The chapter began by presenting a comparison of the two groups and the words of the participants were presented to give specificity to the distinctions made between the two groups. These data support the claim that there are two kinds of low-income students who participate in study abroad and the two groups are roughly distinguished by the educational levels and associated social and cultural capital of their parents. The profiles primarily demonstrate the unique life histories of each individual. However, there were common threads or elements of experience for individuals from each group, even if not fully elaborated in each biographic overview above. These are presented in Table 4.5 below. This is not to suggest that all students share every single characteristic of these two profiles, but the commonalities within each emerged repeatedly during the multiple interviews conducted.
174
Table 4.5 – Overview of Common Profile Characteristics of WC and CA Groups
Working Class Students Capital Accoutered Students
Family College Culture First generation college students. First of their siblings to succeed at completing college.
At least one parent with a college degree.
Enrollment the norm for their immediate and extended families. Economic Stability Self-identified as working class, low
income, or lower SES status. Financial limitation or instability prevails.
Backgrounds of financial stability or comfort until significant life event adversely impacted family wealth and economic welfare.
Residency In-state resident students. Out-of-state residents.
If in-state resident students, transplants from other states or countries
Parent’s Occupation Working class or service jobs. Primarily professional.
Previous Travel Minimal, domestic.
International travel restricted to first generation students visiting family in parent’s country of origin.
Domestic and international. Leisure travel common prior to setback.
Selection of State University
SU was the default option. College search/visits before selecting SU.
Academic Background Majority from “underperforming” high schools.
From “good” public system or private high schools.
Navigating College Experience
Support from outreach and student services programs designed to identify and provide services for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Assistance and information from immediate or extended family.
Financing Education Critical financial support enabling university attendance provided by outreach and student services programs.
Family assistance with accessing and acquiring financial aid. Institutional scholarship support. Academic Discipline(s) Diversity of majors – equal
distribution.
Not fully aware of options before college, selected major after entering SU
Diversity of majors – equal distribution.
Aware of academic focus/discipline or interests when entering college. Pre-College Study
Abroad Awareness and Plan
Aware prior to attending SU. Did not think study abroad was a realistic possibility.
Aware prior to attending SU. Part of college plan.
Extracurricular Involvement
Moderate to high.
Holding a student job to assist with college and living expenses (personal and family) essential.
Moderate to high.
Holding a student job to assist with college expenses or discretionary spending common.
Study Abroad Participation Objectives
Less clear objectives, more focus on travel and “getting away.”
Articulated academic, skill development, or career-oriented. Pre-Study Abroad
Perceptions
Major accomplishment if achieved. Prime college experience.
Typical aspect of college experience.
Pre-Study Abroad Preparations - Family Involvement
Primarily proceeded independently and “figured it out.”
Active involvement.
Knowledge acquired from study abroad experience of older sibling or other contacts.
175
Working Class Profile – History of Minimal Capital
As they progressed towards college, the WC students had personal histories that have been referred to as the “double whammy of disadvantage” (Lederman, 2009): they were from low-income families and were first generation college students. They had all received the message that they should go to college, and always knew that they were going, but details of how they would get there were generally ambiguous. Constrained by financial resources and unable to count on extensive social networks or the cultural capital of parents, they had to rely on formal and informal support from their
institutions. Like the working-class students in Stuber’s (2011) study of a public university, in this case SU was the default choice. Most individuals recounted being told by high school counselors that SU was their option; they simply met with these individuals to obtain the college application fee waiver, or only selected SU on the Common Application. For WC students whose families were involved in their lives, their parents were supportive of their children’s goals, but lacked the experience and knowledge to help them navigate the educational context. Parallel to the “natural growth” children in Lareau’s (2003) extensive research, the parents put their faith in their student to find his or her way and the educational institutions to provide the appropriate support. In general, most WC students approached college unprepared to navigate the environment or access the institutional resources that would provide support. Rob’s comment that he wanted to “fill in the gaps” he “didn’t know were there” until he was at SU captures the sentiment and experiences of most of these individuals.
176
For most WC students, the transition to college was eased by the College Success Program or college readiness programs that provided student support throughout the college experience. These programs provided support and guidance helpful in succeeding academically or accumulating social capital that opened the doors to more opportunities at SU, including study abroad. Others would come to perceive these programs as having the potential of holding them back in the sense that they were treated as a CSP student at SU rather than a SU student who had CSP support;
potentially, their participation kept them from fully integrating into campus and pursuing all the institution had to offer. Some would draw upon their level of
motivation and personal achievement for taking them as far as possible, but putting faith in self-reliance was also limiting as opportunities were missed or delayed when they did not take advantage of support and access to social networks that were readily available to high capital students. Regardless, at a minimum, participation in these program provided critical financial support to make the pursuit of a degree feasible and at least put the WC students on campus, which otherwise, most alluded to, probably would not have occurred.
Specifically related to studying abroad, all of these students were aware of study abroad programming prior to attending SU and expressed an interest in, or desire to, participate when they were still in high school. Generally, the follow-up comment to their response, or attitude expressed, was similar to Josh’s who stated with a matter of fact tone, “well, who doesn’t want to see the world?” For these WC students, the goal of studying abroad was also viewed as a means to get away from environments that had not provided as much opportunity for them in the past, and there was a sense of
177
disappointment. They were not getting the same college experience as portrayed in the popular culture where students go away to college - they were at SU because it was the only option. However, despite the early interest, essentially most had given up the idea of studying abroad before they stepped foot on campus. Perceiving that they were already priced out of the opportunity, pre-study abroad participation was described as a dream or considered an activity for the well off. Having minimal experience with domestic travel, let alone international, study abroad was simply not part of their habitus. Living in a geographically small state, some of the WC students recounted having visited outside the state only once or twice in their lives prior to studying abroad.
Attending SU provided the WC students the chance to compare themselves with other students, especially those from out of state who were generally seen as being economically privileged because they were paying high non-resident tuition. Having been raised in “disadvantaged” situations with much lower levels of social and cultural capital than their peers at SU, many did not feel completely comfortable in the higher education environment. Yet, they were growing in ways that were making them feel different when at home or with family and hometown friends who did not go to college. Many conveyed a feeling of uncertainty similar to the sense of being caught between two worlds that other researchers have documented (Jensen, 2012; Lubrano, 2004; Ryan & Sackrey, 1996; Sennett and Cobb, 1992). Some also expressed a feeling of “survivor guilt”as described by Piorkowski (1983): as the only members of their immediate family and friends who are striving to climb the socioeconomic ladder, they questioned why they had succeeded where the others had not and possessed a sense of somehow
178
being disloyal to their relationships and roots as they moved forward and others were left behind.
Capital Accoutered – Abrupt Change, Accumulated Knowledge
The economic status of the CA students was relatively similar to the WC students, but primarily in the present-day. Most of the families of this group had experienced divorce or parental death, which resulted in a financial setback or constraint that had not been part of the majority of their upbringing. Most of their parents (or parent they lived with) were college educated and held professional positions that, combined with another income, would most likely have placed them in the middle class. However, the significant life event left most of these individuals in single parent homes with limited or greatly reduced resources in terms of time and money that could be directed toward an environment of “concerted cultivation”
(Lareau,2003) that had been common before the limiting event. Despite the challenging life event, the CA individuals had experienced, or were provided with a lifestyle that familiarized them with a predominantly middle-class world and they exhibited a habitus that made attending college and participation in activities such as study abroad familiar. Limited economic resources were a concern but level of confidence in overcoming the financial obstacles, and higher level of social and cultural capital, provided a world view markedly different from the WC group.
Most of the CA students had knowledge that came from being raised in the culture of the middle class. As none were first generation college students, they had parents with backgrounds that provided an understanding of how the educational system works – and this was an awareness not present in the WC families. Their parents were
179
able to use their experience and knowledge of education and careers to provide their children with advice. If the parent was “stretched too thin,” extended family or social networks, served as resources. When preparing for college, substantial college searches were conducted by this group to find an institution that was “the best match” for
personal or future career goals. Except for one member of this group, none had been life-long residents of the state. For most, SU was not in their home state. If it was, a very careful analysis was conducted before deciding to accept admission. Unlike the WC group, none felt limited to this option, though it may have been the most practical financial decision. If they decided to stay, they were very purposeful in their approach related to academic and extracurricular involvement in order to maximize their
experience.
Compared to the WC group that relied heavily on the staff at CSP, or figured out things as they went, the CA students verbalized a level of confidence in seeking out opportunities, such as enrolling in the honors program or cultivating relationships with faculty and staff who would serve as important sources of assistance and information. Many also noted that they were recipients of institutional scholarships that reduced their costs to attend SU. Overall, they were advantaged simply by having family who knew that such programs or assistance existed and how to gain access. Even for the CA students who had lost access to some family relationships, possession of accumulated cultural resources yielded a social profit as they were able to effectively “activate” them (Lareau, 1989) independently.
Similar to the WC group, the CA students were aware of study abroad prior to their attending college. A significant difference was that they overwhelming viewed the
180
opportunity as part and parcel to the college experience. Most had experienced
previous international travel or had participated in high school excursions abroad. For those who were not the oldest child in their family, several had siblings who had already studied abroad. The endeavor was familiar and was not perceived as an “once-in-a- lifetime experience,” but as an activity that was viewed as an investment in personal or career skills development. Although financing the experience was a concern, the more significant challenge was working out logistical details related to curriculum
requirements or evaluating the pros vs. cons of participation in the larger context of future career or graduate study plans. For the CA group, study abroad was an option for a more clearly understood progression through life after SU.
As detailed above, two general profiles emerged from the Pell Grant (or low- income) student groups. Outlining the significant differences provides the background for findings and conclusions presented in the following chapters. Although both groups faced the challenge of limited financial resource, the Capital Accoutered group was equipped with higher levels of social and cultural capital than the Working Class students when they entered college, when they began to explore study abroad options, and when they returned from a study abroad experience. These differences provide important insights into a more nuanced understanding of how low-income students successfully activated or accumulated levels of capital in order to study abroad. With these data, the hope is to inform educators about how to better assist students from this traditionally underrepresented population as they considered and participated in these programs.
181 CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS