colleges and universities, demonstrating a form of resistance—and lending support to what Yosso (2005) refers to as resistance capital. Even though these subtle acts of resistance may seem to conform to or go unnoticed in the larger structure, they can have lasting effects that reverberate far beyond the individual. African American participants raised concerns about the campus racial climate and lack of a critical mass of African American students and other campus members at UCs. For many students, the gross underrepresentation of Black students seemed to deflate Black student aspirations to attend UC. During campus visits, students became intensely aware of the lack of Black representation on some PWI campuses. UCLA, I really loved the school, but it wasn’t diverse enough for me…. Well, being that I am African American, I didn’t see enough African Americans on the campus, and…I felt like I didn’t belong there.…Well, the students, yeah, I didn’t see any African Americans. I probably saw like one or two. And the staff, I didn’t see any at all either. So I was just like, “Oh, I don’t belong here.”… Because I didn’t feel comfortable.…I don’t know what they can do about diversity, but it is that I didn’t feel wanted. —Boatema, Tuskegee University My number one choice was really UCLA and I am sure you know, the things that have been going on recently between the African American population there, not only there but other campuses as well, but mainly there. When I was on campus it actually dawned on me what everyone was talking about. Because when I was there I didn’t see anybody that looked like me at all, and I was there for three hours…

88  Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention So that also told me something about not only UCLA, but it also had me thinking about all the other UC campuses and how there is not really a lot of representation if you are not Asian or if you are not White. —Folani East Bay College Similarly, Moses highlighted how it bothered him that UC student demographics did not reflect the close geographic community in terms of compositional diversity. Many of the UC campuses that I saw were in or near diverse areas but then did not reflect those areas. Take UC Berkeley, for example: they [are] literally only like a mile, two miles from Oakland, and yet have a, having under 2% Black population. That’s ridiculous. How does that happen at a school right next to one of the Black cultural centers of the West Coast? And it made me feel as if the university really didn’t care about my culture and my community. —Moses, University of Rochester Such institutional signals communicate to African American students that they are not welcome (Jayakumar, 2015). Clearly, perceiving and experiencing a hostile racial climate affected these high-achieving African American students’ decisions about whether to pursue a particular UC campus. When we asked survey respondents to provide recommendations for the UC system that would make the campuses more attractive to Black students, survey participants repeatedly and forcefully commented on the lack of diversity at the UCs. A survey respondent expressed a very common sentiment among participants. African American students are gravely under represented at universities in California. They make up a small demographic of all college students in California and the more prestigious the school the less diverse it seems to be. Most of the UCs classify themselves as diverse when they are not; your school is not racially or ethnically diverse if 60–90% of your enrolled students identify as the same race. In order to make your schools more appealing to all races, not just African American’s. You must not only welcome and respect diversity, but celebrate it. Realize that Black/African American students, in particular males, aren’t just at your school to help you win sporting events, and none of us choose higher education because we want to help you spread the propaganda that your school is diverse and accepting, when some of the UC’s have close to a 2% population of A frican American students and still have the audacity to claim diversity. Rather than just advertising it on pamphlets and websites, the UCs need to actually admit a more varied group of applicants each year. —Survey Respondent

Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention  89 It is apparent that students did not perceive the UC campuses as adequately constructed to serve African American students. As well, scholarly works have provided consistent evidence that racially and socially marginalized students experience a more hostile campus climate at PWIs than their White counterparts do (Miller & Sujitparapitaya, 2010; Smith et al., 2007). Therefore, it is not surprising that many students elected not to enroll at UC campuses in part, because of what they perceived to be the UC’s shallow commitment to diversity and inclusion.

The Students Value Diversity The stories and narratives of college-bound African American students here included a serious consideration of the campus climate and racial and ethnic diversity of students, staff, and faculty when making decisions about college. They were keenly aware of its effects on their institutional commitment, sense of belonging, and overall satisfaction in college. These students desired campus environments in which they felt welcomed, included, and valued. The racial climate in which interactions and involvement take place is an important determinant of student learning and personal development. A significant and growing number of studies in fact reveal how the interrelated elements of the campus racial climate are associated with a range of educational experiences and subsequent outcomes for students (Chang, Astin, & Kim, 2004; Harper & Hurtado, 2007). Liana, said it perfectly, when she explained, “It’s [diversity] definitely something that I looked at. College is more than just academics—its’s where you kind of shape yourself.” Students talked about diversity as both wanting to see more Black students and seeing students from different racial and social backgrounds. So when it came to diversity, that was a really big part of it, like University of Oregon has a very small minority percentage, so that was like a bummer, but other things came into factor as well, but part of the reason why I chose Seattle U in the first place because it was very, very diverse, so that’s what they really value is diversity. — Darlene, Seattle University The reason why I decided to go SMC, is because it’s a pretty diverse school, and you see all types of people there that I probably wouldn’t see if I went to, let’s say, a UCLA or a UC Riverside. —Becca, Santa Monic College In the interviews, students articulated what aspects of diversity made them feel welcome and valued at PWIs (Garces & Jayakumar, 2014). Students talked about how having other Black students at a PWI, and

90  Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention having specifically Black spaces, and diverse classes positively affect their college experiences. Yeah, and I was like, ok, ok, wow! Like a lot of my classes have at least two other [Black] people beside me. So I think that definitely makes me feel more comfortable learning or expressing myself…. I’m lucky to have a pretty diverse class, but [my friend] doesn’t. And I know that sometimes it’s hard for her to feel like she has to talk all the time about black issues when it’s about media. And I don’t. Especially since I am going into media, I felt like I needed a place with people would could back me up. —Kesi, New York University I feel like that [diversity] was really important to me because I’m used to going to really diverse schools. And a lot of colleges aren’t really that diverse. So it was really important to me that I found a center or a place where I could be with people that are similar to me so I don’t feel alone. I live on the African American floor in USC, and that’s really, really great. I go into my classes, I’m taking a lot of African American classes. But if I wasn’t taking them, I would literally be maybe one of two [Black students] in a class, so that [Black spaces] was really important to me, just a lot of stuff about my background and whatnot. —Amare, University of Southern California Just as African American high-achievers felt slighted and undervalued through the admissions process, the students perceived the lack of Black bodies on campus as a reflection of a university’s true value for diversity. Demographics, that was a huge, huge part of it [choice stage] because I feel like… Well, comparing UC’s to a lot of private schools, I feel like the demographics reflect…it reflects how they’re recruiting, what their admission process is like. and I feel like that was a really good indicator of what the school values, and maybe how I would be welcome there. So that was a major factor also. —Ashley, Wake Forest Ashley’s statement is an example of the clear reasoning that African American students and families bring to the college choice selection stage. The lack of African American students on highly selective public university campuses exposes the circular nature of racism and attempts by higher education to solve the conundrum of recruiting and retaining African American high-achievers. Students choose not to attend these schools because they lack diversity and have poor reputations, and universities cannot change community perceptions or the racial climate of

Diversity as Resource, Recruitment, and Retention  91 campuses without first significantly growing the representation of racially marginalized groups on their campuses.

What Becomes Evident in This Chapter Through African American students’ counter-stories, this chapter has explored the ways in which students view their complex college access and choice processes during a time of high-stakes UC admissions standards. We found that high-achieving African American students who opt not to enroll at UC campuses possess navigational capital, or the ability to traverse a challenging choice stage, for example, by reviewing and critically assessing multiple sources of information about college options (Yosso, 2005). They are generally acutely aware of the university landscape—including the rhetoric that “merit” is an equal opportunity commodity—and are actively engaged in researching colleges campuses in order to make decisions in their own best interests. At the same time, unwelcoming and hostile racial climates create roadblocks for deserving students as they make decisions about whether to pursue selective UC campuses. These structural barriers translate into adjustments in their college choices to include institutions where they feel more valued, supported, and welcomed. When there is gross underrepresentation of deserving, high-achieving African American students at selective institutions, it illustrates the basic premise of ‘the right to exclude’ through various insidious macro- and microforms of racism and anti-Black racism—for example, racial insults, colorblindness, flawed admissions policies, and racially hostile campus environments (Harris, 1995; Yosso, Parker, Solórzano, & Lynn, 2004). PWIs, moreover, as the “property” of Whites remain the normative, unspoken discourse in higher education (Harris, 1995). In fact, PWIs’ policies and practices exemplify the Whiteness-as-property norm through which the material benefits of safe and inclusive learning environments (free of hostility) have been relished primarily by White people— and not the most vulnerable and underserved student groups.

7

Complexities of Cost Navigating Affordability in the College Choice Process

The cost of higher education in the United States has made the transition to college very difficult for middle class and working families alike. For high-achieving African American students, cost is also an important consideration when choosing which college or university to attend. In our sample of 718 students, we found that many survey respondents and interview participants were concerned about the rising cost of college, and the definite impact on their college choice process. As a result, over 34% of our interview sample, chose to attend a CSU and 7% chose to attend a community college. In Betraying the College Dream, St. John characterizes higher education access as closely intertwined with the issue of affordability. He noted how rising tuition and limited federal grant opportunities were preventing highly qualified, low-income students from accessing higher education (2003). All these years later, the status of college affordability remains problematic, with rising tuition levels and the cost of higher education being passed on to students who are increasingly financing their college degrees with loans (Contreras, 2012; Looney & Yannelis, 2018; Paulsen & St. John, 2002; Webber & Boehmer, 2008). We see the impact that the cost of higher education is having on college choice among higher achievers, who are now more cognizant of the debt crisis experienced by a generation before them. As a result of limitations to college affordability, African American high-achievers are foregoing elite public institutions and opting for private institutions or less selective postsecondary options. This chapter highlights how African American high-achievers describe the roles that college cost and other financial considerations played in their college choice process. As indicated in the previous chapter, there are significant institutional barriers that are part of the backdrop for examining college choice among high-achieving African American students. One particular institutional barrier that emerged prominently in this study was the financial dimension of the college choice process. In particular, the study participants were often focused on the role that college costs and financial support options played in shaping their college choice

Complexities of Cost  93 decisions. As will be discussed in the chapter, the study participants cited the typical concerns that they shared with parents and siblings regarding the cost of attending UCs and other institutions of higher education. We also observed students’ considerations of the future cost of their college educations in the form of student debt taken on to finance their bachelor’s degrees. These concerns are, of course, shared widely and are well documented in both the scholarly literature and the public media regarding the erosion of affordable higher education across the country. What a critical race theory (CRT) lens provides, in addition to illuminating these common concerns for the African Americans who participated in this study, is the students’ analyses of their college options. Such analyses presented here reflect both the material and symbolic value of the financial support offers they were receiving (or not) from the colleges presumably competing for their acceptance of admissions offers. This study allows us to see that nuances exist in discussing the financial aspects of college choice among African Americans, some of whom are first-generation, low-income college-goers, while others are secondor third-plus-generation, middle-class college students, with families who demonstrate both common and quite distinct approaches and considerations of the finances associated with the selection of a college. In addition, what is striking among the study participants’ financial considerations is their interpretations of the variable recruiting practices of colleges. For students, college admissions and financial support convey specific messages about the value of having African American high-achievers on a given campus. While less obvious as a type of institutional barrier, it is clear from the students’ analyses that broader considerations of campus climate and sense of safety became reinforced further by the minimal effort and resources being offered to entice students to attend a UC campus relative to other institutions the students had been considering.

What the Research Tells Us about College Choice and Affordability Researchers have documented the interconnectedness between college choice and affordability (Paulsen & St. John, 1997, 2002). As tuition levels rise in public higher education institutions and systems, the demand for financial aid increases. As a result, students have experienced state shortfalls and the increasing demand for higher education in the form of rising tuition costs (Marcus & Hacker, 2014; Heller, 2001). Issues of college affordability are prominent in the recent research by the Education Trust (e.g., Dannenberg & Voight, 2013), which outlined a variety of issues on the cost of higher education and the burden being

94  Complexities of Cost placed upon the newest generations of college students and graduates. According to relevant scholarly literature on the interrelatedness of college choice and financial aid among African American students (Allen, Bonous-Hammarth, et al., 2005; Campaign for College Opportunity, 2015; Harper & Griffin, 2011; Karkouti, 2016. St. John, Paulsen, & Carter, 2005), we have come to understand the notion of affordability as being defined as the real or perceived cost of higher education to the student and his or her family relative to their available financial resources intended to support the student’s college attendance. A study by Perna and Titus (2005) examined the college choice process of low-income African American high school students and found that financial aid was a significant determinant of college choice. These students were concerned about the ability to pay for college and in the absence of aid would make alternate college plans. Another qualitative study by Harper and Griffin (2011) explored African American high-achievers’ college choice processes (n = 42) and found that African American students were averse to accruing high levels of student debt for their undergraduate education. Allen et al. (2005) conducted a comprehensive examination of Black undergraduates from 1971 to 2004, where, among their key findings, financial assistance was one of the top five reasons students offered for choosing a particular college. Over 50% of African American females and over 45% of males ranked “offered financial assistance” when giving their top reasons for selecting their particular college or university (Allen et al., 2005, p. 19). Finally, Freeman (2004) explored the factors that led A frican Americans to choose Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) in a study of 70 African American students participating in 16 group interviews in Georgia. She argued that among African American students “the connection between what they perceive to be the cost of attending college, and what they perceive as their future earning potential looms large in their consideration of higher education” (p. 44). This finding, relating expectation to college choice, provides a significant contribution to the higher education literature because it supports the idea of college choice being linked to campus prestige or resources that ultimately lead to better career or employment options.

Rising Cost of College The cost of attending college across all levels and institutional types continues to rise, making college less affordable to students, particularly low-income or working-class students. According to the College Board, which conducts an annual assessment of college costs and financial aid, between 2008 and 2019, tuition and fees rose by $2,670 at public

Complexities of Cost  95 $40,000

Published Tuition and Fees in 2018 Dollars

Private Nonprofit Four-Year

$35,830

$28,440

$30,000

$22,710 $20,000

$17,010

$10,000

Public Four-Year

$10,230

$2,730

Public Two-Year

$3,660

08-09

13-14

$7,560 $5,020 $3,360

$1,700 $0 88-89

$2,390

93-94

98-99

03-04

18-19

Figure 7.1 Average published tuition and fees in 2018 dollars by sector, 1988– 1989 to 2018–2019. Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing, 2019.

four-year institutions, $7,390 at private nonprofit four-year colleges/ universities, and $930 at public two-year colleges (The College Board, 2019) (Figure 7.1).

The Context of Public Higher Education in California: UC and CSU The cost of attending higher education in the two of the California public systems, the UC and CSU, has doubled since 2004 (Baldassare, Bonner, Dykman, Lopes, 2018). Various explanations for the rising costs of college have been offered, including a notable decrease in investment in public higher education from the state’s legislature (UC Accountability Report, 2018). To place the affordability concerns expressed by the study participants into a broader statewide perspective, it is important to consider that college aspirants and their families have been negatively affected by the recent declines in state funding for higher education and concomitant increases in tuition and fees charged by state colleges and universities. In fact, according to the Campaign for College Opportunity (2015), these trends, along with insufficient access to financial aid, have become significant barriers to college for African American students. Thus, it is

96  Complexities of Cost understandable that for new students facing the possibility of incurring significant debt or seeking other means to cover the cost of college, the decision to not enroll at a highly selective campus becomes driven by the perceived immediate cost or “sticker price” they see when they are admitted. To further situate our study and the concerns raised by the participants regarding the financial aspects of the college choice process, across the United States, cost and affordability students ranks among one of the most important factors in deciding which college to attend. Although this phenomenon extends across racial/ethnic groups, (Eagan, et al., 2014) it is particularly important to African American students from low-income and first-generation backgrounds (Peters et al., 2019; Goldrick-Rab, 2016). The cost of college was the single most important factor in the college decisions of the African American student survey sample (n = 717). In fact, over 84% noted that college cost was either “very important” in their college decision-making process or “important” (Table 7.1). With over 84% of students agreeing that college cost was an important factor in deciding which college to attend (see Table 7.1), affordability and financial aid play a critical role in increasing the number of African American high-achievers who elect to enroll in a state flagship universities. As noted in previous chapters and in our policy report, this sample was very diverse socioeconomically, with approximately onethird from low-income backgrounds. Overall, many students noted the need for greater financial resources for higher education: More financial aid. It is difficult to attend a university and be expected to pay several thousand dollars a year when my parents don’t make nearly enough money to finance [college]. We could take out loans, but there is no guarantee of a job with just a Bachelor’s. So taking out loans to just be in debt doesn’t sound ideal. —Survey Respondent

Table 7.1 Importance of College Cost on Making College Decisions

Very important Important Somewhat important Not important Total

n

%

404 130 71 37 642

63 21 11 5 100

Complexities of Cost  97 African American students were very concerned about the cost of attending college and worried about high debt levels. Additionally, it is clear from the survey sample, however, that students from all parent education levels (from acquiring some high school to mothers with graduate or professional degrees) felt that cost was an important or very important factor in their college decision (Table 7.2). Regardless of parental education status, students were cognizant of the financial pressures faced by their parents and were hesitant to rely on them to finance their education. In the case of our study participants, college choice was closely intertwined with parent education level and income, which contributes to the college knowledge among applicants and their family members. Yet, it is important to make the distinction between students who did not want their parents to pay for college, while over one third simply could not afford the cost of college due to limited family and personal financial resources. The following sections highlight the key themes that emerged from the students we surveyed and interviewed. We apply Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth framework to the key findings related to affordability. While other chapters highlight the students’ navigational and familial capital, our analysis also yielded some insights regarding the interconnected nature of these forms of capital and Yosso’s formulation of social capital. The study participants deployed these forms of community cultural wealth during their college choice process, emphasizing here the financial considerations. Thus, in our discussion of college affordability, as seen through the eyes of African American high-achievers, we further elaborate upon the financial dimensions of college choice to capture the ways in which students demonstrate their intersectional positionalities as empowered, yet marginalized high-achievers who sought to maximize their educational opportunities in the context of high-stakes decision-making about which college to attend.

Affordability The theme of affordability emerged quite strongly from the interview data, in regard to what factors led them to choose thier college and what they frequently discussed with their parents and peers regarding college attendance. The perspectives on affordability also vary in that one can view this as an assessment of how the expense of attending a particular college is borne by students and parents through some combination of personal (family) resources and grants, scholarships, loans, or other financial aid support. Often, higher education officials, particularly from public

Important Not important Somewhat important Very important Total

20% 2.9% 10%

66% 139

62% 642

BA Degree

20% 5.8% 11%

Total

100% 8

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Don’t Know 20.0% 8.8% 15.6%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Middle School

Some High School 21.6% 12.5% 6.7% 6.3% 6.0% 12.5%

Some College

64.4% 100.0% 65.7% 68.8% 118 2 134 16

17.8% 5.1% 12.7%

Grade/ High Professional School Degree

100.0% 55.6% 2 160

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Grade School or Less

Table 7.2 Importance of College Cost on Making College Decision by Mother’s Education Level

57.1% 63

27.0% 4.8% 11.1%

TwoYear Degree

Complexities of Cost  99 institutions, assert that the fees and tuition charged typically do not reflect the full cost of providing a high-quality postsecondary education. However, even when an institution charges a substantial amount for fees and tuition, if the level of financial support offered meets or nearly meets the total price, the student may view that institution as being more affordable. In the case of the participants in this study, the issue of affordability involved at least three noteworthy dimensions. One dimension was the perceived immediate cost to students for their postsecondary education and the impact that this would have on their families. Related to this is the second dimension of financial resources and packages. That is, students were analyzing and cognizant of the intentional manner in which many highly selective and elite universities approached the admissions process with clear and generous funding offers. A third dimension of the affordability issue is how, in an attempt to minimize costs and especially to avoid excessive amounts of student loan debt, it might have led some students (particularly first-generation college students) to opt for less selective institutions or campuses they may not have originally seriously considered. Despite having prepared throughout high school to attend a highly selective or elite college or university, some students opted for CSU campuses, community colleges, or other less selective institutions.

Affordability Relative to Family Considerations What is perhaps most compelling about the emergent theme of affordability is that both first-generation and second-plus-generation college students alike resonated with the issue of affordability and were particularly concerned about the impact of the cost of college cost on their families. Students primarily described cost as a critical issue but also considered parent and sibling needs when assessing the cost of attending a particular institution, sometimes ahead of their own aspirations to attend a particular institution. Tiana, for example, notes the challenges her family has faced and the role of these recent hardships played in her decision to forego her “dream school.” My mother has been out of work for a year now, and I got into my dream school but I knew I couldn’t afford it even if…like I got financial aid, but I didn’t even have enough money to even buy the dorm stuff for the campus, or even commute, drive up there, so I knew that it wasn’t realistic for me to go. Choosing not to…well, when I got accepted into all of them I laid down all my financial aid out, and I was checking them out and, like I said, my mom really doesn’t have any money, and at the time we just lost her unemployment checks. So I was looking at how much I was gonna take out

100  Complexities of Cost for parent [contribution] plus loans. And then, I was really gonna go to Davis because I only had to pay out of my pocket $3,000, and that was looking really good, but USD came and was like, we’re gonna give you almost one-half of the tuition with their own personal grant, and that wasn’t even including the Pell Grant or the Cal Grant A, that was just them alone, so it was like, yeah. Financial aid was definitely the biggest contribution for why I’m here. 100 percent, it was the first thing I was thinking about. —Tiana, University of San Diego Cost was a particularly important issue for students who had siblings in college. Even if the parent was educated or the student was raised in a household with a middle-class income, the challenge of financing college was a clear consideration for students, according to the survey response data. One of the survey respondents, for example, commented on the financial burden to families if there is more than one child college bound: Many students of color, particularly those of African American/ Black descent, live in one parent households with multiple siblings. Sometimes those households can’t afford to pay the UC system $13,000–14,000 per child in [the] system. —Survey Respondent Jayla had multiple people in her family attending college. [Cost] was definitely the number one factor because since there are three of us in college now, it just wouldn’t have been possible for us to go somewhere where we didn’t get a good amount of financial aid. I know my parents would have taken out loans for it anyway, but I honestly wouldn’t have chosen a school that…if I knew it would put my parents in a bad situation just ‘cause I would feel guilty about it. So, yeah, that was the most important factor for me and my siblings, so luckily it all worked out, but yeah, that was number one. —Jayla, Wake Forest University Having more than one sibling in college is not a unique situation. Jayla’s example speaks to, the multiple educational investment demands faced by families with multiple college students in the household. We came to appreciate this stance as more than just an altruistic disposition on the individual student’s part, but indeed reflective of a more collectivist approach to deciding which college to attend. As Jayla notes, her genuine concern for the financial well-being of her family led her to adjust her college preferences. Another student, Anika describes the role finance and cost played in her college choice and the complexity of having siblings and limited financial resources for college.

Complexities of Cost  101 I think third [factor influencing college choice] was probably the financial aspect because… most of the schools I looked at, I made sure beforehand that they would be a fit financially … But initially applying to schools, my dad was very supportive since he was the one paying for the applications. He told me, I’ve [the student] done the work up to this point, so if I just applied to schools, did my job to apply to financial aid and find scholarships, he would meet me halfway. [Cost] was…well, [cost] was pretty important to me just making sure that it was doable …I [used] financial aid calculator before I started applications to make sure it was even an option before I started and got set on a school, because I’ve always said I wanted to make sure that my younger siblings are taken care of, that they’ll be able to go to school because they’ve worked just as hard as I have, if not harder, and they should get the same opportunities, if not more. I think what weeded out the campuses, the UC campuses … was just knowing that I would have had [to] sacrifice more financially than I was probably willing to, because I know …we’re barely above that bracket where we would have had school completely paid for, but it was just enough to where I couldn’t…that I would have had to sacrifice my siblings’ tuition, and I know if they’re doing better things than I was doing at this age, then I shouldn’t take that from them. —Anika, Princeton University What is striking about Anika’s reasoning is how she seems to be operating from an ethic of care for her siblings that, while potentially also infused with a sense of collective success, is distinctly offering an analysis of the relationship between “hard work” and what she and her siblings deserve as rewards for that personal commitment and dedication as students. It is also important to note in this instance that she is expressing a belief that is more than just a meritocratic view of how hard work should pay off for herself and her siblings; rather, she is also allowing us to see the gap that emerges between students’ aspirations and expectations when it comes to making college a financial—and not just academic— reality for a family with multiple high-achieving siblings. Finally, in this example, we also hear how Anika’s father has approached the college choice process with his daughter in a way that leads her to conclude that going to a UC will result in sacrifice on her part and that of her father, who is “meeting her halfway” is poised to undertake significant amounts of financial burden to make similar opportunities happen for all of his high-achieving children. Anika describes the family considerations she was making when choosing a college to attend. The fact that she prioritized their needs over her own desires shows how her familial capital (Yosso, 2005) plays a central role in that decision making process. That she would acknowledge their hard work too, when she herself had earned admission to

102  Complexities of Cost a UC campus, conveys her desire to maintain a healthy connection to family and community and its resources (Yosso, 2005, p. 78). Anika is describing the family’s financial resources available to her, while also acknowledging the high-achieving potential of her siblings. Choosing to attend a private institution that provided her with greater resources exemplifies the priority to consider the resources of the family while also making a college choice that was more financially feasible. Once again in this instance, we see the college choice process being mediated by the reality check of the financial dimension of making one’s “dream school” accessible. This high-achieving student was in an excellent position from the standpoint of having multiple viable options, having gotten accepted into all of her potential college campuses. However, it is sobering to hear that such academic excellence was insufficient to guarantee a college choice process that reflected the true ranking that this student earned and deserved. Another student, Peyton describes how she too was thinking of her family and her sibling when choosing which college to attend. I mean, my ending grade point average at my high school career was a 4.0, so that is pretty ok, but … for a UC I did expect them [campuses] to have something, not just suggest, so yeah, you take out student loans. And how the price of out of state out here [where she presently attends college] is the same price as in state over there [in California], I was a little like, really, I mean, I looked up the prices for UC Santa Barbara, San Diego and Santa Cruz, and I put in state, yes, I know I would be staying on campus. Would I have a meal plan, probably, yes. I understand that too, but it was still just like, how is it that it is $35,000 a year to go to UC Santa Barbara and UC San Diego, and UC Santa Cruz, when I’m from California, and then here in Louisiana it’s $32,000 when I’m out of state. That also made absolutely no sense to me … I thought of my family when I made my college decision because basically my mom is a single parent who is raising three kids on her own. And I’m the first one in college, and my younger brother will be going to college next year, so I had to make a decision on expenses and scholarship funds, and weigh them out because I did not want her being constantly stressed over finances when I am enjoying myself in college … [T]hat’s not fair, and it’s not right … I’m even getting a job and everything to make sure that I am paid for, so she can focus on my two younger brothers. —Peyton, Louisiana State University It is remarkable to hear repeatedly that students expressed concern for their families in bearing the responsibility to meet the cost of college attendance for the study participants’ siblings. While higher education institutions may view each student as making decisions only for themselves, it is important to appreciate the manner in which some of the

Complexities of Cost  103 study participants viewed the issue of affordability as a whole-family concern, not just their own. Even when they were encouraged by their parents to focus on pursuing their top college choices, regardless of cost, several students in this study expressed the need to make choices that would allow for their siblings to likewise enjoy the opportunity of obtaining a college degree in the future.

Debt Aversion The aversion to debt is common among first-generation and low-income students, in particular, who prefer a pay-as-you-go approach to higher education (Cunningham & Santiago, 2008). Our findings show, however, that regardless of parent education level, cost and debt aversion are important factors and are not just “first-generation” worries or concerns for students and their families. This is an important finding because it adds to our understanding of how cost and debt are critical factors in the college choice processes of African American high-achievers. Fatema explains why she chose a campus based on her concern over high debt levels. It was the most important decision because I personally don’t want to, in college, having a huge amount of debt under my belt, so that was really a personal decision because whenever I would talk to someone, they were always talking about the financial issues or a whole lot of loans being taken out, and I didn’t want that, so yeah, I went with the school that I was comfortable going to, and I wouldn’t have to pay so much out of pocket. —Fatema, Chico State University For those attending community colleges, cost and debt aversion was the primary reason for their college choice. Becca is a student who opted for a community college near home but still has plans to transfer to a UC campus. I chose to stay [in California], yes, for financial reasons mainly. All of the financial assistance I got were loans, which it was totaled up to around $30,000-something in loans that I would have to pay, and I didn’t want to put that financial burden on my family, so I said, I’ll just bite the bullet and go to a junior college and spend less money there. … UCs are incredibly expensive right now, and I feel like that’s one of the deterrents for a lot of students, especially African Americans, to not go to a UC, and to go to a, let’s say, Cal State, even though their prices are really high, or what I’m doing, a JC. … New York, they did, they gave me quite a bit, they gave me $30,000 in scholarships, but for me to go out there, it would cost me about $60,000, so that was the downside of it, so I would still be paying around UC costs to go out there. —Becca, Santa Monica Community College

104  Complexities of Cost

Navigating the Affordability Labyrinth Most of the African American students we surveyed and interviewed exhibited high levels of navigational capital (Yosso, 2006). That is, they exhibited a strong skill set for maneuvering through social institutions. First, they navigated their K-12 school context successfully, with many of them valedictorians, salutatorians, class presidents, officers, team captains, club presidents, or engaged in their community as youth leaders, as Chapter 3 highlights. For the students navigating their college choice process, many applied the same skills that helped them to be highly successful students. They researched the cost of attending each college option they had. They researched the level of debt they would incur at the end of their education. They compared different options and weighed their priorities. Moses describes his process of weeding out a UC based on the issue of affordability and feasibility: [Cost] was very important because I refuse to go into debt, so I knew I wasn’t going to go into debt for school, and that if it meant me going into debt, or a large amount of debt, my cap was $10,000 total for all four years. I knew that if I wanted to go to college I would have to get into a private school and that they would have to offer me a larger scholarship. I knew my situation did not align with the UCs in terms of their financial packages. —Moses, University of Rochester Another student, Madison chose a small private college in New York, where it would cost less than staying in state and closer to home. Several factors surrounding affordability emerged for Madison, conveying how she navigated the application and ultimately the decision processes. Well, the money was a big thing. There were certain schools…I am trying to think back…the application…when we were thinking about applying to schools it was how much money it was going to be for the application, and the odds of me getting in. So when I made my list [of schools] that I was going to apply to, we thought about, we can only have so many reach schools because reach schools tend to be more expensive to apply to. So we kind of had to balance it that way. And then when it came to my choice on where to go, she [Madison’s mom] made it clear, ‘if there’s somewhere that you really want to go, we can figure out a way to try our best to make it work. But keep in mind money is a big deal.’ —Madison, St. John’s University Madison factored in cost as she navigated a complex national admissions landscape, while also keeping in mind the role that financial resources would play in her ability to attend a college of her choice.

Complexities of Cost  105 Interestingly, another confounding factor that may have come into play for the study participants in making their final college choices is the overall awareness of options for financing higher education and having full access to the information necessary to make college choices. Here, Yosso’s application of social capital theory is relevant, where networks and community resources play an important role in college knowledge. Students were navigating different cost structures depending on the type of higher education institution, as well as scholarship landscape, and federal financial aid landscape. The issue of financing college was therefore a complex one, prompting the activation of social, familial, and navigational capital. Students in our sample employed their navigational capital in a number of ways: from researching financial aid options to comparing the terms of scholarship offers or estimating the cost of living to attend college. Certainly, some students seemed to hold quite extensive knowledge of the student financial aid systems of the colleges to which they applied. They offered important analyses that were part of their ultimate college choices. In addition, as discussed by Goldrick-Rab, (2016) in explaining the complexities of the role of financial aid in supporting African Americans in their pursuit of their first-choice colleges, it is possible that college financial literacy and awareness of the potential long-term differences in the benefits (e.g., differential earnings, as a measure of returns on college education investments) of attending a UC versus other (especially less selective) colleges and universities might also explain the study participants’ ultimate choices. Several students expressed concerns about relying upon student loans to finance college, so it was helpful to understand from the study participants that the issue of affordability also raised questions regarding the specific role of student loan debt in choosing colleges. In the case of the students who expressed concern over taking on debts in order to attend a UC campus, we noted that the actual loan amounts in question might not be generally viewed as exorbitant. However, for students (and families) who are not accustomed to using debt to cover expenses, even relatively small amounts of student loan debt may seem daunting and unaffordable. While this concern from students may lead to institutional efforts to address financial literacy opportunities for new college students, such efforts are more often aimed at helping students manage their finances responsibly during and after college. Less often do we hear that students are reluctant to undertake debt to finance their college education out of concern for others in their families, as was the case with the participants in this qualitative study. A survey respondent, who chose to attend college near home, due to the cost, stated, “I really did not want to go to the school…but I settled anyway because it was close to home, I didn’t have to pay for housing.” This student acknowledged that commuting was a cost-saving approach

106  Complexities of Cost to financing college and further illustrates the complex factors and considerations participants in our study faced when planning out how to finance their college education. Thus, even when financial literacy supports may be warranted, it is also important to develop such approaches with sensitivity toward the particular preferences of students and their families when it comes to managing (or even avoiding) debt. Gordon, for example, was balancing a number of acceptances and weighing the differences in cost based on the scholarship amounts he was offered. I definitely took it [cost] into consideration, and then if it was very close, like if it was within $1,000, it’s not, I don’t want to say it’s not a big deal, but it’s very manageable in the sense that Harvard and all the other Ivy Leagues as well, they tend to have this policy where if it’s a school of similar prestige and the financial aid is different, there’s a difference, then they’ll match the other aid. So, for example, if I wanted to go to Cornell it would have cost me the same as to come here [to Harvard] because they would have matched it. And I know at the UCs, being a public school, it doesn’t work the same way, so let’s say I’d taken Harvard’s financial aid offer and said it’s only [going to] cost me this much to go there, their hands are kind of tied in the sense that they can’t really match the aid offer. Whereas, let’s say I went to Cornell or Johns Hopkins with Harvard’s financial aid offer and asked them to match it, you know, it’s a different story because it’s a private school, it’s a private institution, and with that they can spend their money a little more, I don’t want to say wisely, but a little more appropriately to try and recruit other students….I think another really important factor, too, was just financial aid. For example, to come here it’s, it was the best financial aid offer by far, so I think for my family to save things financially, and I really had the most fun on this visit and just thought it could be a lot more than the other schools. So it wasn’t anything specifically, besides, I guess, maybe the financial aid and clubs and stuff on campus, but also just how I felt, and feeling it was the right school for me. [S]o to choose between UCLA, and don’t get me wrong, UCLA is a great school, but just for me and with financial aid and everything, especially, it just made sense to just look at Cornell and definitely see what they had to offer, and just the other Ivy Leagues. I just wanted to see the school that fit me best, and I feel like, unfortunately, financial aid definitely came into play. At the end of the day I wanted to be at a school that would support me, and I don’t want to say that only financially is the only way to support me, but it just really made sense for my family. …And then 2) I’d probably say financial aid just because what it would have cost to attend UCLA for one year is more than it’s gonna probably cost me to attend here for all four

Complexities of Cost  107 years. It’s just that in the end, it’s quite a bit of money that I saved, so financial aid especially. —Gordon, Harvard University What Gordon allows us to understand is how he factored the financial aid offered by the various campuses that accepted him into his college decision. It is a facile assessment that can often be made when we consider why a high-achieving student might opt to attend an Ivy League university instead of a UC campus, as the private elite institutions are recognized as imbued with longstanding traditions of excellence and prestige. However, Gordon’s consideration was in no way superficial, as he detailed his choice process, including a cultivated understanding of campus and system policies, as well as the constraints faced by many public universities—in his example, UC Los Angeles— allowed him to be responsive financially to competitive admissions offers. His was a carefully approached decision. And, the pattern of familial considerations by the high-achieving African American students with multiple outstanding college options also held true in this instance, which is important to note. Gordon’s considerations further reflect the navigational strengths of the high-achieving students in our study, whose accounts clearly include thorough assessments of the bottom-line costs of pursuing their bachelor’s degrees. Thus, we must appreciate that the notion of seeking one’s top choice school without regard for the relative affordability of the options is a misguided view of the college choice process, even when such high-achievers are encouraged to do so.

What Becomes Evident in This Chapter The issue of affordability involved at least three key dimensions within this study of the college choice processes of high-achieving African Americans. The perceived immediate cost to students for their postsecondary education and the impact that this would have on their family illuminated some complexities that surround the decision-making approaches of the students who participated in this research. Students’ own comparative analyses and understandings of the variable admissions and financial support offers, as approached by both UCs and non-UCs, comprised another dimension of the students’ assessments of relative affordability across institutions under their consideration. Affordability, as reflected in the study participants’ attempts to minimize costs and especially to avoid excessive amounts of student loan debt, also entailed a third dimension in which some students (particularly first-generation college students) seemed compelled to opt for less selective institutions or campuses they may not have originally seriously considered. Despite having prepared throughout high school to attend a UC or other selective

108  Complexities of Cost colleges or universities, some students opted for CSU campuses, community colleges, or other less selective institutions. Many colleges and universities across the nation are striving to diversify their undergraduate populations with limited resources to support these high-achievers through merit aid, scholarships, and fellowships. To further complicate the matter, in the current environment of affirmative action bans, the study participants’ perspectives on the role that financial aid offers played in their final college choices are ever more troubling. The talented, well-prepared A frican American students in this study were apparently deterred by the relatively limited financial support they were offered, even though they could articulate an appreciation highly selective and elite institutions. They turned down highly selective public universities in favor of other colleges and universities that could provide a college education and not place undue financial burden on them or their families. Such realizations give us pause in that while the literature outlines the need for more targeted recruitment, precollege preparation, and financial aid efforts to increase the representation of African Americans in selective or elite higher education institutions (Allen et al., 2005; Campaign for College Opportunity, 2015; Harper & Griffin, 2010–2011; St. John et al., 2005), these high-achievers clearly helped to illuminate how the public and competitive institutions are falling short of students’ expectations to meet them halfway in terms of affordability to be able to attend these universities—especially after undergoing years of preparation for this significant educational opportunity.

8

Addressing Issues of Race and Racism in the College Choice Process

The college choice process is difficult for all students who wish to attend college. As we have seen recently with the celebrity admissions scandal, even rich White students and parents distrust the admissions process and enter into the process with high anxiety. Current college admission cases, such as Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard 2019, demonstrate that students from different racial backgrounds continue to question the college admission process as racially just and equitable. These cases reveal the failures of the higher education system to equitably serve all students and highlight the inadequate appraisals of race, class, and culture, which are embedded in college admissions. For African American students, unequal education is rooted in the legacy of slavery and the history of institutional and structural racism in the United States. During slavery, teaching a slave to read was an illegal and punishable offense. In some states, the offense could mean death. During reconstruction, violence and manipulation were used to discourage African Americans seeking education. Later, African Americans were able to establish segregated K-12 schools and colleges. While segregated schools reinforced students’ connections to their communities and families, these schools were under-resourced and underfunded, while White schools and universities benefited inequitably from Black tax dollars. Even as African Americans celebrated the Brown v. Board of Education 1954/55 verdicts, and the end to separate and unequal public facilities, implementations of school desegregation in urban districts held little benefit for African American communities (Harper, 2008; Irvine, & Irvine, 2007). Two decades later the Milliken v. Bradley Decision (1974) absolved suburban districts of any responsibility to assist urban districts with school desegregation, and left urban districts, where the majority of African American students attend school in the United States, with limited alternatives to reform under-resourced urban schools. Moreover, government reforms to remedy racial, social, and economic inequality, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act 1968, and later affirmative action policies provided some legal protections for racially and socially marginalized groups, but yielded greater economic mobility for White families (Bell, 1991; Carbado, Turetsky, & Purdie-Vaughns, 2016; Delgado, 2002; Delgado & Stefancic, 1994).

110  Addressing Issues of Race and Racism The long legacy of racism in education cannot be dismissed when reflecting on the college choice experiences of African American students in the year of 2020. The history of racism in the United States has reinforced the inequitable distribution of wealth and limited the economic success of African American communities, which contributes to maintaining under-resourced schools in low-income Black communities and settling for the small percentages of African American students attending college. In our findings, we see how the continued economic strain on Black families, the unrecognized and/or disparate social capital in low-income communities, and the structurally maintained institutional barriers shape the underrepresentation of African American students in higher education. What becomes important for us to emphasize about African American high-achievers is the tremendous effort these students and their families put into their college preparation in order to be highly competitive admissions candidates. These students demonstrate a deep investment in education that is often obscured by the abundance of research focused on their African American peers who struggle in K-12 education (King, 2006; Pollard, 1993). African American high-achievers are committed to academic excellence and leadership in their schools and communities. With significant familial capital, these students thrive in a system that often works against their success. These students demonstrate strong resistant and aspirational capital, and they use their social and cultural capital to navigate a difficult process that starts as early as elementary school. These students counter stereotypes about African Americans as being divested from formal education. Rather, African American high-achievers have devoted ample time and effort to access economic and social mobility through the education system, often with full knowledge of the multiple barriers that historically and presently deny the majority of African Americans from matriculating thru elite colleges and universities. Throughout the book, we highlight the interconnected themes that significantly influence the African American college choice process: family influences, institutional and structural racism in K-12 schools, the effects of diversity policies in higher education, and the cost and affordability of a college education. Each theme includes elements of support and impediments for African American students. Our recommendations align with our findings and analysis and attend to the institutional and structural changes necessary to increase college access for African American students and students from racially and socially marginalized communities.

Family Support and Institutional Outreach Families are the strongest system of student support and the greatest contributors to student resilience. Parents and kinfolk begin the predisposition stage of college choice by setting higher education as the

Addressing Issues of Race and Racism  111 ultimate goal for these students. Parents help students navigate K-12 schooling placements, extracurricular activities, and the admissions process. While the level of parental influence is impacted by parental levels of education, the act of parental engagement and concern for the students is not diminished by their education status. What becomes clear in the study is that all parents desire more information and support from high schools and colleges in order to navigate this process. Expand Outreach to African American Communities Colleges and universities need multifaceted approaches to outreach and information dissemination. Generally speaking, we found that state systems of higher education require targeted marketing campaigns to raise the visibility of highly selective flagship universities. Students and parents lack information about the array of highly ranked programs, campus features to support diversity, student services, and faculty and staff on campus that focus on the needs of students as members of different racial groups and individuals with specific interests. For African American students and families, a multifaceted approach includes better information on websites, connecting with African American students through formal and informal cultural networks. Universities need to cultivate student and parent ambassadors who visit high schools and community venues, such as Black churches and Black fraternities and sororities, to speak with African American families about their school. Specifically, we recommend reaching out to high schools in regions with a critical mass of African American students and families and enhancing efforts to deliver timely and relevant information on available majors and academic programs. Increase Technology Support to Help Students Navigate the University Website and Admissions Process The need for more high school counselors in under-resourced schools, with first-generation students who need the most help, was a significant theme from our study. We found that first-generation African American students spent much of their time looking for information and resources on university websites, college ranking websites, and other places they could find information. Second-plus-generation students spent equal amounts of time online, but their systems of support helped guide their searches. College-educated parents asked different and specific questions about their child’s choices, and adults in their social networks gave suggestions and advice to help them identify schools and programs fitting their goals. We believe that the decision-making process of first-generation students was compromised because these students conducted their college choice process with little input from well-informed adults or experts.

112  Addressing Issues of Race and Racism We understand that the colleges and universities have no control over K-12 resources. However, universities need to provide academic counseling services to help students and parents navigate their particular school. For example, some colleges have a pop-up chat available; other colleges provide a specific contact person and email to handle questions about the program’s admission process and program specifics. Online tutorials and video options are a sincere effort, but students and parents need to access knowledgeable staff associated with the university with whom relationships can be fostered to support the college choice process of their children.

School Contexts The impact of K-12 contexts cannot be minimized in the college choice process. All students rely on counselors to guide them through the process. High-quality counseling is an imperative for all African American students, but it is particularly necessary for first-generation students. Students who attend well-resourced schools with career counselors and resource centers are more knowledgeable and prepared earlier for the search stage of the process. First-generation students need counselors who not only provide the students with ample information but also guide students through the process. Often, first-generation students do not know what they don’t know, leaving them at a significant disadvantage in the process. Counselors need to take a proactive approach with students and make admissions processes transparent. This transparency includes conversations about academic, racial, social, and financial components, as well as critical assessments of elite, selective, and nonselective college attributes. Additionally, colleges and universities should extend their K-12 partnerships to training teachers as knowledgeable informants. The access points between teachers and students outweigh students’ interactions with counselors. By working with teachers, colleges and universities build a secondary network of information and access to African American students. Universities Need to Work with K-12 Teachers Teachers are the primary source of information for most students, including many African American students. Often teachers know about specific schools and programs that hold meaning for them, or easily recognized programs, but they are unfamiliar with a broader array of academic programs and universities. During the student interviews, we found that students were unaware of multiple highly ranked programs on University of California (UC) campuses because other campus majors were widely known entities. For example, students were well aware of UC San Diego’s reputation as a Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) campus, but unaware of the award-winning programs in music, visual arts, and theater. Universities should design an

Addressing Issues of Race and Racism  113 online professional development seminar for teachers that focuses on the resources and programs available in their local or regional state colleges and universities, particularly their flagship institutions. Educating high school teachers about the strengths of elite public institutions’ programs would increase the university’s exposure and stimulate students’ interests. Additionally, having students apply to programs across the university, rather than a few select programs, should increase admissions and grow diversity across the campus. Support Better Education for Counselors Counselors do not have enough information about the diverse programming at their state institutions. Colleges and universities need to work more closely with high school counselors and provide ample information about the resources and programs available on campus. Universities also need to invite counselors onto their campuses, with opportunities to engage with current students, so that the counselors can have a better sense of the climate and school context. Counselor knowledge can facilitate into more quality interactions between counselors and students.

Changing Racial Demographics and Addressing Campus Racial Climate If public institutions want to create greater access and a more positive, welcoming climate for gifted and talented college-bound African American students, there is work to be done. More reforms are needed to satisfactorily ensure equitable postsecondary pathways for African American high-achievers. These students should be treated as savvy and exacting shoppers for colleges and universities that meet the majority of their academic and social needs. And because of the competitive applications, many students can afford to reject even the best of highly selective colleges. We found that those students who decide to attend less selective colleges other than the UC to which they were accepted made these choices in conversation with their families and by reflecting on what they wanted from their college experience. Understand the Institutional Context Rather than operate with “colorblind” institutional preferences, colleges and universities can and must center race in their campus discussions. A comprehensive assessment of the campus racial climate would be an important first step to understanding the educational terrain. An evidence-based approach allows for campus leaders to identify strengths and problem areas, as well as to increase their own and others’ awareness about specific campus conditions that impact the quality of experience for marginalized student groups.

114  Addressing Issues of Race and Racism Establish a Critical Mass of Same-Race Peers Additional research is needed to further understand how a critical mass of same-race peers on campuses might enhance the satisfaction and engagement for college students. With a critical mass, it has been documented that racially marginalized students will have greater levels of campus representation and are less likely to become vulnerable to racist stereotypes and feelings of tokenization inside and outside of the classroom (Garces & Jayakumar, 2014; Jayakumar, 2015). Likewise, they will likely be placed in supportive and less racially hostile conditions to participate in meaningful interactions and exchanges across racial lines, which, in turn, might lead to a greater sense of belonging, community, and inclusiveness during college.

Cost and Affordability The issue of rising costs of higher education was a clear concern for our interview and survey samples. Students cared deeply about the financial capacity of their parents to finance higher education, particularly if there were siblings that would also require family assistance to finance college. The African American high-achievers highlighted in this book were also debt averse and opted for campuses that offered scholarships to finance their undergraduate education, or opted for less selective institutions. These high-achievers tell an important story intertwined with the realities of rising college costs and diminished levels of state funding and financial aid at the federal level to offset tuition increases. These students also provided a glimpse of perhaps one of the top considerations they factored in their college choice process. State movements to offer “free college” at the undergraduate level or college for all policies show promise (Contreras, 2012) for addressing the issue of affordability as the income divide widens in the United States. However, most of these policies, such as free tuition during the first two years for attending California’s community colleges, only impact the two-year systems and have not yet been passed to address affordability and access to four-year colleges and systems. In the absence of “free tuition” or “college for all” policy frameworks at the four-year level, the following recommendations are designed to address issues of affordability and access to competitive four-year universities. Provide Scholarships to First-Generation and Low-Income African American Students Provide scholarship money to students who come from partnership high schools and schools with high concentration of African American students. Public campuses and systems should also consider developing

Addressing Issues of Race and Racism  115 African American initiatives to raise private funds for African American student scholarships, particularly in states like California that have antiaffirmative action (Proposition 209) policy contexts. Provide Scholarships to Second-Plus-Generation African American Students Many existing “need-based” scholarship opportunities are inaccessible to second-plus-generation and middle-income students. However, the rising costs of public education are too large a burden for most families that consider themselves middle-income and don’t meet the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) threshold for financial need. Additionally, for African American students, second-plus-generation status does not connote high income levels matching those of their White counterparts. The Federal Reserve states, In 2016, white families had the highest level of both median and mean family wealth: $171,000 and $933,700, respectively (figure 1). Black and Hispanic families have considerably less wealth than white families. Black families’ median and mean net worth is less than 15 percent that of white families, at $17,600 and $138,200, respectively. (Dettling, Hsu, Lindsay Jacobs, Moore, & Thompson, 2017) Although African American students may have one of two parents with a college degree, their parents’ ability to contribute financially remains below White parents in similar circumstances. Many high-achieving African American students in our sample were middle-income students, with at least one parent who graduated from college, and additional siblings in the household who were either college-age or soon to be transitioning to college. Incentives to choose an elite public institution through “merit-based” financial awards for working-class and middle-income African American students would make elite public universities more competitive recruiters for high-achievers with multiple options. Promote Greater Financial Awareness around Costs, Time to Degree, and Employment Projections Greater financial awareness for African American students and their families related to the time to degree for choosing a particular campus and major, as well as the transparency with the FAFSA process in relation to admissions. Many times students are making college decisions without having their financial package fully worked out or understood. Students may also benefit from early awareness about the potential employment or graduate school prospects of particular majors and courses of study.

116  Addressing Issues of Race and Racism Build Partnerships with Private Funders to Increase the Number of Scholarships Provided to African American Students Establish a fundraising campaign at the system level from private sources to conduct targeted recruitment efforts in the African American community and create new funding pool or an endowment for such efforts. For example, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley, and UC Los Angeles have outlined African American initiatives to raise private funds for African American student scholarships. Private funders are able to target their gifts toward specific groups of students, which means they can allot funds specifically for high-achieving African American students.

Addressing Racial Justice through Institutional Reforms State public systems in particular have a responsibility to serve their residents and provide access to public institutions of higher education. In order to address and practice racial justice for communities consistently the target of injustice, it is critical for systemic reforms and policies to directly address issues such as greater access to elite institutions of higher education, particularly for African American high-achievers. This select group deserves not only access but also greater investment in their development, leadership, and innovation. By creating a policy infrastructure to invest in a cadre of African American high-achievers, institutions may also cultivate the next generation of African American thought and industry leaders. Revisit the Admission Processes in Public Higher Education Systems and the Related Barriers to Access Instead of relying solely on traditional indicators and numeric measures, it is important for higher education to broaden the definition of academic success. A broader definition would consider noncognitive factors for admission and add additional weight to variables that are indicative of a hard work ethic, leadership, and commitment to community service (Sedlacek, 2011). Although many universities describe their admissions process as holistic, we question the impact of ACT and SAT scores in the admissions process. These tests have been critiqued for their cultural incongruity and bias toward White middle-income students. The continued emphasis on these scores fails to account for the resource gap between first-generation, low-income students and students with financial support for tutors and test-preparatory courses. Students who maintain high grade point averages (GPAs) while participating in high-impact activities such as sports, leadership programs, work, or community service should be given more consideration in the admissions process.

Addressing Issues of Race and Racism  117 Additionally, we question the racial and social makeup of admissions reviewers and the training for the review process. Who are the people reading the applications? How are they trained? Is there significant representation from African American communities and other communities of color? Critical race theory values the epistemologies of people of color as different from Whites because of the racialized experiences, historic and contemporary, that influence our understandings of the world, and our behaviors. The dearth of readers of color in the admissions process means that readers may fail to fully understand the weight of students’ experiences. Moreover, when readers are not well trained on matters of culture, community, schools, and the neighborhood environments, they cannot adequately score applications. For example, do admissions readers fully understand the strength and commitment it takes for a high-achieving African American student to thrive in a racist desegregated school environment, where they are only one of three or four students of color in the classroom, or how a student maintains over a 3.5 GPA under the threat of gun violence and gang recruitment in their neighborhood and school? Optimize and Streamline Programs Designed to Ensure Access to Elite Public Institutions Following bans on affirmative action, select states adopted policies and practices to ensure a level of equitable access in university admissions while also complying with state legal contexts. In California, that policy was the, Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC), where the top 4% (later to be changed to the top 9%) of students in their high school context were considered competitively eligible for UC admission. In Texas, following Hopwood, the state adopted the top 10% plan, which admits the top 10% of graduating students from each accredited high school in Texas to the University of Texas, Austin. States Should Designate a Proportion of Admissions Slots for Low-Income Students, First-Generation Students, and Students in the Top Quintile of Their Class Public campuses and systems should reserve at least a proportion of admission slots for providing special consideration to students who are designated as ELC, low-income (from urban high schools and districts with high concentrations of poverty), or in the top quintile of their high school. States should also consider the proportion of students they are admitting in relation to their composition of the state’s population. That is, to what degree are states achieving a level of parity in serving the residents of their respective states?

118  Addressing Issues of Race and Racism Increase the Number and Types of Fee Waivers for Applications In the UC system, students who qualify for financial aid are only eligible to apply to four campuses with the existing waiver process. Many of our participants, who are low-income students, only applied to the four campuses covered under the UC waiver, rather than expanding their options. Additionally, application fees place a financial burden on students who are ineligible for fee waivers because their parental income is above the FAFSA threshold. To increase the numbers of high-achieving African American students applying to colleges, state institutions should consider alternative forms of fee waivers, such as GPA, class honors, and awards. Increase the Number of Colleges and Universities That Participate in the Common App and (Other App Programs) Students used the Common App to apply to large numbers of colleges and universities, including elite private institutions and Ivy Leagues. Through this resource, students were able to explore previously unidentified institutions that fit their search criteria. Indeed, for African American high-achievers, the use of the Common App, in which students can use one application for multiple colleges, is a “game changer.” Private institutions appeared more invested in recruiting high-achieving African American students. Several of the high-achievers wielded scholarship offers from different colleges to secure or increase funding packages from other colleges and universities. The Common App gave students more navigational capital, especially when students paid a minimal or no fee for the application. However, the majority of flagship universities across the country are notably absent on the College App, and require students to complete separate applications through their separate application systems. For example, the UC system has an independent application process for applying to UC schools with different essay prompts that could not be reused or slightly revised from other college applications. This creates an undue burden on students and diminishes their desire to apply to these universities. In order for state flagships to remain competitive for high-achievers, they should consider the Common App or a similar application process. Utilize Research Centers, Programs, and Departments Focused on African American Experiences to Create an Institutional Research Collective Building an infrastructure of African American leaders within public systems of higher education would provide these large public systems

Addressing Issues of Race and Racism  119 with expertise and an infrastructure for tangible feedback and solutions for the unique challenges faced by African American students in these institutions and public systems. Increase Recruitment and Retention of African American Tenure Line Faculty and Senior-Level Administrators Students commented on the presence of African Americans on campus and the climate. Faculty play a key role in campus climates, because they are more likely to serve as mentors, provide research opportunities, and volunteer to assist student clubs and organizations on campus. They are central to an infrastructure for supporting African American and underrepresented students in universities. Work to Repeal Constraints on Affirmative Action Proposition 209 has severely impacted the pool of high-achieving A frican American applicants, admits and those choosing to enroll in a UC campus, particularly at UCLA, UC Berkeley, and UC San Diego (Teranishi & Briscoe, 2008). While significant damage has already occurred in terms of supporting the development of and sustaining a thriving African American middle class in California, it is time to acknowledge the fact that Proposition 209 has impeded the mission of the UC by constraining practices that were designed to ensure access to all public UC campuses in the state. California residents and their children, who are now over 60% underrepresented students, deserve more than segregated system of higher education.

Final Thoughts Our recommendations underscore the lack of simple solutions for minimizing racism and increasing college access for African American students. As previously stated, U.S. public education was created to provide pathways for economic and social mobility, as well as maintain educational imbalances among racial groups (Bell, 1987, 1992; Kliebard, 1995). However, these recommendations deserve serious attention if highly selective public universities are sincerely interested in expanding college access. If they are to fulfill their missions to serve and represent the communities in their states, highly selective flagship universities need aggressive and comprehensive plans to increase the numbers of African Americans on their campuses. Moreover, expanding college access to racially and socially marginalized students benefits all students and communities, the private sector, and matters of state. In the not too distant future, the U.S. economy will need to depend on an educated racially heterogeneous workforce.

120  Addressing Issues of Race and Racism Where else, but public schools, do we expect children and young adults to learn about each other? K-16 public education venues hold unique and valuable spaces for racially and socially different students to formally and informally learn about other people, as they learn about themselves and prepare for their future career pathways. Today, we live in a historical moment of visible racial animosity toward communities of color, a rise in White supremacy groups and hate crimes, and racial microaggressions from our government officials, corporations, and members of different communities. Reforming public education is the best option from closing social and economic gaps and forging an understanding of diverse peoples and society. Given the embedded stratifications of race and class in the United States, we recognize that this is an idealistic undertaking. However, given their unique position in higher education, we assert that highly selective public universities should embrace the challenge to cultivate both academic excellence and racial justice.

Appendix

Students Pseudonyms and Colleges

Student Pseudonym

College Choice

Alicia Bernard Azelea Nayo Monifa Jacob Folani Amber Moses Chance Yashida Susana Joseph Brianna Becca Peyton Melahnie Evalyn Anika Yasmin Aliyah Boatema Seshet Gordon Walter D’Nasia Cynthia Margaret Prudence Darlene Kamaria Elise Julianna Shani Zahara Akida Malik

Princeton University University of Pine Bluff Arkansas University of San Francisco Berkeley City College California State University Fullerton Arcadia University California State University East Bay Northwestern University University of Rochester California State University Poly Pomona California State University Poly Pomona Harvard University California State University Northridge University of Oregon Santa Monica College Lousiana State University California State University Long Beach Harvard University Princeton University Hampton University Alabama State University Tuskegee University Loyola Marymount University Harvard University Cypress College Azusa Pacific University Norco College Knox College University of Chicago Seattle University Sarah Lawrence College Massachusetts Institute of Technology California State University Sacramento San Diego State University Howard University California State University Channel Islands California State University Long Beach (Continued)

Student Pseudonym

College Choice

Addison Yolanda Liana Ashley Immanuel Gabriel Olivia Skyy Jabari Hennie Asaad Calvin Nathan Jamel Amare Tiana Sydney Destiny Isis Caleb Jada Kennedy Hannah Jayla Laila Madison Benjamin Fayth Aaron Chiku Chloe Hasnaa Verana Kesi Makayla Fatema Banou

San Diego State University Georgetown University Brown University Wake Forest University California State University Fullerton Whittier College Howard University Howard University Dartmouth University Lincoln University Santa Clara University California State University Long Beach Harvey Mudd University San Diego State University University of Southern California University of San Diego Fisk University California State University East Bay Point Loma Nazarene California State University LA Mira Mesa College California State University East Bay Virginia State University Wake Forest University Stanford University St. John University Sonoma State University California State University San Luis Obispo California State University San Marcos San Diego State University Harvey Mudd University San Diego State University San Diego State University New York University Howard University California State University Chico San Diego State University

Bibliography

Abdul-Adil, J. K., & Farmer, A. R. (2006). Inner-city African American parental involvement in elementary schools: Getting beyond urban legends of apathy. School Psychology Quarterly, 21(1), 1–12. Adams-Bass, V. N., Stevenson, H. C., & Kotzin, D. S. (2014). Measuring the meaning of Black media stereotypes and their relationship to the racial identity, Black history knowledge, and racial socialization of African American youth. Journal of Black Studies, 45(5), 367–395. Akey, T. M. (2006). School contexts, student attitudes and behavior, and academic achievement: An exploratory analysis. MDRC. Retrieved from http:// inpathways.net/school_context.pdfDate Accessed 11/11/2013 Alemán Jr, E. (2006). Is Robin Hood the “Prince of Thieves” 1 or a pathway to equity? Applying critical race theory to school finance political discourse. Educational Policy, 20(1), 113–142. Allen, W. R. (1987). Black colleges vs. White colleges: The fork in the road for Black students. Change, 19, 28–34. Allen, W. R. (1992). The color of success: African-American college student outcomes at predominantly White and historically Black public colleges and universities. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 26–45. Allen, W. R. (2005). A forward glance in a mirror: Diversity challenged – Access, equity and success in higher education. Educational Researcher, 34(7), 18–23. Allen, W. R., Bonous-Hammarth, M., & Suh, S. A. (2004). Who goes to college? High school context, academic preparation, the college choice process, and college attendance. In E. P. St. John (Ed.), Readings on equal education. Vol. 20: Improving access and college success for diverse students: Studies of the gates millennium scholars program (pp. 71–114). New York: AMS Press. Allen, W. R., Bonous-Hammarth, M., & Teranishi, R. (2002). Stony the road we trod… The Black struggle for higher education in California. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED468748). Allen, W. R., Bonous-Hammarth, M., Teranishi, R. T., & Dano, O. C. (Eds.). (2005). Higher education in a global society: Achieving diversity, equity and excellence. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Allen, W. R., Jayakumar, U. M., Griffin, K. A., Korn, W. S., & Hurtado, S. (2005). Black undergraduates from Bakke to Grutter: Freshman status, trends, and prospects, 1971–2004. Los Angeles, CA: Regents of the University of California.

124 Bibliography Alon, S., & Tienda, M. (2007). Diversity, opportunity, and the shifting meritocracy in higher education. American Sociological Review, 72(4), 487–511. Al-Yousef, H. (2009). ‘They know nothing about university–neither of them went’: The effect of parents’ level of education on their involvement in their daughters’ higher education choices. Compare, 39(6), 783–798. An, B. P., & Taylor, J. L. (2015). Are dual enrollment students college ready? Evidence from the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(58). doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.1781. André-Bechely, L. (2005). Public school choice at the intersection of voluntary integration and not-so-good neighborhood schools: Lessons from parents’ experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 267–305. AP Report to the Nation (2014). California supplement. New York: Publication of The College Board. Archbald, D., Glutting, J., & Qian, X. (2009). Getting into honors or not: An analysis of the relative influence of grades, test scores, and race on track placement in a comprehensive high school. American Secondary Education, 37(2), 65–81. Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., & Marteau, T. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: an empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597–606. Arroyo, A. T., & Gasman, M. (2014). An HBCU-based educational approach for Black college student success: Toward a framework with implications for all institutions. American Journal of Education, 121(1), 57–85. Auerbach, S. (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. Baldassare, M., Bonner, D., Dykman, A., Lopes, L. (2018). PPIC Statewide Survey: Californian and higher education. Sacramento, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/publication/ ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-higher-education-november-2018/ Bailey, T., Hughes, K., & Mechur Karp, M. (2002). What role can dual enrollment programs play in easing the transition between high school and postsecondary education. Downloaded January 15. Retrieved from http://ccrc. tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=13 Ball, A. F., Skerrett, A., & Martínez, R. A. (2011). Research on diverse students in culturally and linguistically complex language arts classrooms. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 34–40). New York: Routledge. Bateman, M., & Hossler, D. (1996). Exploring the development of postsecondary education plans among African American and white students. College and University, 72(1), 2–9. Bateman, M., & Kennedy, E. (1999). Expanding the applicant pool: Exploring the college decision- making of students from single-parent families. College and University, 75(1), 2. Bates, L. A., & Glick, J. E. (2013). Does it matter if teachers and schools match the student? Racial and ethnic disparities in problem behaviors. Social Science Research, 42(5), 1180–1190. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2013.04.005. Belasco, A. S. (2013). Creating college opportunity: School counselors and their influence on postsecondary enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 54(7), 781–804.

Bibliography  125 Bell, A. D., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Perna, L. W. (2009). College knowledge of 9th and 11th grade students: Variation by school and state context. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 663–685. doi:10.1353/jhe.0.0074. Bell, D. (1987). And we will not be saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. New York: Basic Books. Bell, D. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The Permanence of racism. New York: Basic Books. Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93, 518–533. Bell, D. A. (1991). Racial realism. Connecticut Law Review, 24(2), 363–379. Bell, D. A. (1995). Who’s afraid of critical race theory? University of Illinois Law Review, 1995(4), 893–910. Bell, D. A. (2004). Unintended lessons in Brown v. Board of Education. New York Law School Law Review, 49, 1053. Behrman, J., Kletzer, L., McPherson, M., & Schapiro, M. O. (1998). Microeconomics of college choice, careers, and wages. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 559(1), 12–23. Benner, A. D., & Mistry, R. S. (2007). Congruence of mother and teacher educational expectations and low-income youth’s academic competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 140–153. Bergerson, A. A. (2009). Special issue: College choice and access to college: Moving policy, research, and practice to the 21st Century. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(4), 1–141. Bernal, D. D. (1998). Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 555–583. Bernal, D. D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latin@ critical theory, and critical raced-gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105. Berry III, R. Q. (2005). Voices of success: Descriptive portraits of two successful African American male middle school mathematics students. Journal of African American Studies, 8(4), 46–62. Berry III, R. Q. (2008). Access to upper-level mathematics: The stories of successful African American middle school boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(5), 464–488. Bird, J., Kim, D., & Wierzalis, E. (2008). A study of local antecedents for college choice: A template for administrators, families, and school counselors. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 3(2), 12. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Bouse, G. A., & Hossler, D. (1991). Studying college choice: A progress report. Journal of College Admission, 130, 11–16. Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Braddock, J. H., & Hua, L. (2006). Determining the college destination of African American high school seniors: Does college athletic reputation matter? Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 532–545. Braddock, J. H., Lv, H., & Dawkins, M. P. (2008). College athletic reputation and college choice among African American high school seniors: Evidence

126 Bibliography from the educational longitudinal study. Challenge: A Journal of Research on African American Men, 14(1), 14–38. Brantlinger, E. (1992). Unmentionable futures: Postschool planning for lowincome teenagers. School Counselor, 39(4), 281–291. Brown, A. L., & Donnor, J. K. (2011). Toward a new narrative on Black males, education, and public policy. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 14(1), 17–32. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Bryan, J., Holcomb-McCoy, C., Moore-Thomas, C., & Day-Vines, N. L. (2009). Who sees the school counselor for college information? A national study. Professional School Counseling, 12(4), 280–291. doi:10.5330/ PSC.n.2010–12.280. Bryan, J., Moore-Thomas, C., Day-Vines, N. L., & Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2011). School counselors as social capital: The effects of high school college counseling on college application rates. Journal of Counseling & Development, 89(2), 190–199. Buenavista, T. L. (2018). Model (undocumented) minorities and “illegal” immigrants: Centering Asian Americans and US carcerality in undocumented student discourse. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(1), 78–91. Butner, B., Caldera, Y., Herrera, P., Kennedy, F., Frame, M., & Childers, C. (2001). The college choice process of African American and Hispanic women: Implications for college transitions. Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 9(1), 24–32. Cabrera, A., & La Nasa, S. (2000). Understanding the college-choice process. New Directions for Institutional Research, 27(3), 5–22. Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagedorn, L. S. (1999). Campus racial climate and the adjustments of students to college: A comparison between White students and African American students. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 134–160. Cain, P. P., & McClintock, J. (1984). The ABC’s of choice. Journal of College Admissions, 105, 15–21. California Department of Education. (2017). Fingertipfacts on education in California. Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts. asp Campaign for College Opportunity. (May 2015). The state of higher education in California: The Black Report. Los Angeles, CA: Campaign for College Opportunity. Cancio, A. S., Evans, T. D., & Maume, D. J. (1996). Reconsidering the declining significance of race: Racial differences in early career wages. American Sociological Review, 61, 541–556. Carbado, D. W., Turetsky, K. M., & Purdie-Vaughns, V. (2016). Privileged or mismatched: The lose-lose position of African Americans in the affirmative action debate. UCLA Law Review Discourse, 64, 174. Carnevale, A., & Rose, S. (2003). Socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and selective college admissions. In R. D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), America’s untapped resource: Low-income students in higher education (pp. 101–156). New York: The Century Foundation. Carter, D. F. (1999). The impact of institutional choice and environments on African-American and White students’ degree expectations. Research in Higher Education, 40(1), 17–41.

Bibliography  127 Carter, D. F., Locks, A. M., & Winkle-Wagner, R. (2013). From when and where enter: Theoretical and empirical considerations of minority students’ transition to college. In M Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 93–149). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Carter, D. F., Paulsen, M. B., & St John, E. P. (2005). Diversity, college costs, and postsecondary opportunity: An examination of the financial nexus between college choice and persistence for African Americans and Whites. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 545–569. Carter, D. J. (2007). Why the Black kids sit together at the stairs: The role of identity-affirming counter-spaces in a predominantly White high school. Journal of Negro Education, 76(4), 542–554. Carter, D. J. (2008). Achievement as resistance: The development of a critical race achievement ideology among Black achievers. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 466–497. Ceja, M. (2006). Understanding the role of parents and siblings as information sources in the college choice process of Chicana students. Journal of College Student Development, 47(1), 87–104. Center for Public Education. (2010). Chasing the college acceptance letter. Accessed 11/14/2013. Retrieved from http://www.qcsd.org/cms/lib04/ PA01000005/Centricity/Domain/61/Chasing_the_college_acceptance_letter.pdf Chang, M. J., Astin, A. W., & Kim, D. (2004). Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates: Some consequences, causes and patterns. Research in Higher Education, 45, 529–553. Chapman, T. K. (2005). Peddling backwards: Reflections of “Plessy” and “Brown” in the Rockford Public Schools “de jure” desegregation efforts. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 29–44. Chapman, T. K. (2007). Interrogating classroom relationships and events: Using portraiture and critical race theory in education research. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 156. Chapman, T. K. (2014). Is integration a dream deferred? Students of color in majority white suburban schools. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(3), 311–326. Cho, S. J., Hudley, C., Lee, S., Barry, L., & Kelly, M. (2008). Roles of gender, race, and SES in the college choice process among first-generation and non-first-generation students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(2), 95. Comeaux, E. (2013). Faculty perceptions of high-achieving male collegians: A critical race theory analysis. Journal of College Student Development, 54(5), 453–465. Comeaux, E., Griffin, W., Bachman, P., & Porter, J. (2017). NCAA division I athlete STEM graduates. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 10(1), 44–66. Comeaux, E., & Watford, T. (2006). Admissions & omissions: How “The Numbers” are used to exclude deserving students. Bunche Research Report, 3(2), 1–8. Contreras, F. (2012). First-generation college students. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (Vol. 1, pp. 911–915). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:10.4135/9781452218533.n290. Contreras, F. E. (2005). The reconstruction of merit post-proposition 209. Educational Policy, 19(2), 371–395. doi:10.1177/0895904804274055.

128 Bibliography Cooper, J. N., & Hawkins, B. (2014). The Transfer Effect. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 7(1), 80–104. Corwin, Z. B., & Tierney, W. G. (2007). Getting there—And beyond: Building a culture of college-going in high schools. Los Angeles: Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, University of Southern California. Cox, R. D. (2016). Complicating conditions: Obstacles and interruptions to lowincome students’ college “choices”. Journal of Higher Education, 87(1), 1–26. Covarrubias, A. (2011). Quantitative intersectionality: A critical race analysis of the Chicana/o educational pipeline. Journal of Latinos and Education, 10(2), 86–105. Crenshaw, K. W. (1988). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331–1387. Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. Crenshaw, K. W. (1997). Color blindness, history, and the law. In W. Lubiano (Ed.), The house that race built: Black Americans, U.S. terrain (pp. 280–288). New York: Pantheon. Cresswell-Yeager, T. (2012). Influences that affect first-generation college students’ college choice: A qualitative inquiry of student perceptions Retrieved from ERIC. (1651847786; ED547166). Creswell, J., & Clark, V. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE Publications. Croom, N. N. (2017). Promotion beyond tenure: Unpacking racism and sexism in the experiences of Black womyn professors. The Review of Higher Education, 40(4), 557–583. Cunningham, A., & Santiago, D., (2008). Student aversion to borrowing: Who borrows and who doesn’t. Washington, DC: Publication of the Institute for Higher Education Policy and Ed Excelencia. Cunningham, M., & Swanson, D. P. (2010). Educational resilience in African American adolescents. The Journal of Negro Education, 79(4), 473–487. Dale, S., & Krueger, A. B. (2011). Estimating the return to college selectivity over the career using administrative earnings data (NBER Working Paper w17159). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Dancy, T. E., Edwards, K. T., & Earl Davis, J. (2018). Historically White universities and plantation politics: Anti-Blackness and higher education in the Black Lives Matter era. Urban Education, 53, 176–195. Dannenberg, M., & Voight, M. (2013). Doing away with debt: Using existing resources to ensure college affordability for low- and middle-income families. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Datnow, A., & Cooper, R. (1997). Peer networks of African American students in independent schools: Affirming academic success and racial identity. Journal of Negro Education, 66, 56–72. Davis, S., & Harris, J. C. (2016). But we didn’t mean it like that: A critical race analysis of campus responses to racial incidents. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs, 2(1), 6. DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31.

Bibliography  129 Delgado, R. (1984). The imperialist scholar: Reflections on a review of civil rights literature. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 132, 561–578. Delgado, R. (2002). Explaining the rise and fall of African American fortunesinterest convergence and civil rights gains. Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review, 37, 369–388. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (1994). The social construction of Brown v. Board of Education: Law reform and the reconstructive paradox. The William & Mary Law Review, 36, 547. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York: New York University Press. Deli-Amen, R. & Tevis, T.L. (2010). Circumscribed agency: the relevance of standardized college entrance exams for low SES high school students. The Review of Higher Education, 33(2), 141–175. doi:10.1353/rhe.0.0125 Dettling, L. J, Hsu, J. W., Jacobs, L., Kevin, B., Moore, K. B., Thompson, J. P. (2017). Recent trends in wealth-holding by race and ethnicity: Evidence from the survey of consumer finances. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.). Diamond, J. B. (2006). Still separate and unequal: Examining race, opportunity, and school achievement in ‘Integrated’ suburbs. Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 495–505. Diamond, J. B., Lewis, A., & Gordon, L. (2007). Race and school achievement in a desegregated suburb: Reconsidering the oppositional culture explanation. International Journal of Qualitative Studies, 20(6), 655–679. Dixson, A., & Dingus, J. E. (2008). In search of our mothers’ gardens: Black women teachers and professional socialization. Teachers College Record, 110(4), 805–837. Donahoo, S. (2008). Reflections on race: Affirmative action policies influencing higher education in France and the United States. Teachers College Record, 110(2), 251–277. Donnor, J. K. (2005). Towards an interest-convergence in the education of African-American football student athletes in major college sports. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8, 45–67. Donnor, J. (2006). Parents: The biggest influence in the education of African American football student-athletes. In A. Dixson & C. Rousseau (Eds.), Critical race theory in education: All God’s children got a song (pp. 153–166). New York: Routledge. Donnor, J. K., & Brown, A. L. (2011). The education of Black males in a ‘post-racial’ world. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 14(1), 1–5. Drewry, H. N., & Doermann, H. (2001). Stand and prosper: Private Black colleges and their students. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. DuBois, W. E. B. H. (1903). The souls of Black folk. New York: New American Library. Duncan, G. A. (2000). Urban pedagogies and the celling of adolescents of color. Social Justice, 27(3), 29–42. Duncan, G. A. (2002). Beyond love: A critical race ethnography of the schooling of adolescent Black males. Equity and Excellence in Education, 35(2), 131–143. Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Ramirez, J. J., Aragon, M. C., Suchard, M. R., & Hurtado, S. (2014). The American freshman: National norms fall 2014. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

130 Bibliography Espenshade, T., & Radford, A. W. (2009). No longer separate, not yet equal: Race and class in Elite college admission and campus life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Espino, M. M. (2012). Seeking the “truth” in the stories we tell: The role of critical race epistemology in higher education research. Review of Higher Education, 36(1, Supp), 31–67. Evans, A. E. (2007). School leaders and their sensemaking about race and demographic change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 159–188. Evans-Winters, V. E., & Esposito, J. (2010). Other people’s daughters: Critical race feminism and Black girls’ education. Educational Foundations, 24, 11–24. Farmer-Hinton, R. L. (2008). Social capital and college planning students of color using school networks for support and guidance. Education and Urban Society, 41, 127–157. Farmer-Hinton, R. L., & Adams, T. L. (2006). Social capital and college preparation: Exploring the role of counselors in a college prep school for Black students. Negro Educational Review, 57(1/2), 101. Fernández, L. (2002). Telling stories about school: Using critical race and Latino critical theories to document Latina/Latino education and resistance. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 45–65. Few, A. L. (2007). Integrating Black consciousness and critical race feminism into family studies research. Journal of Family Issues, 28(4), 452–473. Fields-Smith, C. (2005). African American parents before and after Brown. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 20(2), 129–135. Flint, T. A. (1992). Parental and planning influences on the formation of student college choice sets. Research in Higher Education, 33(6), 689–708. Flowers, L. (2004). Retaining African American students in higher education: An integrative review. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 6, 23–35. Ford, D. Y., Harris III, J. J., Tyson, C. A., & Trotman, M. F. (2001). Beyond deficit thinking: Providing access for gifted African American students. Roeper Review, 24(2), 52–58. Ford, D. Y., Wright, B. L., Sewell, C. J., Whiting, G. W., & Moore III, J. L. (2018). The Nouveau talented tenth: Envisioning WEB Du Bois in the context of contemporary gifted and talented education. The Journal of Negro Education, 87(3), 294–310. Freeman, K. (1997). Increasing African Americans’ participation in higher education: African American high school students’ perspectives. The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 523–550. Freeman, K. (2002). Black colleges and college choice: Characteristics of students who choose HBCUs. The Review of Higher Education, 25(3), 349–358. Freeman, K. (2004). African Americans and college choice. New York: SUNY Press. Gándara, P. (2012). California: A case study in the loss of affirmative action (Policy Brief). Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Gándara, P., Orfield, G., & Horn, C. (Eds.) (2005). Expanding opportunity in higher education: Leveraging Promise. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Garces, L. M., & Jayakumar, U. M. (2014). Dynamic diversity toward a contextual understanding of critical mass. Educational Researcher, 43, 115–124.

Bibliography  131 Garrison-Wade, D. F., Diggs, G. A., Estrada, D., & Galindo, R. (2012). Lift every voice and sing: Faculty of color face the challenges of the tenure track. The Urban Review, 44(1), 90–112. Gasman, M., Kim, J., & Nguyen, T. H. (2011). Effectively recruiting faculty of color at highly selective institutions: A school of education case study. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 212. Gayles, J. (2005). Playing the game and paying the price: Academic resilience among three high-achieving African American males. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36(3), 250–264. Geiser, S., & Kaspary, K. (2005). “No show” study: College destinations of University of California applicants and admits who did not enroll, 1997– 2002. Educational Policy, 19(2), 396–417. Gildersleeve, R. E., Croom, N. N., & Vasquez, P. (2011). “Am I going crazy?!”: A critical race analysis of doctoral education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44, 93–114. Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the price: College costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the American dream. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Goldrick-Rab, S., Carter, D. F., & Wagne, R. (2007). What higher education has to say about the transition to college. Teachers College Record, 109, 2444–2481. Goodwin, L. L. (2016). Resilient spirits: Disadvantaged students making it at an elite university. London: Routledge. Green, A. (2013). Education and state formation. In Education and state formation (pp. 82–114). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Greene, S. (2013). Mapping low-income African American parents’ roles in their children’s education in a changing political economy. Teachers College Record, 115(10), 1–33. Griffin, K., & Allen, W. (2006). Mo’money, mo’problems? High-achieving Black high school students’ experiences with resources, racial climate, and resilience. The Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 478–494. Griffin, K., del Pilar, W., McIntosh, K., & Griffin, A. (2012). “Oh, of course I’m going to go to college”: Understanding how habitus shapes the college choice process of Black immigrant students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(2), 96. Griffin, R. A., Ward, L., & Phillips, A. R. (2014). Still flies in buttermilk: Black male faculty, critical race theory, and composite counter storytelling. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(10), 1354–1375. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Guinier, L. (2003). Admissions rituals as political acts: Guardians at the gates of our demographic ideals. Harvard Law Review, 117, 113. Gusa, D. L. (2010). White institutional presence: The impact of Whiteness on campus climate. Harvard Educational Review, 80, 464–489. Gyapong, S. K., & Smith, T. (2012). Factors influencing generation Y African Americans in their choice for college education: An empirical case study of  fort valley state university students. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 5(1), 39–46. Hairston, J. E. (2000). How parents influence African American students’ decisions to prepare for vocational teaching careers. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 16(2), 5–15.

132 Bibliography Hamrick, F. A., & Stage, F. K. (2004). College predisposition at high-minority enrollment, low-income schools. The Review of Higher Education, 27(2), 151–168. Hanuchek, E., Kain, J., & Rivkin, S. (2009). New evidence about Brown v. Board of Education: The Complex effects of school racial composition on achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(3), 349–383. Harper, S. R. (2008). Realizing the intended outcomes of Brown: High-achieving African American male undergraduates and social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(7), 1030–1053. Harper, S. R. (2009). Niggers no more: A critical race counternarrative on Black male student achievement at predominantly White colleges and universities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(6), 697–712. Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29. Harper, S. R., & Griffin, K. A. (2010–2011). Opportunity beyond affirmative action: How low-income and working-class Black male access highly selective, high-cost colleges and universities. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 17, 43–60. Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 7–24. Harper, S. R., Patton, L. D., & Wooden, O. S. (2009). Access and equity for African American students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. Journal of Higher Education, 80, 389–414. Harris, C. I. (1995). Whiteness as property. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory: The keywritings that formed the movement (pp. 357–383). New York: New Press. Haveman, R., & Smeeding, T. (2006). The role of higher education in social mobility. Future of Children, 16(2), 125–150. Heller, D. E. (Ed.). (2001). The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Henfeld, M. S., Moore, J. L., & Wood, C. (2008). Inside and outside gifted education programming: Hidden challenges for African American students. Exceptional Children, 74(4), 433–450. Hoekstra, M. (2009). The effect of attending the flagship state university on earnings: A discontinuity-based approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 717–724. Holland, N. E. (2010). Postsecondary education preparation of traditionally underrepresented college students: A social capital perspective. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 111–125. Hoskins, K., & Ilie, S. (2017). Widening participation to underrepresented and disadvantaged students: Social identity and the barriers to higher education access in England. In Bridges, pathways and transitions (pp. 87–102). Cambridge, ­ England: Chandos Publishing. Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A threephase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62(3), 207–221.

Bibliography  133 Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press. Hossler, D., & Stage, F. K. (1992). Family and high school experience influences on the postsecondary educational plans of ninth-grade students. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 425–451. Howard, T. C. (2003). “A tug of war for our minds:” African American high school students’ perceptions of their academic identities and college aspirations. The High School Journal, 87(1), 4–17. Howard, T. C. (2008). Who really cares? The disenfranchisement of African American males in PreK-12 schools: A critical race theory perspective. Teachers College Record, 110(5), 954–985. Howard, T. C., & Flennaugh, T. (2011). Research concerns, cautions and considerations on Black males in a ‘post-racial’ society. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 14(1), 105–120. Hoxby, C., & Avery, C. (2013). The hidden supply of high-achieving low-income students. Paper prepared for the Brookings Institute, Washington D.C. Hoxby, C., & Turner, S. (2014). Expanding college opportunities for highachieving, low income students. Discussion Paper prepared for the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, Stanford, CA. Hubain, B. S., Allen, E. L., Harris, J. C., & Linder, C. (2016). Counter-stories as representations of the racialized experiences of students of color in higher education and student affairs graduate preparation programs. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(7), 946–963. Huerta, A. H. (2015). The role of counselors in facilitating college opportunities for marginalized student populations. In J. D. Mathis, R. M. Rall & T. M. Laudino (Eds.), Fundamentals of college admission counseling: A textbook for graduate students and practicing counselors (pp. 276–289), National Association for College Admissions Counseling, Arlington, VA. Hurtado, S., Inkelas, K. K., Briggs, C., & Rhee, B. S. (1997). Differences in college access and choice among racial/ethnic groups: Identifying continuing barriers. Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 43–75. Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., & Allen, W. R. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practices. Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279–302. Irvine, J. J. (1990). Black students and school failure. Policies, practices, and prescriptions. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Inc. Irvine, J. J., & Irvine, R. W. (2007). The impact of the desegregation process on the education of Black students: A retrospective analysis. The Journal of Negro Education, 76(3), 297–305. Jackson, K., & Remillard, J. T. (2005). Rethinking parent involvement: African American mothers construct their roles in the mathematics education of their children. School Community Journal, 15(1), 51–73. Jayakumar, U. M. (2015). We’re just not that into you: The message universities are sending through their responses to racist campus events. The Blog of Harvard Education Publishing. Retrieved from https://www.hepg.org/blog/ we’re-just-not-that-into-you”-the-message-universi Jayakumar, U. M., Howard, T. C., Allen, W. R., & Han, J. C. (2009). Racial privilege in the professoriate: An exploration of campus climate, retention, and satisfaction. Journal of Higher Education, 80(5), 538–563.

134 Bibliography Jayakumar, U. M., Vue, R., & Allen, W. R. (2013). Pathways to college for young black scholars: A community cultural wealth perspective. Harvard Educational Review, 83(4), 551–579. Retrieved from http://search.proquest. com/docview/1651859173?accountid=14522 Kang, C., & Torres, D. G. (2018). College undermatching, degree attainment, and minority students. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New York, NY. Kao, G., & Thompson, J. (2003). Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 417–442. Karkouti, I. M. (2016). Black students’ educational experiences in predominantly white universities: A review of the related literature. College Student Journal, 50(1), 59–70. Kennedy, E., & Bateman, M. (1999). Expanding the application pool: Exploring the college decision-making of students from single-parent families. College and University, 75(1), 2–10. Kern, C. W. (2000). College choice influences: Urban high school students respond. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24, 487–494. Kidder, W., (2012). The salience of racial isolation: African Americans’ and Latinos’ perceptions of climate and enrollment choices with and without Prop 209. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Kidder, W., & Gandara, P. (2015). Two decades after the affirmative action ban: Evaluating the University of California’s race-neutral efforts. Princeton, NJ: Publication of Educational Testing Service. Kim, D. (2004). The effect of financial aid on students’ college choice: Differences by racial groups. Research in Higher Education, 45(1), 43–70. Kim, D. H., & Schneider, B. (2005). Social capital in action: Alignment of parental support in adolescents’ transition to postsecondary education. Social forces, 84(2), 1181–1206. Kim, E., & Hargrove, D. T. (2013). Deficient or resilient: A critical review of Black male academic success and persistence in higher education. The Journal of Negro Education, 82(3), 300–311. Kim, Y. (2009). Minority parental involvement and school barriers: Moving the focus away from deficiencies of parents. Education Research Review, 4, 80–102. King, J. E. (1995). Culture-centered knowledge: Black studies, curriculum transformation, and social action. King, J. E. (Ed.). (2006). Black education: A Transformative research and action agenda for the new century. New York: Routledge. Kinzie, J., Palmer, M., Hayek, J., Hossler, D., Jacob, S., & Cummings, H. (2004). Fifty years of college choice: Social, political, and institutional influences on the decision-making process. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation. Kirst, M., & Venezia, A. (2004). From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kliebard, H. M. (1995). The struggle for the American curriculum, 1893–1958. New York and London: Routledge. Kutty, F. M. (2014). Mapping their road to university: First-generation students’ choice and decision of university. International Education Studies, 13(7), 49–60. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincolns (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 257–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bibliography  135 Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). Landing on the wrong note: The price we paid for Brown. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 3–13. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F., IV. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68. Lang, D. W. (2007). The effects of articulation on college choice. College Quarterly, 10(4), 1–22. Le Compte, M. (2000). Analyzing qualitative data. Theory into Practice, 39(3), 146–154. Lee, E. M., & Kramer, R. (2013). Out with the old, in with the new? Habitus and social mobility at selective colleges. Sociology of Education, 86(1), 18–35. Litten, L. H. (1982). Different strokes in the applicant pool: Some refinements in a model of student college choice. Journal of Higher Education, 53(4), 383–402. Litten, L. H., & Hall, A. E. (1989). In the eyes of our beholders: Some evidence on how high-school students and their parents view quality in colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 60(3), 302–324. Locks, A. M., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. A., & Oseguera, L. (2008). Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. The Review of Higher Education, 31, 257–285. Loder-Jackson, T. L., McKnight, A. N., Brooks, M., McGrew, K., & Voltz, D. (2007). Unmasking subtle and concealed aspects of parent involvement: Perspectives from African-American parents in the urban South. Journal of School Public Relations, 28(4), 350–378. Looney, A., & Yannelis, C. (2018). Borrowers with large balances: rising student debt and falling repayment rates. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. https:// www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/es_20180216_looney largebalances.pdf Loury, L. D., & Garman, D. (1995). College selectivity and earnings. Journal of labor Economics, 13(2), 289–308. Lynn, M. (2002). Critical race theory and the perspectives of Black men teachers in the Los Angeles public schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2), 119–130. Lynn, M. (2006). Dancing between two worlds: A portrait of the life of a black male teacher in south central LA. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(2), 221–242. Lynn, M., & Jennings, M. E. (2009). Power, politics, and critical race pedagogy: A Critical race analysis of Black male teachers’ pedagogy. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 12(2), 173–196. MacDermott, K. G. (1987). The influence of parental education level on college choice. Journal of College Admissions, 115, 3–10. Malagon, M., & Alvarez, C. (2010). Scholarship girls aren’t the only Chicanas who go to college: Former Chicana continuation high school students disrupting the educational achievement binary. Harvard Educational Review, 80(2), 149–174. Mandara, J. (2006). The impact of family functioning on African American males’ academic achievement: A review and clarification of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 108(2), 206–223. Manski, C. F., & Wise, D. A. (1983). College choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

136 Bibliography Marcus, J. and Hacker, H. K. (2014). Poorer Families are bearing the brunt of college price hikes: data show. The Hechinger Report. Retrieved from https://hechinger report.org/data-show-poorer-families-bearing-brunt-college-price-hikes/ Mare, R. D., & Winship, C. (1988) Ethnic and racial patterns of educational attainment and school enrollment. In G Sandefur & M, Tienda (Eds.), Divided opportunities: Minorities, poverty, and social policy (pp. 173–203). New York: Plenum. Martinez, M. A., & Welton, A. D. (2014). Examining college opportunity structures for students of color at high-minority, high-poverty secondary schools in Texas. Journal of School Leadership, 24(5), 800–841. Massey, D. S., Mooney, M., Torres, K. C., & Charles, C. Z. (2006). Black immigrants and black natives attending selective colleges and universities in the United States. American Journal of Education, 113(2), 243–271. Matsuda, M. (1995). Looking to the bottom: Critical legal studies and reparations. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement (pp. 63–79). New York: New Press. Matsuda, M. J., Lawrence, C. R., Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K. (1993). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the first amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview. Matthay, E. R. (1989). A critical study of the college selection process. School Counselor, 36(5), 359–370. McCarron, G. P., & Inkelas, K, K. (2006). The gap between educational aspirations and attainment for first-generation college students and the role of parental involvement. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 534–549. McCray, C. R., Wright, J. V., & Beachum, F. D. (2007). Beyond brown: Examining the perplexing plight of African American principals. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 34(4), 247–255. McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, NY: Suny Press. McDonough, P. M. (2005). Counseling matters: Knowledge, assistance, and organizational commitment in college preparation. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & J. E. Coylar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 69–87). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. McDonough, P. M., Antonio, A. L., & Trent, J. W. (1997). Black students, black colleges: An African American college choice model. Journal for a just and Caring Education, 3(1), 9–36. McDonough, P. M., & Calderone, S. (2006). The meaning of money: Perceptual differences between college counselors and low-income families about college costs and financial aid. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1703–1718. McGee, E. O. (2013). Threatened and placed at risk: High achieving African American males in urban high schools. The Urban Review, 45(4), 448–471. McGinty, S. (1992). War and peace: Parents, students, and the college admission process. Journal of College Admission, 137, 4–7. McKillip, M., Rawls, A., & Barry, C. (2012). Improving college access: A review of research on the role of high school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 16(1), 49–58. McPerson, P., & Shulenburger, D. (2008). University tuition, consumer choice and college affordability: Strategies for addressing a higher education

Bibliography  137 affordability challenge. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 1–87. Means, D. R., Clayton, A. B., Conzelmann, J. G., Baynes, P., & Umbach, P. D. (2016). Bounded aspirations: Rural, African American high school students and college access. Review of Higher Education, 39(4), 543–569. Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, A. L. (2006). Making diversity work on campus: A research based perspective. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage:. Miller, B., & Sujitparapitaya, S. (2010). Campus climate in the twenty-first century: Estimating perceptions of discrimination at a racially mixed institution, 1994–2006. New Directions for Institutional Research, 145, 29–52. doi:10.1002/ir.321. Mills, C. W., & Mills, C. W. (1998). Blackness visible: Essays on philosophy and race. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Moffitt, M. J. (2017). A narrative study of the experiences of executive administrators of color who work at religiously-affiliated higher education institutions (Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University). Muhammad, C. G. (2008). African American students and college choice: A consideration of the role of school counselors. NASSP Bulletin, 92(2), 81–94. Muhammad, C. G., & Dixson, A. D. (2008). Black females in high school: A statistical educational profile. Negro Educational Review, 59(3/4), 163–180. Muller, C., Riegle-Crumb, C., Schiller, K. S., Wilkinson, L., & Frank, K. A. (2010). Race and academic achievement in racially diverse high schools: Opportunity and stratification. Teachers College Record (1970), 112(4), 1038. Murphy, P. E. (1981). Consumer buying roles in college choice: Parents’ and students’ perceptions. College and University, 56(2), 140–150. Mwangi, C. A. (2015). (Re)examining the role of family and community in college access and choice: A metasynthesis. Review of Higher Education, 39(1), 123–151. Myers, S. M., & Myers, C. B. (2012). Are discussions about college between parents and their high school children a college-planning activity? Making the case and testing the predictors. American Journal of Education, 118(3), 281–308. National Center for Education Statistics. (NCES) U.S. Department of Education, (2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015-144), Accessed 4/2/2016. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/ dt14_302.20.asp National Center for Education Statistics. (2016a). Digest of Education Statistics, 2014 (NCES 2016-006). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/ display.asp?id=98 National Center for Education Statistics. (2016b). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2016 (NCES 2016-007). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72 National Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC). (2007). Deciding on postsecondary education: Final report. Accessed 12/20/2017. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008850.pdf Ng, J., Wolf-Wendel, L., & Lombardi, K. (2014). Pathways from middle school to college: Examining the impact of an urban, precollege preparation program. Education and Urban Society, 46(6), 672–698.

138 Bibliography Nichols, A. H., & Schack, J. O. (2019). Broken mirrors: Black student representation at Public State College and Universities. The Education Trust. Retrieved from EdTrust.org Niu, S. X. (2015). Leaving home state for college: Differences by race/ethnicity and parental education. Research in Higher Education, 56(4), 325–359. Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. O’Connor, C., Mueller, J., Lewis, R., Rivas-Drake, D., & Rosenberg, S. (2011). ‘Being’ Black and strategizing for excellence in a racially stratified academic hierarchy. American Educational Research Journal, 48(6), 1232–1257. Orfield, G. (1998). Campus resegregation and its alternatives. In G. Orfield & E. Miller (Eds.), Chilling admissions: The affirmative action crisis and the search for alternatives (pp. 1– 16). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Orfield, G., & Ee, J. (2014). Segregating California’s future: Inequality and its alternative 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education. Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Oseguera, L., & Rhee, B. (2009). The influence of institutional retention climates on student persistence to degree completion: A multilevel approach. Research in Higher Education, 50, 546–569. Parker, L., & Lynn, M. (2002). What’s race got to do with it? Critical race theory’s conflicts with and connections to qualitative research methodology and epistemology. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 7–22. Patton, L. D., & Catching, C. (2009). ‘Teaching while black’: Narratives of African American student affairs faculty. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22, 713–728. Paulsen, M. B., & St. John, E. P. (1997). The financial nexus between college choice and persistence. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1997(95), 65–82. Paulsen, M. B., & John, E. P. S. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 189–236. Perna, L. (2000). Differences in the decision to attend College among African Americans, Hispanics and Whites. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(2), 117–141. Perna, L. W. (2006). Studying college access and choice: A proposed conceptual model. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 99–157). Dordrecht: Springer Perna, L. W. (2007). The sources of racial-ethnic group differences in college enrollment: A critical examination. New Directions for Institutional Research, 133, 51–66. Perna, L. W., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Thomas, S. L., Bell, A., Anderson, R., & Li, C. (2008). The role of college counseling in shaping college opportunity: Variations across high schools. The Review of Higher Education, 31(2), 131–159. Perna, L. W., Steele, P., Woda, S., & Hibbert, T. (2005). State public policies and the racial/ethnic stratification of college access and choice in the state of Maryland. Review of Higher Education, 28(2), 245–272. Perna, L. W., & Titus, M. A. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 485–518.

Bibliography  139 Perry, T. (2003). Tackling the myth of Black students’ intellectual inferiority. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(18), B10–B12. Person, D., & Christensen, M. (1996). Understanding Black student culture and Black student retention. NASPA Journal, 34, 47–56. Perez, P. A., & McDonough, P. M. (2008). Understanding Latina and Latino college choice: A social capital and chain migration analysis. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(3), 249–265. Peters, E. E., Voight, M., & Roberson, A. J. (2019). The cost of opportunity: Student stories of college affordability. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/ handle/ 10919/92659/CostOpportunityStudents.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Pitre, P. E. (2006). College choice: A study of African American and white student aspirations and perceptions related to college attendance. College Student Journal, 40(3), 562–574. Pitre, P. E., Johnson, T. E., & Pitre, C. C. (2006). Understanding predisposition in college choice: Toward an integrated model of college choice and theory of reasoned action. College and University, 81(2), 35–42. Pittman, C. (2012). Racial micro aggressions: The narratives of African American faculty at a predominantly white university. Journal of Negro Education, 81(1), 82–92. Pollard, D. S. (1993). Gender, achievement, and African-American students’ perceptions of their school experience. Educational Psychologist, 28(4), 341–356. Pope, M. L., & Fermin, B. (2003). The perceptions of college students regarding the factors most influential in their decision to attend postsecondary education. College and University, 78(4), 19. Pratt, P., & Evans, D. (2002). Assessment of the utility of parents as sources of information about the college decisions of their children. College and University, 77(4), 9. Rankin, S. R., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Differing perceptions: How students of color and White students perceive campus climate for underrepresented groups. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 43–61. Reis, S. M., Colbert, R. D., & Hébert, T. P. (2004). Understanding resilience in diverse, talented students in an urban high school. Roeper Review, 27(2), 110–120. Reeves, R. V., & Pulliam, C. (2019). No room at the top: The Stark divide between Black and White economic mobility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/02/14/no-room-atthe-top-the-stark-divide-in-black-and-white-economic-mobility/ Reynolds, R. (2010). “They think you’re lazy,” and other messages black parents send their black sons: An exploration of critical race theory in the examination of educational outcomes for black males. Journal of African American Males in Education, 1(2), 144–163. Rolón-Dow, R. (2005). Critical care: A color (full) analysis of care narratives in the schooling experiences of Puerto Rican girls. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 77–111. Rose, R. A., Woolley, M. E., & Bowen, G. L. (2013). Social capital as a portfolio of resources across multiple microsystems: Implications for middle-school students. Family relations, 62(4), 545–558.

140 Bibliography Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Bell, A. D., & Perna, L. W. (2008). Contextual influences on parental involvement in college going: Variations by socioeconomic class. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 564–586. Rowley, S. J., Helaire, L. J., & Banerjee, M. (2010). Reflecting on racism: School involvement and perceived teacher discrimination in African American mothers. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 83–92. Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College Record, 107(9), 1999–2045. Sandefur, G. D., Meier, A. M. Campbell, M. (2006) “Family resources, social capital, and college attendance.” Social Science Research, 35, 525–553. Sanders, N. F. (1986). The college selection process: Research within the twelfth-grade marketplace. Journal of College Admissions, 111, 24–27. Sedlacek, W. E. (2011). Using noncognitive variables in assessing readiness for higher education. Readings on Equal Education, 25, 187–205. Sevier, R. A. (1992). Recruiting African-American undergraduates: A national survey of the factors that affect institutional choice. College and University, 68, 48–51. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63–75. Sledge, L. (2012). Get your education: Family support for African American college students. McNair Scholars Research Journal, 4(1), 6. Smetana, J., & Chuang, S. (2001). Middle-Class African American parents’ conceptions of parenting in early adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(2), 177–198. Smith, E., & Parker, K. D. (1996). Precocious black youths: Neglect of an academic underclass. Challenge: A Journal of Research on African American Men, 7(3), 5–15. Smith, J., Pender, M., & Howell, J. (2013). The full extent of student-college academic undermatch. Economics of Education Review, 32, 247–261. Smith, M. J. (2008a). College choice process of first generation black female students: Encouraged to what end? Negro Educational Review, 59(3), 15. Smith, M. J. (2008b). Four steps to a paradigm shift: Employing critical perspectives to improve outreach to low-SES African-American and Latino students and their parents. Journal of College Admission, 201, 17–23. Smith, M. J. (2009). Right directions, wrong maps: Understanding the involvement of low-SES African American parents to enlist them as partners in college choice. Education and Urban Society, 41(2), 171–196. Smith, M. J., & Fleming, M. K. (2006). African American parents in the search stage of college choice: Unintentional contributions to the female to male college enrollment gap. Urban Education, 41(1), 71–100. Smith, W. A., Allen, W. R., & Danley, L. L. (2007). Assume the position… you fit the description: Psychosocial experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American male college students. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 551–578. Solorzano, D. G. (1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(3), 5–19. Solórzano, D. G., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 60–73.

Bibliography  141 Solórzano, D., Datnow, A., Park, V., & Watford, T. M. (2013). Pathways to postsecondary success: Maximizing opportunities for youth in poverty. Los Angeles, CA: UC/ACCORD. Solorzano, D. G., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Examining transformational resistance through a critical race and LatCrit theory framework: Chicana and Chicano students in an urban context. Urban education, 36(3), 308–342. Solorzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2002). A critical race analysis of advanced placement classes: A case of educational inequality. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(4), 215–229. Solorzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2004). A critical race analysis of Latina/o and African American advanced placement enrollment in public high schools. The High School Journal, 87(3), 15–26. Solórzano, D. G., & Villalpando, O. (1998). Critical race theory, marginality, and the experience of students of color in higher education. Sociology of Education: Emerging Perspectives, 21, 211–222. Solorzano, D. G., Villalpando, O., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Educational inequities and Latina/o undergraduate students in the United States: A critical race analysis of their educational progress. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 272–294. Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002a). Critical race methodology: Counterstorytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative inquiry, 8(1), 23–44. Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002b). A critical race counterstory of race, racism, and affirmative action. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2), 155–168. Southworth, S., & Mickelson, R. (2007). The interactive effects of race, gender and school composition on college track placement. Social Forces (University Of North Carolina Press), 86(2), 497–523. Spera, C. C., Wentzel, K. R., & Matto, H. C. (2009). Parental aspirations for their children’s educational attainment: Relations to ethnicity, parental education, children’s academic performance, and parental perceptions of school climate. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 38(8), 1140–1152. Spinosa, H. S. (2011). Class matters: Examining the impacts of class on the college choice process Available from ERIC (1651840644; ED550008). Stage, F. K., & Hossler, D. (1989). Differences in family influences on college attendance plans for male and female ninth graders. Research in Higher Education, 30(3), 301–315. Stanley, C. A., & Slattery, P. (2003). Who reveals what to whom? Critical reflections on conducting qualitative inquiry as an interdisciplinary, biracial, male/ female research team. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(5), 705–728. Stanton-Salazar, R. (2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society. doi:10.1177/0044118X10382877. St. John, E. (2003). Refinancing the college dream. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. St. John, E. P., Paulsen, M. B., & Carter, D. F. (2005). Diversity, college costs, and postsecondary opportunity: An examination of the financial nexus between college choice and persistence for African Americans and Whites. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 545–569.

142 Bibliography Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. London: Sage publications. Strayhorn, T. L. (2008). The role of supportive relationships in facilitating African American males’ success in college. NASPA Journal, 45(1), 26–48. Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. New York: Routledge. Suizzo, M. M., Jackson, K. M., Pahlke, E., McClain, S., Marroquin, Y., Blondeau, L. A., … Hong, K. (2016). Parents’ school satisfaction and academic socialization predict adolescents’ autonomous motivation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 31(3), 343–374. Taylor, E. (2000). Critical race theory and interest convergence in the backlash against affirmative action: Washington state and initiative 200. Teachers College Record, 102, 539–560. Taylor, L. C., Hinton, I. D., & Wilson, M. N. (1995). Parental influences on academic performance in African-American students. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 4(3), 4293–4302. Taylor, R. D., Casten, R., & Flickinger, S. M. (1993). Influence of kinship social support on the parenting experiences and psychosocial adjustment of African-American adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 29(2), 382. Teranishi, R. T., Allen, W., & Solórzano, D. (2004). Opportunity at the crossroads: Racial inequality, school segregation, and higher education in California. Teachers College Record, 106, 2224–2245. Teranishi, R. T., & Briscoe, K. (2008). Contextualizing race: African American college choice in an evolving affirmative action era. The Journal of Negro Education, 77(1), 15–26. The College Board. (2019). Trends in College Pricing 2019. New York: The College Board. Retrieved from https://research.collegeboard.org/pdf/trendscollege-pricing-2019-full-report.pdf The UC Accountability Report. (2018). Institutional Research and Academic Planning Unit. The University of California Office of the President. Retrieved from https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2018/documents/pdfs/ Accountability_2018_web.pdf Tierney, W. G., & Auerbach, S. (2005). Toward developing an untapped resource: The role of families in college preparation. In W. G. Tierney, Z. B. Corwin, & E. Colyar (Eds.), Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach (pp. 29–48). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Tierney, W., & Tierney, W. G., Corwin, Z., & Colyar, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach. New York: SUNY Press. Tierney, W. G., & Venegas, K. M. (2006). Fictive kin and social capital the role of peer groups in applying and paying for college. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1687–1702. Tillery, D. (1973). Distribution and differentiation of youth: A Study of transition from school to college. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Pub. Co. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_302.20.asp Tobolowsky, B. F., Outcalt, C. L., & McDonough, P. M. (2005). The role of HBCUs the college choice process of African Americans in California. Journal of Negro Education, 74(1), 63–75. Turner, C., Gonzalez, C. J., & Wong, K. (2011). Faculty women of color: The critical nexus of race and gender. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 199–211.

Bibliography  143 UCOP (University of California Office of the President). (2014). California freshman admission counts by campus and race/ethnicity. Retrieved from http:// www.ucop.edu/institutional-research-academicplanning/_files/factsheets/ 2014/fall-2014-admissions-table3.pdf UCOP (University of California Office of the President). (2016). Annual report on undergraduate admissions requirements and comprehensive review. Retrieved from http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/reports/documents/ BOARS2016ReporttoRegents.pdf University of California Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools. (2010). Comprehensive review in freshman admissions at the University of California, 2003–2009. Oakland, CA:, University of California Systemwide Academic Senate. Retrieved from https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/ committees/boars/reports.html University of California Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools. (2016). Annual report on undergraduate admissions requirements and comprehensive review. Oakland, CA: University of California Systemwide Academic Senate. Retrieved from http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_ files/reports/documents/BOARS2016ReporttoRegents.pdf University of California, Office of the President. (n.d.). Undergraduate admissions summary. Retrieved July 12, 2019, from https://www.universityof california.edu/infocenter/admissions-residency-and-ethnicity University of California, Office of the President. (2017). Annual Accountability Report. Retrieved from https://accountability.universityofcalifornia. edu/2018/report.html U.S. Census Bureau. (2010–2014). 5-year American community survey, 2014. Retrieved from http://factfinder.census.gov U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Office of postsecondary education, campus safety and security (CSS) survey. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://ope.ed.gov/campussafety/Trend/public/#/answer/2/201/ main?row=-1&column=-1 U.S. Department of Education. (2017). National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2014, Spring 2016, and Spring 2017 Human Resources component. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Paving the Way to Postsecondary Education: K-12 Intervention Programs for Underrepresented Youth, NCES 2001–205, prepared by Patricia Gándara with the assistance of Deborah Bial for the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Access Working Group. Washington DC. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2015). The condition of education 2015 (NCES 2015–144), Accessed 4/2/2016. Retrieved from Vaught, S. (2004). The talented tenth: Gay Black boys and the racial politics of Southern schooling. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 2(2), 5–26. Vaught, S. E., & Castagno, A. E. (2008). “I don’t think I’m a racist”: Critical race theory, teacher attitudes, and structural racism. Race, Ethnicity & Education, 11(2), 95–113. Vega, D. D., Moore III, J. L., & Miranda, A. H. (2015). Who really cares? Urban youths’ perceptions of parental and programmatic support. School Community Journal, 25(1), 53–72.

144 Bibliography Villenas, S., & Deyhle, D. (1999). Critical race theory and ethnographies challenging the stereotypes: Latino families, schooling, resilience and resistance. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(4), 413–445. Wanat, C. L., & Bowles, D. B. (1992). College choice and recruitment of academically talented high school students. Journal of College Admission, 136, 23–29. Warikoo, N. K., & Fuhr, C. (2014). Legitimating status: Perceptions of meritocracy and inequality among undergraduates at an elite British university. British Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 699–717. Watford, T., & Comeaux, E. (2006). ‘Merit’ matters: Race, myth and admissions. Bunche Research Report, 3(3), 1–8. Webber, K. L., & Boehmer, R. G. (2008). The balancing act: Accountability, affordability, and access in American higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, Assessment Supplement. 79–91. Weis, R. (2002). Parenting dimensionality and typology in a disadvantaged, African American sample: A cultural variance perspective. Journal of Black Psychology, 28(2), 142–173. Williams, J. M., & Bryan, J. (2013). Overcoming adversity: High-achieving African American youth’s perspectives on educational resilience. Journal of Counseling & Development, 91(3), 291–300. Williams, K. L., Burt, B. A., Clay, K. L., & Bridges, B. K. (2019). Stories untold: Counter-narratives to anti-Blackness and deficit-oriented discourse concerning HBCUs. American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 556–599. Witteveen, D., & Attewell, P. (2017). The earnings payoff from attending a selective college. Social Science Research, 66, 154–169. Wohn, D. Y., Ellison, N. B., Khan, L. M., Fewins-Bliss, R., & Gray, R. (2013). The role of social media in shaping first-generation high school students’ college aspirations: A social capital lens. Computers & Education, 63, 424–436. Wood, D., Kurtz-Costes, B., & Copping, K. E. (2011). Gender differences in motivational pathways to college for middle class African American youths. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 961. Wood, J. L., & Harrison, J. D. (2014). College Choice for Black Males in the Community College: Factors Influencing Institutional Selection. Negro Educational Review, 65(1–4), 87–97. Workman, J. L. (2015). Parental influence on exploratory students’ college choice, major, and career decision making. College Student Journal, 49(1), 23–30. Wyner, J. S., Bridgeland, J. M., & J. J. DiIulio (2007). Achievement trap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. Lansdowne, VA: The Jack Kent Cooke Foundation. Retrieved from www.jackkentcookefoundation.org. Yosso, T., Smith, W., Ceja, M., & Solorzano, D. (2009). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 659–691. Yosso*, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. Yosso, T. J. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano educational pipeline. New York: Routledge.

Bibliography  145 Yosso, T. J., Parker, L., Solórzano, D. G., & Lynn, M. (2004). From Jim Crow to affirmative action and back again: A critical race discussion of racialized rationales and access to higher education. Review of Research in Education, 28(1), 1–25. Young Invincibles. (2017). Race and ethnicity as a barrier to opportunity: A blueprint for higher education equity. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://younginvincibles.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/HigherEducation-Equity.pdf Zhang, Liang. (2008). Gender and racial gaps in earnings among recent college graduates. Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 51–72.

Index

Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables and italic page numbers refer to figures. academic capital 60 academic excellence 12, 33–34, 37, 102, 110, 120 ACT see American College Testing (ACT) admission processes, in public higher education systems 116–117 admission slots, states designation of 117 advanced placement (AP) 33–34, 34, 57, 59, 61, 69–70, 75 affirmative action 13, 81, 108, 109; ban on 9, 117; work to repeal constraints on 119 affordability 13, 23, 26, 92–108; labyrinth, navigation of 104–107; racism and 114–116; relative to family considerations 97–103 African American fathers, as involved parents 51–52 Allen, W. R. 22, 29, 94 alma maters, teacher’s promotion of 71–72 American College Testing (ACT) 2, 61, 76, 116 anti-affirmative action 83, 115 anti-Black racism 91 Antonio, A. L. 22 AP see advanced placement (AP) aspirational capital 30 asset-based approach to pedagogy 6 Attewell, P. 3 authoritarian parenting 43 Avery, C. 56 barriers to access 116–117 Barry, L. 82 Betraying the College Dream (St. John) 92

Black Resource Center 29 Bonous-Hammarth, M. 22 bridge programs 41–42 Briggs, C. 22 Brookings Institution: African Americans in 5 Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka Kansas (1954) 1, 5, 109 California State University (CSU) 38, 46; affordability 97, 99; affordability labyrinth, navigation of 107; alma maters, teachers’ promotion of 72; cost of higher education 92, 95–97, 96, 98; denied access 84; low-resourced high school students, counselors’ support to 68; racism at 87 Campaign for College Opportunity 95–96 campus racial climate 13, 16, 55, 56, 78, 81, 82, 85–91; addressing 113–114 campus visits 38–41 capital: academic 60; aspirational 30; cultural 50; familial 30, 31, 86, 97, 101, 105; linguistic 30–32; navigational 30, 31, 97, 105; resistant/resistance 30, 87; social 30, 31, 50, 59, 76–77, 97 Chapman, T. K. 15, 17, 59, 69 Charles, C. Z. 32 Cho, S. J. 82 Civil Rights Act of 1964 5, 8, 109 The College Board 37, 94, 95 college choice model 12, 22–23; process (see college choice process); stages of 22, 44 college choice process 36–38; cost, complexities of 92–108; counselors,

148 Index role of 60–61; familial influence 43–44; parental influences 44–51; race/racism and (see race/racism) college decision-making process: impact of diversity on 81–83; parental influence on 52–53 college for all 114 college preparation 33–34, 34 college selectivity 2–4 color 1, 2, 4, 9, 11, 15, 20–22, 29, 30, 48, 69, 81, 87, 117, 120 Comeaux, E. 5 CommonApp 36, 118 community cultural wealth framework 29–30, 97 conceptual model 23, 24 cost of higher education 92–108; California State University 95–98, 96, 98; financial awareness, promotion of 115–116; partnerships with private funders, building 116; rising 94–95, 95; scholarship 114–115; University of California 95–97, 96, 98 counselors: better education for, supporting 113; effective counseling 61–64; expectations 64–65; levels of support 65–68; role in college choice process 60–61; teachers as 69–72 counter-stories 20–21, 82–83 Crenshaw, K. W. 18 critical race theory (CRT) 11, 12, 29, 93; color and people of color 21; counter-stories 20–21; interest convergence 21–22; intersectionality 17–20; racial realism 16–17; tenets of 16; see also race/racism CSU see California State University (CSU) Contreras, F. 3, 4, 5, 9, 92, 114 cultural capital 50; theory 30 data analysis 27 data collection: qualitative 25–26; quantitative 25 debt aversion 103 Delgado Bernal, D. 15, 20 demographics: of Black students at public institutions 79; racial, changing 113–114 denied access 83–85 Deyhle, D. 15 Dingus, J. E. 18

diversity 30–33, 31, 33, 78–91; denied access 83–85; impact on college decision-making processes 81–83; racial 26, 36, 47, 48, 55, 81, 82; students’ value 89–91 Dixson, A. 18 double-consciousness 16–17 DuBois, W. E. B. H. 16–17 Duncan, G. A. 15 educational attainment 6–7, 7 Education Trust 93–94 effective counseling 61–64 Eligibility in the Local Context (ELC) policy 117 emotional support, teachers as 70–71 ethnicity 8, 31; see also race/racism Evans, D. 52 Executive Order 10925 8 extracurricular activities 33–34 FAFSA see Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) threshold Fair Housing Act 1968 109 familial capital 30, 31, 86, 97, 101, 105 familial influence: on college choice process 43–44; and kinship networks 53–55 family support, and institutional outreach 110–112; African American Communities 111; technology support to navigation of university website and admission process, increasing 111–112 father’s level of education 33, 99 feasibility 104 Federal Reserve 115 fee waivers for applications, number and types of 118 Fernández, L. 15, 20 financial aid 4, 13, 26, 36, 49, 50, 57, 59, 62, 64, 72, 73, 76, 93–96, 97, 99–101, 105–107, 108, 114, 118 financial assistance 94, 103 financial awareness, promotion of 115 first-generation students 18, 20–21; admission slots, states designation of 117; debt aversion 103; opportunity to enroll 61; parental influence on college choice process 48–50; racial diversity

Index  149 82; scholarship to 114–115; social capital 76–77; technology support to navigation of university website and admission process, increasing 111 Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) threshold 115, 118 free college 114 Freeman, K. 94 free tuition 114 friends: as sounding boards 73; support 72–73 generational status 30–31, 31 GI Bill of 1944 7 Goldrick-Rab, S. 105 grade point average (GPA) 2, 33, 76, 116, 117 Griffin, K. A. 29, 94 Harper, S. R. 94 HBCUs see Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) high-achievers 2, 4, 10–13, 20, 28–42, 58, 61, 69, 72, 83, 84, 90, 92–94, 96, 97, 100, 103, 107–108, 110, 113–116, 118 high-achieving, definition of 2 high-achieving African American students 2 Higher Education Opportunity Act of 1965 9 high-resourced school students, counselors’ support to 65–67 high school peers, as system of support 72–74 Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) 6, 7, 22, 63; affordability labyrinth, navigation of 107; complexities of cost 94; racism at 87 honors 33–36, 57, 69, 75 Hossler, D and Gallagher, K. S. 12, 22–23 Howell, J. 56 Hoxby, C. 56 Hudley, C. 82 Hurtado, S. 22 infrastructure, building 118 Inkelas, K. K. 22 institutional racism 17, 110 inter-coder reliability 27 interest convergence 21–22

intersectionality: definition of 17–18; political 19–20, 30; representational 18–19, 30; structural 19, 30, 32 Ivy League university 68; affordability labyrinth, navigation of 106, 107; CommonApp programs 118; denied access 83; effective counseling 62; peer pressure 75 Johnson, L. 8 Johnson, T. E. 22 K-12 schools 2, 13, 15, 42; affordability labyrinth, navigation of 104; Community Cultural Wealth framework 30; counselors, support better education for 113; postsecondary pipeline barriers 16; racism in 110; student diversity 31, 32; student resilience 28, 29; students of color 20; undermatching, recognizing and challenging 4; universities need to work with K-12 teachers 112–113 K-16 schools 25, 29, 120 Kelly, M. 82 Kennedy, J. F. 8 kinship networks, familial influences and 53–55 Ladson-Billings, G. 15 leadership 33–34, 35 Lee, S. 82 linguistic capital 30–32 Long Beach 37 low-income African American students: admission slots, states designation of 117; scholarship to 114–115 low-resourced high school students, counselors’ support to 67–68 McDonough, P. M. 22 Massey, D. S. 32 Milliken v. Board Decision (1974) 59, 109 Mooney, M. 32 mother’s level of education 33, 98 Murphy, P. E. 52 National Center for Data and Statistics 1 National Clearinghouse 7 navigational capital 30, 97, 105

150 Index parental influence, on college choice process: college decisions 52–53; early emphasis on college 44–45; first-generation students 48–50; race and value of college education 45–48; second-plus-generation students 50–51 parent interviews (PIs) 26–27 partnerships, with private funders 116 Pathways to Postsecondary Success Report 67 pay-as-you-go approach 103 peer pressure 74–76 peer support 72 Pell Grant 9 Pender, M. 56 people of color 21 Perna, L. W. 22, 94 Pitre, C. C. 22 Pitre, P. E. 22 political intersectionality 19–20, 30 postsecondary education, status of African Americans in 1–14; California policy context 9–10, 10; college selectivity 2–4; highachieving African American students 2; highly selective institutions 2; undermatching, recognizing and challenging 4–5 Pratt, P. 52 predominately White institutions (PWIs) 1, 7, 22, 41, 46, 47; diversity 81, 82, 87, 89, 91 programs designed to ensure access to elite public institutions, optimizing and streamlining 117 Proposition 209 9, 83, 85, 115, 119 Pulliam, C. 5 qualitative data collection 25–26 quantitative data collection 25 race/racism 8, 13, 15; definition of 17; institutional 17, 110; issues, addressing 109–120; campus racial climate, addressing 113–114; cost and affordability 114–116; family support and institutional outreach 110–112; racial demographics, changing 113–114; school contexts 112–113; macro and microforms of 91; racial justice through institutional reforms, addressing 116–119; structural 17, 110; and

value of college education 45–48; see also critical race theory (CRT) racial bias 59, 60, 64 racial composition 81 racial demographics, changing 113–114 racial discrimination 8, 82 racial diversity 26, 36, 47, 48, 55, 81, 82 racial equity 78 racial justice 18; through institutional reforms, addressing 116–119; admission processes in public higher education systems 116–117; admission slots, states designation of 117; affirmative action, work to repeal constraints on 119; barriers to access 116–117; CommonApp 118; fee waivers for applications, number and types of 118; infrastructure, building 118–119; programs designed to ensure access to elite public institutions, optimizing and streamlining 117; recruitment and retention 119 racial prejudice 82 racial realism 16–17 recruitment 18, 22, 25, 42, 68, 81, 84, 108, 116, 117, 119 Reeves, R. V. 5 representational intersectionality 18–19, 30 research methods 24–25 resistant capital/resistance capital 30, 87 retention 1, 2, 55, 119 Reynolds, R. 51 Rhee, B. S. 22 Rolón-Dow, R. 15 St. John, E. 92 same-race peers, critical mass of 114 scholarship: to first-generation and low-income African American students 114–115; to second-plusgeneration students 115 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) 36, 61, 76, 116 school tracking 58 second-plus-generation students 18, 21, 60; admission slots, states designation of 117; effective counseling for 64; parental influence on college choice process

Index  151 50–51; scholarship to 115; technology support to navigation of university website and admission process, increasing 111 Sledge, L. 82 Smith, J. 56 social capital 30, 31, 50, 60, 76–77, 97 Solorzano, D. G. 15 Special Policy-1 (SP1) 9, 10 standardize test administration 60 structural intersectionality 19, 30, 32 structural racism 17, 110 students: activities 34–36, 35; awards and leadership 35; diversity of 89–91; resilience 28–29 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard 109 Suh, S. A. 22 Tate, W. F. 15 teachers: alma maters, promotion of 71–72; as counselors 69–72; as emotional support 70–71; K-12 teachers, universities need to work with 112–113 Titus, M. A. 94 Torres, K. C. 32 transparency 12, 112, 115 Trent, J. W. 22 trustworthiness 27 UC Berkeley: affirmative action, work to repeal constraints on 119; denied access 83; peer pressure 76; racism at 86, 88 UC Davis 37 UC Los Angeles (UCLA) 40, 71; affirmative action, work to repeal constraints on 119; affordability labyrinth, navigation of 106, 107; denied access 83; peer pressure 76

UC San Diego: affirmative action, work to repeal constraints on 119; affordability 103; denied access 83; racism at 86 UC Santa Barbara: affordability 102; denied access 84 UC Santa Cruz: affordability 103 undermatching, recognizing and challenging 4–5 University of California (UC) 1, 2; admission policies 9–10, 10; affirmative action, work to repeal constraints on 119; affordability 97, 99; affordability labyrinth, navigation of 104–107; cost of higher education 92, 93, 95–98, 96, 98; Council of Vice Chancellors of Student Affairs 24; debt aversion 103; denied access 83–85; information gathering and analysis 24–25; interest convergence 22; Proposition 209, 9, 85, 115; qualitative data collection 25–26; quantitative data collection 25; racial diversity 83; racism at, recognizing 85–89, 85; Special Policy-1 (SP1) 9, 10 University of Southern California (USC) 39 upward mobility 5 USC see University of Southern California (USC) Villenas, S. 20 Watford, T. 5 White–Black gap between baccalaureate degree achievers 78–79, 80 Whiteness-as-property norm 91 Witteveen, D. 3 Yosso, T. J. 12, 29–30, 42, 86, 87, 97, 105

Taylor & Francis eBooks www.taylorfrancis.com A single destination for eBooks from Taylor & Francis with increased functionality and an improved user experience to meet the needs of our customers. 90,000+ eBooks of award-winning academic content in Humanities, Social Science, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Medical written by a global network of editors and authors.

TAY LOR & F RANCIS EBOOKS OF FERS: A streamlined experience for our library customers

A single point of discovery for all of our eBook content

Improved search and discovery of content at both book and chapter level

REQUEST A FREE TRIAL [email protected]