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