The Effect of Disparate Social and Cultural Capital on The College Experience
Higher education is often regarded as one of the pillars of the American Dream and seen as an effective mode of upward mobility. However, with a sociological lens, it becomes clear that this is not the case. The institution of higher education maintains and reproduces inequities and remains inaccessible for socially and economically marginalized communities. Discourse surrounding class inequalities in higher education are often concerning the economic barriers to a college education, including tuition and application costs, disparities in K-12 education based on geographic location, and disparate participation in valuable (middle-class) extracurriculars. However, it is also worth noting the inequities within higher education as well. Normative social and cultural capital in higher education is shaped and maintained by students of higher socioeconomic backgrounds; students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds do not have the same kind of social and cultural capital to navigate these institutions with as much ease as their upper- and middle-class peers. Disparities within colleges and universities exist because successful navigation of these spaces require the right kinds of social and cultural capital, but if lower- and working-class or first-generation students can enter these spaces, they have more positive outcomes and experiences. This literature review will highlight the ways in which different demonstrations of social and cultural capital contribute to class inequalities in student experiences in higher education; this argument will be demonstrated through the importance of both cultural and social capital, the impact of a sense of belonging, and closing with recommendations for best practices using the concepts highlighted.
Higher education is often seen as the “great equalizer” (Walpole 2003) and a means for upward mobility – in other words, a mechanism to achieve the American Dream. Following this logic, students from all class statuses should have “similar experiences and outcomes... if the system is meritocratic or if social class disadvantage weakens as students advance through the educational system” (Walpole 2003). While these popular notions of higher education allude to its capacity for upward mobility, in reality, a college education is far from a manifestation of the American Dream. Rather, there are vast inequities in access to higher education, success within these institutions, and outcomes following graduation.
Referenced studies conceptualize socioeconomic status (SES) with the following measures: parental education; family or household income, measured in a variety of ways including participation in subsidized lunch programs, type of home one grew up in, and if the family rented or owned their home; and self-reports of class status, often ranging from lower or working to upper (brooks et al 2011, Reynolds & Cruise 2020, Trawalter & Hoffman 2020, Walpole 2003). Conceptualization of the measures for SES and class are important as there are several ways in which existing literature and studies define class. Because these studies investigate higher education, it makes sense that measures consist of household income or wealth and parental education data. Since higher education is often regarded as a mode for social and class mobility, household measures and parental education are fitting because they signal the SES origin of the student unlike occupation or individual income. Occupation and individual income are not suitable measures for studies of higher education since most students’ primary occupation would fall under “student” and many students are still dependent on their family’s income.
The existing literature points to many disparities in student retention, enrollment in highly ranked universities, and confidence in aspirations concerning success in college. Demetriou et al (2017) cites a study that reports only 75 percent of first-generation college students enrolled in four-year institutions complete their education and earn their degree, a staggeringly low number when considering the small proportion of students who are the first in their families to attend college. Not only are students from low SES backgrounds underrepresented in higher education because of disparities in access, they are also less likely to graduate or have goals to attend graduate school and continue their education. Students from low SES backgrounds are also often enrolled in schools with less prestige, rather than institutions that are known to “positively influence aspirations and persistence” (Walpole 2003). Factors that influence student retention and success include how well a student can adjust to a college lifestyle, differences in insider knowledge of the college environment, and expectations of having a college education. Other aspects include SES, “race, gender, parent education level, academic ability, and their academic achievement in high school” (Reynolds & Cruise 2020). Social and cultural capital also have “significant impact on education aspirations, persistence and attainment” throughout a student’s lifetime, in school and beyond college (Walpole 2003). Experiences in higher education are impacted by SES because of disparities in access and disparities in cultural capital or knowing the “spoken and unspoken rules of higher education” (Trawalter & Hoffman 2020). There are many aspects of higher education that create disparities along class lines; not only are there economic and monetary barriers, but other cultural and social barriers that result in disparate experiences and outcomes. These examples of social and cultural capital not only impact the process of getting into college, but also the success a student may have throughout their college experiences.
Cultural and social capital often go hand in hand, with students requiring and developing both social and cultural capital when participating in certain activities within institutions of higher education. Developing and taking on the role of an undergraduate student takes a certain kind of cultural capital derived from upper-middle class, and often White, norms and expectations. Because of this, many low SES students are left unequipped to navigate the complex environment of higher education in the same way their high SES peers do. Activities like undergraduate research or student organizations and social connections like faculty or peer mentorship facilitate the learning and conversion of the specific cultural capital necessary to succeed in college. In other words, participating in these kinds of activities and relationships provide an opportunity to invest in and develop the normative knowledge and skills of higher education.
Firstly, possessing the cultural capital that aligns with the norms and expectations of higher education is a key component of a student’s success both in the college admissions process as well as throughout their undergraduate career. There are several activities a student can take part in that require and build cultural capital; these include undergraduate research, study abroad programs, participation in student organizations, and part-time employment. These activities increase a student’s sense of belonging and connection to the university community, their confidence and independence, their learning of cultural knowledge through peers and mentors within these spaces, and the development of their academic capital. However, these activities can act to contribute to inequities along class lines because they require a certain cultural capital to enter; following the notion of a normative, upper-middle class culture in higher education, these activities also hold those same expectations, barring students who may not have developed this kind of cultural capital. But, they concurrently build this normative cultural capital; participation in these activities allow students to learn and develop these norms that are difficult to access otherwise. In this way, cultural capital building activities, like undergraduate research and student organizations, can both bridge and widen the class gap in higher education depending on the degree to which they function as a catalyst for capital development.
Successful first-generations students were “active agents” (Demetriou et al 2017) in their academic spaces; they actively pursued activities, relationships, and opportunities within their institutions. They also progressively developed as they learned and were further exposed to their college environment. Reynolds & Cruise (2020) mention a lack of college preparation and family support, and a “fear of the college environment” as other detriments to first-generation students completing their undergraduate educations. While students from low SES backgrounds can and do enter these spaces, of which they contribute greatly to their success in college, there are still many barriers in participating in these activities.
Similar to cultural capital, social capital contributes greatly to a student’s success in higher education, often because it connects students to cultural capital building activities in college and opportunities beyond their undergraduate education. Brooks et al (2011) found that high SES college students do not necessarily have more opportunities to network, but they have a better chance of capitalizing on their existing networks. Generally, high SES students do not have “better” networks in terms of bridging capital, but they do have larger and denser networks, or bonding capital. This means that SES does not have an impact on whether a student has better access to people in other social groups or networks (bridging capital), but it does have an impact on the size and density of the network, meaning they have larger networks of people within the same social group (bonding capital). Developmental relationships are key to a student’s success in college; this includes relationships between students and faculty, relationships between peers, and relationships between other school staff, like directors of cultural centers, and students. Reflective of the experiences in cultural capital building, students in Demetriou et al (2017) described having more confidence and a heightened sense of independence regarding developing relationships with new people and participating in new activities within their institutions. Peer mentors were also emphasized as particularly valuable, as they formed organically by nature of being in a student organization. This is another example of how cultural and social capital converge; both faculty and peer mentors provided cultural knowledge and social ties within the college environment. Students from higher SES backgrounds are often already equipped with a vast and rich network, as Brooks et al (2011) highlight, that span within and outside their institutions – a luxury that is not always available to students from low SES backgrounds. Apart from the opportunities that these networks provide, they also connect students to spaces in which they can develop the cultural capital necessary for success within the spheres of college educated folks. Additionally, having adequate social capital increases a sense of belonging that has strong implications for a student’s confidence and positive experiences in college, contributing to higher graduation rates and success beyond attaining their degree.
Additionally, the involvement in cultural capital building activities and maintenance of developmental relationships increases low SES students’ sense of belonging on campus. A sense of belonging for low SES students is important because it signals that the institution is doing enough to value and appreciate these students, in a space that has historically been and continues to be closed to them. Students in Demetriou et al reported feeling increasingly “connected and accepted” (2017) in student communities when participating in cultural capital building activities and connecting with mentors; one student even says, “participating in an organization made the large university community feel smaller” (Demetriou et al 2017).
Space and belonging also plays a role in the inequities found along class lines; as emphasized above, institutions of higher education are often built for and by wealthy people. Even if these spaces don’t explicitly bar people from low SES backgrounds, the cultural norms present are aligned with high-class culture. Historically, space has been restricted to exclude marginalized people, such as segregation in the Jim Crow era or prohibiting women from enrolling in colleges and universities. Trawalter & Hoffman (2020) highlight that social and cultural connection can enhance belonging. While they highlight this concept through the framework of access to public spaces, this same idea can be applied to involvement in cultural capital building activities. Student organizations, undergraduate research, study abroad programs, and other activities are, in a way, public; they are meant to be open to all students and provide a space for students to interact and establish norms and cultural values. However, as Trawalter & Hoffman (2020) point out, these public spaces are often restrictive for students of lower SES backgrounds. This can be due to a lack of access or by negative experiences within those spaces, which can stem from a difference in social and cultural capital. Again, it is important to highlight the importance of a sense of belonging in college spaces, as this is a key component of lessening the class gap in higher education. If policies and practices focus on enhancing and promoting a sense of belonging for students who historically have felt like outsiders within higher education, a progression towards equality can be realized.
Recommendations for closing the class gap in colleges and universities will be outlined here; these suggestions include, firstly, developing comprehensive orientations, secondly, targeted engagement in student organizations, undergraduate research, and study abroad programs, thirdly, making a greater effort to welcome low SES students to public spaces on campus, and, lastly, lessening the financial burden of a college education. A comprehensive orientation specifically geared towards first-generation or students from low SES backgrounds may be an effective way to facilitate the adjustment to the college environment, by specifically focusing on cultural and social capital building. Activities and aims of this type of orientation may include guides for adjusting to college life, goal setting seminars or workshops, and preparing for and facilitating mentorship opportunities with faculty and other students. Goal setting is particularly important here; it has been noted that students from low SES backgrounds have less confidence in their aspirations and goals during college, which contributes to the low retention rate amongst this population. However, if colleges and universities help facilitate in realistic and smart goal setting, this lack in confidence may be minimized. Targeted engagement in cultural capital building activities is also important. This may look like having specific student organization and club fairs or special resources for undergraduate research that is directly and explicitly for first-generation or low SES students. Having university staff that are knowledgeable on the issues that first-generation or low SES students face and can connect them to and advise them on these kinds of activities may lessen the burden on individual students themselves to try and navigate those spaces. Making a greater effort to welcome students from low SES students to public spaces in an explicit and meaningful way may also facilitate success for these students. Making these students feel welcome and belonging in spaces like outdoor quads, student centers, and libraries may help them adjust and become successful in their college careers, as was highlighted in Trawalter & Hoffman (2020). Finally, lessening the financial burden of a college education is also key. Not only does this lower some economic barriers that students from low SES backgrounds face upon entry, but it opens time to participate in some of these cultural capital building activities as well. While working part-time does build some cultural and social capital, it is not always the kind of capital that helps fully adjust to or become successful in college and beyond. These recommendations follow the ideology of building a specific cultural and social capital that is most effective in facilitating success within the college environment.
The class gap in higher education has historically been and continues to be a looming issue in American society, especially concerning the mythology of the American Dream and the notion that upward mobility and equality of opportunity are realities. While there are several issues in access, many stemming from economic barriers, this literature review highlights the ways in which cultural and social capital can impact a student’s experience throughout college. The normative culture and social networks in higher education are shaped by and built for middle-upper class, often White communities, further widening inequities along socioeconomic lines. The difficulty with assessing cultural and social capital is that the activities and relationships in which these specific, middle-upper class, White norms are developed also require this kind of capital to enter. While there are several solutions to bridging this gap, from comprehensive orientations to targeted engagement in capital building activities, the foundation of the issue lies in the fact that institutions of higher education are built on White, upper-middle class norms, expectations, and culture to begin with. Perhaps a more effective and powerful combatant of this gap would be reimagining the culture and norms within higher education; creating an environment within institutions of higher education that is not dictated by prestige and producing productive students, but rather encourages and allows students to succeed with the cultural and social capital they already hold, would be a positively radical movement towards justice, inclusion, and equity in higher education.
References:
Brooks, B, Welser, H. T., Hogan, B., & Titsworth, S. (2011). “Socioeconomic Status Update: Family SES and emergent social capital in college student Facebook networks. Information, Communication &Society. 14(4): 529-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.562221.
Demetriou, C., Meece, J., Eaker-Rich, D., & Powell, C. (2017). “The Activities, Roles, and Relationships of Successful First-Generation College Students.” Journal of College Student Development. 58(1): 19-36.
Reynolds, J. & Cruise, S. (2020). “Factors that Influence Persistence Among Undergraduate Students: An Analysis of the Impact of Socioeconomic Status and First-Generation Students.” Interchange. 51: 199-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-020-09408-y.
Trawalter, S. & Hoffman, K. (2021). “Socioeconomic Status, Use of Public Space, and Belonging in Higher Education.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 120(1): 131-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000248.supp.
Walpole, M. (2001). “Socioeconomic Status and College: How SES Affects College Experiences and Outcomes.” The Review of Higher Education. 27(1): 45-73. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2003.0044.
This essay was written as the final paper for Class, Power, and Social Change (SOCL 3450) taught by Professor Ramiro Martinez at Northeastern University in Spring 2021.