The development of a model of graduate enrollment management

I have just finished my first year in the Ed.D program and, I must confess, the workload was significantly more intense than I had anticipated.  Nonetheless, I have been able to remain engaged with other facets of my professional life.  To wit, I have been busy working with the research committee for the National Association of Graduate Admission Professionals.  Our mandate has been to facilitate the critical study of the field of graduate enrollment management for the purposes of increasing the effectiveness of graduate enrollment management professionals.  Thus, this post considers the growing definition of a new class of professional: the graduate enrollment manager.

Now, the concept of enrollment management (EM) has been around for quite awhile.  Coomes (2000) traces the arc of professional enrollment management back to the 1920s, when the first Dean's of admission were hired, and into the 1970s when the EM concept was coined in response to work in the field of student retention.   Thus, the professional enrollment manager became linked to students' choices to persist and the institutional programs designed to influence such choices.

Astin (1977) and Tinto (1987) both took longitudinal looks at the causes of student choices to persist and theorized about the causes of attrition.  Their work has shaped the profession of student affairs in significant ways over the past 30 years.  It was found that students' levels of involvement on campus correlated with decisions to persist, which also correlated with increased odds of completing a degree program.  If you ever participated in a "snowboarding club" or joined a greek letter organization, a big reason these programs receive institutional funding is because such programs were found to be somehow linked to students' choices to "stick around" and complete their degree programs.  However, their research revealed differential effects on students' choices to persist and leave,which prompted further investigation.

Hossler, Bean, and Associates' (1990) work on the subject of EM formalized the forms and functions of EM and informs the development of a graduate EM model.  The authors found that EM is not simply an admissions function, but is a function of many separate divisions, offices, and postsecondary education professionals. While admissions offices play a key role in the EM process, EM activities extend into advising offices, extracurricular activities, and even after graduation.  EM is therefore to be regarded as any activity directed at securing institutional vitality by attending to the affective and cognitive needs of all institutions' most precious resource: students.

On its face it seems that graduate EM is no different from undergraduate EM and that the distinction is only a difference in name.  However, I am finding that the graduate EM professionals of NAGAP disagree.  The NAGAP Research and Global Issues Committee is presently conducting  a large, qualitative study on the topic of Graduate EM.  A large data collection was conducted at the annual conference and the committee is preparing to analyze data from the 62 participants in the focus group session.  Other colleagues are hosting conversations on Twitter using #GEM and #EMChat to help add to our knowledge of what distinguishes the graduate EM profession from the undergraduate EM profession.

It is an exciting time to be involved with NAGAP and I look forward to sharing the results from our current projects.  Graduate EM is a complex activity and I am confident that NAGAP will muster the necessary financial and intellectual resources needed to increase our understanding of how to influence graduate students' decisions to enroll, persist, and succeed.  Lastly, I will try to post some of my reflections from my doctoral program as time allows.  Now, please excuse me, as I have readings to start for the first week of the summer session!

Astin, A. W. (1977).  What matters in college?  Four critical years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Coomes, M. D. (2000).  The historical roots of enrollment management.  New Directions for Student Services, 2000(89), 5-10.  doi: 10.1002/ss.8901

Hossler, D., Bean, J. P., & Associates (1990).  The strategic management of college enrollments.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tinto, V. (1987).  Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.  Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Finding room for the spiritual in college

Astin, Astin, and Lindholm (2011) beat a fresh stroke in the currents of discussion involving student development with their book: “Cultivating the Spirit.”  At its core, this book is consonant with Astin’s seminal work in the domain of student engagement.  As such, there is much joy to be found in reading this book as it fills a hole in our knowledge on the subject of students’ spiritual development while also adding a new dimension to Astin’s (1993) familiar treatise on how college affects young people.  Astin et al. contribute fresh insights into how college affects students’ development by exploring the dimensions of their interior lives.  If we consider students’ spiritual development essential to success, we must inquire what is meant by “success” to determine whether the construct facilitates the desired outcomes.  

The achievement of student success has been roundly discussed far and yon as the United States slowly exits the economic doldrums of 2007.  Previous posts on this blog have reflected on: whether recent patterns of college enrollment were attributable to the Great Recession; whether the American postsecondary system can wean itself from revenue model predicated on student debt; and, whether students’ learning is jeopardized by high costs such that students are unable to purchase text books.  Whether a given student succeeds in college, despite the pressures of recent economic austerity, is no simple question to answer.  Indeed, the notion of “success” is a value-laden word that must be clearly defined lest we prefer to find ourselves lost in the wood, much as Dante was.

Astin et al. (2011) provide a succinct summary of reasons why they conducted research on college students’ spiritual development sufficient to clarify why readers ought to regard this work as essential in the domain of facilitating student success.  Among the reasons given the authors cite a lack of previous research, changes in annual survey data of college freshman broadly showing a shift towards consumerism, and growing levels of anxiety arising from global and national issues (pp. 2-3).  At its core, the findings presented by Astin et al. are suggestive that the notion of student success must be broadened to include facilitating students’ quests for inner-meaning.  But, why?

Astin et al. (2011) present substantial evidence showing links between traditional indicators of student success (GPA, satisfaction with college, and graduation; pp. 116-119) and students’ levels of spiritual development.  It should be noted that the authors’ definitions of “traditional student success” are consonant with a seminal treatment of the topic presented by Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, and Associates (2005).  Regarding data, the authors compiled longitudinal data across three collection periods.  First, the authors piloted the survey (College Students’ Beliefs and Values Survey, or CSBV) in 2003.  The CSBV was subsequently administered in 2004 in a collection yielding data from 112,232 college freshmen across 236 American postsecondary institutions (p. 19). The 2007 follow-up survey collected data from 14,527 students from the original sample.  By way of comparison to a pair of theories generally focusing on students’ spiritual development the sample obtained by Astin et al. is colossal.  Indeed, if one considers Fowler’s sample, N=359, or Parks’ musings on faith development culled from her experiences as a teacher, counselor, and college researcher (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010, pp. 196-211), it is evident that Astin et al. have amassed a data set worthy of serious consideration.  

Astin et al. (2011) distinguish between the spiritual and religious domains and, in so doing, highlight their departure from extant contributions to the canon of student development theory.  Whereas the Evans et al. (2010) text (I used this one during my master’s program and assume many other student affairs masters’ programs do too) only references two theories of faith development, Astin et al. are keen to separate the spiritual and religious.  Astin et al. clarify that spirituality refers to a broad domain of experiences, transcendental and mundane, around which an individual crafts meaning, order, and harmony (p. 4).  Religious development, on the other hand, is held to refer to codified and institutionalized beliefs and values that are idiosyncratic of groups generally having explicit rules of membership (p. 5).  Such a broader theory of spiritual and religious development ought to possess broader utility across the spectrum of American postsecondary institutions.

Astin et al. (2011) advance a theory of spiritual development containing 10 constructs evenly distributed across the spiritual and religious domains.  Within the domain of the spirit are: 1) spiritual quest; 2) equanimity; 3) ethic of caring; 4) charitable involvement; and 5) ecumenical worldview (p. 18).  Likewise, there are five measures of religious development including: 1) religious commitment; 2) religious engagement; 3) religious and social conservatism; 4) religious skepticism; and, 5) religious struggle.  Of the many findings the authors present, the one I found most interesting was the relationship between growth in equanimity and increases in GPAs.

If higher education professionals continue to use GPA as a measure of student success, it behooves them to probe the relationship between equanimity and GPA. The authors describe equanimity as bearing the features of calmness and serenity wherein one may find “meaning in time of hardship” (p. 50).  I venture that the positive relationship between high equanimity and GPA arises from a psychosocial orientation that is amenable to diversity and embracing of difference as a learning tool.  This is consonant with previous scholarship on college outcomes (Astin, 1993) and student success (Kuh et. al, 2005; Tinto, 1987).  In other words, if we want college students to be able to successfully manage and synthesize multiple domains of inquiry, their curricular and extracurricular experiences ought to be structured to incorporate diversity at many, if not all, levels. 

This brings me to believe that while student affairs professionals will benefit from reading “Cultivating the Spirit”, the best audience for this book is faculty and senior administration.  Astin et al. (2011) found that four of every five faculty surveyed held themselves as spiritual individuals (p. 39).  Yet, while faculty considered “enhancing students’ self-understanding” an “essential or very important goal, they are also concerned about offending others or running afoul of laws regarding the separation of church and state (p. 141).  As such, faculty ought to consider the findings presented by Astin et al. and implement pedagogical practices whereby students are exposed to diverse perspectives in a context inviting of quiet, calm self-reflection.  Presidents and provosts of postsecondary institutions also ought to read this book as it shows that there are positive relationships between the higher metacognitive processes and affective well-being.  In other words, graduates who have studied in intentionally diverse environments and were encouraged at many points to engage in self-reflection are more likely to report satisfaction with college, demonstrate conscientious and ethical leadership, and possess broader content mastery (assumed by way of GPA).  

The college years are supposed to be times of exploration and making meaning.  Yet, the fiscal crisis of 2007 and subsequent austerity measures are likely to have blunted the reception of “Cultivating the Spirit” within public postsecondary education.  Nonetheless, this book is an important contribution to the canon of student development that adds to our knowledge and confirms that diverse, structured, and learner-centered schools are more apt to produce ethical leaders who are more likely to espouse pluralistic and democratic views and are less likely to cow to commercial values and peer pressure to conform.  As we move on from the Great Recession and into an uncertain future we can at least be assured that Astin et al. (2011) have identified a heading that leads up, out of darkness, and into the Light. 

References

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W., Astin, H.S., & Lindholm, J.A. (2011). Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students’ inner lives.      San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F.M., Patton, L.D., & Renn, K.A. (2010).  Student development in college: Theory, practice, and research. (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J. & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Tinto, V. (1987).  Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.  Chicago, IL:  University of Chicago Press. 

Fight On Jackson

A nine year old boy is dying of a rare form of brain cancer.  His story has touched my life in powerful ways.  Though he will not be around to see how the world changes, we can honor his brave fight for life by remembering to help always, avoid harming others, and spend every moment finding the best in life.

Please go to: http://fightonjackson.com/

We are in this together!

Why I chose the Ed.D and did not apply to a PhD program

Back in early February of 2012 I was accepted to the USC Rossier School of Education Ed.D program.  I am very happy and honored to be selected to this outstanding program.  However, I have been reflecting on why I chose the Ed.D route and why I did not submit applications to Ph.D programs.  Some of my reasons are purely practical:  1) I cannot afford to stop working full time and lose my income and medical benefits; 2) my family keeps me tethered to the southern California region; and 3) I am, at my core, a higher education administration practitioner.  However, one reason above all others kept me from bothering to apply: the Graduate Records Examination (GRE) requirement.

The GRE, like any standardized admission test, is a speeded, multiple choice, triple construct examination that, according to its maker ETS, provides, "Graduate and business schools around the world with an objective and common measure for evaluating and comparing the qualifications of applicants with differing educational and cultural backgrounds" (my italics).  I italicized "objective" because this is an assertion that is as much a confusion of the meaning of the word as it is useless.  Of course this all has to have something to do with my decision to not apply to any Ph.D programs and I'm getting to that later.  The point here is to identify ETS' definition of the function of the GRE.  Accordingly, the GRE measures verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, and analytical writing.  When I say that the test is speeded I mean test takers have a finite amount of time to complete each section.  The verbal reasoning and analytical writing sections take 30 minutes each and the quantitative reasoning section takes 35 minutes.  Lastly, the GRE is multiple choice, meaning that test takers identify the correct response from a list of potential responses.  Remember that the GRE is supposed to be an objective assessment of an applicant's readiness for graduate studies.


The problem with the GRE and standardized tests is that they are not objective at all, at least not the inferences drawn from GRE scores.  That the test measures three separate constructs is the primary limit of the GRE's so-called "objectivity."  Inferences drawn from test scores, however, are subjective valuations that have implications for test takers, score users, and the public at large.  The rewards of admission and graduate fellowships await those who score high, while low-scoring individuals are punished by diminished access or minimal financial support.  Scholarship on standardized admissions testing shows weak correlations between test scores and graduate school performance (Lucido, 2010; Sacks, 1999; Sternberg, 2010). The question, therefore, remains: Considering the limitations of the GRE, why do faculty admission committees use it at all?


Thus, the core reason I did not elect to apply to a PhD program is that I did not want to play the GRE game.  I could not in good conscience pay for a test-preparation course knowing full well that such courses fly in the face of the test construction and norming process.  That is, the GRE was designed around a sample of test-takers who had no advance knowledge of the test items and were not coached on standardized test-taking strategies.  The GRE is, for me and many others, a barrier to overcome.  It does not "democratize" or provide the proverbial "level playing field."  On the contrary, it turns graduate school admissions into a game where those with resources (time and financial) are assured of above average scores.  The PhD is a noble goal and one worthy of serious consideration, but I acknowledged my GRE limitations and opted out of the game.  I knew the easier route would be the Ed.D, but it does not mean that I will not work hard.  The GRE game favors a particular brand of person and schools play the game to garner larger sections of the rankings pie. Yet, the Ed.D offers folks like me a chance to make significant contributions to our profession without suffering through the headache of an over-hyped triad of partially useful subjective constructs.  As such, I chose the path of access and strike out upon it with as much ambition as any other newly admitted doctoral student.


I look forward to commencing my Ed.D studies this fall.  Subsequent postings will reflect upon key themes and lessons learned during my three-year course of studies.


Lucido, H. (2010).  Educational genocide: A plague on our children.  Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.


Sacks, P.  (1999).  Standardized minds: The high price of America's testing culture and what we can do to change it.  Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.


Sternberg, R. J. (2010).  College admissions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 

NAGAP Annual Conference Displays Meshing of Professional and Scholarly Identities

Most folks who know me, understand my core philosophy of higher education admissions work to be: if done right, admissions changes lives.  Since wednesday 25 April to saturday 28 April I have been at the annual conference of the National Association of Graduate Admissions Professionals (NAGAP).  My big takeaway from this conference has been that the graduate admissions profession distinguishes itself through a synthesis of scholarly work and outcomes based practice.  At times this synthesis still feels to be in a formative stage, but I can see the direction the association wants to go and it is good.  Academe ought to pay attention to NAGAP if not for the simple reason that graduate admissions professionals are responsible for helping funnel ambitious, talented minds into the myriad graduate and professional programs available in the United States.

Perhaps the most clear example of the synthesis of scholarship with practice (aka praxis) was furnished by Julie Renee Posselt, a PhD candidate from the University of Michigan at Ann-Arbor.  Her hour-long presentation covered the results from her study of how cultural scripts of merit (i.e. worthiness) affect diversity outcomes in PhD admissions processes.  In her research, Posselt found that faculty committees tended to use quantifiable metrics, such as cumulative GPA and standardized test scores, as an initial screening mechanism for advancement to subsequent stages of the admissions review process.  The effects on diversity were not good, despite the qualitative data that was collected demonstrating a surface interest in the ideals of diversity and equity.   What Posselt's work makes clear is that despite our well-intentioned efforts to increase the diversity of our incoming classes, unless an applicant's file can appeal to a faculty member's emotional core and coheres to prevailing cultural scripts favoring a specific ideology of merit/ worthiness, the positive outcomes will slow to accrue; the glacial rate of institutional change will persist.

Other sessions, while varyingly entertaining and informative, bespoke a professional commitment to meet prospective graduate students "where they are."  Yet, references to "sales" and "market segmentation" were frequent in many of the sessions I attended.  While I generally cringe at the notion of framing my career as  one in sales, beholden to impersonal business principles of products and profits, I found these expressions indicative of the association's hope to establish a broad grasp on relevance; it was as if NAGAP was saying to its membership, "We matter and this is why."

By rights, NAGAP does matter.  Admissions professionals of all stripes enter this career because of a common desire to help others accomplish their dreams, goals, and life ambitions.  My hope for NAGAP is that our association establish itself firmly in praxis and use scholarship deftly to advance the causes of diversity, equity, and access.  This is a vibrant community of professionals, who have come together from myriad backgrounds, and are beginning to distill a more specific identity.  For my part, I will be a colleague who holds up our moral and professional compass to show where the needle points.

My final project for my master's program

So, since it has been while (mostly because I've been busy with work and family responsibilities), I am posting my final project from my master's program at the University of Southern California.  Please share this whomsoever you like, but please cite me; I don't want to be plagiarized. (And the internets know if you plagiarize).  Cheers!

Introduction to the Literature

Estimates suggest that between 13,000 to 16,000 undocumented students graduate from U.S. high schools each year (Passel & Cohn, 2009; Perez, Cortes, Ramos, & Coronado, 2010).  Additional figures suggest that there may be as many 1.7 million undocumented immigrants currently residing within the U.S. (Annand, 2008).  Researchers of undocumented college students have studied issues of access and equity in community colleges (Barato, 2009); they have probed the implications of in-state tuition polices (Dougherty, Nienhusser, & Vega, 2010; Flores & Chapa, 2009; Flores, 2010; Kaushal, 2008); and legal scholars have explored the boundaries of state and federal jurisprudence regarding rulings affecting undocumented college students (Annand, 2008; Garcia, 2006).  What the research does not show, however, are the stories of actors operating behind the scenes in colleges and universities in states that have banned in-state tuition for undocumented college students.  

This literature review aims to investigate the experiences of undocumented Latino/a college students in states that have banned or have yet to allow in-state tuition for undocumented students.  The decision to emphasize Latino/a undocumented students arises from data showing that the Hispanics are the fastest growing population in the United States (U.S. Census, 2011).  Moreover, this decision is consistent with Flores and Chapa’s (2009) findings that undocumented immigrants are now moving into states beyond the border regions of the west and southwest.  As such, schools that have traditionally served a stable demographic are finding themselves challenged by how best to serve the needs of a population held at the fringes of American society.  As such, this literature review proceeds by first offering a summary of the court proceedings and state and federal laws affecting undocumented college students.  Next, literature assessing the political dynamics of in-state tuition will be explored.  Afterwards, attention will be directed to studies of undocumented college students as they attempt to negotiate access to American postsecondary education.  Finally, implications for student affairs practitioners and higher education administrators will be explored.  

The Legal Issues Affecting Undocumented College Students

Plyler v. Doe (1982) was a watershed moment for all undocumented students within the United States.  The core issue adjudicated by the Supreme Court was the constitutionality of a Texas statute (Texas State Educational Code § 21.031) that attempted to charge undocumented K-12 students $1,000 per year to recoup lost funds.  Plaintiffs filed suit alleging a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.  In ruling the Texas statute unconstitutional, the Court opined that, “Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society...the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological well-being of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement” (p. 203).  As such, the Plyler holding resulted in the statutory provision of free K-12 education to all residents of all states regardless of citizenship or legal status.  

The opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Brennan, presented a powerful jurisprudential perspective of the role of education and the non-culpability of undocumented children.  Justice Brennan found the presence of a “caste of undocumented resident aliens” to be troubling insofar as this group is “denied the benefits that our society makes available to citizens and lawful residents” (Plyler, 1982, 210).   The primary benefit at issue in Plyler was access to secondary education.  Justice Brennan, on the topic of education, reasoned that while public education is not a “right” granted in the Constitution, it is no less a pivotal social benefit upon which the collective future of the United States tilts (p. 221).  Moreover, the Court it difficult to reconcile the targeting of children with the compelling state interests submitted at the time of the ruling.  Indeed, Justice Brennan explained that§ 21.031, “Imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status.  The stigma of illiteracy will mark them for the rest of their lives.  By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions” (p. 223).  When combined with a clarification of the Fourteenth Amendment, these twin considerations compelled Justice Brennan and the Supreme Court to refrain from imputing to Congress any intentions of discriminating against any class of children.  Accordingly, the Court ruled that Texas did not present a compelling state interest sufficient enough to sustain denying access to K-12 education to any children, undocumented or otherwise.  Thus, the Court affirmed the unconstitutionality of Texas State Education Code §21.031 and this landmark holding made free K-12 education a statutory benefit for all residents of all states.

Though Plyer resulted in free primary and secondary education for undocumented students, it said absolutely nothing about postsecondary education.  Several laws passed since the promulgations of Plyer have had implications for undocumented college students.  The first was the Immigration and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which made it illegal to employ undocumented immigrants.  The second piece of legislation, the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of 1996 (PRWORA) was drafted as part of President Bill Clinton’s drive to reduce the federal deficit, in part, by denying undocumented individuals access to federally funded social support services.  Also in 1996 Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), specifically denying undocumented individuals access to postsecondary education benefits.  The legal scholarship analyzing these pieces of legislation address the fundamental ethical and sociopolitical dimensions circumscribing the issue of in-state tuition for undocumented college students.

The most controversial section of IIRIRA is frequently referenced in the literature dealing with undocumented college students: § 505, which reads:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

While § 505 appears to reject all undocumented students’ claims to educational benefits, the ambiguity of the phrase, “Unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit”, has precipitated a bimodal range of state responses; whereas Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Alabama have all banned in-state tuition for undocumented students, Texas, California, New York, Utah, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Connecticut permit in-state tuition for undocumented students (National Conference of State Legislatures). The following legal analyses frame the issue as 1) a betrayal of the spirit of Plyler; and 2) an abusive conflation of otherwise separate legal concepts.

Garcia (2006) analyzes the jurisprudential implications of denying postsecondary educational opportunity to undocumented youth.  Garcia’s analysis focuses on the narrative of an undocumented youth named Sindy who was brought into the United States at a young age and has since benefitted from Plyler holding and is in the midst of her sophomore year of high school.  Sindy’s parents take the unfortunate step of filing for legal status, which results in the commencement of removal proceedings.  Though Sindy and her parents wish to remain in the U.S., it is likely, according to Garcia, that the removal proceedings will result in the family being removed from the country.  Immigration law, according to Garcia, constrains Sindy’s options to just one: application for asylum.  Because Sindy did not make her application for asylum within a year of her arrival in the United States she must demonstrate to the Attorney General’s office: “(1) the existence of changed circumstances materially affecting her eligibility for asylum, or (2)

extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing her application” (p. 249).  Garcia’s analysis of Sindy’s—and, by extension, all undocumented students—situation concludes with the argument that immigration legislation be sensitive to the needs of children in a manner reflecting the reasoning contained in Justice Brennan’s opinion (p. 264).

Annand’s (2008) analysis of immigration reform legislation flatly accuses the federal government of unjustly punishing undocumented immigrant students.  Annand frames the issue of undocumented students as one whereby they have become the unwitting victims of a merger of criminal and immigration legislation drafted to staunch the flow of undocumented immigrants into United States (p. 687).  Annand argues that IIRIRA’s restrictions of access against undocumented students is a deprivation similar in nature to those held unconstitutional in Plyler and demonstrates this point through the application of three legal theories of punishment: deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation (p. 687).  Deterrence, according to Annand, “Rests on the theory that individuals take actions to avoid pain and maximize pleasure” (p. 701).  Under this analysis, the penalties attached to IRCA, PRWORA , IIRIRA are intended to dissuade illegal immigrants from entering the country and motivate U.S. employers to stop hiring undocumented immigrants.  Yet, the Court’s opinion in Plyler (p. 202, p. 228), echoed by Portes and Rumbault (2005, p. 985), suggests that immigrants seek employment in the U.S. because market demands for certain goods and services have created a nearly constant demand for cheap labor.  Under a theory of retribution, explains Annand, merited harm is imposed on criminals.  This begs the question, answered in Plyler, what harm have undocumented students caused?  The Plyler opinion holds children inculpable for their presence in this country (p. 226) and Annand (2008) concurs with the addition that denying postsecondary education and support, as a form of retribution, is a punishment without a crime (p. 705).  Lastly, Annand uses the theory rehabilitation to deduce whether the denial of postsecondary education under state and federal laws is rational.  Annand finds that the theory of rehabilitation, with its “aims to improve the character of the offender” (p. 707), is a restatement of the aims of higher education.  Annand thus concludes that the denial of access to higher education and support, as a form of punishment, is practically and morally insufficient to staunch the flow of illegal immigration.  As such, Annand reasons that it is preferable to stop suffocating “a vibrant, talented, and motivated group...who will be an integral part of the country’s future” (p. 709).

Documented and Undocumented Latino/a College Students

Researchers note that the future of undocumented Latino/a college students has implications for documented resident and citizen Latino/a college students and the practice of student affairs, financial aid, admission, and counseling professionals (Barato, 2009; Feliciano, 2005; Flores, 2010; Munsch, 2011; Perez, Cortes, Ramos, & Coronado, 2010; Portes & Rumbault, 2005).  As such, this next section summarizes the literature describing the academic and sociopolitical lives of documented and undocumented Latino/a students.

Of immigrants, Feliciano (2005) theorizes that immigrants are a self-selecting population holding certain attributes in common.  Understanding the descriptive and qualitative similarities and dissimilarities of immigrant populations is essential to designing and implementing postsecondary educational services (Komives, Woodward, & Associates, 2003; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005).  Feliciano’s aim is to describe the educational differences of immigrants coming to the United States versus those who remain in their home country (p. 132).  A limitation of the study, held in common by many cited hereafter, was the inability to distinguish between documented and undocumented immigrants (p.144).  Nonetheless, Feliciano finds that immigrants tend to be more educated relative to their counterparts back in their sending countries (p.147).  Feliciano also found that countries with higher overall rates of educational attainment tend to be overrepresented in American postsecondary institutions, whereas those with lower relative levels tend to be underrepresented.  As such, immigrants from Latin American and Caribbean countries such Mexico, El Salvador, Cuba, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, and Guatemala all scored below the mean of education attainment (p. 139).  The practical significance of these findings is summed up neatly by, “The fact that Indians who migrate to the United States are much more highly educated than those who remain in India, while Mexicans who migrate to the United States are not much more educated than those who remain in Mexico drives our perceptions of these groups” (p. 148).

Similar research from Baum and Flores (2011) found a bifurcated modality within the distribution of access to economically rewarding jobs.  The authors found that highly educated individuals from Asia frequently assuming highly skilled roles in technology and engineering and a majority of unskilled labor being parsed out to immigrants from Latin America, the Caribbean, and some countries in Southeast Asia (p. 172).  The authors’ concern over the inequality of the distribution of economic opportunities in the United States arises from concerns over the reproduction of structural advantages creating castes of those who have much and those who have very little (p. 175).  By examining the variables of parental education, academic preparation, and age at immigration (p. 174), Baum and Flores were able to conclude that the positive selection of certain immigrants over others derives from a preponderance of social capital and comparatively higher levels of individual motivation (pp. 177-178).  As such, it is argued that increased access for Latino/a immigrant students, whether documented or otherwise, moves in the direction of leveling off the disparities measured in the study (pp. 184-185).   

Two doctoral dissertations, Barato (2009) and Munsch (2011), focus on the role of the community college as a pathway for undocumented students to a four-year degree and inclusion into the fullness of American society.  Barato employs a qualitative design to get at the heart of “students’ perceptions of their academic and social community college experiences” (p. 47).  Further, his decision to focus on community colleges, instead of four-year baccalaureate granting institutions, was driven by the consideration that it was located in a state allowing in-state tuition (p. 48).  Barato found that undocumented students reported feelings of dehumanization and of feeling like criminals (p.195).  Barato also found that the undocumented students in his study were able to develop coping mechanisms whereby they were able to “work the system” to overcome the policies and political forces in their way (p. 195). 

Munsch (2011) investigated Latino students’ experiences dealing with policy and political barriers and probed these students’ interactions with their faculty and staff.  Munsch’s study employed qualitative methods to cull emergent themes from open-ended inquiries (p. 60).  The site selected for the study was located in the Northeast where Latino/a students are a clear minority and echoes Flores and Chapa’s (2009) findings that the distribution of immigrants beyond the Western and Southwestern border regions are broadening to include new territories such as the Midwest and Northeast.  Munsch’s findings included themes emphasizing barriers facing undocumented students, a lack of support for undocumented students, complexity in relationships, and uncertain futures (p. 205).  The most prominent barrier respondents agreed upon was the paucity of financial support for undocumented students.  

Financial support emerged as a major them in much of the literature covered in this review.  Kaushal (2008) studied the effects of in-state tuition on Mexican young adults to determine whether policies aimed at partially eliminating the financial barriers to access and persistence produced negative affects on U.S. citizens.  Kaushal alludes to the difficulty of identifying undocumented individuals (p. 775), but is able to assemble a sufficient sample for a regression analysis testing whether the number of years of eligibility for in-state tuition affects undocumented students’ usage of such policies.  Kaushal found that 8 percent of the surveyed non-citizen Mexican youth between the ages of 17-22 had enrolled in college, but only half that figure had attained an associate’s degree or higher (p. 779).  This compares to the 43 percent of non-Latino immigrants who had attained an associates degree or higher (p. 779).  Kaushal found that multivariate analysis did not show any adverse affects on U.S. born citizens’ rates of college enrollment or completion.  Furthermore, Kaushal found some evidence of price sensitivity whereby each $1,000 of tuition subsidy produced a .4 percentage increase in college enrollment probabilities and also increase the likelihood of high school completion by .6 percentage points; Kaushal also adds that these increases could not be explained by chance (p. 783).  

Flores’ (2010) study of the effects of in-state tuition and financial assistance on college enrollment rates in Texas produced similar findings.  Flores sampled of foreign-born non-citizens (FBNC) as a proxy for undocumented students and sought to determine whether the implementation of in-state tuition had differential effects on the participation rates of undocumented students (p. 436).  Flores used data from the U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey to conduct a logistic regression analysis of FNBC populations and sub-populations of the U.S. citizenry.  Flores found a “significant positive effect on the odds of college enrollment for older FBNC Latino/a Texans” (p. 446).  Within state comparisons were conducted to determine whether the provision of in-state tuition had any effect on other demographic subgroups, but the lack of significant findings led Flores to conclude that, “Financial aid and admissions policies at non-selective institutions are particularly relevant for immigrant populations in Texas” (p. 453).  

Research from Perez, Cortes, Ramos, and Coronado (2010) describes the socioemotional dimensions of undocumented Latino/a college students.  The rationale for their study was that insofar as the number of undocumented students continues to climb or holds steady, there is a constant need to understand the unique dimensions of undocumented students’ socioemotional states (pp. 36-37).  Students’ socioemotional responses to the everyday pressures of being a college student were, in many cases, exacerbated by confronting the myriad “layers of systemic barriers that prevent them from enjoying all the social and financial benefits that society has in place” for those “legally present” in the country (p. 38).  Students surveyed reported confronting senses of shame and discrimination (p. 38).  The authors also found that the students surveyed had developed multiple coping mechanisms whereby they diffused the their socioemotional tensions.  These included seeking support from parents (p. 41); institutional agents such as faculty and student affairs professionals (pp. 41-42); peer groups (p. 42); campus student support and academic support services (pp. 43-44); civic engagement (p. 45); and working off-campus jobs (p. 46).  

According to the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, at the University of Southern California, peer groups produce sustained relationships through organized, regular, and purposeful interactions (p. 15).  Moreover, research is cited showing that college preparation peer groups for Latino/a students facilitates the integration of a college-bound identity within a broader assemblage of individual and shared identities (pp. 19-20).  As such, it is suggested that practitioners working in college preparation programs serving Latino/a students establish a vibrant and visible cohort identity (p.23) while also emphasizing the academic and college preparation roles of such programs (pp. 23-24).  

Perry (2006) ventures a rationalist philosophical approach to resolving the issues orbiting the lives of undocumented immigrants, in general, and undocumented students, in particular.  Perry acknowledges the influence of the events of 9/11 on American attitudes towards undocumented immigration, but puts forth an argument that attempts to reconcile common notions of membership with the constitutional legitimacy of the federal citizenship apparatus.  Perry’s thesis is that issues affecting stakeholders are “broadly issues of membership” (p. 2).  Perry posed two basic interview questions to a sample asking, broadly, whether one felt like a member of the American community and why.  His queries were as an epistemological seismograph whereby individual notions of membership were not divorced from their guiding moral doctrines (p. 3).  Respondents agreed that membership was comprised of residency, social awareness, reciprocity, investment, identification, destiny, patriotism, and law abidingness (p. 3).   Perry’s lengthy analysis of each element lent to the conclusion that undocumented college students are avatars of each element; they are the very best of the undocumented population insofar as they give of themselves hoping only to claim full participation in American society.  As such, undocumented college students are substantive members of American society and merit access to American colleges and the financial support befitting any member of American society.   Perry’s summation is that, “If substantive members...are denied schooling and skills, then those institutions are denied its most capable resources” (p. 20).   

Conclusion: Implications for Practice

Student affairs practitioners and faculty members can be invaluable resources for undocumented Latino/a students. The following implications were culled from the literature and point to fruitful directions for practice and future research. 

Feliciano’s (2005) study reminds student affairs professionals and faculty allies to be cognizant that immigrants to the United States are often highly motivated individuals, regardless of disparities in educational and/or economic outcomes.  Likewise, Baum and Flores (2011) demonstrated that immigrants’ children tend to be more likely than native U.S. citizens to pursue and earn college degrees (p. 186, my italics).  As such, resources ought to be leveraged to facilitate undocumented Latino/ a students’ educational endeavors as they transition into college.  This includes funding high school academic and college preparation support groups such as AVID and Puente (CHEPA, 2006). 

Additionally, among Barato’s many recommendations, the most fruitful are: build bridges with employers who are willing to provide non-paying internships (p. 203); establish peer mentoring programs, consisting of undocumented students where practical, to facilitate the transmission of usual information and social capital (p. 204); hire or train counselors to be fluent in backgrounds and challenges facing undocumented students (p. 204); create fundraising opportunities to fund scholarships for undocumented students (p. 204); and offer immigration support for undocumented students (p. 205).  Likewise, Munsch (2011) recommends developing “safe space” environments complete with signals similar to LGBT Safe Space indicators (p. 221); partnering enrollment management staff with high school counselors to provide training on institutional policies regarding undocumented students (p. 222); and, community colleges could develop transfer agreements specifically tailored to undocumented students so as to minimize the complexity of the transfer process, thereby facilitating increased rates of baccalaureate attainment (p. 222).  Yet, while these are sound solutions, they all confront the same sobering reality that regardless of educational attainment, the pathway to legal status and full participation in American society remains shut.

The literature generally agreed that some combination of state and federal legislation is required.  Indeed, Flores and Chapa (2009) show that variations of the original Development, Relief and Education for Aliens Act (DREAM) Act have been introduced in the Senate every year since 2003 (p. 92).  Whereas the federal DREAM Act contains provisions for granting temporary and subsequent permanent legal residency status to qualifying undocumented students, state versions in Texas and California have only been able to supply financial support in the form of state financial assistance to supplement in-state tuition benefits.  Investigators from the University of California, Los Angeles, North American Integration and Development Center (NAID, 2011) estimate that were the federal DREAM Act to pass today it would generate an additional $3.6 trillion dollars in economic activity and significantly increase American taxpayers’ return on investment already spent on public K-12 education (p. 3).  

Insofar as the United States remains a major economic center, immigrants will continue to be caught by its gravitational pull.  Perry (2006) surmises that, “The large number of undocumented immigrants that are working the United States suggests that the workforce needs immigrant residents” (p. 19).  Having immigrant workers means having immigrant children.  The Plyler holding created an avenue whereby undocumented youth could become socialized to think and act as young Americans.  Portes and Rumbault (2005) note that, “In the long-term it was the not the sights and sounds of the first generation, but the settlement process of their children that determined the long-term consequences of the immigrant flow for the nation” (p. 985).  As such, the body politic faces a looming choice of historic proportions: whether to permit substantive members to become full-fledged contributors to and beneficiaries of American society. 

References

Annand, K. (2008).  Still waiting for the DREAM: The injustice of punishing undocumented immigrant students.  Hastings Law Journal, 59, 683-710.

Barato, R. A. (2009).  Shadows in the classroom: Undocumented Latino students in urban community colleges (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3383839).

Baum, S., & Flores, S. M. (2011).  Higher education and children in immigrant families.  The Future of Children, 21(1), 171-193.

Dougherty, K. H., Nienhusser, H. K., & Vega, B. E. (2010).  Undocumented immigrants and state higher education policy: The politics of in-state tuition eligibility in Texas and Arizona.  The Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 123-173.

Feliciano, C. (2005).  Educational selectivity in U.S. immigration: How do immigrants compare to those left behind?  Demography, 42(1), 131-152.

Flores, S.M. & Chapa, J. (2009). Latino immigrant access to higher education in a bipolar context of reception.  Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(1), 90-109.  doi: 10.1177:1538192708326996

Flores, S. M. (2010). The first state dream act: In-state resident tuition and immigration in texas. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(4), 435-455.  doi:10.3102/0162373710380741

Garcia, S. (2006). Dream come true or nightmare? The effect of creating educational opportunity for undocumented youth. Golden Gate University Law Review, 36, 247-268. 

Kaushal, N. (2008).  In-state tuition for the undocumented: Education effects on Mexican young adults.  Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 771-792. 

doi: 10.1002/pam.20366

Komives, S. R., Woodard Jr., D.B., & Associates. (2003).  Student services: A handbook for the profession.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates. (2005).  Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Munsch, P. (2011).  Life without papers: Undocumented students negotiating higher education (Doctoral dissertation).  Retrieved from ProQuest. (3454484).

National Conference of State Legislatures.  Undocumented student tuition: State action.  Retrieved from: http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/undocumented-student- tuition- state-action.aspx

No DREAMers left behind: The economic potential of DREAM Act beneficiaries. (2011).  North American Integration and Development Center (NAID).  University of California, Los Angeles.

Passel, J.S., & Cohn, D. (2009). A portrait  of unauthorized immigrants in the United States.  Pew Research Center Publications.  Retrieved from: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1190/portrait-unauthorized-immigrants-states
Perez, P. A. (2010).  The college choice process of Latino undocumented students: Implications for recruitment and retention.  Journal of College Admission, winter, 21-35.

Perez, W., Cortes, R.D., Ramos, K., & Coronado, H. (2010).  “Cursed and blessed”: Examining the socioemotional and academic experiences of undocumented Latina and Latino college students.  New Directions for Student Services, 131, 35-51.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 1981.

Portes, A., & Rumbault, R. G. (2005).  Introduction: The second generation and the children of immigrants longitudinal study.  Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(6), 983-999.

The impact of peers on college preparation: A review of the literature (2006). Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA). University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education.

U.S. Census. (2011).  The hispanic population: 2010.  Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf

New posts coming soon

To my readers,

My apologies for the lack of posts these past few months.  I have been busy juggling the personal, professional, and academic domains of my life. 

I've started and stopped several new posts as I was not able to devote sufficient time to fully develop the content.  However, as I will have an abundance of time over the summer, ahead of my forthcoming doctoral program, I PROMISE to post new material.

Also, I am looking for writers/ scholars of higher education who are interested in broadening the reach and scope of HigherEdNow.  Message me so we can discuss.

Cheers!