undocumented immigrants in higher education: a preliminary analysis

Undocumented Immigrants in HigherEducation: A Preliminary Analysis

LISA D. GARCIA

University of Southern California

WILLIAM G. TIERNEY

University of Southern California

Background/Context: Undocumented immigrant postsecondary students are an understud-ied group on American campuses. The authors suggest that increased national attention onthe topic of undocumented immigration warrants an in-depth study of a small subset of thelarger undocumented population—college students.Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: The research questions guiding thisanalysis are: (1) How do the formal educational experiences of unauthorized college stu-dents affect their postsecondary education goals? (2) How do undocumented students attendcollege on a daily basis (e.g., transportation, finances, studying, employment, support net-works)? (3) What role does social, political, and economic support play in unauthorized stu-dents’ success in college? The purpose of the analysis is to outline the most significantchallenges that undocumented college students face in pursuing a postsecondary education.The intent is to inform a research community about those challenges and suggest futureresearch directions.Research Design: The manuscript begins with an overview of previous research on the topicof undocumented immigrant postsecondary students. The authors discuss three traditionalareas in which first-generation, low-socioeconomic-status students encounter difficultieswhile pursuing a college education—financial obstacles, academic preparation, and percep-tions of belonging. The article then considers the challenges these students face by way of ayearlong qualitative study that involved interviews and observations with 40 students and5 educators knowledgeable about undocumented students. The authors frame these findingswithin a social capital theoretical framework that helps identify two themes—relationshipsand finances—concerning how undocumented students’ access to social capital can be lim-ited by their immigration status.

Teachers College Record Volume 113, Number 12, December 2011, pp. 2739–2776Copyright © by Teachers College, Columbia University0161-4681

2740 Teachers College Record

Conclusions/Recommendations: Research pertaining to undocumented students is growingin its production and diversity. The authors conclude with recommendations for improvingfuture research focusing on undocumented college students based on the project’s emergingthemes.

This article pertains to the challenges that undocumented immigrantcollege students encounter. We first offer background on one of the leaststudied groups in higher education—undocumented students. We thenconsider the challenges these students face by way of a yearlong qualita-tive study that involved interviews and observations with 40 students and5 educators knowledgeable about undocumented students. The studentsattended a variety of postsecondary institutions, largely public institu-tions in California. We call on social capital theory to analyze the data,and offer two themes that arose from the research project. Our purposein this article is modest in its scope: We intend to shed light on a little-investigated group of individuals. We begin with a discussion of undocu-mented college students and the major challenges they face whileearning their postsecondary degrees. The study’s results are framed by asocial capital theoretical framework that highlights how individual stu-dents and institutions may or may not facilitate postsecondary educa-tional goals. Before proceeding to the data, we discuss the methodologyemployed throughout the duration of the study. Finally, we offer sugges-tions for future research on the population.

FRAMING UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS

Undocumented immigrant postsecondary students are an understudiedgroup on American campuses. As Rodriguez and Cruz (2009) noted,“Few studies have been undertaken to consider the specific issue of thetransition to college of undocumented immigrant students” (p. 2401). By“undocumented,” we mean individuals residing in the United States“who are not U.S. citizens, who do not hold current permanent residentvisas, or who have not been granted permission under a set of specificauthorized temporary statuses for longer-term residence and work”(Passel & Cohn, 2009, p. vi); in many cases, such individuals have residedin the United States for much, if not most, of their lives, and came hereas infants and young children with their parents. A recent study pub-lished by the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that there are approximately11.9 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States;about half of these individuals live in four states—California, Texas,Florida, and New York (Passel & Cohn). There are 1.5 million unautho-

Undocumented Immigrants in Higher Education 2741

rized1 immigrants under the age of 18 living in the United States.Besides basic demographic information, relatively little is known about

those unauthorized immigrants who pursue a college education (Abrego,2006). What we do know is that the vast majority of these individuals haveattended primary and secondary schools in the United States. Of theundocumented individuals 18–24 years of age who completed highschool, 49% are in college or have attended college (Passel & Cohn,2009). Among unauthorized high school graduates aged 18–24 whoarrived at age 14 or older, only 42% are in college or have attended col-lege, compared with 61% who arrived before age 14. The unauthorizedstatus of these students and the accompanying difficulties with studying alargely underground population complicate attempts to conduct in-depth analysis of this group. National and state data pertaining to undocumented immigrants

remain imperfect. Previous estimates set the number of undocumentedimmigrants who have lived in the United States for 5 years or longer andwho graduate from high school each year at approximately 65,000(Passel, 2003). This group makes up the potential beneficiaries of thefederal Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM)Act. The DREAM Act is proposed federal legislation that would allowstates to charge undocumented immigrants in-state tuition and wouldprovide a multistep path to citizenship for some residents who werebrought to the United States illegally as children. Eligible students wouldhave to fulfill certain education or military commitments.Batalova and Fix (2006) estimated that the law’s enactment would

potentially make 360,000 unauthorized high school graduates aged18–24 eligible for conditional status. Given the higher percentage ofundocumented college students entering the country before the age of14, it is likely that many of these same students qualify for the reduced in-state academic fees in the 10 states that offer such benefits to unautho-rized students (National Immigration Law Center, 2009; Passel & Cohn,2009). However, in some states, proof of citizenship or legal residency isrequired to attend college, and in others, undocumented students mostlyqualify for out-of-state tuition (Rincon, 2008).Although basic demographic information is available, we know very lit-

tle about the lives of undocumented students when they attend college(Rincon, 2008). Quantitative studies of undocumented students high-light the persistence and academic resilience of students (e.g., Flores &Chapa, 2009; Perez, Espinoza, Ramos, Coronado, & Cortes, 2009).Although such studies are useful in painting broad strokes of undocu-mented college student experiences, they do not provide the detailsabout how matriculation actually occurs. Other scholars (e.g., Abrego,


2006, 2008; Gildersleeve, 2010; Gonzales, 2007, 2009; Perez, 2009; PerezHuber, 2009) have conducted qualitative interviews and observations,seeking to understand students’ experiences living in the shadows of soci-ety while simultaneously pursuing postsecondary education goals. Theseaccounts provide a more nuanced description of undocumented stu-dents’ experiences. What we focus on in this article is some of the dailychallenges that undocumented students face when pursuing a postsec-ondary education.

CONNECTING THE RESEARCH TO THE STUDY POPULATION

For the purposes of this article, we paid particular attention to three pri-mary challenges that undocumented students encounter while pursuinga college education. These issues—financial obstacles, academic prepara-tion, and perceptions of belonging—provide background for the studyresults as well as how we approached the research process from concep-tion to presentation of results.

FINANCIAL OBSTACLES

The financial situation of most unauthorized students is comparable tothat of low-income college students. Perna (2005) explained that low-income students are particularly conscious of the human, economic, andsocial costs involved in the decision to go to college; these costs includeforgone earnings and leisure time as well as direct college costs. Becauseof apprehensions and perceptions regarding college, low-income stu-dents are less likely to apply to college, with an almost 30% gap betweenenrollment of high- and low-income students (Gladieux & Swail, 1999).Low-income undocumented students are less likely to pursue a highereducation because of the perceived and actual costs; they are not partic-ularly confident that they will see a return on investment. For those stu-dents who are either documented or U.S. citizens, these concerns areusually countered by access to comprehensive financial aid, campusemployment opportunities, and alternative funding. These three formsof funding, which are instrumental in increasing college access for low-income, first-generation students, are not as readily available, if at all, tounauthorized students. Low-income students usually receive financial support for college

attendance. Higher levels of financial aid generally correlate with highercollege enrollment rates for these students (Heller, 1999; Kane, 1999; St.John, 2006). Undocumented students are ineligible for federal and statefinancial aid and most scholarships because legal residency or citizenship


is a prerequisite for qualification (Perez et al., 2009). The 1996 IllegalImmigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) pro-hibits states from offering higher education benefits to undocumentedstudents without offering the same benefits to U.S. citizens and perma-nent and temporary legal residents. IIRIRA does not constitute a federalban on undocumented students attending college. Rather, the legislationrestricts what individual states can do to make higher education moreaccessible to unauthorized students, in the form of financial aid and in-state academic fees. Financing a postsecondary education without tradi-tional financial aid resources is a significant undertaking forundocumented college students (Gonzales, 2007, 2009). Without accessto financial aid, many students do not consider higher education a real-istic goal and instead opt to pursue low-paying jobs in which immigrationstatus is not closely monitored (Hermes, 2008).Employment restrictions on undocumented immigrants further com-

plicate a student’s financial conundrum. Most unauthorized college stu-dents do not have legal permission to work in the United States. Even ifstudents secure employment to help finance their education beforeand/or during college, jobs are usually off campus, low paying, and con-centrated in the service industry (Hermes, 2008; Perez et al., 2009;Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001). Saving enough money to pay fullacademic fees in four-year institutions, as well as paying for books, trans-portation, and living expenses, is a significant task for many college-bound unauthorized students. Finally, requirements of citizenship or immigration documentation for

alternative funding—unauthorized-friendly scholarships, stipends, andsponsors—limit the financial options of undocumented students.Securing alternative funding for college attendance is critical for a low-income student paying out of pocket for college. Often, students discovertheir legal status during the college application process; this relativelylate revelation of one’s status can inhibit securing alternative fundingsources in a timely manner (National Immigration Law Center, 2009).Even students who are aware of their status are disadvantaged becausealternative funding sources are limited and usually highly competitive(Madera et al., 2008). The result is that few students can rely on thesefunding sources to pay for college. Even those students originally boundfor four-year institutions may opt for enrollment in two-year institutionsbecause of reduced costs (Hermes, 2008). Enrolling in a two-year collegecreates another hurdle; some scholars believe that beginning a postsec-ondary education at a two-year institution decreases a student’s chancesof obtaining a bachelor’s degree (Shaw, 1997). Financing a college


education with little or no money is overwhelming for the majority ofunauthorized students (Gonzales, 2009).

ACADEMIC PREPARATION

The academic preparation of unauthorized college students is anothersubstantial obstacle in the journey toward an undergraduate degree.Competing with better prepared and better informed students is chal-lenging to undocumented students already burdened with trying to fig-ure out how to pay for college. Attending low-performing schools, beinga first-generation student, and facing personal obstacles are three hur-dles that many undocumented students have to overcome in order tocontinue their education.Undocumented students, like other low-income students, often attend

low-performing, ethnically isolated schools located in concentrated pock-ets of urban inner-city communities (Gonzales, 2009; Teranishi &Briscoe, 2006). Violence is more prevalent in the schools and neighbor-hoods, distracting students from their academic studies (Abrego, 2006).These schools have less qualified teachers, offer fewer college prepara-tion courses, and receive less funding. Low-performing schools are a pri-mary reason that undocumented students, as low-income students, oftengraduate underprepared for the rigors of college-level coursework(Conway, 2009). Attending low-performing and less rigorous schools has a negative

impact on overall college readiness. Adelman (2006) pointed to the rigorof high school coursework as a leading indicator of college readiness athigh school graduation. Students who lack strong English language skillsare at a significant disadvantage in college compared with their well-pre-pared peers. This disadvantage is especially relevant for immigrant stu-dents, who are more likely to enroll in English as a second languagecourses in college (Casas-Frier & Hansen, 2006). Scholars also found thatwhen students require significant remediation when they transition tocollege, they may be less inclined to spend the extra time preparing forcollege-level courses (Melguizo, Hagedorn, & Cypers, 2008). For unau-thorized students, this situation is compounded by the fact that theylargely do not receive financial assistance to take these extra remedialcourses.Many unauthorized college students are often the first in their families

to attend college and are frequently the first with a high school degree(Gonzales, 2009; Perez et al., 2009). First-generation students rely moreon institutional actors for critical college information because their fam-ilies are less likely to provide college preparation information at home


(Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Inner-city and low-performing high schools gen-erally have fewer college-going networks among the student body, withstaff and faculty focusing more on graduation rates, standardized testing,and truancy issues (Teranishi & Briscoe, 2006; Tierney & Venegas, 2006).Focusing on those factors rather than college access often contributes tolow-income and first-generation students not receiving academic infor-mation about college in a timely manner. This situation is more severe forundocumented students because they are unable or hesitant to partici-pate in some college preparation and mentoring programs as a result oftheir immigration status (Gonzales, 2009). First-generation undocu-mented college students thus often arrive at postsecondary institutionswith less experience and knowledge and fewer resources to successfullymatriculate in college.Academic preparation during high school or even earlier is not always

a linear trajectory for undocumented students. Some students experi-ence a sense of despair during their educational careers and withdrawfrom school-related activities (Gonzalez, Plata, Garcia, Torres, & Urrieta,2003; Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2001); students no longer strivefor academic and extracurricular distinctions, letting their grades falland discontinuing their extracurricular activities. The realization thatthey may be unable to continue their education usually occurs duringhigh school. They also begin to realize the problems they will encounterin society as undocumented adults. Such lapses in motivation frequentlyhave deleterious effects on students’ abilities to prepare for and attendcollege. As a result, the students who suffer this malaise yet still make itto college report that they are often not as competitive and prepared foradmission or funding opportunities because of their past withdrawalfrom academics (Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco).

PERCEPTIONS OF BELONGING

Much of the legitimacy and sense of belonging that undocumented stu-dents lose over time is directly related to the transition between K–12schooling and college enrollment. The Plyler v. Doe (1982) decisionensures that undocumented children receive a K–12 education but stopsshort of declaring public education a fundamental right (Seif, 2004). Theformal K–12 system that defines unauthorized immigrants as studentsalso facilitates their inclusion and indoctrination into American society(Abrego, 2006). Students learn the history, culture, and language of theUnited States through their formal education. The transition to collegeand adulthood can dismantle perceptions of personal, institutional, andsocietal inclusion.


Feeling “included” as an undocumented student amid constant acade-mic, personal, and financial obstacles is important to student success(Perez Huber, 2009). Individual feelings of inclusion are diminished asunauthorized students transition from a childhood with guaranteed K–12education to an adulthood with no educational guarantees. The copingmechanisms they develop to feel normal and legitimate are essential totheir success as college students (Contreras, 2009; Perez et al., 2009;Perez Huber). For example, constant questioning of inclusion can beginwhen undocumented students are not able to drive because they do nothave a driver’s license or when they do not attend a school-sponsored tripthat requires long-distance or international travel. Students may alsohave to answer questions from peers about why they attend a communitycollege instead of a four-year institution, why they cannot go to a night-club that requires identification for entry, or why they took a term offfrom school. Scholars also highlight the importance of ethnic and racial minority

students feeling included and welcomed in educational institutions as aprerequisite for student success (Contreras, 2009; Hurtado, Milem,Clayton-Pedersen & Allen, 1999; Solórzano, Allen, & Carroll, 2002).Ethnically and racially diverse students, faculty, and staff are indicators ofa supportive environment for these students. For undocumented stu-dents who are also overwhelmingly ethnic and racial minorities, inclu-sion goes beyond diversity at the institutional level. Abrego (2008)explained that undocumented students’ feelings of inclusion on collegecampuses are constantly under threat because their immigration status isequivalent to illegality. Contreras (2009) described how some undocu-mented students have negative experiences with institutional staff mem-bers. For many students, their illegality translates into a vulnerable,inferior status within the larger society and among their college peers(Abrego, 2008; Olivas, 2009); even if they have a record of academicexcellence, they still may feel that they do not have the same rights asU.S. citizens and documented immigrants to attend college.Undocumented immigrants often live in the shadows of society

because of the legal issues that accompany their illegal status (Chavez,1998). Abrego (2008) explained that “their status is a constant reminderthat they [are] different, vulnerable, and considered suspect” (p. 723)within their local and national communities. Even though they are long-standing members of the community, they are still considered outsidersby a national legal system that assigns different rights to citizens andaliens. Their status as undocumented immigrants amounts to a life ofofficial exclusion from the political and social environments they inhabit(Abrego, 2008; Olivas, 2009; Seif, 2004).


Perceptions of feeling unwelcome in society overwhelm many undocu-mented immigrants (Perez Huber, 2009; Perry, 2006). Feelings of differ-ence and being an outsider accompany immigrants’ fear of deportation,isolation, and depression (Contreras, 2009; Dozier, 1993; Perez, 2009;Perez et al., 2009; Perry). Isolation from the larger community limits con-tact with individuals and organizations in a position to assist unautho-rized students with accomplishing their goals. In the case of low-incomeand first-generation students, relationships with peers are especially crit-ical because they lack other social relationships and resources that fostersuccessful college matriculation (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005;Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). Some undocumented college students modify their academic and

social activities to minimize the possibility of being identified as unautho-rized by school officials or law enforcement (Perez, 2009). Refrainingfrom communal social activities limits the opportunities of these studentsto make friends and contacts, people who can possibly assist with educa-tional plans. Feelings of inclusion in the community are critical to help-ing undocumented students bridge networks of people and resourcesthat may assist with their educational goals.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Given the challenges that many unauthorized students face, we decidedto investigate the lives of 40 students to see how these and other issuesaffect their educational goals. What is largely absent from existing litera-ture on undocumented students is an inventory of the daily struggles andchallenges that students face in college. Throughout the study, we wereguided by three primary research questions: (1) How do the formal edu-cational experiences of unauthorized college students affect their post-secondary education goals? (2) How do undocumented students attendcollege on a daily basis (e.g., transportation, finances, studying, employ-ment, support networks)? (3) What role does social, political, and eco-nomic support play in unauthorized students’ success in college? Whatactually constitutes support? In what follows, we first delineate the theoretical lens we use in address-

ing these questions and analyzing these students’ daily lives. We then out-line the method employed in the provisional study.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND UNDOCUMENTED STUDENTS

Social capital is a framework that enables individuals and groups toaccomplish particular goals through network development. As Warren,


Thompson, and Saegert (2001) succinctly noted, “Social capital refers tothe set of resources that inhere in relationships of trust and cooperationbetween people” (p. 1). The underlying assumption is that networks andgroup affiliations are likely to have positive benefits that result in theacquisition of social capital. The use of the word capital is purposeful. Justas economic capital enables an individual entrée into certain arenas, andhuman capital pertains to the skills an individual has that provide foremployment, social capital also facilitates movement, albeit with a differ-ent form of capital. Social capital pertains to interpersonal networks thatprovide individuals with cultural resources that they are able to exploit inother areas of social life. Individuals rich in social capital have the abilityto increase their economic capital. A person with little or no social capi-tal is likely to have a more difficult time acquiring economic and humancapital.Along with classic, human, and cultural capital, social capital theory

provides researchers with another lens by which to examine individuals’varying success in obtaining surplus value and returns. The theory’sapplication to social, economic, and political problems generally yields aresounding conclusion: Relationships matter. Adler and Kwon (2002)offered a general definition of social capital that resonates with howsocial capital is conceptualized across fields. They defined social capitalas the “goodwill that is engendered by the fabric of social relations andthat can be mobilized to facilitate action” (p. 17). Social capital is the investment in social networks as well as in mutual

recognition and acknowledgment. Implicit in these networks of socialrelations is the overall value to a network member. Knowing many peopledoes not create quality social capital. Rather, quality social capital isdependent on the strength and quantity of the human, cultural, eco-nomic, and social capital that individuals within a network possess andaccess over a lifetime (Kim & Schneider, 2005).Social capital theory is one way to understand how individuals and net-

works interact within a specific social structure. The theory explores howindividuals access resources through social relationships, and which typesof relationships and resources are most conducive to building social cap-ital. Therefore, the unit of analysis can be at both the individual andgroup levels. Education researchers are interested in applying the theoryto understand how individual students’ social relationships and resourcesaffect their academic trajectories within educational institutions. Theviews of sociologists Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman are useful inconceptualizing how structural and individual inequalities may influenceundocumented students’ abilities to pursue educational goals.


PIERRE BOURDIEU’S “BRIDGING” SOCIAL CAPITAL

Pierre Bourdieu became involved in social capital theory by way of hisinterest in the foundations of social order. As an extension of the socialorder, Bourdieu posited that economic, cultural, and social capital weregrounded in the larger theories of social reproduction, and symbolicpower and goods previously outlined by Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, andMax Weber. Bourdieu (1986) defined social capital as “the aggregate ofthe actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of adurable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutualacquaintance and recognition” (p. 248). Membership in a particular net-work allows an individual to claim resources that are held collectively bythe group. Bourdieu also explained that the size of the network deter-mines the volume of social capital possessed by an individual. Further,the social obligations and connections contained within networks are attimes convertible into economic capital. The point we shall make is thatundocumented students are particularly “unnetworked” with regard tofacilitating transitions to college. To be sure, they may have familial net-works, but in general, such networks do not help first-generation college-goers with the transition to college.According to Portes (1998), Bourdieu’s concept of social capital can be

reduced to two primary elements: (a) the social relationship that allowsan individual to claim the resources of his or her network associates, and(b) the quantity and quality of those network resources. In part, it isthrough social capital that individuals have access to other types of capi-tal—namely economic and cultural capital. Capital also begets capital sothat a linear relationship does not exist, but the accumulation in onedomain may facilitate accumulation in another. That is, individuals whoare economically wealthy may well have access to social networks thatenable the creation of social capital, and so on. Academics, however, maynot be economically wealthy, but their accumulation of cultural capitalmay enable them to form networks as well. Our point here is that theseforms of capital are constantly interacting with one another in a mannerthat Bourdieu suggests privileges some and marginalizes others. In mini-mizing access to capital, the dominant class secures its commanding posi-tion within society (Lin, 1999; Portes, 1998).Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of social capital requires a constant stream

of interactions and exchanges on the part of network members. Further,he believes that social capital is an asset of the privileged classes in soci-ety. Horvat (2001) explained that Bourdieu’s sociology “aims at bridgingthe gap between individual action and social structure in shaping humaninteraction” (p. 200). In other words, social capital is just another


apparatus of a larger social system of accessing resources and the repro-duction of social class and stratification. This “bridging” view helpsexplain the varying levels of success among individuals because theiractions can be facilitated by their direct and indirect links to others intheir respective social networks (Adler & Kwon, 2002).

JAMES COLEMAN’S “BONDING” SOCIAL CAPITAL

James Coleman, an American sociologist, came to contribute to socialcapital theory by way of his research on educational attainment inAmerican communities. Unlike Bourdieu, Coleman strongly believes thatsocial capital is not limited to the powerful in society. Rather, individualsof all socioeconomic backgrounds access and build social capital duringthe course of their lives. Coleman (1990) stated that social capital

constitutes a particular kind of resource available to an actor.Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity buta variety of different entities, with two elements in common: theyall consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitatecertain actions of actors—whether persons or corporate actors—within the structure. (p. S98)

Coleman (1988) believes that social capital consists of norms and socialcontrol. Thus, social capital is intangible, embodied in the relationsamong people, and takes three primary forms: levels of trust as evi-denced by obligations, expectations, and trustworthiness of structures;information channels; and norms and sanctions that promote the com-mon good over self-interest (Coleman, 1988, 1990; Dika & Singh, 2002).Coleman, like Bourdieu, emphasized the importance of social net-

works in his version of social capital theory. An area of departure forColeman (1988, 1990) is his particular attention to what he labeled“intergenerational closure”—parents knowing the parents of their chil-dren’s friends. Scholars believe that social closure is particularly impor-tant to social capital building in educational settings. For instance, thenetworks connecting the parents of adolescent classmates and friendsfacilitate effective norms like high school completion and college atten-dance (Dika & Singh, 2002). These effective norms facilitate or inhibitcertain behaviors and actions, restricting an individual’s actions for thesake of the public, communal good (Coleman, 1990).In comparison with Bourdieu’s “bridging” social capital, Coleman’s

social capital is conceptualized as “bonding” (Adler & Kwon, 2002).Bonding focuses on the collectivity’s characteristics and internal


structure—the “linkages among individuals or groups within the collec-tivity and, specifically, in those features that give the collectivity cohesive-ness and thereby facilitate the pursuit of collective goals” (Adler & Kwon,p. 21). Coleman (1990) also argued that structures, like voluntary orga-nizations, produce both intentional and unintentional social capital. Theforms of social capital that provide reciprocal benefits for a lifetime gen-erally fall within family, clan, and community relationships. Hence, it isthe family’s primary responsibility to adopt certain norms conducive toadvancing their children’s quality of life.

APPLYING SOCIAL CAPITAL TO EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

Examples of social capital are resources developed within a network ofrelationships of mutual acquaintances. An elite private high school is anexample of an organization that has multiple opportunities for individu-als to acquire social capital. In these circumstances, students participatewith one another in an array of college preparation activities. Visits withone’s peers to cultural entities such as museums or the theater will becommonplace. Opportunities to visit historical and cultural landmarksand to travel abroad are frequently part of the norm rather than once-in-a-lifetime events. Parents of the students most likely have attended col-lege, and discussions about which college to attend upon graduation willoccur. One’s siblings will attend college. The school will sponsor fieldtrips to visit colleges and universities, and the teachers will be versed onwhat students need to know in college and how best to prepare them.Summer employment will be education focused and geared toward learn-ing opportunities. All these examples lend themselves to social capitaldevelopment. What participants in such a school see as the “norm” andimplicit may be entirely absent, or an exception, in a low-income school.In a low-income school, for example, the opposite scenario is easy to

draw. If college preparation begins at all, it will occur in senior year, whena single college counselor will try to help 800 students choose and applyto college. Students may not know anyone in their neighborhood or fam-ily who has attended college. Summer employment will be some form ofphysical labor, such as in a grocery store to earn money to help out thefamily. Visits to museums and other cultural locales will be absent fromone’s activities. Classes will not cover college material, and discussionsabout what college is about or what professors expect from students willbe largely absent.Obviously, social and economic capital are interrelated. The develop-

ment of one is likely to facilitate the acquisition of the other. The socialcapital that a student acquires in high school, for example, may not make


the individual economically wealthier, but the networks that have beencreated will enable the student to attend a prestigious postsecondaryinstitution that in turn will facilitate additional network enhancementand the eventual acquisition of well-paying employment. Attending a pri-vate high school such as the one in the previous example requires eco-nomic capital. Economic capital provides access to a variety of goods,services, and related physical and symbolic commodities. There is, ofcourse, not always a direct relationship. A professor’s children may berich in social capital, but not economic capital. A professional baseballplayer may be economically wealthy but have very little social capital.Portes (1998) is worth quoting here:

Whereas economic capital is in people’s bank accounts andhuman capital is inside their heads, social capital inheres in thestructure of their relationships. To possess social capital, a per-son must be related to others, and it is those others, not himself,who are the actual source of his or her advantage. (p. 7)

Accordingly, social capital should not be seen as a singular act; simplyvisiting a museum will be beneficial to an individual, but for the accumu-lation of social capital to occur, the individual has to be involved withother individuals over time, such that a network develops and is main-tained. Consequently, in low-income schools where an event occurs thatis an exception to the norm, the event itself may be of worth, but it is notan example of social capital development.Membership in a group has social obligations that provide benefits to

the individual, such as a credential or contacts that can be used in thefuture (Tierney, 2006). Consider, for example, membership in a countryclub. An economic cost is involved with regard to fees and yearly dues.Members commonly point out that the cost is worth it because the indi-vidual gains entrée to a pleasant place to socialize, have dinner, and playgolf. From the perspective advanced here, however, the more importantaspects of such a membership are the interactions that take place amongmembers. A member has certain obligations, such as adhering to a dresscode and norms of behavior, but in turn, the individual will be in anexclusive network that increases his or her social capital. Networks also are frequently multiple and overlapping. Individuals

who are in a country club may have attended similar universities, partici-pated in the same fraternity or sorority, or frequented the same restau-rants and cultural events. Overlapping networks strengthen and extendthe social capital of the individual. Bourdieu (1986) looked at such network development and concluded that social capital is a primary


explanation of how inequality flourishes. He argued that membershipsare exclusionary and not only provide avenues for wealth creation butalso serve as barriers to equality. Such memberships create group solidar-ity that in turn facilitates social reproduction. Those who are in such net-works acquire greater resources, and those who do not must do without.Bourdieu was particularly good at pointing out the dynamic nature ofsocial capital. Rather than a static notion of social capital that does notchange over time, Bourdieu considered how networks develop such thatthe social relations of power and inequality get reproduced. Students inwealthy schools, for example, are able to take Advanced Placement (AP)courses with one another that facilitate their entrance to and graduationfrom elite institutions. When criticism is lodged that low-income studentsdo not have access to AP courses, the system responds by creating suchclasses; in turn, AP is downgraded in import, and other activities take onimportance.Such an analysis is particularly useful with regard to undocumented

youth. We suggest that those who are most politically, socially, and educa-tionally disempowered, such as undocumented youth, have the potentialfor agency, but the conditions for empowerment need to be aided bysocial organizations such as educational institutions. Accordingly, weemploy social capital as an analytic tool that has the ability to help com-bat the challenges that undocumented youth face. Social capital itself,obviously, does not alleviate poverty, but it can leverage investment inhuman and cultural capital. Current configurations about those who are most dispossessed in gen-

eral employ one of two assumptions with regard to social capital: Eitherthose who do not have social capital lack the moral or intellectual resolveto do what needs to be done to acquire capital, or the structure of soci-etal power has made it impossible for them to build networks. Althoughboth assumptions differ in beliefs about the individual, the result is the same—the individual will not acquire social and, hence, economic,capital.However, those who are poor have many networks in their lives—fami-

lies, social and fraternal organizations, and churches, to name but a few.African Americans in a rural community, for example, frequently share ahistory, tradition, and an identity (Warren et al., 2001). The type of net-work in which one resides obviously provides different sources of sup-port. The challenge is to enable those who are poor to have access tonetwork development that facilitates a path out of poverty. As opposed toan individual approach that suggests that an individual needs to pull him-self or herself up “from the bootstraps,” and if the individual does not,then he or she is to blame, the framework we advance here argues that


individuals have the potential to exist in networks that enable the acqui-sition of social capital, but in low-income communities, those networksneed to be consciously created and fostered; insofar as they are not partof the norms of an organization’s culture, such networks will not organi-cally occur as they would in wealthy organizations such as private eliteboarding schools. We now turn to a discussion regarding our researchmethod.

METHOD

Qualitative research methods provided the basis for in-depth knowledgeabout the struggles that undocumented college students face in pursuingtheir academic goals. A subject such as undocumented college students’experiences was suitable for qualitative examination because the under-lying purpose of the investigation is to understand the experiences ofthese individuals, and little is known about them. We wanted students tobe able to present their stories as a set of relationships and events thatwere complicated and transitory (Rubin & Rubin, 1995). Our positions as U.S.-born investigators produced an insider/outsider

dynamic among student interviewees (Merriam et al., 2001); we were out-siders requesting an insider’s view into how students lived their academiclives. Accordingly, we designed the study to maximize repeated interac-tions with students so that they might gain a sense of what we wereattempting to do, and we might have a more fulsome understanding ofthe contours of their lives.

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Because unauthorized students remain largely hidden on their respectivecampuses because of their undocumented status (Abrego, 2008; Negron-Gonzalez, 2009), we developed a “snowball sample” (Salganik &Heckathorn, 2004; Watters & Biernacki, 1989). Snowball sampling is atechnique for developing a research sample in which existing study sub-jects suggest future subjects from among their acquaintances and con-tacts. This sampling technique is often used in studying populations suchas undocumented immigrants. We started recruiting student intervie-wees with the assistance of a few undocumented students whom we knew.They introduced us to undocumented students attending their universi-ties, which in turn connected us to unauthorized college students aroundthe state. Student participants had to fulfill certain requirements. They needed

to be: (a) undocumented immigrants, (b) aged 18 or older, and


(c) attending a postsecondary institution. All 40 interviewees spent partof their adolescence in Southern California, arriving in the United Statesas young as 3 months old and as old as 17 years (see Table 1). A total of72% of the students have lived in the United States for at least a decade,and 15% arrived just in time to start high school. Only one student didnot qualify for reduced in-state academic fees via California Assembly Bill540 (AB 540)2 because he arrived at age 17 and spent only one year inhigh school. Thirty-eight of the students matriculated to California’s pub-lic postsecondary institutions—11 attended the University of California(UC), 16 attended California State University (CSU), and 11 attendedCalifornia Community Colleges (CCC). Two students attended privateinstitutions; 1 student attended a private university in California, and theother attended a small liberal arts college in the Midwest. Twenty-five ofthe interviewees were female, and 15 were male. Thirty-four of the stu-dents were Latino, originating from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador,Peru, Chile, and Argentina. Three of the students were from South Koreaand Mongolia, and 3 were originally from Armenia. See Table 1 for abreakdown of the sample.

Table 1. Characteristics of Student Study Participants

Country of Age of CurrentInterviewee Origin Gender Arrival Age Institution Major

Ana El Salvador Female 15 24 CSU BiologyAbel Mexico Male 8 19 CSU HistoryAlejandro Mexico Male 4 months 22 CCC Political scienceBeatriz Mexico Female 3 months 21 CSU EnglishBertha Mexico Female 14 24 Private Environmental

university engineeringConnie South Korea Female 14 20 CCC UndeclaredDiana Mexico Female 8 months 20 CSU SociologyDona El Salvador Female 11 19 CSU PsychologyEsther Mexico Female 10 months 20 CCC BusinessFrancisca Peru Female 6 19 UC Public policyFlavia Mexico Female 5 21 UC MathGloria Mexico Female 2 21 UC BiologyGracia Argentina Female 12 19 CCC Business

administrationHilda Mexico Female 6 months 22 UC SociologyKushi Mongolia Male 11 21 UC Business

EconomicsLaura Mexico Female 17 23 CSU Computer

information systems; accounting

Lupe Mexico Female 2 21 CCC Digital effectsMaggie Mexico Female 6 months 19 CSU Special education


We also included in the study 5 educational professionals who regularlyworked with unauthorized students at the secondary and postsecondarylevels. The professionals did not necessarily work with the students weinterviewed, although a few advised some of the student interviewees.One participant was an experienced high school college counselor work-ing at a high school with several enrolled undocumented students.Another informant was a community college counselor who served as theadviser to the campus’s undocumented student support group. Twostudy participants were senior administrators at the CSU and UC cam-puses. The fifth educational professional had experience working withundocumented students at UC and CSU, and worked as a director of out-reach at a private university. These professionals provided perspective onthe challenges that undocumented students face. In particular, theydescribed the institutional obstacles that students encounter while pursu-ing their education and provided comparisons with non-undocumentedstudents.

Mario Peru Male 17 21 UC KinesiologyMarisa Mexico Female 1 20 UC Gender studiesMateo Guatemala Male 9 27 CCC UndeclaredNacho Mexico Male 17 29 CSU EconomicsOctavio Mexico Male 10 23 CSU Psychology;

sociologyOscar Mexico Male 6 19 CSU Computer sciencePaola Mexico Female 2 23 CSU PsychologyPatricia Chile Female 3 22 UC SociologyPedro Mexico Male 8 27 CSU BusinessRaffi Armenia Male 16 23 CCC Art history;

biologyRay Mexico Male 10 19 CSU International

businessRamela Armenia Female 10 19 CCC Chemical

engineeringRene Mexico Male 9 18 UC MathRuben Mexico Male 2 20 CCC UndeclaredSara Mexico Female 9 19 Private Undeclared

liberal artsSimon Mexico Male 14 25 CSU MarketingSiranoush Armenia Female 8 19 CCC EnglishSonia Mexico Female 5.5 19 CSU Liberal studiesStefano Mexico Male 4 23 UC Community

studiesSun Hee South Korea Female 15 21 CCC ArtTeresa Mexico Female 4.5 22 CSU SociologyYvette Mexico Female 6 18 UC Biology


DATA COLLECTION AND PROCEDURE

Individual interviews, observations, and document analysis were the pri-mary methods employed throughout data collection. Each of the 40 stu-dents and 5 educational professionals participated in one semistructuredinterview during the 2008–2009 academic year. We used the same respec-tive interview protocol for all these primary interviews (see AppendicesA and B). These interviews aimed to get to know students’ educationalexperiences since they arrived in the United States, focusing on theirpostsecondary preparation and matriculation. Each interview lastedapproximately 1 hour, was conducted by the authors in a location conve-nient to the participants, and audio-recorded when granted permissionby study participants. All but 4 student interviewees agreed to berecorded during their interviews. We also took notes during these inter-views that were later paired with the transcribed interviews. We conducted informal secondary interviews with 12 students who we

believed were representative of the sample in terms of gender, ethnicbackground, and institution attended. These students met us either inperson or spoke to us over the phone if they were unavailable to meet inperson. These interviews lasted between a half hour and 1 hour andfocused on issues and themes that emerged from their own primaryinterview or the interviews of others. For example, we noticed that sev-eral students discussed how the time spent on public transportation hada significant effect on their academic lives. Thus, during all the sec-ondary interviews, we inquired about transportation issues. Follow-up individual and group student observations were conducted

between January 2009 and June 2009. Because many students wererecruited by making presentations to local campus undocumented stu-dent support groups, we had the opportunity to observe many of thestudy participants at their respective campuses. We observed undocu-mented student club meetings—two meetings each at two different CSUcampuses, two meetings at two different CCC campuses, and two meet-ings at one UC campus during the academic year. Our intent was toobserve not only the kinds of issues that were discussed in these meet-ings, but also how individuals interacted with one another and withwhom. Of the 40 students we interviewed, 16 students—8 CCC, 6 CSU,and 2 UC—agreed for one of us to meet them individually on theirrespective campuses, where we also shadowed them over the course of aday. The purpose of the observations with students over the course of aday was to come to terms with how they spent their time and with whom.We commented about the importance of networking; one purpose of the


observations was to analyze the networks and individuals with whom theycame into contact. We took written or digitally recorded observational field notes during

observations when appropriate for the setting and context. When notappropriate, we took field notes immediately after the observation. Weate lunch with students, attended classes when available, and studied withstudents during their breaks. Much of the out-of-class observation timespent with students also involved casual conversation about their course-work, jobs, families, and social lives. In some cases, the observation waspassive; we observed a class or a campus club meeting. In other cases, theobservation was active; we helped staff the table at the on-campus bakesale fundraiser event or discussed graduate school options with partici-pants over lunch. Observations provided the opportunity for us to viewundocumented students’ experiences as both an insider and outsidersimultaneously (Spradley, 1980) and to see the networks in which theywere involved (or not). We also reviewed all relevant documents concerning students attend-

ing California public institutions. Documents included the most recentUC AB 540 report (University of California, 2010) and a CSU AB 540resource guide for postsecondary staff and faculty members (CaliforniaState University, Long Beach, 2009). One of the more difficult challengesfor studying this population is gaining an accurate understanding of whatoften seems to be the simplest points of departure for studying otherpopulations—how many students exist, where they go to college, howmany drop out, and the like.

DATA ANALYSIS

Throughout data analysis, the primary goal was to find connections inwhat individual students and institutional agents said about undocu-mented immigrant students. Data were coded according to themes thatemerged from the primary and secondary interviews, group and individ-ual observations, and document analysis. By comparing common themes,an image of the group’s college-going experience emerged. We also con-centrated on the circumstances that shaped students’ college-going atti-tudes and actions. Appendix C provides a sample of coded interviewdata. The constant comparative method, which allows the researcher tocollect and analyze data simultaneously, was employed for all data analy-sis (Boeije, 2002; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). After the collection of an initialset of data, we identified codes and themes that emerged. We then col-lected more data and repeated the process, coding data in relation to


previously collected data. The goal was to reach theoretical saturation—the point at which new data fit into existing categories.Ensuring trustworthiness of the study’s findings was addressed via

member checks, peer debriefing, triangulation, and prolonged engage-ment throughout the data collection and analysis processes. We collectedand transcribed all the data ourselves. We coded all the data to ensureconsistency of the codes as well as flexibility when we modified codes toreflect new data, new themes, and responses from the member checks.We conducted member checks with the informants three times duringthe study. One interviewed institutional agent and five students reviewedtwo sample-coded transcripts for accuracy and consistency. We then metas a group to discuss any questions and inconsistencies and settle any dis-agreements. From this discussion, we again made changes to the codingscheme. The same institutional agent and three different students werelater asked to review two sample-coded transcripts halfway during dataanalysis and provide individual feedback via e-mail. At the end of dataanalysis, we sent a summary of the findings to one institutional agent andfive students for review and feedback.Besides member checks, we also asked two academic peers who did not

participate in the study for their feedback on findings throughout thestudy. These researchers had published articles on the same student pop-ulation and were familiar with their challenges and realities. Finally, tri-angulation—the process of employing multiple methods, sources, andresearchers—provided us with another layer of study trustworthiness overa 10-month period of prolonged engagement with study participants dur-ing the 2008–2009 academic year.

RESULTS

The process of welcoming undocumented immigrants into, preparingthem for, and fully incorporating them into postsecondary educationposes a difficult problem for institutions where students’ legal status iscentral to how they view themselves and to how others view them.Although most low-income students face issues pertaining to the accumu-lation of social capital in college, undocumented students face particularhurdles insofar as many normal avenues are foreclosed. As we shall dis-cuss, two issues in particular—relationships and finance—are framed bythe absence of available networks for social capital.

RELATIONSHIPS AND THE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE

A CSU freshman explained how her relationship with her high school


college counselor was key to her deciding to attend college. She com-mented,

I got really close to one of my college counselors and he was theone who told me that I could push forward. He told me that itwas going to be hard and he was with me for all four years. Hetold me what to do [to prepare for college].

A CSU senior told a similar story about her own high school collegecounselor. After explaining to her college counselor that she was undoc-umented in the beginning of 10th grade, he walked her through the col-lege application process:

My college counselor put me into college prep and AP courses.He pushed me into activities and all of this other stuff. He told meto apply to scholarships since I was in my situation. That’s whenhe got me thinking about the reality of things. . . . My collegecounselor helped me figure out the plan for me to go to college.

In this student’s case, the relationship with her counselor did not endat high school graduation. She worked in the college center part time forthree years until the counselor left the school site. He paid her cash outof his own wages for her work in the center. During that time, her coun-selor continued to work with her on locating funding for her college edu-cation and maximizing her academic opportunities. She credited herability to attend a four-year institution and finish a bachelor’s degree infour years to his long-term involvement. Their close relationship pro-vided both bonding and bridging social capital in that her counselor pre-sented her with opportunities to raise money for her education bothinside (bonding) and outside (bridging) her existing social network.High school staff and faculty members not only academically and emo-

tionally supported students’ college goals, but they also often personallyhelped fund their educations. A UC senior benefited from the financialsupport of her high school principal. She developed a close relationshipwith him during ninth grade. After gaining admission to several UC cam-puses during 12th grade, she decided not to attend college. Confused,her principal pushed her for a reason why she was not attending college.She explained her immigration status, and he immediately established a$2,000 scholarship fund for her to attend the local community college.Businesses and donors later contributed to the fund. As she noted fouryears later, “That was a really big deal because it showed me that there wasan investment put into my education. Someone actually wants me to do


this.” This administrator provided this student with bridging resourcesavailable outside her high school in the larger business community toassist with paying for school. Other students also explained how teachers and counselors helped pay

for college applications, registration fees, books, and even medical fees.A CSU sophomore received money from past teachers to pay for herannual eye exams and prescription lenses. She knew that without the cor-rective lenses, she would not have been able to continue her studies. Theinterviewed community college counselor who advised his campus’sundocumented student group explained that counselors and facultyoften took up collections for unauthorized students’ medical and acade-mic needs. He cited an example of a recent collection for a student’semergency eye surgery. The high school college counselor who workedwith unauthorized students commented that each year, he helped a fewstudents with college application fees. “If they don’t have papers, theyoften cannot get fee waivers. Some of us teachers and counselors helpwhen we can.” The norm, however, is that when students reach college, their ability to

find similar sorts of individuals is constrained by their legal status. Thestudents just mentioned were able to build a relationship with a collegecounselor, teacher, or even principal, however, such interactions are lesscommon in college, especially at four-year institutions.

“I never tell anyone I am undocumented. I don’t look Hispanicso no one ever thinks I am even an immigrant,” commented afirst-year community college student.

“No one knows. . . . No one needs to know . . . because no onecan help me or anything,” added a UC junior.

“Technically, the school knows . . . but I never tell my friends atschool. This is not California . . . [and] I have to tell people allthe time that I am American . . . born in California even thoughI am Mexican,” said a first-year student studying in the Midwest.

Students also do not have opportunities to easily create networks. Thiswas particularly prevalent at the large public institutions where the major-ity of students attended. “The classes are so big. I am shy . . . my Englishis . . . still not good,” said a community college student originally fromSouth Korea. She added, “At high school, I was part of the animationclub. I helped at the library . . . [and] Key Club, too. It was easy to makefriends. In college, I take bus back and forth. I am so tired.” In college,


this student was unable to access similar sources of bonding capitalthrough social involvement with peers that she had accessed while attend-ing high school. A third-year UC student painted a different picture, butnonetheless still similar:

I [now] carpool . . . with my best friend so I spend a lot of timewith her . . . I am a math major so my classes were really big. Theclasses [in my freshman and sophomore years] were real early.My commute was about three hours then. Bus and train. I neversaw them in office hours. Those were on different days and latein the afternoon . . . I had to leave to get on the bus.

Another UC student echoed the same sentiments about getting toknow faculty members at large institutions. “The bus takes forever. . . . It’stwo hours [each way] on a good day. I sleep in the library betweenclasses.” A first-year CSU engineering student described one of the pro-fessors he got to know:

He’s an engineering professor. I had never met an actualHispanic that had a doctor’s degree. He’s the first immigrant,Hispanic professor. He was able to get his doctor’s degree. Thatwas inspiring. He has that Hispanic picture persona . . . he has anaccent. He looks ethnic but he has the high status.

This student identified with this professor, however, his contact withhim was limited because of conflicting course and teaching schedules,respectively. Another community college student added, “I take literatureclasses. The professor[s] aren’t good. I just go and turn in the work. Imiss class always . . . I don’t talk to them.”Some students, however, were able to form relationships. A premed UC

student said, “It’s all because of the connections I have with this facultymember . . . that I even have a shot of being a competitive applicant formedical school. She has introduced me to a lot of people that help.” Thistype of bridging capital served this student well as she was seriously pur-suing admission to medical school because she was confident her con-tacts would continue to help her finance her education. Such comments,however, were rare. More common were observations by a UC senior:

[My mom and I] were downtown one day. There was a man sell-ing fruit. He was arrested and INS came and it was this hugescandal. I said to myself that I didn’t want that. I don’t want tolive like that. Even though this man and I shared the same status,


I just didn’t want to live like this. This is so unjust. This is a manjust trying to make a living. I didn’t want to be treated like that . . . I was always careful about who I told.

This student shared her immigration status with only a couple oftrusted institutional agents because she and her mother feared deporta-tion. A community college student described her status as “scary.” Shewondered aloud, “What’s going to happen to me when they arrest meone day?” Another community college student declined to be taped dur-ing the interview. “I am very careful. No tape.”As with all students, undocumented students rely on information for

their successful transition to postsecondary education. However, infor-mation specific to their needs is hard to come by in large part because ofthe lack of relationships they have relative to college-going and theirimmigration status. They are not eligible to apply for state and federalfinancial aid. In some cases, their college applications are cancelledbecause of their immigration status. Student and professional intervie-wees all expressed the need for relevant postsecondary admissions, finan-cial, and student life information and programming.A director of outreach at a private university worked with undocu-

mented students for years at his current institution, UC, and CSU. Hesaid, “Financial aid is a mess. There is nothing for these students. . . .They need really good counselors in high school to help them findmoney if they want to move past community college.” A student whorecently transferred from a CSU campus 6 hours away to a CSU campusclose to her parents explained her financial situation: “My father helpedwhen I went away. That was for a semester. I worked in the mall . . . [but]still ran out of money. I just came back home. I am looking for a job now.”Another CSU student declared, “I am glad that we have the AB 540. It’sjust mere crumbs from this society. It is the crumbs. . . . They just give usthe crumbs.” Some students did not know about the in-state tuition break they qual-

ified for through AB 540. Because of their lack of information, theyeither paid higher tuition or went to a lower cost institution. A UC seniorwho attended one of the highest performing public high schools in theregion, for example, did not know about AB 540 until after high school,when her aunt heard about it on Spanish language radio. “I didn’t knowanything about AB 540 until I was about to start community college. . . .If I had known, I would have applied to four-year schools.” Two sistersenrolled at a UC campus and a community college, respectively. Neitherknew about AB 540, and each paid out-of-state fees for one term. Twohigh school friends who attended the same community college did not


find out about AB 540 until a college tour guide mentioned it. Oneexplained, “We were told to meet with a woman . . . who worked in admis-sions [about being undocumented].” Both students were disappointed tofind out about it so late in their senior year; they would have consideredother institutions if they had known about the benefits of AB 540. All the educational professionals we interviewed were not surprised by

the students’ lack of knowledge. The community college counselorexplained,

There was this one student . . . a valedictorian from an area highschool . . . who was sent down here by her [high school] coun-selor that I know. [The student] went to admissions and recordsand not to me. She came in May, before she graduated, and shewas told that she was going to be an out-of-state student. No oneasked her if she was an undocumented student.

A senior CSU administrator mentioned that training institutional staffand faculty on how to best advise and mentor undocumented students isa constant struggle. Knowing when to connect a student to someone out-side the immediate campus community for help is difficult because stu-dents were likely not to trust individuals who were outside their socialcircle. She described the primary problems for unauthorized students:

The biggest challenges faced by undocumented students are thatthey are oblivious to the consequences. There is a generalnaïveté about the situation. . . . They think the money will bethere. They don’t consider the other expenses. . . . When theyget to me, it may be too late. I cannot make their absences goaway . . . or the bad grades because of the absences. . . . I cannotchange a parent’s deportation order.

A community college student explained that she “faked part of theprocess to get into college. . . . It’s all been trial and error.” She was pre-pared to go to college like any other first-generation, low-income student.However, when she found out she was undocumented during the 11thgrade, she felt like she knew nothing about how to go to college. A recentCSU graduate described the college-going process for students like him:“It is a constant struggle to get the most current information on the lawsand the scholarships and all that stuff that affects you [as an undocu-mented student].” This student was aware that he needed help keepingup to date but still had problems finding the right people on his campusto help him connect with resources. Acquiring useful, timely social


capital remained a constant challenge throughout his undergraduateeducation. Many students did not know of their legal status until they started to

apply for college. As one might expect, students were not in a position tohave to present their social security numbers or discuss the particulars oftheir immigration to the United States with parents and relatives. Formany students who had lived in the United States for the majority of theirlives, the distinction between “undocumented” and “documented” wasnonexistent. Because many of the students were members of mixed-sta-tus families—siblings and/or parents were documented immigrants orU.S. citizens—they never questioned their own status. A UC senior whoarrived before her first birthday explained what happened when shefound out about her status:

It wasn’t until I went to apply for college and my counselor gaveme the information for how to apply. I went home and asked mymom for the information. My mom sat me down and told methat I didn’t have these things that I was asking for. I just startedto cry. I felt like I was given this new identity. At first I was angry.I was mean to my mom. I said things to my mom that I shouldnot have said.

Students who immigrated when they were older often knew their sta-tus. They dealt with knowing that they were undocumented from a youngage. An older community college student explained that he dropped outof high school like his other undocumented friends. “I had no hope so Ileft.” He later returned to night school and earned a GED beforeenrolling in community college. A community college student who emi-grated from Armenia and a UC transfer student who emigrated fromCentral Asia struggled with staying focused on academics while in highschool. Like the older community college student, they did not see thepoint of continuing with an education if they could not get a better jobeven though their parents held postsecondary degrees and encouragededucation. Knowing their status early on was discouraging. During theinterview, one student asked, “Do you think it would have been better notto know?”Our point here has been that what is normal for many students—the

development of relationships that provide support and information, aswell as a reliance on institutional mechanisms designed to support first-generation and low-income students—is usually missing among the stu-dents we interviewed. Rather than having a support structure to whichthey could turn, the students had to rely on themselves, or no one at all.


Unlike high school, where they might have found someone who sup-ported them, these students often experienced college as a series ofinstrumental activities that was disconnected from a support network.The result is that they frequently lacked information about variousaspects of their academic lives. They often did not turn to institutionalagents or programs for support because they were fearful of the conse-quences or were systematically denied access.

FINANCE AND THE EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE

The students and the educational professionals agreed that money is themost important factor in determining an undocumented student’s sus-tainability in the college setting. Paying for college without access to stateand federal financial aid was a constant issue. The outreach directoremphasized the role of money for undocumented college students. “It’severything for them. Without a constant stream of money, these studentscannot go to college.” The community college counselor echoed thesame concerns about the unauthorized students who participate in hiscampus’s support group:

Unfortunately, some of them just drop out because they can’t doit all. They still have to pay out of pocket . . . books, fees, and liv-ing expenses. They can’t get any financial aid. We are lucky if wecan provide them with a couple of hundred of dollars a year inscholarships. They do a good job of fundraising but there are justtoo many mouths to feed [and] not enough money to goaround.

Although we do not disagree about the importance of money in theability of undocumented students to attend college, the larger issue herepertains to the networks that students have foreclosed to them. For exam-ple, financial aid is critical for all low-income students. The differencebetween documented and undocumented students, however, is thatthose students who are documented have multiple networks that they canuse to find out about how to pay for college—financial aid offices, admis-sions counselors, student development professionals, and the like. Inaddition, a host of scholarships are open for such students. The samecannot be said for those students who are undocumented.The freshman at the Midwest liberal arts college recalled how she

approached applying to college. She originally thought that she wouldstart her college career at a local community college. However, herinvolvement in an intensive high school college preparation program


prompted her to apply to private out-of-state institutions. With the helpof her mentor, who had contacts with institutions that would overlook herimmigration status, she secured two private scholarships that would payall her academic fees and living expenses for four years. “This would havenever happened if [my mentor] didn’t help me. He told me that therewere some schools that would even pay for a student in my position,” sheexplained. “I wrote a letter to all of the private schools I applied toexplaining my situation. I only did this because I trusted that [my men-tor] knew what he was doing.” This example of bridging social capital wasout of the ordinary given that the majority of undocumented studentshad no feasible way of financing a private school education. The connec-tions she made through her mentor were the only reason she couldafford such an expensive institution.Although some scholarships are available specifically to students who

are undocumented, or the scholarships pointedly do not ask for one’sresidency status, the majority of students attending college paid on theirown. An engineering student at a private university was an exception:“[My] degrees were paid by scholarships I found and my departmentfound for me. My university is really expensive so that’s a lot of money.”Other students received scholarships from their high schools, but it didnot cover the entire cost of college. The result was that students neededto finance their education. Again, all poor students have financial con-cerns. Although we may debate the wisdom of students incurring debt tofinance their college education, loans are largely impossible for undocu-mented students. Similarly, all poor students are likely to have collegework-study available to them on their campuses. These jobs are specifi-cally aimed at poor students, and a student simply needs to fill out formsto gain one. Such is not the case for students unable to get themselvesinto the financial aid system.Consequently, many of our study participants found jobs in their local

communities, which also was no easy task. Finding employers that wouldhire undocumented immigrants was critical and a large part of staying inthe immediate area for school. “I can’t work on campus. I work for aKorean woman who pays cash . . . I work where the tourists go. . . . Noone notices my accent,” said a community college freshman from SouthKorea. A CSU junior explained,

I had a job for years cleaning a restaurant . . . I was cleaning therestaurant in the morning. . . . [With the new job] I now startwork 3:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. or 8:00 a.m., six days a week. My sis-ter and I work together cleaning. Now we get more than mini-mum wage. [Before] I was getting about $200 a week . . . I had to


pay for the car, food, car insurance, cell phone, school. I con-tribute to the rent like everyone else. I would save about $25 aweek. It wasn’t that much. Now I can save more money. My sistercan save, too. She goes to school here, too.

A few of the other students made the same point. A community collegestudent, for example, said, “My friend’s a DJ. I help him if he needs[help]. It’s always late at night. Not good for school, but it’s money.”Employment leads through preexisting relationships and networksrepeatedly proved critical to students being able to raise money forschool.Another student had to drop out of CSU after his first term because of

money. “I was really upset. I got a 4.0 GPA that term.” The next term heenrolled in the local community college, where he was pursuing his orig-inal academic major and a certificate in carpentry so he could find a bet-ter paying job in construction. “I can make pretty good money withcarpentry. [Contractors] always look for carpenters.” A CSU sophomoreworked downtown because immigrant-owned businesses there were morelikely to hire someone with fake papers. “They know that my papers arenot real. But I am cheap for them.” She paid for about half of her CSUfees with her earnings. A CSU senior landed an internship in a market-ing department at an international media company the previous year.“It’s really hard to get into that without the documents.” The money heearned helped pay his CSU tuition. All these students relied on employ-ment opportunities that did not scrutinize their immigration status tofund their college education. Although their resourcefulness enabledthem to attend college, unlike most other students, they had very fewopportunities to develop networks.

DISCUSSION

Throughout the study, we were guided by three primary research ques-tions: (1) How do the formal educational experiences of unauthorizedcollege students affect their postsecondary education goals? (2) How doundocumented students attend college on a daily basis? (3) What roledoes social, political, and economic support play in unauthorized stu-dents’ success in college? Our purpose has been twofold. First, we aimedto shed light on the challenges that undocumented students face, and weemployed the framework of social capital to analyze those struggles. Wepointed out that unlike even their low-income counterparts, these stu-dents are particularly unnetworked. We know from previous researchthat even students who are part time or nonresidential are more likely to


be retained if they feel some sort of relationship to the campuses theyattend. From the interviews presented here, however, undocumented stu-dents appear to have created very few relationships. On the one hand,students hesitate to reveal something about themselves that might getthem in trouble. On the other, very few offices on campus are availableto meet the needs of these students. As seen in research we have done on homeless youth (Tierney, Gupton,

& Hallett, 2008), undocumented students face problems similar to alllow-income students—lack of academic preparation, lack of “collegeknowledge,” and the like—but their experiences are also unique becauseof their immigration status. One’s legal status impacts an individual’s abil-ity to attach to groups that enhance his or her social capital and in turnpresumably increase the potential for remaining in, and graduatingfrom, college. If network development is key for being engaged in educa-tion, the interviews present troubling data. The conclusion is not simplythat undocumented students appear unnetworked, but that they havefew opportunities to establish networks because of their legal status andexclusion from institutional support resources designed for students intheir situation. Such an observation is of particular concern with regard to these stu-

dents’ ability to pay for college. Again, gaining access to financial aid topay for college is an issue for all students. But whereas legal students haveparticular networks open to them, and our challenge is to make these stu-dents aware of what networks exist and how to tap into them, such is notthe case for undocumented youth. Insofar as virtually all traditionalfinancial aid and college access networks are foreclosed to them, thework turns not on providing information about which networks to tapinto, but how to obtain funds to pay for college from a largely under-ground economy.Accordingly, efforts need to be placed on how to build and strengthen

networks and create social bonds so that low-income unauthorized indi-viduals develop the capacity to address their social conditions. Such apoint is particularly germane with regard to undocumented youth. As wehave demonstrated, not only are they unnetworked with regard to collegeaccess, but they also fear being involved in some networks because oftheir immigration status. In this light, social organizations such asschools, colleges, and universities have a crucial role to play in the facili-tation of networks and the acquisition of social capital so that collective,instead of individual, action is possible. Rather than the motto being “YesI can,” the perspective advanced here sees the motto being “Yes we can.”Our second purpose was to suggest a research agenda based on this

provisional work. One methodological observation is the difficulty we


faced in simply finding a suitable sample to interview. Undocumentedstudents, as we discussed, are largely without a public face. In manyrespects, they are much easier to find and speak with in high schoolsbecause the government has decreed that they have a right to go toschool. The same is not the case in college, and consequently, developinga coherent sample was a struggle. Nevertheless, we know on some cam-puses, there are greater numbers of undocumented students than onother campuses. Cal State Los Angeles, for example, is likely to havemore undocumented students than Cal State Stanislaus in large partbecause undocumented students tend to go to college where they live.Thus, one suggestion is to attempt an ethnography or case study of a cam-pus with a significant number of undocumented students. Our work pro-vided the thinnest of descriptions of the daily challenges these studentsface; a more nuanced portrait might be derived from a long-term studyon one campus that could point out how students function from day today.A second suggestion has to do with identity development. The portrait

we have painted is of students who are largely independent of, and unin-volved with, social networks on their campuses. Although we certainlyencourage greater engagement in college for all students, one projectthat might be attempted is a study of resiliency and undocumentedyouth. Many of these students are in college in spite of the system, ratherthan because of it. They survive and prosper in college independent oftypical social support structures. Thus, a second avenue might be to uti-lize the work on identity formation and resilience to better understandhow such students succeed in college. The point is certainly not toromanticize undocumented students, but we also need to resist a frame-work based on a culture of poverty, and instead consider individual andstructural ways to understand the struggles that such students face andhow to overcome them.

Notes

1. The terms undocumented and unauthorized are used interchangeably.2. California AB 540 grants certain students in-state academic fees at California’s pub-

lic postsecondary institutions based on long-term residency and high school completion.

References

Abrego, L. J. (2006). “I can’t go to college because I don’t have papers”: Incorporation pat-terns of Latino undocumented youth. Latino Studies, 4, 212–231.


Abrego, L. J. (2008). Legitimacy, social identity, and the mobilization of law: The effects ofAssembly Bill 540 on undocumented students in California. Law and Social Inquiry, 33,709–734.

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through col-lege. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review,27, 17–40.

Batalova, J., & Fix, M. (2006). Immigration backgrounder: New estimates of unauthorized youth eli-gible for legal status under the DREAM Act. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analy-sis of qualitative interviews. Quantity and Quality, 36, 391–409.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory andresearch for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.

California State University, Long Beach. (2009). AB 540 resource guide: For advisors of undoc-umented immigrant students. Long Beach: Author.

Casas-Frier, L., & Hansen, R. (2006). Immigrant students: Gaining visibility. Sacramento, CA:Faculty Association of California Community Colleges.

Chavez, L. R. (1998). Shadowed lives: Undocumented immigrants in American society (2nd ed.).Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal ofSociology, 94(Suppl.), S95–S120.

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Contreras, F. (2009). Sin papeles y rompiendo barreras: Latino students and the challenges

of persisting in college. Harvard Educational Review, 79, 610–631.Conway, K. M. (2009). Exploring persistence of immigrant and native students in an urban

community college. Review of Higher Education, 32, 321–352.Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental sup-

port, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation col-lege students. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 223–236.

Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A crit-ical synthesis. Review of Education Research, 72, 31–60.

Dozier, S. B. (1993). Emotional concerns of undocumented and out-of-status foreign stu-dents. Community Review, 13, 33–29.

Flores, S. M., & Chapa, J. (2009). Latino immigrant access to higher education in a bipolarcontext of reception. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8, 90–109.

Gildersleeve, R. E. (2010, Winter). Access between and beyond borders. Journal of CollegeAdmission, 3–10.

Gladieux, L., & Swail, W. S. (1999). Financial aid is not enough: Improving the odds forminority and low-income students. In J. E. King (Ed.), Financing a college education: How itworks, how it’s changing (pp. 177–197). Phoenix, AZ: American Council onEducation/Oryx Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. New York: Aldine Transaction.

Gonzales, R. G. (2007). Wasted talent and broken dreams: The lost potential of undocumented stu-dents. Washington, DC: Immigration Policy Center.

Gonzales, R. G. (2009). Young lives on hold: The college dreams of undocumented students. NewYork: College Board Advocacy.

Gonzalez, M. S., Plata, O., Garcia, E., Torres, M., & Urrieta, L. (2003). Testimonios de immi-grantes: Students educating future teachers. Journal of Latinos and Education, 2, 233–243.


Heller, D. E. (1999). The effects of tuition and state financial aid on public college enroll-ment. Review of Higher Education, 23, 65–89.

Hermes, J. (2008). How the DREAM Act can help America meet its workforce demands.Community College Journal, 78(4), 16–17.

Horvat, E. M. (2001). Understanding equity and access in higher education: The potentialcontribution of Pierre Bourdieu. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theoryand research (Vol. 16, pp. 195–238). New York: Agathon Press.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1999). Enacting diverse learningenvironments: Improving the climate for racial/ethnic diversity in higher education. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kane, T. J. (1999). The price of admission: Rethinking how Americans pay for college. Washington,DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Kim, D. H., & Schneider, B. (2005). Social capital in action: Alignment of parental supportin adolescents’ transition to postsecondary education. Social Forces, 84, 1181–1206.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28–51. Madera, G., Mathay, A. A., Najafi, A. M., Saldivar, H. H., Solis, S., Titong, A. J. M., et al.

(2008). Underground undergrads: UCLA undocumented immigrant students speak out. LosAngeles: University of California, Los Angeles Center for Labor Research and Education.

Melguizo, T., Hagedorn, L. S., & Cypers, S. (2008). The need for remedial/developmentaleducation and the cost of community college transfer: Calculations from a sample ofCalifornia community college transfers. Review of Higher Education, 31, 401–431.

Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G., & Muhamad, M. (2001).Power and positionality: Negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures.International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20, 405–416.

National Immigration Law Center. (2009). Basic facts about in-state tuition for undocumentedimmigrant students. Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Negron-Gonzalez, G. (2009). Hegemony, ideology & oppositional consciousness: Undocumentedyouth and the personal-political struggle for educational justice (ISSC Fellows Working PaperNo. 36). Berkeley: University of California, Institute for the Study of Social Change.

Olivas, M. A. (2009). Undocumented college students, taxation, and financial aid: A tech-nical note. Review of Higher Education, 32, 407–416.

Passel, J. S. (2003). Further demographic information relating to the DREAM Act. Washington,DC: Urban Institute.

Passel, J. S., & Cohn, D. (2009). A portrait of unauthorized immigrants in the United States.Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

Perez, W. (2009). We are Americans: Undocumented students pursuing the American Dream.Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Perez, W., Espinoza, R., Ramos, K., Coronado, H. M., & Cortes, R. (2009). Academicresilience among undocumented Latino students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,31, 149–181.

Perez Huber, L. (2009). Challenging racist nativist framing: Acknowledging the communitycultural wealth of undocumented Chicana college students to reframe the immigrationdebate. Harvard Educational Review, 79, 704–729.

Perna, L. W. (2005). The benefits of higher education: Sex, racial/ethnic, and socioeco-nomic group differences. Review of Higher Education, 29, 23–52.

Perry, A. M. (2006). Toward a theoretical framework for membership: The case of undocu-mented immigrants and financial aid for postsecondary education. Review of HigherEducation, 30, 21–40.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).


Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. AnnualReview of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

Rincon, A. (2008). Undocumented immigrants and higher education: Sí se puede! New York: LFBScholarly Publishing.

Rodriguez, G. M., & Cruz, L. (2009). The transition to college of English learner andundocumented immigrant students: Resource and policy implications. Teachers CollegeRecord, 111, 2385–2418.

Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

St. John, E. P. (2006). Contending with financial inequality: Rethinking the contributionsof qualitative research to the policy discourse on college access. American BehavioralScientist, 49, 1604–1619.

Salganik, M. J., & Heckathorn, D. D. (2004). Sampling and estimation in hidden popula-tions using respondent-driven sampling. Sociological Method, 34, 193–239.

Seif, H. (2004). “Wise up!” Undocumented Latino youth, Mexican-American legislators,and the struggle for higher education access. Latino Studies, 2, 210–230.

Shaw, K. M. (1997). Remedial education as ideological battleground: Emerging remedialeducation policies in the community college. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,19, 284–296.

Solórzano, D., Allen, W., & Carroll, G. (2002). A case study of racial microaggressions andcampus racial climate at the University of California, Berkeley. UCLA Chicano/Latino LawReview, 23, 15–111.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socializa-

tion of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1–40.Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of

inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology ofEducation, 68, 116–135.

Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Teranishi, R., & Briscoe, K. (2006). Social capital and the racial stratification of collegeopportunity. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education handbook of theory and research (Vol. 21,pp. 591–614). Amsterdam: Springer.

Tierney, W. G. (2006). Trust and the public good: Examining the cultural conditions of academicwork. New York: Peter Lang.

Tierney, W. G., Gupton, J. T., & Hallett, R. E. (2008). Transitions to adulthood for homeless ado-lescents: Education and public policy. Los Angeles: Center for Higher Education PolicyAnalysis, University of Southern California.

Tierney, W. G., & Venegas, K. M. (2006). Fictive kin and social capital: The role of peergroups in applying and paying for college. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 1687–1702.

University of California. (2010, February). Annual report on AB 540 tuition exemptions2007–08 academic year. Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/sas/sfs/docs/ab540_annu-alrpt_2009.pdf

Warren, M. R., Thompson, J. P., & Saegert, S. (2001). The role of social capital in combat-ing poverty. In M. R. Warren, J. P. Thompson, & S. Saegert (Eds.), Social capital and poorcommunities (pp. 1–30). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Watters, J. K., & Biernacki, P. (1989). Targeted sampling: Options for the study of hiddenpopulations. Social Problems, 36, 416–430.


APPENDIX

Appendix A: Student Interview Protocol

Educational Experiences:1. Tell me about your educational experiences since you came to the

United States.2. In what ways do your educational experiences in the U.S. differ from

those you had in your country?3. In what ways has being undocumented impacted your experiences in

school since you came to the U.S.? In your opinion, are your experi-ences different from those experienced by American-born or docu-mented immigrant students?

4. Tell me about how your individual educational experiences are thesame as or different from those of other undocumented students.

College-Going:5. What experiences made you begin thinking about going to college? 6. How did you prepare as an undocumented student to go to college?7. How did you apply to college? Community college or four-year college

first? 8. Tell me about how you finance college. Outside scholarships? In-state

fees? Family support? Employment?9. Tell me about how college is going for you. Challenges?

Misconceptions? Surprises?10. How has being undocumented influenced decisions you have made in

relation to your higher education? (e.g., major choices, location ofschool, etc.)

Postgraduation:11. What are you thinking about doing after graduation in terms of employ-

ment, further academic study, etc.?12. At this point, how does being undocumented affect your lifetime career

goals?Policy Awareness:

13. What awareness do you have about educational policies impactingundocumented students in higher education?

14. Are you familiar with California Assembly Bill 540 (AB 540)? If so, howdid you find out about it, and what do you know?

15. Are you aware of federal legislation—especially the DREAM Act—thatwould have provided students like you with a direct route to legalizeyour immigration status? If so, where did you hear about it, and what doyou know?

16. In what ways have policies like AB 540 and the DREAM Act changed theway you think about going to college? Has it made going to college eas-ier or harder? Explain.


Appendix B: Educational Professional Interview Protocol

1. Tell me about your involvement with undocumented college and uni-versity students.

2. What percentage of the students you work with are undocumented? Inyour experience, what happens to these students?

3. In what ways, if any, do you work differently with undocumented stu-dents?

4. How aware do you believe undocumented students are about the limita-tions of their immigration status? (e.g., especially in terms of access tofinancial aid and employment opportunities)

5. What are your biggest challenges with regard to counseling and workingwith undocumented students?

6. Tell me about what you know about policies limiting or expandingundocumented students’ access to higher education (e.g., AB 540 andDREAM Act).

7. In your experience, what are the biggest challenges faced by undocu-mented college-goers?

8. In your opinion, what do you think will happen to most of the undocu-mented students you work with once they leave college?

Appendix C: Sample Data Coding Examples

Codes are as follows: Accessibility = A; Identity = I (American = Ia; immigrant = Ii;student = Is; undocumented = Iu); Money = M (donors = Md; employment = Me;family = Mf; scholarships = Ms); Preparation = P (academic = Pa; financial = Pf;planning = Pp); Support = S (family/friends = Sf; outsiders = So; staff = Ss; teachers = St)Student Interview ExampleInterviewer: Tell me about your educational experiences since you came to theU.S.Female CSU Student: I came when I was 8 months. I started in Head Start inprekindergarten. I attended the same elementary school. School was somethingfun. I went to one middle high school and then two high schools. (Pa) I lived inthe same house since I was young. I spoke a little English when I went to kinder-garten. I spoke Spanish mostly but I had cousins who spoke to me in English. Ihad English-only education with a bilingual classroom aide. I was completelycomfortable in English by third grade. I went to one high school for 9th and 10thgrade. I then went to another high school for 11th and 12th grade. (Pa) I wasmoved there when the school opened. The third grade, I started a music pro-gram. If we had good grades, the teacher nominated me to be in the music pro-gram. In fourth grade, I was placed in honors. When it came to English in thatyear, I would take English with the fifth graders. I was in honors in middle school.I took AP classes in the 9th and 10th grade at my first high school. (Pa) Therewere no AP classes offered at my second high school. (Pa) For the most part, I


enjoyed my education. I had a lot of teachers . . . for elementary, I experiencedthe American culture because the majority of my teachers were . . . how do yousay . . . were White. (I) The majority of my teachers were White. I only had myfirst- and third-grade teachers as White. My fifth-grade teacher was Black. My mid-dle school, I saw both worlds. I saw what it means to be Latino, Chicano . . . Inever felt weird until I was in the eighth grade. (I) In that grade, I was offered a$5000 scholarship for college. The scholarship was through the peer mediationprogram at my school at the time. I didn’t have a SSN so I couldn’t get the schol-arship. (I, Mf, Pf)

LISA D. GARCIA is a Ph.D. candidate in the Rossier School of Educationat the University of Southern California. Her dissertation focuses on howundocumented college students attending four-year institutions usesocial capital to realize their college goals. She also works as a researchassistant in the school’s Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis,focusing on bridging the gap between secondary and postsecondary edu-cation for first-generation, low-income students. She has recently pub-lished articles on early notification remediation programs as well assummer bridge programs.

WILLIAM G. TIERNEY is University Professor and Wilbur-KiefferProfessor of Higher Education and Director of the Center for HigherEducation Policy Analysis at the University of Southern California. Dr.Tierney is committed to informing policies and practices related to edu-cational equity. He is currently involved in a project to develop, evaluate,and disseminate a highly interactive, entertaining Web-enhanced com-puter game for low-income youth that will boost high school students’college aspirations and equip players with knowledge about preparingfor and succeeding in college. His most recent publications include: TheImpact of Culture on Organizational Decision-Making and Writing on theMargins from the Center: Homeless Youth + Politics at the Borders.