Abstract and Introduction

1. Abstract and Introduction This paper is a synthesis of research on the college student experience for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (hereafter referred to as low SES) in terms of access, experience, and persistence at elite institutions. In terms of access it is generally known that low-SES students often do not possess the resources that high-SES students utilize to gain admittance into elite institutions, where the application process is typically competitive. According to Hoxby (2012), low-SES students tend to shy away from applying to elite institutions due to sticker shock, that they will not obtain support from their parents, or that they will not fit in with the student body, whom they often stereotype as being elitist (Hoxby 2012; Mullen 2009). The reality is that many low-income and low-resource students either avoid applying to elite institutions altogether or they do so only after chance intervention by an attentive college counselor or adult role model. As a result, elite institutions, particularly the Ivies, cannot get low SES students in the doors despite outreach attempts such as waiving tuition (Hoxby 2012; JBHE 2003; McDonough 1997). For low-SES students who are admitted to and who enroll in elite institutions, the transition from high school to college is often arduous: although elite institutions are working tirelessly to recruit high-achieving low-SES students they offer little support for them once they arrive on campus. The needs of these students are often left unmet, as this population tends to focus more on academics than their high-SES peers (Leone 2004). This population often feels the pressure to succeed when they consider their familial and socioeconomic background: for them, failure is not an option. Stuber (2009) found that they focus on hard work and academic achievement as their ticket to success rather than networking and forming connections. Despite potential population-specific difficulties that low-SES students experience while at college (Hess 2007; Winkle-Wagner 2009), low SES students at elite institutions do persist at the same rate that their high SES counterparts do, particularly compared to their counterparts who attend institutions that depend on tuition and fees for revenue. More research is required on the topic of persistence for low-SES students at these institutions, however. The Lack of Access and Choice for Low-SES Students Why Not Harvard? It’s free! Overlooked and Underserved: The College Experience for Low-Income Students at Elite InstitutionsKimberly White Mullen (2009): “‘…because at first I think everyone here was gonna be very snobby and not realistic and not down to earth.’” Hoxby (2012): “…Harvard's policy change had very little effect--at least, very little short-term effect--on the income composition of its class. We estimate that it increased the number of low-income students by approximately 15 in a class of more than 1600.” Mullen (2009): “Thus, patterns of stratification in higher education may be explained in part by qualified students’ educational decision‐making.” Alon (2009): “Class inequality in higher education is probably ubiquitous, given the cumulative effect of inequality in kindergarten through high school…” Hess (2007): “’I was told ‘here is how you do it,’ and I went and did it for myself.’” McDonough (1997): “The high-SES students on average filed ten applications, while the low-SES students filed two to three applications.” I don’t fit in on campus, and I don’t belong back home… McDonough (1997): “Public high schools have effectively divested themselves of college advisement. In four of the ten largest U.S. cities, the average high school counselor-to-student ratio is 1:740.” Hess (2007): “…they often experience difficulties adjusting to college, identity confusion, and family tensions. These issues become exacerbated for working class students who attend private colleges and universities.” “I was embarrassed to have my parents come to visit me. They weren’t like the other kids’ parents…I would always tell them not to come to things.” Stuber (2009): “Tiffany did not see practical benefits in campus involvement.” Winkle-Wagner (2009): “Ariel, a first-year, first-generation, undecided major, described her time in college as, ‘an experience of culture shock.’“ “She admitted that she often sent money from her work study salary home.” Research on Persistence Yields Mixed Results Hoxby (2012): “they are just as likely to enroll and progress toward a degree at the same pace.” Alon (2009): “…Adaptation is particularistic, sensitive to class differences, and thus unequal by default.” Kuh (1995): “on-campus work is positively linked to persistence while off-campus work negatively affects persistence.”