How does Class and Culture Shape Involvement on Campus?

Researcher Jenny Stuber (2009) conducted a study which examined the social and cultural stratification process in higher education related to socioeconomic status.  This study, which appeared in the Sociological Forum, examined how participation in social and academic engagement opportunities outside of the college classroom differed by class status and how these differences perpetuate the stratification process that marginalizes those students form lower socioeconomic backgrounds.  The author references the work of Sorokin (1959) when using the metaphor of a sieve to describe higher education.  The social and cultural systems on a college campus can marginalize those who do not come to the higher education experience with the social or cultural capital necessary to navigate the terrain.  This process gradually filters students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds out of higher education (Stuber, 2009).  Despite this discouraging view, other researchers have used the metaphor of an incubator to describe higher education.  This more optimistic viewpoint highlights the capacity of institutions of higher education to serve as a source of social and cultural capital building which can assist in the ultimate success of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

Stuber (2009) suggests, “The models of the highly involved college student is not class neutral” (p. 881).  Previous research suggests engagement in social and academic experiences outside of the classroom contribute positively to college success and post graduate outcomes such as career attainment and earnings; however, participation in these experiences varies by social class and little pervious research has been conducted to examine the involvement experiences of students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.  Involvement on campus requires social and cultural resources to provide the time to participate in experiences that may not provide a source of income, but also a disposition that would view involvement experiences as desirable or something worth the investment of time.  Differences in the tangible amount of resources necessary to participate and the inherent value of involvement experiences differs between students from upper-middle class backgrounds and lower class backgrounds.

The study examines how social and academic involvement varies by social class and how do lower and upper middle class college students use social and cultural capital to navigate student engagement opportunities.  In order to address these questions, the researcher collected quantitative involvement participation data on lower income and upper middle class students at two different universities in the same state.  The sample of students from the two universities included 28 working class and 33 upper-middle class students.  Interviews were conducted with these students in order to gain additional insights into how these students experienced student involvement opportunities on each campus.  The sample was collected using random sampling from an exhaustive list of students at each university and then screening interviews were conducted with the randomly selected students to determine if they met the criteria for the study.  Additional purposeful sampling techniques were used to increase the sample to the desired size (Stuber, 2009).

The quantitative analysis found that students from upper-middle class backgrounds were more involved in activities such as study abroad, internships, and Greek Life when compared with students from working class backgrounds.  The qualitative analysis found students from working class backgrounds found involvement experiences to be less direable and did not possess an inherent value for these experiences.  Upper-middle class students came into the college experience with a desire to become involved seeking these experiences as a means for securing future employment.  Students from upper-middle class backgrounds possessed the social and cultural capital to easily seek out involvement opportunities.  Students studied referenced family connections, familiarity with the college landscape, and parental influence as a motivation for seeking involvement.  Students from working class backgrounds were more likely to be skeptical of these “resume building” activities and felt more strongly that a strong work ethic and strong academics would enable them to become strong candidates for employment.  The author Stuber (2009) suggests the emphasis on work ethic and grades aligned with “working class values”.

Despite these differences is disposition and behavior, this study found that social and cultural resources directed toward working class students, who are often first generation college students as well, can play a compensatory role in evening the playing field for working class students.  The findings suggest college administrators and faculty should identify strategies to create social ties between students from different backgrounds in order to create pathways into involvement.  Stuber (2009) references a working class male student who became more involved through the social ties gained from entering a dating relationship with an upper-middle class student.  These social connections create opportunities for social and cultural capital to be disbursed more evenly.  The author also suggests making involvement opportunities for accessible to a broader range of students to be an important strategy to increasing student success during college and after graduation for working class college students. 

Reference

Stuber, J.M. (2009). Class, culture, and participation in the collegiate extra-curriculum.  Sociological Forum, 24(4), 887-900.