THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL CLASS ON STUDENTS’ PRE-COLLEGE PERCEPTIONS OF CO-CURRICULAR INVOLVEMENT By Danielle Rossman A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education- Doctor of Philosophy 2022 ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL CLASS ON STUDENTS’ PRE-COLLEGE PERCEPTIONS OF CO-CURRICULAR INVOLVEMENT By Danielle Rossman This dissertation uses a cross sectional quantitative design to investigate the relationship between first-year college students’ social class and their pre-college interest in engaging in co-curricular experiences during college, their motivations for engaging in co- curricular experiences, and their perceptions of whether co-curricular activities will teach them leadership and work ethic skills. The study also investigated multiple variables to address social class- including metrics of subjective social status and socioeconomic status. The study used data from two surveys that were administered to a sample (N = 839) of first-year, first-time college students from a regional comprehensive university prior to their matriculation. The findings of this study indicate that students’ awareness of their socioeconomic status was the only significant predictor of their interest in getting involved in co-curricular activities during college. Students’ perceived family contribution to their college education significantly predicted their interest in working during college, while social class had no impact on a student’s interest in joining fraternity and sorority life or in student government association. There was a significant relationship between a student’s race, gender, and high school extracurricular experiences and their motivation for engagement. A student’s Expected Family Contribution was not a significant predictor of the student’s interest, motivation, or perception related to involvement. Students’ awareness of their socioeconomic status also impacted their perceptions that they could learn leadership skills and work ethic from co-curricular activities, while students with higher subjective social class were more likely to believe they could learn leadership skills from being a participant or member in co-curricular experiences. Implications of these findings for research, theory and practice are offered. More research is needed that explores the impact of social class, and incorporates multiple diverse metrics of social class, on students’ college experience. Studies that investigate the ability of on-campus employment to serve as a high impact proactive for students who may not otherwise have the ability to participate in co-curricular experiences on campus are also needed. Keywords: Social Class, subjective social status, socioeconomic status, co-curricular Involvement, college students, on-campus employment Copyright by DANIELLE ROSSMAN 2022 To Mom and Aunt Gail: As first-generation, working-class college graduates, you led the way for me and so many others. I’m proud to finally share your Alma Mater. To Dad: For inspiring my love of learning and showing me what it means to have a strong work ethic. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Alfred Tennesseen said, “I am a part of all that I have met, and all that I have met are a part of me.” When I began this journey, I did not realize how many individuals would directly contribute to my ability to be successful in earning this degree. Those listed below, and many others, have shaped this journey in important and meaningful ways. To Dr. Marilyn Amey: Thank you for your guidance throughout this entire process. I am eternally grateful for your willingness to share your story on how social class has shaped your professional journey with me. You’ve taught me more than you realize about what it means to be a scholar and a professional. To Dr. Frim Ampaw: Thank you for showing me that this path was even possible. You’ve challenged me to be better every step of the way and provided the guidance and support I needed to be successful both personally and professionally. To Dr. Kris Renn and Dr. Steve Weiland: Thank you for your support and insight throughout this process. The courses I took with you both early in my program helped to lay the foundation for what would become my dissertation, and your guidance through the dissertation process has helped to shape the final product. To Mom and Dad: No words will ever be enough to thank you for everything you have done in inspiring my educational pursuits. Thank you for staying up and talking to me on the phone during my late-night drives home from Lansing to Mount Pleasant, forgiving the things I missed for school work, and for being there every step of the way. To Erica Johnson: Thank you for being my sounding board, encouraging me to dream vi big, and feeding me when I forgot to feed myself. I’m so lucky that you decided we were going to be friends ten years ago. And remember, you’re next! To Damon Brown: Thank you for believing in me even when I didn’t even always believe in myself. You’ve allowed me the time and space to do this degree even when the timing wasn’t always perfect and I’m grateful for your mentorship and support over the last ten years. To Dr. Phame Camarena: Thank you for giving me my first taste of academic research, my first experience teaching, and for believing in my ability to complete this degree. To Aunt Gail: Thank you for reading my first drafts, for always supporting my college endeavors, and for giving me the little sister I didn’t know I needed. To Aunt Linda: Thank you for being the third parent in my life. When you told my mom she had to share me, I don’t think either of you knew that would literally mean sharing the carpool schedule, family dinners, and most of my birthdays, but you’ve been there though it all. To Aunt Pam: Thank you for your support and encouragement throughout my journey. You’ve been there for all of the important moments, making the drive from Ohio to Michigan to celebrate each accomplishment. To Grandma: Thank you for keeping me company on my commutes. I’m finally not a college student anymore, even if you don’t believe it. To Jeff and Jess: Thank you for being the people in my life who didn’t ask when I was going to finish my dissertation. You (and your children) were often just the distraction I needed to give me a break and then let me get refocused and back on track. To Hannah: It’s wild to think that I’ve been in college since you were 10 years old. Thanks for being a distraction when I needed it, celebrating the milestones along the way, and vii letting me bounce ideas off of you (even when you were too young to understand). I’ll forever be grateful for the 4 years we had together in Mount Pleasant while we were both students. To The Future Dr. Jennifer Drevon: Thank you for being my accountability partner in this. From the encouraging text messages to your addressing of every letter as “The Future Dr. Rossman” for the last seven years, you’ve had my back every step of the way. I appreciate you. To Kelsey Goike: How did I get so lucky as to get a sister-in-law that I can spend hours talking about higher ed with? Thank you for helping me to navigate through both financial aid policy and our new Goike family. To Dr. Anne Hornak: It was your support and assurance over coffee that cemented my decision to start this degree. Thank you. To Dr. Matthew Johnson: Thank you for leaving Limbo by Alfred Limbrano out on your coffee table; that book began my exploration of social class. Your friendship and support have shaped me both personally and professionally. To Kevin Miller: Thank you for listening to me vent, editing my work, and keeping me humble through it all. I can’t wait to finally have time to read your book recommendations. To Nick, Ben, and Tom Goike: Thank you for welcoming me into your family, being patient when Kelsey and I talk about higher education, distracting Andrew when I need to do work, and convincing me that siblings aren’t the worst thing in the world. To Jeanette Smith: I will always remember the days you pushed me out of the door of the office for class. Thank you for your encouragement and support when I most needed it. To Zach Evans: Engagement and Employability has been a long ride. Thanks for letting me be a part of it. May we continue to work to end the game of duck, duck, goose. viii To Sean Soard: Thank you for giving me a couch to sleep on when the roads were too snowy for me to make it back to Mount Pleasant, for your never-ending willingness to adventure, and for being a great friend. To Katrina Crawford: Thank you for challenging my thinking, supporting me through my course work, and helping me to remember that when in doubt, always take the scenic route. To Judy Idema: Thank you for being one of my first mentors in student affairs- before I even knew what student affairs was. You and Tom helped to usher me into the profession, and for that I will always be grateful. To Joe and Abby Finney: Thank you for keeping me fed and busting me out of my apartment for regular social interaction during the early years. You made what could have been a very lonely time exponentially better. To Ellen Wehrman: Thank you for your moral support. You have an unmatched ability to model balance, patience, and love. And finally, to Andrew: Thank you for being my partner, putting up with my messes, editing countless drafts, making me delicious food, sharing Green, Blue, and Waffles with me, and believing in me through it all. I’m glad that we found each other. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................ XIV LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................... XVI CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Problem ................................................................................................................ 2 Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................................. 4 Definitions................................................................................................................................... 4 Social Class .............................................................................................................................. 5 Defining Class. ..................................................................................................................... 7 Naming Classes. .................................................................................................................. 8 Contextualizing Social Class. ............................................................................................... 9 Classism........................................................................................................................... 9 Deficit Mindset.............................................................................................................. 10 Co-Curricular Learning Opportunities ................................................................................... 12 Work Ethic and Leadership ................................................................................................... 14 Significance ............................................................................................................................... 15 Higher Education Research ................................................................................................... 16 Higher Education Administrators .......................................................................................... 17 As a Researcher..................................................................................................................... 18 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 19 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 21 Exploring Social Class ................................................................................................................ 22 College Attendance ............................................................................................................... 23 College Selection ................................................................................................................... 24 Post-College Trajectory ......................................................................................................... 25 Post-College Experiences in International Contexts ............................................................. 26 During College ....................................................................................................................... 27 Co-Curricular Experience Outcomes. ................................................................................ 30 Student Engagement. ................................................................................................... 31 Race, Social class, and Co-Curriculars. .......................................................................... 34 Factors Impacting Involvement. ................................................................................... 35 On-Campus Employment as an Opportunity. ................................................................... 37 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 38 Motivation for Involvement ...................................................................................................... 38 Co-Curricular Involvement and Learning .................................................................................. 40 Leadership Development ...................................................................................................... 40 Student Organization. ....................................................................................................... 40 Residence Hall Leadership Roles and Hall Council Membership. ................................. 43 x Fraternity and Sorority Involvement................................................................................. 43 On-Campus Employment. ................................................................................................. 45 Summary. .......................................................................................................................... 48 Work Ethic ............................................................................................................................ 48 Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model............................................................... 50 Model Description ................................................................................................................ 51 Model Origins ....................................................................................................................... 52 Critique of Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model ......................................... 53 Implications for Research ..................................................................................................... 54 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 55 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 57 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................. 57 Data Sources ............................................................................................................................. 58 Engagement and Employability ............................................................................................ 59 Parental Financial Contribution. ....................................................................................... 59 Financial Stress. ................................................................................................................ 59 Time on Involvement. ....................................................................................................... 60 Time Working. ................................................................................................................... 60 NACE Skills from Experiences............................................................................................ 61 Co-Curricular Involvement Experiences. ........................................................................... 61 Reasons for Getting Involved. ........................................................................................... 61 First-Year Student Survey ..................................................................................................... 62 Subjective Social Status. ................................................................................................... 62 High School Experiences. .................................................................................................. 63 Identity Considerations. .................................................................................................... 63 Post-College Goals. ........................................................................................................... 64 Institutional Data .................................................................................................................. 64 Expected Family Contribution. .......................................................................................... 64 Parental Education. ........................................................................................................... 64 Rural Zip Code. .................................................................................................................. 65 Poverty Zip Code. .............................................................................................................. 65 Race and Gender............................................................................................................... 65 Site Selection ............................................................................................................................ 66 Sample Selection....................................................................................................................... 66 Screening and Data Cleaning .................................................................................................... 67 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 67 Social Class ............................................................................................................................ 68 Pre-College Goals .................................................................................................................. 70 Leadership Learning .............................................................................................................. 71 Work Ethic Learning .............................................................................................................. 72 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 73 xi CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 74 Demographics ........................................................................................................................... 74 Intended Engagement in Co-Curricular Involvement ............................................................... 78 Interest in Involvement......................................................................................................... 79 Exploring Social Class and Rationale for Involvement .......................................................... 79 Exploring “It will look good on my resume”. .................................................................... 80 Exploring “To make connections with faculty and staff”. ................................................. 80 Exploring “To learn skills that will help me”. .................................................................... 81 Exploring “To feel a sense of belonging”. ......................................................................... 81 Interest in Types of Organization .......................................................................................... 82 Fraternity and Sorority Life. .............................................................................................. 82 On-Campus Employment. ................................................................................................. 82 Professional Student Organizations. ................................................................................. 83 Student Government Association. .................................................................................... 83 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 84 Employment During College ..................................................................................................... 84 Perceived Learning in Co-Curricular Experiences ..................................................................... 85 Leadership Learned Through Membership ........................................................................... 85 Leadership Learned Through Positional Leadership ............................................................. 86 Work Ethic Through Membership......................................................................................... 87 Work Ethic Through Positional Leadership ........................................................................... 87 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 88 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION ............................................... 89 Getting Involved on Campus ..................................................................................................... 89 Rationales for Joining Organizations......................................................................................... 92 To Learn Skills That Will Help Me in My Career .................................................................... 93 It Will Look Good on My Resume.......................................................................................... 94 To Make a Connection with Faculty and Staff ...................................................................... 95 To Feel a Sense of Belonging ................................................................................................ 98 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 99 Joining Co-Curricular Experiences........................................................................................... 100 Fraternities and Sororities .................................................................................................. 100 On-Campus Jobs ................................................................................................................. 102 Professional Student Organizations .................................................................................... 103 Student Government .......................................................................................................... 104 Working During College .......................................................................................................... 106 Perceptions of Learning and Social Class ................................................................................ 108 Work Ethic .......................................................................................................................... 108 Leadership........................................................................................................................... 109 Working in High School. .................................................................................................. 111 High School Sports and Involvement. ............................................................................. 111 Goal Orientation. ............................................................................................................ 112 Non-significant Metrics ........................................................................................................... 113 xii Expected Family Contribution............................................................................................. 113 Rural Zip Code ..................................................................................................................... 114 Underrepresented Race ...................................................................................................... 114 Conclusion........................................................................................................................... 115 Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 115 Implications for Practice ......................................................................................................... 116 Recruitment and Orientation .............................................................................................. 116 Creation of Inclusive Outreach and Marketing. .............................................................. 118 Student Development. .................................................................................................... 120 Student Leadership Training. .......................................................................................... 120 Student Employment .......................................................................................................... 122 Exploring Fraternity and Sorority Life ................................................................................. 125 Implication for Theory ............................................................................................................ 127 Conceptualizing Social Class ............................................................................................... 128 Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model......................................................... 129 Implications for Research ....................................................................................................... 130 Measuring Social Class in Research .................................................................................... 131 Work Ethic .......................................................................................................................... 132 Research on Interest Compared to Participation Rates ...................................................... 133 Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 133 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 136 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... 138 APPENDIX A: ENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYABILITY SURVEY .................................................. 139 APPENDIX B: FIRST-YEAR STUDENT SURVEY ........................................................................... 144 APPENDIX C: TABLES ............................................................................................................... 150 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................... 177 xiii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Spearman Rank Order Correlation of Social Class Variables ......................................... 151 Table 2 Factor Loadings Based on a Principal Components Analysis ......................................... 152 Table 3 Correlations of Post College Career Goals .................................................................... 153 Table 4 Factor Loadings Based on a Principal Components Analysis ......................................... 154 Table 5 Spearman Rank Order Correlation of Leadership Learning Perception ........................ 155 Table 6 Factor Loadings Based on a Principal Components Analysis for Learning Leadership .. 156 Table 7 Spearman Rank Order Correlation of Work Ethic Skills Perception .............................. 157 Table 8 Factor Loadings Based on a Principal Components Analysis for Learning Work Ethic .. 158 Table 9 Racial Identity of Students ............................................................................................ 159 Table 10 Demographic Characteristics of Participants .............................................................. 160 Table 11 Continuous Demographics Characteristics.................................................................. 162 Table 12 Frequency of Binary Dependent Variables .................................................................. 162 Table 13 Frequency of Continous Dependent Variables............................................................ 163 Table 14 Logistic Regression of Time Students Anticipated Spending Involved in Activities..... 163 Table 15 Logistic Regression of “It will look good on my resume” ............................................ 164 Table 16 Logistic Regression of “To make connections with faculty and staff”......................... 165 Table 17 Logistic Regression of “To learn skills that will help me” ............................................ 166 Table 18 Logistic Regression of “To feel a sense of belonging” ................................................. 167 Table 19 Logistic Regression of Students Intention to Join Fraternity and Sorority Life ........... 168 Table 20 Logistic Regression of Students Intention to Pursue On-Campus Employment.......... 169 xiv Table 21 Logistic Regression of Interest in Professional Student Organization ......................... 170 Table 22 Logistic Regression of Interest in Student Government Association .......................... 171 Table 23 Logistic Regression of Students Intention to Work During College............................. 172 Table 24 Multiple Regression of Perceptions of Learning Leadership through Membership.... 173 Table 25 Multiple Regression of Perceptions of Learning Leadership through Position ........... 174 Table 26 Multiple Regression of Perceptions of Learning Work Ethic Through Membership ... 175 Table 27 Multiple Regression of Perceptions of Learning Work Ethic Through Position........... 176 xv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model diagram. ............................. 52 xvi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Collegiate co-curricular experiences- which include student organization membership, fraternity and sorority life participation, and residence hall leadership positions- provide students with the opportunity to gain skills that make them engaged citizens (Dugan & Komives, 2007), desirable to employers (Stout & Olson-Buchanan, 2018), and socially responsible leaders (Dugan & Komives, 2010). These experiences also promote retention and graduation rates for students (Berger & Milem, 1999; Bowman & Holmes, 2017; DeBard & Sacks, 2010; McElveen & Rossow, 2014; Tinto, 2006). But research has found that social class impacts the ways in which students engage in these experiences. Students from working-class backgrounds are less likely to participate in co-curricular experiences (Pascarella et al., 2004), feel less of a sense of belonging to campus (Soria et al., 2013b), engage in fewer positional leadership experiences (Soria et al, 2014), work a greater number of hours (Carnevale & Smith, 2018), and experience classism as a part of their participation in co-curricular experiences (Langhout et al., 2007). Together, these differences act to potentially limit the ability of working-class and poor college students to participate in activities that could aid in their development as leaders, citizens, and employees (Kezar et al., 2015). First, I will outline how differences in student engagement in co-curricular activities, as related to their social class, are a significant problem for college students from working-class and poor backgrounds. Second, I will discuss the specific research questions that were used to examine this problem. Third, I will explain the significance of research on the influence of students’ social class on their college experience to the field of education, university administrators, college students, and myself as a researcher. Fourth, I will describe the 1 definitions and frameworks that guided my exploration of this problem. Statement of Problem The problem this study addressed is two-fold. The first problem this study explored is how students’ social class affects their interest in engaging in co-curricular experiences and employment during college, their motivations for engaging in co-curricular experiences, and their perception of these activities to be able to teach them leadership skills and work ethic. Co- curricular experiences have the potential to impact students in ways that positively promote their individual development and support their education pursuits. Participation in co-curricular opportunities promotes increased college retention (Berger & Milem, 1999; Bowman & Holmes, 2017; DeBard & Sacks, 2010; McElveen & Rossow, 2014; Tinto, 2006), leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2007), and cognitive development (Astin, 1993). Researchers have also investigated the impact of these activities on first-generation college students, one of several commonly used proxies for social class (Soria, 2018). Participation in extracurricular activities has been linked to “significant positive effects on critical thinking, degree plans, internal locus of attribution for academic success, and preference for higher-order cognitive tasks for first-generation students” (Pascarella et al., 2004, p. 273). But students from working-class and poor backgrounds are less likely to participate in co-curricular opportunities (Lott, 2002; Pascarella et al., 2004; Soria, 2013b), and they are less likely to hold positional leadership roles within these co-curricular experiences (Soria et al., 2014). Research has begun to explore this tension by examining the institutional barriers that limit these students’ participation. Familial commitments, financial obligations, and scheduling difficulties all limit the ability of students from working-class backgrounds to participate in co- 2 curricular opportunities (Houze, 2021; Locke & Trolian, 2018; Soria, 2021). Experiences with institutional classism, situational classism, or interpersonal classism via discounting all negatively impact the collegiate experience for students from working-class backgrounds (Langhout et al., 2007). The tension between working-class students’ participation in co- curricular activities and the ability of these activities to promote their individual and academic development is a problem that must be explored. There is evidence that students’ pre-college professional and career attitudes contribute to their selection of co-curricular activities, but this work has not tied these decisions to students’ social class, thus supporting the need for this research and providing a gap for this research to fill (Trolian, 2019). The second problem that this study addressed is how social class is measured and accounted for in higher education research. Research on socioeconomic status and social class has often ignored the role of subjective social status, a measure of an individual’s perceived social standing, in capturing social class (American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status, n.d.; Soria, 2018). Instead, studies have relied on parental education (Townsend et al., 2019) and parental income as proxies for social class (Soria, 2018; Walpole, 2003). But social class is far more complex than the financial and educational characteristics accounted for by these metrics (Rubin et al., 2014; Soria, 2018;). Failing to include measures of subjective social status and more diverse measures of socioeconomic status fails to acknowledge the complexities of the construct. Next, I outline how this study explored the inequalities in working-class students’ participation in co-curricular experience, while also addressing the need for additional research addressing subjective social class. 3 Purpose of the Study In this quantitative study, I explored how social class impacts the knowledge students bring to college about co-curricular involvement in order to build a better understanding of how students from diverse social class backgrounds believe they will learn from these experiences. It also provides an opportunity to explore how social class impacts students’ pre- college intentions to engage in specific types of activities, organizations, and co-curricular opportunities. This study is guided by the following questions: 1. What is the relationship between students’ social class and intended engagement in co- curricular activities? o How does social class impact first-year students’ pre-college intention to engage in collegiate co-curricular activities? o How does social class contribute to first-year students’ pre-college rationale for engaging in collegiate co-curricular activities? o How does social class impact first-year students’ pre-college interest in different types of collegiate co-curricular activities? 2. How does social class impact first-year students’ intention to work during college? 3. What is the relationship between students’ social class and their pre-college perceptions of skill development from collegiate co-curricular experiences? Definitions Definitions for social class, co-curricular learning opportunities, and leadership and work ethic are needed to establish a shared understanding that is carried throughout this study. The following section outlines the key scholars, definitions, and ideas that are utilized throughout 4 the remainder of this study to contextualize the relationship between social class and co- curricular involvement. Social Class Social class is a measure of individuals’ economic, social, and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Bourdieu argues that although economic factors play a substantial role in a capitalist society, social and cultural capital cannot be understood solely from an economic perspective. Economic capital acknowledges one’s access to financial resources. Social capital encompasses the benefits one gains from relationships and memberships. It is this network of connections that promotes or limits an individual’s advancement in society. Cultural capital (Lamont & Lareau, 1988) is the knowledge and information one holds about how to act, dress, talk, and interact with their environment. The possession of economic, social, and cultural capital is understood to influence an individual’s social mobility and influence their access to personal and professional opportunities (Stephens et al., 2014). Bourdieu’s definition of social class is helpful because it describes social class as not only a function of economic factors and socio- economic status, but also as including its cultural and social implications. Bourdieu’s three part understanding of social class acknowledges the ways in which social class is embedded in an individual’s lifelong experiences and represents the different understanding and knowledge that an individual may bring with them to college. That said, other models have been developed that attempt to address the nuance of understanding an individual’s capital. The Community Cultural Wealth Model, developed by Yosso (2005), defines cultural capital as having six components; aspirational, navigational, social, linguistic, familial, and resistance capital. Their model attempts to shift from a deficit 5 model of cultural capital, specifically for individuals from racially minoritized backgrounds, and instead draw on the knowledge these individuals possess. Since its original conceptualization, this model has been used to explore and describe not only the experiences of racially minoritized students on college campuses, but also their experiences within the context of their social class (Auerbach, 2007), as well as the experiences of first-generation, economically marginalized, and working-class and poor students (Garriott, 2019; Houze, 2021; Pierre & Haber-Curran, 2021). The Social Class World View Model (Liu et al.,2004) was developed out of the counseling literature and is grounded in the assumptions that social class is individual and subjective; perceptions shape an individual’s reality and “individuals work toward homeostasis in their world view” (p. 104). The model presents five domains contributing to an individual’s perception of their social class: a) Consciousness, Attitudes, and Salience; (b) Referent Groups; (c) Property Relationships; (d) Lifestyle; and (e) Behaviors. The model attempts to describe how an individual’s social, cultural, and human capital, combined with their worldview and their desired social class movement, result in homeostasis or internalized classism. This model is different than Bourdieu (1986) and Yosso (2005) in that it attempts to describe social class movement rather than to define an individual’s current social class. These models each attempt to address a unique component of how individuals experience social class. Together, they demonstrate the variety of ways that social class is defined and contextualized within the literature. In doing so, the models work together to frame a complex and nuanced understanding of social class and the pervasive impact of the construct. Next, I will outline the definition of social class that was used within this study. Then, 6 I will discuss classism and deficit mindset as two ways that social class works to perpetuate inequalities for students from different social class backgrounds. Defining Class. The complex nature of social class makes it incredibly difficult to accurately categorize and define. Alfred Lubrano, in Limbo (2010), explains that although there may be two economic classes according to Marxist theory, there are an unspecified number of social classes. Social class is not merely a function of a single factor. To account for this, the American Psychological Association defines social class as a function of both socioeconomic status (SES) and of subjective social status (SSS) (American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status, n.d.). Based on this definition, socioeconomic status (SES) attempts to assess an individual’s material and structural factors, their relative status and inequality, and the hierarchies of power and privilege. Subjective social status is a measure of an individual’s perceived social standing (American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status, n.d.). Subjective social status allows individuals to assess their own social status in relationship to their community. This combination of factors is in line with the ideas of DiMaggio (2012), which suggest that social class can be measured one of three ways. First, from a Marxist perspective, social class is a factor of production, or job. In a college population, this could be both students’ parents’ job or their intended career path. Second, from Max Weber’s perspective, social class is multidimensional and includes lifestyle factors and “positions in the markets for labor, land, credit, and commodities” (p. 18, para. 2). This is similar to how the APA definition of social class utilizes socioeconomic status. Third, social class can be measured by asking individuals about to define their own class and this method is appropriate when class is impacting individuals’ 7 interactions with other people. Although the foundational work of Bourdieu guides the field’s thinking on social class and has tremendous historical significance, the American Psychological Association’s definition, which is supported by the argument of DiMaggio that there are multiple ways to measure social class, provides a clearer framework for addressing the complexities of social class. The idea that social class is a combination of socioeconomic status and subjective social status clearly delineates between economic and social/cultural components of social class. It also allows individuals to express their own identity and perspective. This study is framed by the APA’s definition of social class because it recognizes that social class as a combination of the complex economic and social factors that collectively impact individuals’ lived experience throughout their entire life. It recognizes that class in more than just objective measures of wealth and provides space for individuals to self-identify with their economic, social, and cultural capital. This study incorporates metrics of both socioeconomic status and subjective social status. Later, I will explore how Yosso’s (2005) perspective impacts my contextualization of social class. Naming Classes. Researchers do not agree on the number of social classes in our society; some recognize three classes (Lower, Middle, and Upper), while other researchers make further separations (Lubrano, 2004). Differences between working-class and lower-class, lower-middle-class and upper- middle-class, and old and new money each help to demonstrate the complexity of defining social class (Barratt, 2012). Additionally, while college students are often able to identify the impact of their social class on their college experience, they struggle to use language to define their social class (Williams & Martin, 2021). 8 For the purpose of this study, I use working-class and poor backgrounds to describe my target population (Ardoin, 2018b). Although this identifies a similar population to those recognized as lower class in the three-part hierarchical definition, the language avoids the hierarchical connotations suggested by lower class. These students come from families with limited social, cultural, and economic capital relative to their peers and their families are unlikely to have power in their jobs, their communities, or society as a whole. The use of the historical hierarchical terms to describe social class suggests that those from lower, or working- class backgrounds, are less. There are a wide variety of indicators that measure social class making it unlikely that a single student’s experiences all fit neatly within one social class grouping. The various of indicators make it difficult to cleanly define where one social class group ends and the next begins. For that reason, I chose not to demarcate between social class groups definitively, but instead explore my sample population to establish key differences that may indicate subgroups. Next, I contextualize social class through the lens of classism and deficit mindset in effort to further frame this research study. Contextualizing Social Class. Barratt (2012a) describes the ways in which social class manifests itself in American society. He describes social class as both a form of privilege and oppression and as personal identity, making it difficult to contextualize it within the larger society. First, I outline how social class as a form of power and privilege is considered within this study. Then I will outline how avoiding the use of a deficit mindset respects the ways in which social class is a personal identity. Classism. The tiered model of social class in American society purports that those who 9 have cultural, social, and economic capital use this capital as power to oppress those who do not have these forms of capital (Lott, 2002). Because of the power and privilege dynamics present within the hierarchical framework of classism, Lott (2002) argues that classism is a form of discrimination in which those who are not poor (or possess the socially desired forms of economic, social, and cultural capital) distance, separate, exclude, and devalue those who are poor (or do not have the socially desired forms economic, social, and cultural capital). Lott explains that classism is pervasive in American society, impacting nearly every facet of life- including education, housing, health care, legal assistance, and public policy (2002). Failure to recognize classism in research further minoritizes disadvantaged populations. In an effort to seek equity in this relationship of power and privilege, it is reasonable to compare differences in outcomes across social classes in an effort to recognize the places in power and privilege that further privilege majority students. Buckley and Park (2019) found that for some students, regardless of where they fell on the social class continuum, college was the first time they were confronted with social class diversity and their own social class identity. For the working-class and poor students in this study, their new awareness of their social class identity created a very complex situation as it often left them aware of the classism they were experiencing for the first time. This work highlights the role that college can play in shaping a student’s social class identity and the distinctive role classism can play in this process. Deficit Mindset. Within higher education, classism is pervasive and has been perpetuated by the use of a deficit mindset. The university has historically viewed students from working-class and poor backgrounds through a deficit model, in which minoritized 10 populations’ cultures are perceived as missing important elements of the majoritized populations’ culture (Dudley-Marling, 2007; Martin et al., 2018). Because social class also represents elements of individual identity, the use of a deficit mindset potentially further marginalizes working-class and poor students. As I worked to define social class in this study, it was important to situate my definition among work that supports the idea of a deficit mindset among social class discussions. In recent years, conversations about defining social class have made it into popular media through the book, and eventual movie, Hillbilly Elegy (2016). In his 2016 memoir, Vance described his own struggles as a kid growing up in rural America and inspired discussion from a variety of audiences on the issues impacting rural communities. He blames the hillbilly mindset for leading to decreased personal responsibility and his work highlights the complexity of social class beyond money. There is a body of research that supports that many of Vance’s lived experiences are not unique to him and that growing up in rural America has an impact on one’s college experience (Goldman, 2019; McCulloh, 2020; Sims & Ferrare, 2021). Instead of approaching this work from a deficit mindset, I sought to understand how identities, like geographic community of origin, impact a student’s college going experience. Within social class research, deficit mindset manifests itself as researchers seek to understand the experiences of lower-class students in comparison to upper- and middle-class students, rather than seek to understand the experiences of working-class and poor students as a unique cultural group. Instead of attempting to change these students or attempting to define them as inferior to their upper-class peers, the focus should be on recognizing working-class and poor students as having different, rather than inferior, experiences, and then finding ways 11 to change universities to better support students’ experiences (Ostrove & Long, 2007). Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth Model offers an alternative to considering social class from a deficit perspective (2005). Similar to racially minoritized populations, working-class and poor individuals have capital, but the forms of capital that they possess are less likely to be recognized by institutions of higher education. Rios-Aguliar and colleagues (2011) have further explored this concept through the funds of knowledge framework. They argue that institutions of higher education must draw on the knowledge that students have accumulated at home in order to support minoritized students’ success in college. Throughout this research, I work to recognize the ways in which the problem is not the students’ background or experiences, but it is instead the incongruence and inflexibility in the institution’s values and actions that leads to perpetuating social class privilege (DiMaggio, 2012). Instead of considering these students as less than their upper- and middle- class peers, I work to understand how their attitudes, beliefs, and thought process are different than their classmates and think about ways higher education needs to work to build off working-class and poor students’ existing knowledge to support them instead of asking them to conform to a new set of ideals and values. Co-Curricular Learning Opportunities The term co-curricular opportunities, rather than extra-curricular opportunities, is used throughout this research to describe activities like student organization experiences, fraternity and sorority life, and on-campus employment that students participate in during college. Co- curricular places emphasis on the intentionality by which the opportunities are designed and the contribution these experiences make to students’ curricular learning (Bartkus et al., 2012). Co-curricular experiences exist alongside academic coursework to supplement in-class learning 12 instead of existing in addition to their academic work and have been designed by college educators to be intentional experiences (Peck & Preston, 2018). Peck and Preston (2018) argue that the difference between co-curricular and extracurricular opportunities is the intentionality in which the program is designed. Co- curricular opportunities are experiences that are explicitly identified. These experiences have learning outcomes associated with them and they represent intentional and planned learning that may or may not be directly aligned with the curriculum. This is different than their definition of extracurricular activities. Peck and Preston describe extracurricular opportunities as activities that connect students to the institution and to other individuals within their community. Extracurricular experiences are those activities that promote a sense of belonging for the student but do not represent intentional learning. Rutter and Mintz (2016) provide an alternative definition of co-curricular activity. They agree with Peck and Preston (2018) that not all extra-curricular opportunities are co-curricular opportunities. While Peck and Preston (2018) require that the activities have explicit learning objectives to be considered co-curricular experiences, Rutter and Mintz require that the activities “intentionally align with and augments and enhances standard curricular goals” (2016, para. 5). Rutter and Mintz argued that activities like internships, international travel, community involvement, and specialized opportunities that teach skills which complement the curricular goals of the institution are all co-curricular experiences. But they explicitly exclude activities like theater and student government, claiming these extracurricular activities do not directly support the academic mission of the institution. However, these activities could align with curricular goals and activities for students in some fields if intentionally designed to do so, 13 and for that reason I did not use Rutter’s and Mintz’s definition. For the purpose of this study, I followed Peck and Preston’s (2018) definition of co- curricular experiences. Co-curricular describes activities that occur outside of the class and promote intentional learning opportunities for the students who participate. The activities should be guided by learning outcomes, supervised or advised by staff, and tied to an on- campus office. This definition recognizes that nearly every opportunity on campus can align with curricular goals depending on the individual’s interests and long-term goals. Next, I provide justification for my selection of work ethic and leadership as the two Career Readiness Competencies (NACE, 2017) that this study explored. Work Ethic and Leadership In a study of employers by Hart Research Associates, “Nearly all those surveyed (93 percent) agree that ‘a candidate’s demonstrated capacity to think critically, communicate clearly, and solve complex problems is more important than their undergraduate major’” (2013, p. 1). To capture the desires of employers, The National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) identified a list of key skills or competencies for career readiness that employers desire for students to have (2018). These competencies include Critical thinking, Communication, Teamwork, Leadership, and Work Ethic. Although all of the competencies are important to students both during and after college, work ethic and leadership are particularly interesting in the study of working-class college students from a social class perspective because of the societal associations with the two constructs. In studies of occupational prestige, occupations associated with middle- and upper-class individuals are often cited as being “leadership” positions (Wood, 1990). Depending 14 on the context, working-class individuals are either associated with having a strong work ethic (Lubrano, 2004) or being lazy and lacking a work ethic (Kim, 1998; Vance, 2016). Both contexts support the use of work ethic as a competency of interest because of its association with social class. Understanding the ways in which college students conceptualize these two ideals in the context of their social class provides further understanding of social class influence on college students’ experiences. Significance Historically, colleges and universities were built to serve wealthy men with interest in entering the clergy and serving in other public occupations (Thelin, 2011). Over the last two hundred years, colleges and universities have become more accessible to women, racially minoritized individuals, and those with less social status and less financial means. Increased access to higher education has led to an intense debate over the purpose of colleges and universities, both for the individual student and for communities more broadly (Bok, 2013; Neem, 2019). With rising college costs, many colleges are facing an increased pressure to directly prepare students for their future careers and grant degrees so that students may enter the work force (Astin, 1993; Neem, 2019). That being said, others still argue for the role of a college education in preparing individuals to serve as active and engaged members of their communities with less focus on career preparation and more focus on holistic individual development (Bui, 2002). This study was designed with the assumption that bachelor degree granting higher education institutions have a duty to both individuals and communities to prepare students to be well rounded individuals with a strong liberal arts foundation and a variety of transferable life skills. These students will in turn enter their communities and 15 workforce with a variety of skills- including leadership and work ethic- that will serve them well as people. Understanding the experiences of students from all social classes is, at its roots, a social justice issue (Barratt, 2012a). As discussed previously, students from working-class and poor backgrounds have had lower persistence and graduation rates than their middle- and upper- class peers (Berger & Milem, 1999; Tinto, 1993, 2006). And, as social class impacts nearly every aspect of their lives, their experiences are anything but equitable. The students deserve to be as equally prepared for post-graduation experiences as their middle-class and upper-class peers. Research that addresses the role of social class in co-curricular involvement has the potential to identify many important findings and has significance to higher education researchers, to higher education administrators, and to me, personally. Next, I explore how these findings impact higher education research, university administrators and how it is rooted in my own experiences. Higher Education Research Broadly, this study builds on definitions of social class used in higher education research and expands the understanding of the impact of social class on the college experiences of working-class and poor students. It helps to demonstrate the relationship between social class and the cultural, economic, and social capital with which students come to college and how this then impacts the decisions they make in college. The American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status made a call for research to “Stop Skipping Social Class” (2015). This campaign seeks to encourage researchers to include measures of subjective social status into the work they do. In this research, I include measures that meet the APA’s 16 recommendations in order to continue the conversation about the complex nature of social class (American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status, 2015). This research expands the conversation about the role of social class in students’ co- curricular involvement. In 2003, Walpole called for additional research on the relationship between social class and student activities. Although researchers have begun to answer that call and have begun to build a basis for research on the role of social class in co-curricular experiences, similar recommendations are still being made. Soria (2013b) identified the need for research that further explores why students from working-class and poor backgrounds engage in co-curricular experiences at lower rates than their peers. Trolin (2019) also suggested that there is a need to understand the role that socioeconomic status plays in students’ pre- college attitudes and how these attitudes impact their decision-making process as it relates to co-curricular experiences. This research both fills a need for research that addresses an inclusive definition of social class broadly and specifically answers calls for research on the role of social class in student co-curricular involvement. Higher Education Administrators Understanding the ways in which social class impacts students’ perception of the value in co-curricular opportunity and the learning that occurs through these experiences has the potential to help educators redesign, reframe, and approach co-curricular opportunities in a more equitable and just way. Several researchers have called for the need for interventions that target students from working-class and poor backgrounds (Stephens et al., 2015; Townsend et al., 2019). Although this study does not utilize intervention as a means of research, the knowledge gained from this study is directly applicable to university 17 administrators designing interventions around co-curricular experience and social class. As a Researcher As a researcher, this work has personal significance. As a white woman from a working- class background, flying on an airplane for the first time in my twenties, buying professional attire for graduate school interviews, and negotiating my first salary were all experiences I had to navigate independent of my family. They were things my parents had never done and could not help me with. In each of these experiences, I felt lost. College was a middle-class world and many of the people I came into contact with were not prepared to teach working-class students how to navigate these experiences. The college I chose to attend, where I applied, the major I chose, and the activities I engaged in all had roots in my working-class upbringing. But, in my own reflection, I can recognize that I also held majoritized identities that made navigating these instances easier than they might have been for my peers. My mother had overcome the barrier of being a first-generation college graduate, and although she never held jobs that required her degree, she was able to emotionally support my educational pursuits. I also hold other privileged identities (race, religion, sexual orientation, and ability status) that did not further thwart my ability to be successful in college. My own experiences demonstrate the messiness of social class because my parents’ income bracket, education, and occupational prestige, and the community I lived in do not fit neatly into a single social class bubble, like those of many students. But at the same time, my experiences with social class were very salient to my college experiences. Through this research, I want to bring understanding and awareness to the ways that social class impacts the collegiate experiences of students from working-class and poor 18 backgrounds. I want to further understand the experiences of these students in a way that promotes their equitable participation in co-curricular experiences. If a university accepts a student onto their grounds, then the university must be prepared to address the needs of that student- regardless of the economic, social, and cultural capital they do or do not possess. Conclusion Exploring the relationship between social class and co-curricular involvement has the potential to provide university stakeholders knowledge they need in order to create more equitable experiences for individuals from working-class and poor backgrounds. The questions, theoretical framework, and definitions that guide this problem lay the groundwork for further addressing this question and impact the conversation about the impact of social class on the overall student experience. In chapter two, I outline the literature on the impact of socioeconomic status and social class on students’ college experiences and on their participation in co-curricular activities. I also explore literature on the ways by which co-curricular experiences promote leadership development and work ethic development for college students. Finally, I will discuss the Co- Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model and its utility in the study (Peck & Preston, 2018). In chapter three, I outline a quantitative design and methodology for studying the research questions. I will utilize a holistic approach to social class that addresses the role of social class inclusive of socioeconomic status and subjective social status. The study relied on the use of data from first-year students at a Midwest comprehensive university to understand students’ pre-college perceptions of co-curricular involvement. 19 In chapter four, I will outline the findings of this study. The study uses logistic and multiple regression to explore the described research questions. This chapter will also outline the demographics of the sample population. In chapter five, I will explore and discuss the findings of the study. I situate these findings within the larger body of literature and then offer implications of the findings for research, theory, and practice. Recommendations for university faculty, staff, and researchers are made. 20 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW As explored in chapter one, college co-curricular experiences support leadership development, post college employability, and college graduation and retention for working- class and poor students. Students from working-class and poor backgrounds engage in these experiences at lower rates (Walpole, 2003), are less likely to hold leadership positions (Soria et al., 2014), and are more likely to experience classism in their participation in these activities (Backhaus, 2009). Researchers have begun to explore the relationship between social class and students’ co-curricular activities, but further research is needed in order to promote more equitable college experiences and post college outcomes for all students. In this chapter, I explore how the existing literature reveals a need for research on the ways by which social class impacts working-class students’ attitudes towards and intentions to engage in co-curricular experiences. I also demonstrate the need for research on working-class and poor students’ perceptions of potential learning that occurs through co-curricular involvement. First, I explore how social class impacts students’ collegiate experiences and draw attention to the need for research that includes subjective social status in assessments of social class. Then, I outline literature that explores social class or socioeconomic status as a component of student experience and demonstrate the need for research that assesses the role of social class in students’ engagement in co-curricular experiences. Next, I discuss literature that explores students’ motivation and rationale in selecting co-curricular experiences. Then, I discuss the existing research on leadership and work ethic as outcomes of co-curricular experiences and argue that further research is needed that explores students’ understanding of these potential outcomes. Finally, I further explore the Co-Curricular Career 21 Connections Leadership Model (Peck & Preston, 2018) and how it supports this research. Exploring Social Class American higher education was founded to provide advanced educational opportunities to white men from affluent backgrounds (Thelin, 2011). Since then, institutions have expanded their policies to allow for the admission of individuals from more diverse backgrounds. Despite this progress, individuals from minoritized racial, gender, and social class identities that had been historically excluded from higher education still face immense challenges within the institution (Framble, 1997; Langhout et al., 2007; Lott, 2002; Walpole, 2003). In addressing the need for more research on the impact of social class, the American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status launched a “Stop Skipping Social Class Campaign” (2015). Through this campaign, the American Psychological Association argues that although socioeconomic status (SES) is an important part of social class, subjective social status (SSS) is also an important component of understanding social class. Research has explored the role of socioeconomic status in students’ collegiate experience much more extensively than it has explored subjective social class or holistic measures of social class that include both measures of SES and SSS. Despite extensive research that investigates the role of socioeconomic status on the student experience, researchers have often failed to address the role of students’ social class in their work (Framble, 1997; Martin et al., 2018; Ostrove & Cole, 2003). And some research that claims to address social class only addresses the construct using measures of income, missing the mark on their espoused goal (O’Donnell & Blakenship, 2018). Ostrove and Cole (2003) and Framble (1997) specifically call for additional research that addresses the role of social class and 22 defines social class as inclusive of subjective social status, an aim of this research study. In the following section, I first outline the literature that explores the impact of socioeconomic status and social class on college attendance, college selection and finance, and post college trajectory. Then I will discuss the existing literature that explores the role of social class and socioeconomic status on students during college, specifically exploring the role of social class and socioeconomic status in students’ engagement in co-curricular experiences. Throughout this section I draw attention to the ways my study fills in gaps within the literature. College Attendance Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to attend college than their upper-class peers (Bailey & Dynarski, 2011; Crisp et al., 2018; Perna & Titus, 2005). Cahalan and colleagues (2018) found that for students from the highest income (fourth) quartile, 78 percent of high school graduates continued on to college, only 46 percent of high school graduates from the lowest (first) income quartile did so. For individuals from the second and third quartiles, their college continuation rates were 59 percent and 70 percent respectively. There is still a stark difference in college attendance rates by family income resulting in less low-income individuals entering the college pipeline. Socioeconomic status intersects with other minoritized identities and helps to further disenfranchise already minoritized individuals. College going rates for black students from the lowest quartile of income was 42 percent and Hispanic students from the same income bracket had a college going rate of 43 percent, while white students from the same income bracket had a college going rate of 46 percent (Cahalan et al., 2018). This research demonstrates that students from working-class and poor backgrounds, in comparison to their upper- and middle- 23 class peers, are underrepresented in college populations before college even begins. And students from minoritized racial identities are even more underrepresented than their white peers. College Selection Socioeconomic status also plays a role in students’ college selection process. Socioeconomic status impacts the role both tuition costs and students’ and families’ perceptions of college affordability play in their college decision making process (Paulsen & St. John, 2002). Lower income students are more likely to attend less prestigious universities than their higher income peers (Alexander & Eckland, 1977; Astin & Oseguera, 2004; Carnevale et al., 2004; Hearn, 1984). They are also more likely to attend community colleges and learn trades- based skills than their upper-income peers (Barratt, 2007). In a principle called “under matching”, lower income students decided to attend universities that they were overqualified for based on their academic factors (Ovink et al., 2018). There are other factors, such as proximity to home and family, that increase the likeliness of a low-income student opting to attend a university they are overqualified for. For these low-income students, college cost was also a predictor of the types of universities they chose to attend. Students from rural regions were less likely to attend very selective higher education institutions and research institutions than their non-rural peers (Koricich et al., 2018). Concerns about the costs of college for low-income students are consistently echoed throughout the research and demonstrate that social class impacts how students pay for their college education. Low-income students are also more likely to graduate college with student loan debt above the national average (Houle & Warner, 2017) and are more likely to incur 24 student loan debt (Chen & Wiederspan, 2014). Through their research, Chen and Wiederspan (2014) demonstrated that students with lower parent income and first-generation status take on more student loan debt to pay for college than students with higher parent income and continuing generation students. Parents of low-income students are also less likely to have money saved to contribute towards their children’s college education (Miller, 1997). Research is needed to see how social class impacts students’ pre-college decision making beyond the college selection process. Further research that explores the role of social class in students’ pre-college intentions to engage in co-curricular experiences provides an opportunity to continue to explore the pervasiveness with which social class impacts students’ college experience. In addition to playing a tremendous role in the ways in which students determine if they are going to go to college, the type of institution they will attend, and how they will pay for college, socioeconomic status and social class also impact students’ post college trajectories. Post-College Trajectory In addition to impacting the college experiences of students, socioeconomic status continues to impact individuals beyond college. In this section I explore differences in upward mobility, post college income, graduate school participation, and struggles with familial relationships for students from working-class and poor backgrounds. These differences demonstrate the depths of the impact that social class has on individuals’ lives. Higher education has long been viewed as an opportunity to support upward mobility, but recent research has demonstrated how college may actually perpetuate patterns of intergenerational wealth (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Chetty et al., 2017; Goldrick-Rab, 25 2016). Chetty and colleagues (2017) found that only a select number of universities were able to support the ability of low-income students to reach the upper quartiles of income brackets. Further, the proportion of low-income student attendance who could attend these schools that could do so has fallen over the last few decades. The authors’ results indicate that universities, in general, are not currently supporting social mobility for students from working-class and poor backgrounds. Students from working-class and poor backgrounds have lower graduate school attendance rates, lower income, and lower educational attainment than their upper- and middle-class peers (Ostrove et al., 2011; Walpole, 2003; Wright et al., 2018). Research that identifies the role of higher education in impacting an individual’s potential for upward mobility and earning potential supports the need for additional research on the role of social class in students’ college experience. Specifically, research that explores working-class and poor students’ participation in college experiences, like co-curricular experiences, that have the ability to promote equitable college outcomes in an effort to address these larger inequalities. Post-College Experiences in International Contexts Although research that considers social class is limited in the United States, the concept has been considered in England and Australia. One study in England explored how higher education poses a potential risk to familial relationships for students from working-class backgrounds and can contribute to these students’ internal struggles with their personal values (Baxter & Britton, 2001). Their findings echo the stories told in Alfred Lumbrano’s 2004 book Limbo, in which he details the stories of working-class individuals in the United States after college, many of whom struggle to find common ground with their working-class families and the ways in which they were raised. 26 Examining research on social class’ impact on post college trajectories in an international context furthers the conversation by establishing social class as a problem beyond the United States education system. In England, there have been similar calls to the American Psychological Association’s to examine social class as a key component of students’ experiences with education (e.g., Simmons & Smyth, 2018). These similarities demonstrate that the impact of social class is not a problem endemic to only the United States. These studies work together to demonstrate that the impact of social class and socioeconomic status of origin does not end when students graduate from college. If college is going to promote social mobility, post college income, and the support of personal relationships, further research is needed to support students from working-class backgrounds before and during college. This research helps to understand the experience of working-class students and provide further knowledge of how best to support these students. During College Socioeconomic status and social class continue to impact students once in college. “Students from low SES backgrounds who attend four-year colleges and universities work more, study less, are less involved, and report lower GPAs than their high SES peers” (Walpole, 2003, p. 46). Walpole’s work establishes the pervasive way in which socioeconomic status impacts students’ college experience. It also demonstrates the need for more research that explores the intricacies of the ways that social class, beyond socioeconomic status, impacts the college experience, a gap in the literature that this study addresses. Students’ geographic location also impacts the ways in which socioeconomic status impacts their college experience. In a qualitative study of one rural high school, Ardoin (2018b) 27 explored rural students’ perceptions of college readiness. She found that there were significant differences between the cultural capital within their home community and the cultural capital that higher education institutions require to be successful. This research highlights how even the most academically prepared students from a rural high school may struggle with the transition to college. Recently researchers have even begun to explore the experiences of rural students through the lens of critical race theory and begun to build theories around the impact of the intersection of minoritized racial identities and rural identity on the college experience (e.g., Cain, 2020). These studies all support the idea that rural students have unique experiences around social class. The students from lower income backgrounds identified career goals that represented less prestigious occupations than their middle- and upper-incomes peers (O’Donnell & Blankenship, 2018). O’Donnell and Blankenship (2018) found that students’ pre-college beliefs and goals in relation to career and occupation had the potential to shape their college experience and post-college life. Their work suggests that there may be other ways that pre- college beliefs impact students’ decision-making during college. Lower income students who attended more elite institutions with higher wealth disparity were more likely to experience challenges that could be associated with their social class - such as more apparent wealth disparities, individual insecurity, and a sense of powerlessness - than their peers who attended a state college with less wealth disparity (Aries & Seider, 2005). This same study demonstrated that despite similar levels of family income, students who attended more prestigious institutions had more social capital than their peers at the state institution. Aries and Seider’s (2005) research emphasized the importance of 28 incorporating robust measures of social class beyond socioeconomic status. The intersection between race and socioeconomic status is not limited to college attendance rates. For example, Black students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have “less contact with faculty, study less, are less involved with student organizations, work more, and have lower grades than do their high SES peers or for all students” (Walpole, 2007, p. 243). Nine years after college, these same students had lower incomes and were less likely to have attended graduate school. For racially minoritized students, the impact of social class is even more profound and Walpole’s study demonstrates the importance of research that considers the role of social class from an intersectional perspective. Experiences with classism also impact students’ adjustment and sense of belonging to college (Ardoin, 2018b; Backhaus, 2009; Locke & Trolian, 2018; Ostrove & Long, 2007). Students from low-income backgrounds who experienced institutional classism or interpersonal classism were less well-adjusted than their peers (Backhaus, 2009). Ostrove and Long (2007) found that students’ sense of belonging was a mediating factor between social class and both academic and social adjustment, while Backhaus (2009) found that familial socioeconomic status had a direct impact on students’ social, academic, and personal-emotional adjustment. Although there is a disagreement as to the exact nature of these relationships, it is clear that socioeconomic status plays a role in students’ collegiate adjustment. For students from working-class and poor backgrounds, social class and socioeconomic status impact the ways that students feel like they belong in college and the ways that they experience college. Locke and Trolian (2018) argue that students from low-SES backgrounds often experience microaggressions on campus. They cite that despite university norms that are rooted in classist 29 traditions, institutions pretend to be classless. Things like students having to make personal disclosures on FAFSA to gain access to student aid and having to take remedial coursework based of placement exams reinforce class within the institution. Students from low-income backgrounds, and their families, may also be more severely impacted by loss of wage from the student’s time in college, something that is seldom recognized within the academy (Kezar et al. 2015). Locke and Trolian (2018) also state that low-SES students have inequitable access to extracurricular activities as a result of having to work. These common microaggressions that low-SES students experience act to invalidate their college experience, and potentially impact co-curricular involvement. Co-Curricular Experience Outcomes. Scholars have encouraged out of classroom activities as a way of promoting student learning and increasing their competencies. Decades of research have sought to explore the educational outcomes students gain from co-curricular experiences. Co-curricular involvement is related to students’ cognitive development (Astin, 1984, 1993), college graduation and persistence rates (Berger & Milem, 1999; Tinto, 1993, 2006), and leadership development (Dugan, 2013; Dugan & Komives, 2010). Researchers have said of co-curricular experiences, that, “what students do during college counts more in terms of desired outcomes than who they are or where they go to college” (Kuh et al., 2005, p. 8). As I will explore in the next section, a student’s background in regards to social class has a significant impact on what they choose to do. First, I explore research that demonstrates differences in the way that social class and socioeconomic status impact a students’ co- curricular engagement. Second, I will explore the ways in which institutional barriers limit the same students’ engagement in these experiences. 30 Student Engagement. Social class impacts the types of extracurricular involvements that students engage in and the quantity of time they dedicate to those opportunities. Barratt offers that “students perceive or fail to perceive the need to participate in planned experiences based on their social class identity and economic, cultural and social capital” (2012, p. 1). He purports that although the role of social class in students’ selection of co-curricular opportunities manifests itself in a variety of different ways, social class is always present in an individual’s decision to participate or not to participate in campus opportunities. There is scant research on the role of social class in student participation in co-curricular activities. Walpole (2003) has specifically called for additional research to understand the difference between students from different social classes on their participation in student activities. Another study suggested that class difference accounts for differences in students’ interest in co-curricular engagement (Stuber, 2009). Through a qualitative study of college sophomores and juniors, Stuber found that students from working-class backgrounds were more likely to be skeptical of co-curricular experiences at the onset of college, were more likely to be employed or engaged in activities for pay, and were members of fewer student organizations. Upper-class students were more likely to articulate the long-term benefits of co- curricular involvement than their lower-class peers. Even after experiencing at least a year of college, differences in participation and understanding of co-curricular experiences were significant. At its core, this study demonstrates that social class impacts the ways in which students engage in co-curricular experiences. Research that clearly understands students’ perceptions of co-curricular experiences from the onset of college may provide opportunities to support interventions for these populations. 31 Research has also investigated the role that parents play in students’ co-curricular experiences (Hamilton et al., 2018). Parents of upper-class students were more likely to provide students with support navigating the university environment, while working-class parents felt like “outsiders” and specifically cited being unable to support their student’s engagement in co- curricular experiences (Hamilton et al., 2018). If parents are unable to support working-class students, then universities must begin to explore how they can support these students and ensure an equitable college experience. Hamilton and colleagues (2018) support the need for research on how social class impacts students’ perspectives of co-curricular experiences given their findings that social class impacts parents’ ability to support students’ co-curricular engagement. But not all of the research on the outcomes associated with co-curricular experiences are positive. In another study, high impact co-curricular experiences (community involvement, internships, mentorship relationships, research, and study abroad) had only a minor impact on their degree completion for students who did not initially enroll in college after high school (Andrews, 2018). Students’ socioeconomic status was a bigger predictor of their degree completion than their participation in the specific experiences (Andrews, 2018). This suggests that regardless the potential educational benefits of co-curricular experiences, participation in co-curricular experiences does not protect students from the potential impact of their socioeconomic background on their college completion. Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) argue that student organizations and other on-campus activities may not be designed in a way that serves first-generation college students. They found that participation in student organizations and clubs increased retention for continuing 32 generation college students, but not for first-generation college students. Although retention is not the only benefit of these organizations, promoting participation in activities that do not positively impact retention requires consideration and further research. Living in a fraternity or sorority house provides the opportunity for students of all social affiliations to develop a sense of belonging to the institution (Soria, 2013a). Students were more likely to feel a sense of belonging to the institution if they lived in a fraternity or sorority residence than peers who did not live-in fraternity and sorority housing, regardless of social class affiliation. This finding is especially important for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds given the relationship between sense of belonging and college persistence and graduation rates (Soria, 2013a). Participation in fraternity and sorority life also supports graduation rates for students from low-income backgrounds. Membership in a sorority was linked to higher graduation rates, again independent of student socioeconomic status (Bowman & Holmes, 2017; Walker, et al., 2015). And, for rural students, being a member of a Greek organization significantly predicted their graduation from a four-year institution (Byun et al., 2012). This is particularly interesting because socioeconomic status often leads to lower graduation rates, so sorority membership may actually strengthen these students’ academic outcomes. But sorority and fraternity membership does not come without significant financial implications, meaning that students from poor and working-class backgrounds are less likely to have access to these experiences (Bureau et al., 2021; Park, 2012). While this experience may be a positive experience in terms of belonging and GPA, the financial barrier limits some students from accessing this benefit. Holding a positional leadership position has been found to contribute to development of 33 student leadership skills (Dugan & Komives, 2007). Positional leaders on a college campus also play a role in shaping the community’s values and attitudes (Schueler et al., 2009). Students from lower income families and those who were the first in their family to graduate from college are less likely to hold positional leadership positions during college (Soria et al., 2014). The idea that working-class and poor students’ exclusion from these experiences is potentially limiting their opportunity to gain leadership experiences and their ability to reflect their values, and the values of others who share their background, in their community is troubling if the end goal is to create an equitable college experience for all. The research highlighted in this section demonstrates that co-curricular experiences have the potential to support a student, but these activities do not come without risks to working-class students. These complex findings make the need for research on the role of social class on students’ participation in co-curricular experiences even more pressing. Next, I explore how race intersects with social class in relationship to student co-curricular experiences. Race, Social class, and Co-Curriculars. Just as race intersects with social class and socioeconomic status in students’ college attendance experiences, these intersecting identities also impact students’ co-curricular experiences. For example, black students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to participate in student organizations than their black peers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds or the overall student body (Walpole, 2007). Students from racially minoritized backgrounds reported being less engaged in college experiences and also reported lower levels of learning than their white peers (Lundberg, 2007). These studies demonstrate the need for research to continue to consider the intersectional nature of race and social class, and martinez and Williams (2021) specifically called for 34 additional research that looks at the impact of the intersection of race and social class in regards to leadership education for college students. While students from first-generation, low income, and racially minoritized backgrounds may be less likely to engage in co-curricular opportunities, involvement in these co-curricular opportunities presents the biggest potential for these students whose pre-college experiences have provided them with different social and cultural capital than their peers (Lundberg, 2007; Pascarella et al., 2004; Stuber, 2009). These experiences promote students’ ability to gain social and cultural capital more rapidly than their peers. For this reason, increasing participation in co- curricular opportunities is especially important for students from first-generation, low income, and racially minoritized backgrounds. Next, I explore the institutional factors that limit students’ ability to participate in co-curricular experiences. Factors Impacting Involvement. Several factors have the potential to limit students’ ability to participate in co-curricular learning opportunities on the basis of their social class. For example, cost of participation in these activities, competing obligations to work, and a lack of knowledge of the availability of activities can all limit a student’s ability to participate in co- curricular activities (Barratt, 2012; Houze, 2021; Soria, 2021; Stuber, 2009). These factors have the potential to privilege upper-class students through their access to and knowledge of the opportunities available on their college campus. As a result, Soria (2021) called for increased attention to social class when designing involvement and leadership education experiences to limit this inequity. Research is needed that addresses what encourages working-class and poor students to engage in on-campus activities in effort to help define the best ways to answer Soria’s call. 35 Poor, working-class, and racially minoritized students were more likely to experience institutional classism within higher education institutions, which can limit their ability to participate in co-curricular learning opportunities (Backhaus, 2009; Langhout et al., 2007). Measures of institutional classism, which indicate exclusionary policies or practices, were directly related to students’ access to co-curricular opportunities, and included questions about students’ experiences navigating jobs, finances, and institutional obligations in relationship to co-curricular learning opportunities (clubs, activities, cultural events). Experiences of institutional classism were related to academic outcomes, including wanting to leave the institution and lower levels of academic adjustment. White men with more capital were the least likely to experience classism, with gender and racial identity both influencing students’ experiences with social class (Langhout et al., 2007). Langhout and colleagues called for additional research on the role that classism plays in students’ university experiences (2007). But Walpole (2003) suggested that encouraging low SES students to engage in student organizations is an important tool for promoting more equitable collegiate experiences on the basis of social class. Research needs to understand the value that working-class students attribute to these learning opportunities and how that impacts their decision to engage in co- curricular experiences. Understanding their frame of reference can help administrators to address the barriers that limit working-class students’ participation in co-curricular learning opportunities. Next, I will explore on-campus employment as an on-campus experience that may be able to overcome many of the barriers present in other co-curricular experiences. 36 On-Campus Employment as an Opportunity. The National Survey of Student Engagement indicates that approximately twenty percent of first-year students work on campus and one in three works off campus, with those working off campus significantly more likely to be working more than 20 hours per week than those working on campus (McCormick et al., 2010). Unsurprisingly, lower income students are more likely to need to work a greater number of hours than their peers (Carnevale & Smith, 2018). Socioeconomic factors also contribute to the types of jobs that undergraduate students hold, with lower income students less likely to work jobs directly related to their professional goals than their peers (Carnevale et al., 2015). Significant research has explored the relationship between a student’s employment status and their GPA, persistence, and campus engagement, but the findings on the impact of their employment are mixed (Huie, et al., 2014; Padgent & Grady, 2009; Pike et al., 2008). On- campus employment can promote a sense of belonging for students (Nunez & Sansone, 2016) and lead to higher grades (Dundes & Marx, 2006) while on- and off-campus employment could lead to lower student motivation at the end of students first year of college (Jach & Trolian, 2020) and lower students’ engagement in academics (Curl & Benner, 2017). In general, the findings suggest that while working too much on or off campus can have a negative impact on the student experience, this is not always the case. Unsurprisingly, most students indicated that they were working to provide financial support for their college education (Baum, 2010). The complex relationship between social class and student employment begins before students step foot onto a college campus. During high school, students from lower SES backgrounds were less likely to hold jobs than their higher SES peers, but when they did hold 37 jobs, they worked longer hours (Staff et al., 2020). This same trend held true for Hispanic and non-Hispanic black youth when compared to non-Hispanic white youth. Non-Hispanic white youth were more likely to hold jobs, but when Hispanic and black youth did work, they worked more hours (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000). These findings indicate that working in general does not necessary indicate a student’s social class standing, but working long hours is more likely to suggest students are from a less privileged background. Conclusion. The literature on the intersection of class and co-curricular engagement demonstrates that there are differences in the ways that students from working-class backgrounds engage in co-curricular activities, despite these experiences offering positive outcomes. Soria (2013b) identified the need for further research to understand why students from working-class and low-income backgrounds do not participate in co-curricular experiences, excluding on-campus employment, at the same rate as their upper- and middle- class peers. Understanding their pre-college intentions to engage in co-curricular experiences helps to answer this call and clarify whether these differences are attributed to pre-college perceptions of co-curricular involvement. Next, I explore factors that impact students’ decisions for engagement in co-curricular activities. Motivation for Involvement A small amount of literature has explored students’ motivations for engaging in co- curricular activities and how their attitudes and beliefs contribute to their selection of specific activities. Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors contribute to a student’s decision to engage in specific types of co-curricular activity (community service), but students motivated by extrinsic factors were likely to discontinue participation in the activity (Jones & Hill, 2003). Jones and 38 Hill’s study, which asked questions about students’ involvement patterns in both high school and college, demonstrates the importance of the transition from high school to college in shaping students’ involvement experiences. This study builds upon this idea by studying students’ pre-college rationale for engaging in co-curricular activities. When asked to describe their motivation for joining specific types of student organizations, students cited vocation and future oriented reasons for joining academic student organizations, while citing their immediate needs as a reason for joining non-academic organizations (Holzweiss et al., 2007). This study demonstrated that students’ motivations for engaging in types of activities vary even within a specific co-curricular activity. The work of Holzweiss and colleagues (2007) call for additional research that addresses how involvement orientation affects participation in other types of organization, a request this study addresses. Students’ pre-college professional and career attitudes were linked to the types of activities they chose to get involved in (Trolian, 2019). For example, students who identified a desire to work in prestigious occupations were significantly more likely to get involved in fraternity and sorority life, while students who identified a desire to make money were less likely to join student organizations. The work of Trolian (2019) builds on previous literature by tying pre-college attitudes to students’ actual co-curricular engagement later in college. Trolian (2019) specifically called for additional research that explores how SES impacts differences in students’ precollege attitudes around co-curricular involvement, a gap in the literature this study addresses. These studies support the need for additional research on students’ motivations and rationale for engaging in specific types of organizations. Each study demonstrates a gap in the 39 literature that this study is able to begin to address. Next, I outline the existing literature on the ability of co-curricular experiences to promote college student’s skill development. Co-Curricular Involvement and Learning In addition to the role of co-curricular experiences role in college retention and graduation (Berger & Milem, 1999; Tinto, 1993, 2006), these experiences also provide students with opportunities to gain skills that employers have identified as essential (National Association for Colleges and Employers, 2017) and that contribute to their individual leadership development (Astin, et al., 1996; Dugan, 2013; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Peck & Preston, 2018). Although co-curricular experiences encompass a wide variety of experiences, I focus on three specific co-curricular experiences: fraternities and sororities, student organizations, and on- campus employment. In this section, I outline the existing literature on how these three experiences support students’ development of leadership skills and discuss literature that connects these opportunities to work ethic. Leadership Development Research has explored how student organizations, fraternities and sororities, and on- campus employment experiences are each able to promote leadership development for college students. Because there is a gap in literature that explores leadership development in relationship to social class, I pay specific attention to studies that have explored leadership development for minoritized populations. Student Organization. Student organizations are student led groups typically comprised of officers and general members. These organizations vary in mission and can include social, academic, political, religious, residence hall leadership, or student government organizations 40 (Gellin, 2003). Within the confines of student organization experiences, it is important to consider the difference between organizational leadership positions and general membership within the organizations. Dugan and Komives (2010) found that student organization membership significantly influenced the outcome measures of collaboration and common purpose, two of the core tenets of the social change model of leadership for students, in a sample of over 14,000 students from 25 states. Student organizations have also been found to support the personal development of minoritized student populations. For example, both culturally specific and general student organizations promote identity and skill development for black male students (Harper & Quaye, 2007). Participation in student organizations by Black male college students enhanced the individuals’ cross-cultural communication skills and strengthened the racial identity of participants. Harper and Quaye (2007) suggested that student organizations provide a space that could positively influence the development of other minoritized populations, while also helping students learn skills that align with liberal arts learning outcomes that are desirable to employers. Furthermore, participation in student organizations has been linked to “significant positive effects on critical thinking, degree plans, internal locus of attribution for academic success, and preference for higher-order cognitive tasks for first-generation students” (Pascarella et al., 2004, p. 273). These findings support the idea that participation of first- generation college students in student organizations can further their academic and professional pursuits. Research is needed that explores whether this holds true for other factors that contribute to social class identity, given that first-generation status is only one such 41 factor. But, given the limited quantity of research on social class and involvement, this study starts to paint the picture of the role that social class may have on a student’s co-curricular involvement. The impact of co-curricular activities on students begins before students get to college. Participation in high school leadership activities increased students’ college leadership self- efficacy (Komives & Johnson, 2009). Although this study did not control for factors related to social class, it is possible that for students from working-class and poor backgrounds, many of the same barriers that limit participation in college impacted these students in high school. Finding ways to support working-class and poor students’ inclusion in these college activities may be able to help address this disparity that happens before they even step foot on campus. My study helps to do this by exploring how working-class and poor student describe co- curricular activities during their transition from high school to college, which will allow future researchers to explore ways to intervene to support their involvement in co-curricular experiences during college. Research has also investigated students’ perceptions of the effect of student organization participation on developing their leadership ability. College graduates rated extracurricular involvement as more important than academic study in contributing to their leadership development (Clark et al., 2015). In the same study, recent graduates rated leadership as one of the top three skills they had the opportunity to develop from social groups and clubs. Co-curricular involvement is central to both students’ ability to learn leadership skills and their own understanding of how they are developing these skills. 42 Residence Hall Leadership Roles and Hall Council Membership. Leadership development in residence life can occur through hall council student organizations, one specific type of student organization on college campuses. Students who participated in hall councils reported that the experience helped develop their problem-solving skills, define their personal values, develop professional skills, and help them to develop leadership skills (Rosch & Lawrie, 2011). But low-income individuals are less likely to live on campus than their higher income peers and thus less likely to participate in hall councils (King, 2005; Paulsen & St. John, 2002). For students who are able to live in the residence halls during college, this experience provides them with the opportunity to participate in hall organizations that promote leadership development and enter into peer mentoring relationships as a mentee. Both of these opportunities can promote leadership development for students from working-class and poor backgrounds within their home communities. Research is needed that explores the potential for leadership development in residence hall communities for working-class and poor students. Research is also needed that explores ways of supporting the ability for more for working-class and poor students to live on campus. Throughout this section, I have reviewed studies that support the idea that student organizations and co-curricular involvement opportunities promote leadership development for students from diverse and under-represented backgrounds. Next, I explore the ability of fraternities and sororities to support leadership development. Fraternity and Sorority Involvement. Students who participate in fraternity and sorority life are more likely to be from more affluent backgrounds (Chang & DeAngelo, 2002; Stuber, 2009). The cost of fraternity and sorority membership, the selection process, and preferential 43 treatment to legacy individuals each promote the participation of financially privileged and multi-generation college students, while simultaneously discouraging participation of working- class and poor individuals (Bureau et al., 2021; Routon & Walker, 2014). Bureau and colleagues (2021) challenge fraternity and sorority professionals to confront these barriers to participation and specifically identify the impact of fraternity and sorority life on leadership learning outcomes for students from poor and working-class backgrounds as a gap in the literature. Fraternity and sorority membership has been found to have a positive impact on members’ development as socially responsible leaders (Martin et al., 2012). Across the eight sub components of socially responsible leadership, both fraternity and sorority members reported significant gains in two of the sub components over unaffiliated members. Sorority members reported first year gains in common purpose and citizenship. Fraternity members experienced significant gains in citizenship and change. There was no significant change in the six other dimensions. Martin and colleagues (2011) found that participation in fraternity and sorority organizations was not connected to significant differences in students’ liberal arts outcomes during their first year of college. Specifically, students did not experience differences in their moral reasoning, critical thinking, or intercultural effectiveness. Although the authors did not find negative consequences to students’ participation in fraternity and sorority life, it did challenge whether the lack of positive findings on learning occurring within fraternity and sorority organizations necessitates the time and financial resources that are allotted to the organizations. Even though research supports that fraternity and sorority life experiences help 44 students develop the traits that employers’ most desire, employers’ evaluation of the role that fraternities and sororities play in students’ development of professional skills does not reflect this (Stout & Olson-Buchanan, 2018). When compared with non-Greek organizations and applied experiences, employers ranked Greek membership as least likely to contribute to skill development. Stout and Olson-Buchanan also found that although higher education professionals differentiate between the experiences of social Greek organizations and honorary or professional organizations that use Greek names, employers did not recognize a difference between these social, professional, and honorary Greek letter organizations (2018). The work of Stout and Olson-Buchanan suggests there is a limited understanding of the fraternity and sorority experiences by employers. Fraternity and sorority life has the opportunity to support leadership development and increased graduation rates in students, although this development does not come without potential drawbacks and limitations. Understanding the role of social class on students’ perception of the learning these experiences promote may help understand first-year students’ decisions around co-curricular engagement. On-Campus Employment. Research has begun to explore the potential of on-campus employment, to support students in their leadership development. Working during college has been found to impact leadership development for first-year college students (Salisbury el al., 2012). On-campus employment has been found to support the same development of self- efficacy in college students as leadership development programming (Leupold et al., 2020) and on-campus jobs have been found to increase the likelihood that a student develops a commitment to their community (Barnhardt, et al., 2019). Barnhardt and colleagues (2019) 45 found that students did not experience the same civic learning from off-campus jobs than they did from on-campus jobs and they call for research that explores students’ interest in on- campus versus off-campus employment. On-campus employment has the unique opportunity to serve as a high impact practice (Kuh, 2008; McClellan et al., 2018). On-campus employment can also support students’ ability to learn soft skills, expose them to diverse people and environments, and assist in students’ civic learning (Baca et al., 2020; Barnhardt et al.,2019; Rossmann, 2019). Work-study programs, which are generally targeted at working-class and poor students, have also been found to support students’ development of career readiness skills (Akos et al., 2021), but the previous literature has not explored students’ pre-college understanding of the ability of these activities to have this impact, as my study does. One form of on-campus employment that has been researched heavily is the residence assistant (RA) experience. Despite being less likely to live on campus, students from working- class backgrounds who do live on campus are more likely to participate in residence life leadership positions such as resident assistants (Stuber, 2009). These positions often provide compensation in the form of free or discounted room and board, whereas other positions on- campus may be paid an hourly wage. The name of this position varies across universities and peer leadership positions that exist within residence life have a wide variety of responsibilities (Ganser & Kennedy, 2007). Resident assistant positions have been described as intensive leadership positions for their year-long commitment and the substantial time they require (Turrentine et al.,2012). Residence hall leadership positions have the opportunity to provide students with 46 essential skills. Students who serve in resident assistant positions learn leadership skills (team work, helping skills, interpersonal skills, and problem-solving skills) through their position (Benjamin & Davis, 2016). Benjamin and Davis (2016) argue that these positions have a larger impact on students’ leadership development than students are aware of. They call for student affairs administrators to work to further develop resident assistant (RA) positions as learning opportunities by helping to highlight the learning that students are experiencing. Understanding students’ pre-college perceptions of the learning that can occur through the RA position is the first step to answering this call. Resident assistants who were more likely to view themselves as leaders and who were more engaged in leadership practices were more likely to be viewed as effective by their residents (Posner & Brodsky, 1993). Posner and Brodsky (1993) demonstrated that resident assistant positions can provide positive examples of leadership to students who live within the hall community and demonstrated that students’ self-assessments of their leadership abilities are reflected in their residents’ views of them. Posner and Brodskey (1993) did not take into account the role of social class in students’ self-perceptions or others’ perceptions of them as leaders. Further research is needed that understands the role of social class in students’ perceptions of the residence assistant position. Residence assistants who identified having a significant mentor throughout their time as a residence assistant demonstrated significantly higher leadership capacities than students who did not have a significant mentor during their residence assistant experience (Early, 2017). Utilizing a multi-institutional large sample of students, Early (2017) showed that components of the RA experiences, like the availability of mentorship, can help support leadership 47 development for college students. Early (2017) found that race, gender, and sexual orientation differences between the mentor and protégé did not impact the student’s leadership capacities. Further research is needed that considers social class as a factor in mentorship relationships. On-campus employment positions have the potential to provide leadership development to working-class and poor students. For these students, resident assistant positions provide them with the opportunity to receive compensation (like money or housing) while also engaging in an opportunity for leadership development. Further research is needed to understand if working-class and poor students perceive these positions as opportunities to support their leadership development. Summary. Despite evidence that student organizations, fraternity and sorority life, and on-campus employment promote the development of leadership skills, researchers have not explored the role of social class in students’ perceptions of these experience as promoting leadership development (Bureau et al., 2021). Understanding working-class and poor students’ perceptions of the potential outcomes associated with these positions helps to frame conversations about the role of co-curricular experiences in their long-term development. Work Ethic Work ethic is a “set of characteristics and attitudes in which an individual worker assigns importance and merit to work” (Hill & Fouts, 2005, p. 1). Research on employers’ desired traits often cites work ethic as a desired trait for college graduates (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; NACE, 2017; Norwood & Henneberry, 2006). In a study of 500 hiring managers, work ethic was ranked the most important skill for entry level employees (Career Advisory Board, 2017). 48 Despite being often listed as an employer desired trait, researchers have often excluded the development of work ethic from measures of co-curricular outcomes. The Occupational Work Ethic Inventory (Hill & Petty, 1995; Petty, 1993) was created to assess individuals’ work ethic and has been used in the literature for human resources and career and technical education. However, education researchers have chosen to rely on self- report of work ethic rather than utilizing this scale. As a result, outcomes-based data, similar to what exists for leadership, is not prevalent in higher education research. Instead, education research has studied students’ perceptions of and perceived importance of their work ethic. Three studies help to frame that gap in research in the relationship between college students’ perceptions of co-curricular involvement as contributing to work ethic and social class that the present study addresses. In a study of business students, female students rated the importance of work ethic higher than male students did (Chen et al., 2017). Researchers have also found that work ethic is related to participation in student organizations and fraternity and sorority organizations. There was a correlation between students’ self-perceived work ethic and participation in student organizations (DuPre & Williams, 2011). In a study of fraternity and sorority life leaders, students who were viewed as positive role models were, “characterized by their strong work ethic” (Harms et al., 2006, p. 88). Additionally, there are differences in the ways that employers and students perceive the value of work ethic. In a study of internship participants, employers rated the value of a work ethic significantly higher than post-internship students (Green et al., 2011). These studies work together to demonstrate that different populations may have different perceptions of the importance of work ethic and that work ethic can be seen as both an outcome of participation in co-curricular activities and as a factor 49 contributing to success in these organizations. Research has yet to explore these differences in perceptions of work ethic among individuals from different social class groups. Although there is limited research that has investigated work ethic as an outcome of co- curricular participation, research has explored both student and employer perceptions of the importance of work ethic as a key component of employability. The existing body of research has identified work ethic as a salient concept for undergraduate students as they transition into post college experiences (DuPre & Williams, 2011; Harms et al., 2006). There is a need for research that further examines the role of social class in students’ perceptions of the importance of work ethic related to co-curricular activities. Next, I will outline the Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model and describe considerations for its use in research on interest in and perceptions of involvement for first-year working-class and poor college students. Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model The Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model (C3) is a relatively new model that provides tremendous potential as an avenue for exploring students’ co-curricular experiences from the day they walk on campus until they enter their career (Peck & Preston, 2018). This model was used in this research to help frame how students’ pre and early college experiences and understandings of involvement can contribute to both their college experiences and post-college employment. The model was designed for exactly this: it seeks to explain students’ progression through co-curricular experiences and how these experiences transition to their post-college professional experiences. Through the C3 Leadership Model, Peck and Preston (2018) suggest that students’ awareness of skill development from co- 50 curricular opportunities will help them progress through both their co-curricular involvement/leadership and through their career/professional experiences. But to do so, it is important to understand the framework as a whole, the origins of the model, the limits of the model in regards to students’ experience with social class, and how this research supports further exploration of the model. First, I explain how the model is designed. Then, I will discuss the origins of the model. Finally, I discuss how social class impacts this model. Model Description The Peck and Preston (2018) model contains eight stages divided into two groups. The two groups are then connected by the five elements of skill development. The co-curricular half of the model contains four stages of co-curricular experiences: (1) Co-curricular Onboarding: Students intentionally select involvement experiences (2) Co-curricular Involvement: Students engage at the member level (3) Co-curricular Engagement: Students hold informal or positional leadership roles that are not directly tied to the group's strategic vision (4) Co-curricular Leadership: Students holds leadership roles with responsibility for the group’s strategic decision making The career development portion of the model also contains four stages: (1) Career Transition, (2) Leading Self, (3) Leading Others, and (4) Strategic Leadership. The connecting mechanism contains a five-component progression through awareness of, acquiring, applying, advancing, and articulating leadership and employer desired National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) skills. The framework theorizes that individuals must be aware of skills and of their own level of competency (awareness). Then they acquire and “establish a baseline 51 for [their] competency in the skill” (Peck & Preston, 2018, para. 22). Next, they must put the skill to action (apply). Then, they “refine the skill” and “teach it to others” (advancing) (Peck & Preston, 2018, para. 24). Finally, they are able to explain how they acquired, applied, and mastered an individual skill (articulating). Figure 1: The Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model diagram. Model Origins Peck and Preston (2018) built the C3 framework from the work of the Social Change Model of Leadership (Astin, et al., 1996). They specifically drew on the differentiation between individual, group, and community leadership within the Social Change Model of Leadership. Their progression of co-curricular involvement and career development both begin with individuals selecting and engaging in leadership individually, then leading groups of people, and then finally, leading larger organizations. In an effort to recognize that leadership is not just a list of skills, the authors sought to acknowledge that leadership, both during college and in individuals’ careers, must include diverse experiences in all three settings. Peck and Preston (2018) also incorporated the National Association of Colleges and 52 Employers (NACE, 2017) competencies as a means of ensuring that the model acknowledges the demands of post college employment. These skills, which include problem-solving skills, teamwork, communication skills, leadership, work ethic, initiative, flexibility, being detail- oriented, are all traits employers desire of college graduates. In the final stage of their model, Peck and Preston outline the process by which a student can articulate the ways their college leadership experiences will contribute to their career development. Critique of Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model The Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership model explains the process by which students, in an ideal setting, transition from co-curricular exploration to strategic leadership of large organizations. However, the model offers no lens through which to consider the diverse backgrounds, experiences, and identities that students bring with them to college. The assumption that all students come to college with an understanding of what involvement is, or come with any intention of engaging in this process, is potentially damaging to less privileged students. The Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model makes assumptions that may not hold true for working-class and poor students. It states that the first stage “describes how individuals become involved in co-curricular experiences on their campus” (Peck & Preston, 2018, para. 43). Peck and Preston describe the role of this stage in to help students select intentional activities and consider the skills these opportunities can help them develop. But this stage assumes that all students come to college prepared for and interested in engaging in co- curricular experiences in some way. It assumes that students need to be educated on the available opportunities and need assistance in intentionally selecting the appropriate activities. 53 But for many from poor and working-class backgrounds, this may be unrealistic. The idea that co-curricular opportunities are an important part of the collegiate experience and are important to students’ long-term career development is possibly an abstract concept to students from poor and working-class backgrounds (Soria, 2013b). The model fails to acknowledge that this process begins prior to college and that students’ pre-college experiences have the potential to impact their preparedness to engage in co-curricular onboarding at the onset of college. Students cannot be expected to progress from the transition to college into co-curricular onboarding and skill awareness at the same pace as peers who may have different pre-college experiences with these concepts. Because co-curricular onboarding and skill awareness are presented as the first stages in a process that impacts students’ lifelong career development, it is paramount that the model addresses the students’ backgrounds, experiences, and identities in a way that respects the knowledge and values they bring with them to college about co-curricular involvement. Research is needed to understand how students’ backgrounds impact the ways in which they come to college thinking about co-curricular opportunities. This research should also seek to understand how much additional knowledge is necessary for these students to be prepared to be onboarded into co-curricular experiences. Implications for Research This research explored whether students from poor and working-class backgrounds come to college with different perceptions of the value of certain co-curricular experiences and with different interest in engaging in these experiences. It also explored whether students have different perceptions of the skills that these opportunities can teach them. For students from 54 poor and working-class backgrounds, higher education administrators may not be able to assume that students come to college prepared to be onboarded into co-curricular experiences in the same way that the model currently suggests. This research is able to offer further critique or support for the existing framework and offer suggestions for improving the model. Conclusion Social class, defined as a student’s economic, social, and cultural capital, has been shown to have a pervasive impact on college students’ university experiences, and studies have begun to explore how this relationship impacts students’ participation in co-curricular learning opportunities. Further research is needed that builds upon this work and aims to understand the impact of social class on the student experience (Framble, 1997; McClellan et al., 2018; Pacarella et al, 2004; Soria, 2013b; Walpole, 2003). Research is also needed that considers subjective social status as a component of social class, expanding the literature focus beyond socio economic status (American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status, 2015). Finally, additional research is needed that further explores the relationship between co-curricular activities and work ethic. The Co-curricular Career Connections Leadership Model (Peck & Preston, 2018) provides a framework for studying the relationship between social class and students’ decisions to participate in co-curricular learning opportunities across campus. For students from working-class backgrounds, co-curricular opportunities- including fraternity and sorority life, student organizations, on-campus employment, and residence life leadership positions- have the potential to provide an important avenue for development that they may be currently missing. It is particularly important to understand the way that these 55 individuals make meaning of the value co-curricular engagement has on their individual development. Co-curricular opportunities should not be viewed as merely an addition to academic studies, but instead they need to be explored as important learning experiences that exist within the academic mission of the university. 56 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Throughout the following chapter, I outline the design of my study, the sample and site selection, the data collection, the data analysis procedures, and the data cleaning and factor creation. The following questions guide my research design: 1. What is the relationship between students’ social class and intended engagement in co- curricular activities? o How does social class impact first-year students’ pre-college intention to engage in collegiate co-curricular activities? o How does social class contribute to first-year students’ pre-college rationale for engaging in collegiate co-curricular activities? o How does social class impact first-year students’ pre-college interest in different types of collegiate co-curricular activities? 2. How does social class impact first-year students’ intention to work during college? 3. What is the relationship between students’ social class and their pre-college perceptions of skill development from collegiate co-curricular experiences? Theoretical Framework Through this research I investigated two different research questions. The first question and its corresponding sub-questions explored how students’ social class impacts their interest in co-curricular experiences. These dependent variables address students’ perceptions, intentions, and interest in co-curricular experiences prior to the beginning of their first year of college. I explored how independent variables measuring social class impact differences in which co-curricular experiences students intend to engage in and why they would choose those experiences. This study also explored how students’ backgrounds, experiences, and identities including social class and measures of socioeconomic status may play a role in their willingness to engage in the co-curricular onboarding process (Peck & Preston, 2018). The second research question addressed the role of social class in perception of skill development from specific co-curricular experiences. This question promotes understanding of how social class impacts students’ pre-college skill awareness for selected NACE competencies (Leadership and Work Ethic) from membership and positional leadership in co-curricular experiences. Measures of social class were utilized as independent variables and measures of student skill awareness were utilized as dependent variables to address this relationship. In the next section, I describe the data sources and specific items that was be utilized to address each of these questions. Data Sources To answer the research questions, I rely on data from three sources: The Engagement and Employability survey, First-Year Student Survey, and data collected by Institutional Research at the host university. All three sources were collected using students’ campus ID codes to link the data sets. I will outline how each data from each source was collected, and I will explain the items on these surveys that I used to answer these important questions. All three of the data sources utilized in this study are secondary data sources that were collected previously by researchers at the host institution. Utilizing secondary data for analysis has both benefits and drawbacks. The chief benefits are that it is inexpensive and convenient for the researcher (Bechhofer & Paterson, 2000). However, secondary data usage limits the researcher’s control over data collection and limits the researcher’s control over the included 58 variables. Engagement and Employability The Employment and Engagement survey was conducted during students’ first residence hall floor meeting of the school year. The Engagement and Employability survey sought to assess students’ attitudes towards co-curricular experiences and their intentions to engage in co-curricular experiences prior to the beginning of their first year. The inventory included 16 questions that were designed by the research team. The validation of these items is included as part of the methodology of this study. Next, I outline the items from this survey utilized to answer the above-described questions. Parental Financial Contribution. Although data on parental income may account for family income, it does not necessarily account for the amount of money that families contribute to the students’ college experience. Choy and Cachrroll (2003) identified that in 4-year institutions, students’ parental contributions were only a small component of their covered costs. As a result, the Engagement and Employability study asked students questions about the percentage of their college costs that parents/family pay for and what percentage families contribute to their other college expenses (including loans, classes, books, course materials, and supplies). These two items were broken down into percentage ranges (0-24%, 25-49%, 50- 74%, and 80-100%). Financial Stress. Financial stress plays a role in students’ academic achievement (Joo et al., 2008). Using a four-part Likert scale (Very Likely, Somewhat Likely, Somewhat Unlikely, and Not at all Likely), students were asked to assess the stress they feel about the cost of their higher education. 59 Time on Involvement. A core component of this study is understanding both students’ intentions to get involved in co-curricular experiences and the amount of time they intend to engage in these activities. To address this need, the study asked students how much time they intend to spend involved in on-campus activities and organizations, with five different options that account for the amount of time they would be committing (“Yes, I intend on being involved 0-5 hours a week”, “Yes, I intend on being involved 5-10 hours a week”, “Yes, I intend on being involved 10-15 hours a week”, “Yes, I intend on being involved but not sure how many hours a week”, and “No, I do not intend on being involved in on campus activities and organizations during the academic year”). This question was coded as two separate categorical variables. The first was to assess student intention to get involved versus those with no intention to get involved (0 = No intention, 1 = intention to get involved). The hours portion of this question was coded into a separate categorical variable depending on the frequencies of the answers given. Time Working. For students from working-class and poor backgrounds, there are other commitments that require substantial amounts of their time and effort. Time spent working played a substantial role in students’ ability to engage in co-curricular experiences (Langhout et al., 2007). As a result, understanding students’ intention to work is an important component of students’ co-curricular involvement intentions. The question asked if students intended to work during the academic year and addressed how many hours they intended to work (Yes, I plan on working 20+ hours a week, Yes, I plan on working 0-20 hours a week, and I do not plan on having a job during the academic year). The items will be retained as a categorical variable with three levels. 60 NACE Skills from Experiences. The National Association of Colleges and Employers identified 11 skills that post college employers’ desires from college graduates (2017). The next item that will be utilized asked students to predict which of these skills they would be able to learn from a series of co-curricular opportunities at the member and leader level (Student Government Association, social student organizations, professional student organizations, and residence life positions). These items were presented in two matrices in which students were asked to check all that apply. As described in earlier chapters, two of these skills, leadership and work ethic, have particular significance for students in regard to their social class backgrounds. For the purpose of this study, the collected data on students’ perceptions of these opportunities to contribute to their leadership and work ethic learning will be explored. Co-Curricular Involvement Experiences. Understanding the types of involvement experiences students are interested in engaging in will help to consider how social class impacts students’ interests in experiences. Students were asked to rank their six involvement opportunities (Student Government Association, Professional Organizations, Social Organizations, Fraternity/Sorority Life, Residence Assistant, and On-Campus Employment). These items were coded as six separate categorical variables with 2 = ranked in top third of selection, 1= ranked in middle third of selections and 0 = ranked in bottom third of selections. Reasons for Getting Involved. This study also explored the impact of social class on students’ rationales for getting involved on campus asking students to rank possible rationales for getting involved on campus. They selected between nine rationales: It will look good on my resume, To meet friends, To have fun in college, To get connected to faculty and staff on campus, To feel a sense of belonging on campus, My parents told me I should join 61 organizations, My friends told me I should join organizations, To learn skills that will help me in my future career, and For immediate financial gain. Only four rationales were used in the analysis: It will look good on a resume, To get connected to faculty and staff, to feel a sense of belonging on campus, and to learn skills that will help me in my future. Each rationale was coded as a separate variable with 1 = rational ranked in a student’s top three reasons and 0 = rational not ranked in a student’s top three reasons. One of the limitations of the study is that this is not an exhaustive list, and it is possible that reasons are missing. First-Year Student Survey Administered prior to the Engagement and Employability research survey, the first-year student survey was administered by the Reimagining First-Year Students committee during the summer before incoming students’ first year at the host institution. The survey was first distributed electronically using Qualtrics. Researchers followed up with participants who had not yet completed the survey at their college orientation session. They had the opportunity to complete it electronically at that time. Students received a candy bar and spirit beads for completing the survey. The survey was a web-based instrument that assessed the pre-college characteristics of first-year students prior to the beginning of their freshman year at a four-year comprehensive institution. Items in the survey addressed subjective social status, high school experiences, and socioeconomic related constructs. Subjective Social Status. Included in the First-Year Student Survey were items that addressed students’ self-assessments of subjective social class. Subjective social status is an individual’s social standing in comparison to the other members of their community (Diemier et al., 2013). To measure subjective social status, questions based on the MacArthur Scale of 62 Subjective Social Status (Adler & Stewart, 2007) were included that asked students to assess their own education, influence, and financial status in relations to other members of their communities. Measures of subjective social status must reflect the individuals’ perceived social standing and are not intended to address actual economic capital (American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status, 2015). Two questions included on the First- Year Student Survey ask students: “If your community represents a ladder, with 1 being those who have the least and 10 being those who have the most, In relationship to my peers, my family ranks where on [education, power, financial capital].” Students were then asked to rank their family’s education, power, and financial capital in their community on a scale of 1 to 10. They were also asked to rank the [standing and influence in their community} that their family holds based on the same scale of 1 to 10. The first question mirrors the traditional MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status, while the second question is added to solely address the influence and standing aspect of subjective social status (Adler et al., 2000). High School Experiences. Three questions on the First-Year Student Survey addressed the types of involvement experiences that students participated in during high school, the amount of time they spent doing these activities, and the number of hours they worked during high school. These help to understand if previous involvement experiences and time spent working are predicative of intention to engage in college. Identity Considerations. Because individuals’ social identities are more relevant to their personal identity at different points in their development, it is important to consider that this might matter for their own thinking around their social class (Abes et al., 2007). Students were asked to describe how often they think about their social class and were provided a Likert scale 63 to assess the frequency by which they consider this identity. Post-College Goals. Thinking about how students frame their future goals is helpful in considering how they are framing their current college decision making process. Students were asked five questions about how important social status, stable, secure future, high income potential, working for social change and intellectually stimulating work are in their post-college plans. These questions will help gauge the role of socio-economic stability/potential and social status in their long-term goals. Institutional Data Additional demographic data, including family education, geographic data, and expected family contribution, were collected through the university’s FAFSA records and university admissions materials. These data were collected by the federal government in an effort to assign student financial aid resources and by the university to understand the sample population. Expected Family Contribution. Used by the federal government as a means of measuring a family’s ability to pay for college, Expected Family Contribution is a measure that takes into account family income, family size, and other investments that the family may hold (Kelchen, 2015). Although it is closely related to family income, the inclusion of these other factors makes it a unique metric and one that I will include in this study. This metric was analyzed as a continuous measure. Parental Education. Parental education was coded on a three-level scale (Astin & Oseguera, 2004). The first group represents first-generation students. This is defined as neither parent having a bachelor’s degree. The second group represents students who have one parent 64 that obtained a bachelor’s degree. The third group represents students whose parents both have bachelor’s degrees. Rural Zip Code. Included in the institutional data set are students’ zip codes prior to attending college. Rural community of origin has been used to understand students’ college retention (Lewine, et al., 2019). Koricich and colleagues (2018) found that for students from rural regions, socioeconomic status impacted their college selection process. As a result, these data were utilized to create a dichotomous variable to understand whether or not students grew up in a rural region. The 2010 U.S. Census Bureau definition of rural by zip code was utilized to define the dichotomous variable (Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria, 2010). Poverty Zip Code. Utilizing the students’ zip codes, the poverty rate of a student’s home was used (Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Zip code data have been used to understand college student readiness (Cantor, 2019). These data were used to create a dichotomous variable to understand the poverty level of the students’ community of origin. A threshold of 20% of residence in a given zip code living below the poverty rate was used to define a zip code as being a high poverty zip code (Zager et al., 2011). Race and Gender. To account for other identities that may impact students’ experience with social class, several demographic items were also included as independent variables. Researchers have previously explored the role that race and ethnicity (Walpole, 2003) and gender (Kuh et al., 2008) have had on students’ co-curricular involvement. This information was collected from the Office of Academic Planning and Analysis and the latest reported data to the university institutional research office were utilized. Another potential limiting factor of this 65 study is that the research institution does not collect information on sexual orientation or gender identity. While these factors are not direct measures of social class, they are important variables that may also impact students’ pre-college perceptions of co-curricular experiences. While this study explored SES and subjective social class, failing to recognize the importance of these identities would have been harmful. Site Selection The data for this study were all collected at a regional comprehensive university during the fall of 2017. The institution is in the Midwest and has a student population of approximately 24,000 students (Academic Planning Analysis, 2019). This site was selected due to the researcher’s access to the student population and professional interest in the specific site. During the Fall 2018 semester, there were 3,076 new first-year students enrolled in college for the first time (Academic Planning Analysis, 2019). Twenty-six (26) of the first-time students were excluded from eligibility in the data collection because they were enrolled at the institution for only online instruction. First-year students were 57.8% female and 42.2% male. Students did not have the opportunity to select an alternative gender option. The student population was 76.6% white, 13.7% Black/African American, 4.4% Hispanic/Latino, 2.1% Asian, 2.0% American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.2% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 0.5% Nonresident alien, and 0.7% race and ethnicity unknown. Sample Selection All first-year students in the fall 2018 at a mid-sized public regional comprehensive university in the Mid-West were given the opportunity to participate in each of these surveys. Because this study explored the student transition from high school to college, only participants 66 who were first-year, first-time students were used in this study. There were 3050 first-year, first-time students during the fall 2017 semester. The First-Year survey was completed by 2,278 students. The Engagement and Employability study was completed by 1,565 students. With the institutional data and the two surveys, the final sample size was 1098 students (Ampaw et al., 2019). Next, I describe the data analysis. Screening and Data Cleaning First, I analyzed box plots and histograms to determine that the data were distributed normally. I then removed incomplete responses within the dependent variables. Next, I calculated multivariate outliers and removed those that were 3 times the standard deviation. After removing multivariate outliers, I removed univariate outliers from the data. The only continuous variable utilized in this study was Expected Family Contribution (EFC), thus it was the only possible univariate outlier. I was able to remove outliers by transforming this variable with Log (EFC+1). Data Analysis To analyze the data and answer the research questions, I used a non-experimental, cross-sectional, explanatory quantitative methodology. The data were analyzed using the SPSS Statistic Software Package. First, I describe why this methodology is appropriate. Then, I describe the statistical methods that were utilized to address these questions. Cross-sectional designs are those that measure a single point in time (Johnson, 2001). Although the two surveys were administered 2 months apart, and both sought to understand students’ pre-college beliefs and experiences, making this a cross-sectional design. Non- experimental data are appropriate when independent variables cannot be experimentally 67 manipulated and have been described as an appropriate means for performing educational research (Mertler & Reinhart, 2016). Explanatory research is research that attempts to explain why and how a phenomenon occurs. This study attempts to explain how social class contribute to students’ pre-college perceptions making this research explanatory. I used a multistep statistical analysis that includes Spearman’s Rank Order Correlations, Exploratory Factor Analysis, and finally logistic regression to complete my analysis. In this section I describe the role that each of these methods played in answering my research questions. The factor analysis was completed prior to addressing the four research questions. Then the same procedure of steps three and four were repeated for each of the four questions. Social Class First, Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation were utilized to understand the relationships between the independent variables related to social class. The variables included in this analysis are stress/concern regarding college finances, percentage of college costs parents are contributing, identities around social class, future considerations for social class/finance and MacArthur subjective social class measures. These tests are necessary in order to complete a factor analysis as it is important that similar factors be significantly correlated (Tabachnick et al., 2007). Tabachnick and colleagues (2007) recommend frequent significant correlations of at least .3 for the completion of a factor analysis. Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation requires that the data meet two assumptions (Pallant, 2013). First it must be used with continuous or ordinal data. This assumption is in part why the method was selected. Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation was selected over other correlation analysis because it can be used with ordinal variables like parental education, stress 68 of finances or percentage ranges of parental financial contribution. The correlations can be seen in Table 1 (see Appendix C). All of the data being utilized in this test meets this assumption. Second, the data must be monotopic, meaning one variable must increase while the other variable consistently increases or decreases (Pallant, 2013). This was tested using a scatterplot within SPSS. Next, I performed an exploratory factor analysis on the social class variables. This is a common strategy for data reduction (Pallant, 2013). This study contains six different measures of socioeconomic status and two measures of subjective social class. In order to understand which factors are most significant to understanding the two constructs, I utilized factor analysis. This helped me to consider the ways in which specific items actually measure or account for similar concepts and then allow me to reduce the number of variables in a meaningful and significant way. Principal Component Analysis has two core requirements that must be met. First, it requires that the data set is large or at least a 10 case to factor ratio (Pallant, 2013; Tabachnick et al., 2007). Although there is no specific size requirement, the data set is over 1000 cases and has six factors, which meets even more conservative data set size requirements. The second requirement requires significant correlations among the variables as described in my discussion of Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation. Both of these conditions were met. has six factors, which meets even more conservative data set size requirements. The second requirement requires significant correlations among the variables as described in my discussion of Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation. Both of these conditions were met. Pallant (2013) recommends the use of Kaiser Criterion, and an eigenvalue of 1, to assess 69 which factors should be retained through the factor analysis (Kaiser, 1960). Initially, all social class items were included into a factor analysis, but after deleting factors with commonalities less than .4, I was left with six items. Stress of College cost and SES Awareness both had commonalities less than .4, thus being the items removed. Based on the scree plot, 3 factors- perceived Family Contribution, Subjective Social Status, and High School Involvement- were retained. The variance accounted for 31%, 25%, and 19% percent of the variance. I used an oblique rotation because many of the items are correlated. Table 2 details the loading of the three factors. I then conducted a Cronbach Alpha Test to test the reliability of the items created through the factor analysis. The alpha values of each of the three created constructs is located in table 2 (see Appendix C). Pallant (2013) cites that this value should be above .8, although lower would be appropriate. For this study, all values at .6 or above were considered reliable (Hinton, et al., 2004). Pre-College Goals Next, the same data reduction method was followed with factors related to understanding students’ pre-college career goals. Correlations of student goals for their first post college careers were analyzed. Because these variables are dichotomous, Spearman’s coefficient was utilized. Frequent correlations above .3 were identified, so it is appropriate to move forward with the factor analysis (Pallant, 2013). The correlations can be seen in table 3 in Appendix C. A principal component analysis was then utilized. The five goals that students ranked in relationship to thinking about their first job after college were: intellectually stimulating work, working for social change, high income potential, social status, and stable secure future. All 5 70 items had a commonality of at least .5, so all 5 factors were retained for the factor analysis. A two-factor solution was appropriate based on the Kaiser criterion, meaning factors with an eigenvalue above 1 were retained (Kaiser, 1960). These factors accounted for 38% and 23% of the variance in the data. I then used an oblique rotation because this method allowed the variables to be correlated (Pallant, 2013). The proposed items and factor loadings can be found in table 4 (see Appendix C). Although intellectually stimulating work and working for social change factored together, the new item had a Cronbach’s Alpha below .6, so these items will be used independently in analysis (Hinton, et al., 2004). Leadership Learning Data reduction was also performed on the variables assessing students’ perceptions of their ability to learn leadership and work ethic from student engagement opportunities on campus. These are dependent variables in this study. First, correlations of student perceptions of their ability to learn leadership skills were run. Because these variables are dichotomous, Spearman’s coefficient was again utilized. Frequent correlations above .3 were identified, so it is appropriate to move forward with the factor analysis. The correlations can be seen in table 5 (see Appendix C). A principal component analysis was again then utilized to reduce the number of items. The 12 items included were perception of ability to learn leadership from: On-Campus Employment, On-Campus Supervisor, Residence Assistant, Residence Hall Council, Fraternity/Sorority Membership, Fraternity/Sorority President, Student Government Membership, Student Government President, Professional Organization Membership, Professional Organization President, Social Organization Membership, and Social Organization 71 President. This factor analysis still met the required ratio of cases to items (Pallant, 2013; Tabachnick et al., 2007). All 12 items had a commonality of at least .5, so all 12 items were retained for the factor analysis. A two factor solution was appropriate based on the Kaiser criterion, meaning factors with an eigenvalue above 1 were retained. These factors accounted for 49% and 9% of the variance in the data. I then used an oblique rotation as this allows for the variables to be correlated (Pallant, 2013). The proposed items and factor loadings can be found in table 6 (see Appendix C). The two factors were then renamed to reflect the items contained within them. Both factors have a Cronbach’s alpha above .7, so the factors are reliable (Pallant, 2013). Work Ethic Learning The same data reduction methodology was followed with factors related to students’ perception of co-curricular to help them learn work ethic in college. Correlations of students’ perceptions of their ability to learn leadership skills were run. Because these variables are dichotomous, Spearman’s coefficient was utilized. Frequent correlations above .3 were identified, so it is appropriate to move forward with the factor analysis. The correlations can be seen in table 7 (see Appendix C). A principal component analysis was then utilized. The 12 items included were perception of ability to learn work ethic from: On-Campus Employment, On-Campus Supervisor, Residence Assistant, Residence Hall Council, Fraternity/Sorority Membership, Fraternity/Sorority President, Student Government Membership, Student Government President, Professional Organization Membership, Professional Organization President, Social Organization Membership, and Social Organization President. All 12 items had a commonality 72 of at least .5, so all 12 factors were retained for the factor analysis. A two-factor solution was appropriate based on the Kaiser criterion, meaning factors with an eigenvalue above 1 were retained (Kaiser, 1960). These factors accounted for 40% and 17% of the variance in the data. I then used an oblique rotation because this method allows for correlation (Pallant, 2013). The proposed items and factor loadings can be found in table 8 (see Appendix C). The two factors were then renamed to reflect the items contained within them. Both factors have a Cronbach’s alpha above .7, so the factors are reliable (Pallant, 2013). Conclusion The data sources, theoretical framework, and data reduction methods described in this chapter allowed me to address the stated research questions. In the next chapter, I present the demographics of my sample and quantitatively explore the research questions and present my findings and outline the steps that were utilized to analyze the data. 73 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS In this chapter, I detail the results from the research study. First, I will outline the sample demographics and then I will describe the results for each research question and its corresponding sub questions. A discussion of the research findings and their implications will be in chapter five. The purpose of this study was to understand the role social class plays in college students’ pre-college interest in participating in co-curricular experiences and their perception of potential learning from co-curricular experiences. The research questions were: 1. What is the relationship between students’ social class and intended engagement in co- curricular activities? o How does social class impact first-year students’ pre-college intention to engage in collegiate co-curricular activities? o How does social class contribute to first-year students’ pre-college rationale for engaging in collegiate co-curricular activities? o How does social class impact first-year students’ pre-college interest in different types of collegiate co-curricular activities? 2. How does social class impact first-year students’ intention to work during college? 3. What is the relationship between students’ social class and their pre-college perceptions of skill development from collegiate co-curricular experiences? Demographics This study was taken from a sample of first-year students at a regional comprehensive university prior to their first year of college. The study took place during the Summer of 2018. 74 After cleaning the data as described in chapter three, there were 839 students in the final sample. Of the sample, 85 (10.1%) identified as African American or Black, 16 (1.9%) identified as Asian American, 11 (1.3%) identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native, 33 (3.9%) identified as Latino/a/x or Hispanic, 2 (0.2%) identified as Middle Eastern or North African, 2 (0.2%) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 726 (86.5%) identified as White or Caucasian, 19 (2.3%) identified as Multiracial, and 2 (0.2%) of students identified as race not listed. Students did have the opportunity to identify one or more racial identity on the survey. When looking at the first-year, first-time at any institution student population for Fall 2017 at this institution, there were 3,076 students in the population. Of these students, 420 (13.7%) identified as African American or Black, 64 (2.1%) identified as Asian American, 61 (2.0%) identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native, 136 (4.4%) identified as Latino/a/x or Hispanic, 14 (0.5%) identified as non-resident alien, 6 (0.2%) Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 2355 (76.6%) identified as White or Caucasian, and 20 (0.7%) of students identified as race not listed. This information can be seen in Table 9 (see Appendix C). Because of the low proportion of many of the minoritized identity groups, Asian American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Latino/a/x or Hispanic, Middle Eastern or North African, Multiracial, and not listed were all combined to form an underrepresented racial identity variable. This group accounted for 76 (9.1%) of the sample of students. Table 10 includes a breakdown of the binary variables (see Appendix C). Of the students in the study, 323 (38.5%) of the students were first-generation, meaning that neither of their parents had completed a bachelor’s degree, while 516 of the students (61.5%) had at least one parent who held a bachelor’s degree. The average age of the students was 18.24 years (SD = 75 .456). All students were freshman. When asked to identify their gender during the admissions process, 283 (33.7%) students identified as men and 556 (66.3%) students identified as women. There was not a third option included on the institutional form. When zip code data were utilized to understand students’ communities of origin, 103 (12.3%) were from rural identified communities and 736 (87.7%) were from non-rural communities. Low poverty in a community of origin was identified as less than 20% of households in a given zip code being below the poverty line. Given this criterion, 109 (13.0%) students were from high poverty communities and 724 (86.3%) students were from low poverty communities. When asking students how stressed they are about the cost of college, 344 (41.0%) identified being very stressed about the cost of college, 349 (41.6%) identified being stressed about the cost of college, and 146 (17.4%) identified moderate or low stress about the cost of college. When asking students about their goals for their first job out of college, 441 (52.6%) students said social change was an essential or very high priority, while 398 (47.4%) reported social change of moderate or lower importance in selecting a first job out of college. When asked about the importance of their first job containing stimulating work, 252 (30.0%) reported it as being an essential or very high priority, while 587 (70%) reported it as of moderate or lower importance. Students were asked about their SES Awareness, or how frequently they consider their socioeconomic status. For this question, 524 (62.5%) identified as having moderate to high awareness of the SES, while 315 (37.5%) identified as having low awareness of the SES. 76 Expected Family Contribution has a minimum value of 1 and a maximum of $93466 (M = $15058.56). Perceived family contribution had a minimum value of 1 and a maximum value of 5 (M = 3.00). Students high school involvement score ranged from a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 7 (M = 2.83), and Subjective Social Class has a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 10 (M = 5.79). Finally, students talked about their goals for their first post-college experiences. Those with extrinsic goals had a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 4.67 (M = 2.83). This information can be found in Table 11 (See Appendix C). Students were also asked about their intentions to engage in co-curricular activities and to work during college. Of the students in the sample, 389 (46.4%) of students identified interest in being involved in co-curricular activities less than 5 hours during college, while 450 (53.6%) said that they wanted to be involved more than 5 hours a week during college. When asked about working during college, 562 (67.0%) identified that they intended to have a job during college, while 270 (32.2%) did not intend to have a job during college. This information can be found in Table 10 (See Appendix C). In order to further understand students’ interest in getting involved during college, students were asked to rank order their interest in specific co-curricular experiences during college and why they would choose to get involved during college. This information is displayed in Table 12 (see Appendix C). As discussed in chapter 3, students were asked to rank order nine potential reasons for getting involved on campus. When ranking “It will look good on my resume”, 340 (41.7%) students ranked it in the top one-third of potential rationales, while 483 (57.6 %) students ranked it in the bottom portion. When asked if “To make connections with faculty and staff” was a reason they would get involved, 289 (34.4%) of students ranked this 77 reason as high, while 543 (64.7%) students ranked it lower. For the rationale of “To feel a sense of belonging on campus”, 315 (37.5%) ranked the rationale high, while 518 (61.7%) ranked the reason for getting involved in lower. Finally, when asked if “To learn skills that will help me in my career” was a reason they would get involved, 448 (53.4%) ranked this reason in their top rationales, while 382 (45.5%) ranked this reason in their bottom rationales. Students were also asked to rank their interest in on-campus involvement opportunities. When asked about their interest in on-campus jobs, 433 (51.6%) of students ranked it high, while 398 (47.4%) ranked it low. For fraternity and sorority life, 168 (20%) of students ranked it high, while 660 (78.7%) ranked it low. When asked about professional student organizations, 269 (32.1%) of students identified high interest in these organizations, while 560 (66.7%) ranked this experience low. Finally, 68 (8.1%) students ranked student government association high, while 761 (90.7%) ranked it low as an involvement they were interested in. Table 13 includes the descriptive statistic for continuous dependent variables (see Appendix C). In another set of questions, students were asked to identify whether they perceived if participating in co-curricular experiences as a positional leader or a member would teach them Work Ethic or Leadership. These are the dependent variables in the second question. The minimum value for each of these items was 0 and the maximum was 1 with the mean score for learning leadership through membership (M = .45), leadership through position (M = .75), work ethic through membership (M = .52), and work ethic through position (M = .60). Intended Engagement in Co-Curricular Involvement Logistic regression was used to address the relationship between interest in co- curricular involvement and students’ backgrounds and experiences. Cases were excluded 78 listwise and if a single data point was missing, the case was not included in the analysis. This method was utilized to answer each of question one’s three sub-questions. Interest in Involvement First, I sought to understand if students’ interest in being involved was related to their social class. Involvement on campus was defined as both co-curricular activities and campus involvement and was analyzed through two separate models. First, I will look at the role social class has on students’ interest in co-curricular involvement as measured by the amount of time they intend to spend involved. Then I will analyze their interest in holding a job on campus. As demonstrated in Table 14, most factors related to social class did not significantly predict students’ pre-college interest in participation in co-curricular activities, except for SES Awareness, which significantly predict interest in involvement. Students who thought about their socioeconomic status more often were more likely to be interested in being involved more than 5 hours than those students who never or seldom thought about their SES. Other factors that did significantly predicted interest in co-curricular activities included gender and high school involvement. Men were more likely than women to predict themselves as being involved more than five hours. Those who were more involved in high school were more likely to predict themselves as being involved in college. This model accounted for 9.9 percent of the variance and the results of the model can be seen in Table 14 located in Appendix C. Exploring Social Class and Rationale for Involvement To answer the question of how social class contributes to first-year students’ pre-college rationale for engaging in collegiate co-curricular activities, I utilized logistic regression. Students were asked to rank order a list of reasons for getting involved and four of the provided 79 rationales were analyzed as part of this student. These rationales for getting involved that were analyzed as part of this study included: “It will look good on my resume”, “To make connections with faculty and staff”, “To feel a sense of belonging on campus”, and “To learn skills that will help me in my career”. Because students were asked to rank order nine unique reasons for getting involved, this variable was coded into two categories: rationale occurring in the top 1/3 of provided responses and rationale occurring in the bottom 2/3 of responses. Exploring “It will look good on my resume”. First, I used logistic regression to explore the relationship between students’ use of the rationale “It will look good on my resume” and factors related to their social class. There were no significant predictors of students using this rationale. The proposed model accounted for 2.1 percent of the variance and the results of the regression can be seen in Table 15 in Appendix C. Exploring “To make connections with faculty and staff”. Logistic regression was again utilized to assess whether social class plays a role in students’ interest in co-curricular involvement to make connections with faculty and staff. Factors related to social class were not significant predictors of students utilizing this rationale to support their interest in co-curricular involvement. Identifying as a woman, Black or African American, and not working during high school were significant predictors of using “To Make Connections with Faculty and Staff” as a rationale for getting involved. Women, African American or Black students, and students with extrinsic first job aspirations are more likely to identify making connections with faculty and staff as a rationale for involvement, while students who have never held a job are less likely to identify this rationale than students who held a job during high school. This model predicted 4.5 percent of the variance and the results of the regression can be seen in table 16 in Appendix C. 80 Exploring “To learn skills that will help me”. I again utilized logistic regression to understand if social class impacted students’ interest in joining student organizations in order “to learn skills that will help me”. Living in a zip code with more than 20% poverty and playing sports in high school were significant predictors of students using “To learn skills that will help me” as a rationale for getting involved. Students from zip codes with poverty rates above 20% were more likely to use this rational than students from zip codes with poverty rates below 20%. Students who participated in sports during high school were more likely to be interested in joining a co-curricular activity to gain skills that will help them in their career post college than students who did not play a sport. This model accounted for 3.9 percent of the variance and the results of the regression can be seen in Table 17 in Appendix C. Exploring “To feel a sense of belonging”. I again utilized logistic regression to understand if factors related to social class impacted students use of “To Feel a Sense of Belonging” as a rationale for joining co-curricular experiences during college. Identifying as a woman or Black or African American were significant predictors of using “To Feel a Sense of Belonging” as a rationale for getting involved during college. Students identifying as Black and African American were more likely to describe joining an organization to find a sense of belonging as a rationale than were white students. Women were also more likely to use this rationale then were men. Students’ awareness of their SES significantly impacted their ranking of “to have a sense of belonging” as a rationale to get involved. Students with higher SES awareness were more likely to use this justification than those with lower SES awareness. This model predicted 4.2 percent of variance and the results of the regression can be seen in Table 18 in Appendix C. 81 Interest in Types of Organization In the next sub-question, I explored how social class impacts first-year students’ pre- college interests in different types of collegiate co-curricular activities. Logistic regression was used to test if the sixteen variables previously described had any impact on students’ interests in joining Fraternity and Sororities, Professional Student Organizations, the Student Government Association, or seeking On-Campus Student Employment. Fraternity and Sorority Life. Logistic regression was used to understand if factors related to social class predicted students’ intentions to join fraternities and sororities on campus. Factors related to social class were not significant predictors of students’ interest in joining fraternities and sororities. Students whose post college career goals focused on extrinsic factors were significantly less likely to be interested in joining a fraternity or sorority than students with less emphasis on these goals. The proposed model accounted for 4.8 percent of the variance and the results of the regression can be seen in Table 19 in Appendix C. On-Campus Employment. I performed a logistic regression to see which of the factors impacted students’ interest in on-campus employment during college. Perceived family contribution, very high-cost stress, poverty zip code, identifying as a woman, and having been involved in co-curricular activities during high school were significant predictors of students’ intentions to pursue on-campus employment. Students with a lower perceived family contribution were significantly more likely to report intention to pursue on-campus employment than students with moderate/high perceived family contributions. Women were more likely than men to pursue on-campus employment. Students with higher cost of college stress were more likely to prioritize employment than students with lower cost of college 82 stress. Students who were more highly involved during high school were less likely to pursue on-campus employment than students who were less involved during high school. Students from high poverty zip codes were more likely to pursue on-campus employment than students from low poverty zip codes. This model accounted for 5.6 percent of the variance. The results from the regression can be seen in Table 20 in Appendix C. Professional Student Organizations. I performed another logistic regression to understand if social class impacted students’ interest in joining professional student organizations. Being a first-generation student and having post-college goals related to finding stimulating work were significant predictors of interest in joining a professional student organization. First-generation students were less likely to report being interested in professional student organizations than students who had at least one parent who had earned a bachelor’s degree. Students who identified more preference for having first job goals related to having stimulating work were more likely to have interest in professional student organization than students who identified less preference for those same first job goals. This model accounted for 3.1 percent of the variance and the results of the regression can be seen in table 21 in Appendix C. Student Government Association. Finally, I performed a logistic regression to understand the role of factors related to social class on students’ interest in joining the Student Government Association. The only statistically significant predictor of interest in joining student government was having a first job goal of working towards social change. Students who reported wanting a first job after college that works for social change were more likely to be interested in student government than those who did not share that goal for their first job after 83 college. The model accounted for 2.5 percent of the variance in their interest in this activity and the results of the regression can be seen in Table 22 in Appendix C. Summary I utilized logistic regression analysis to assess whether social class predicted students’ interest in co-curricular involvement, the rationales they identified as motivating their involvement, and the specific types of activities they were interested in engaging in. Individual measures of Socioeconomic Status, including SES Awareness, Poverty Zip Code, Cost of College Stress, and Perceived Family Contribution played a role in students’ interest in specific activities, rationale, and forms of involvement. Rural Zip Code, Subjective Social Status, and Expected Family Contribution (EFC) were not significant predictors in any of these models. I will discuss the implication of these findings in the next chapter. Employment During College Because employment during college has the potential to be a co-curricular experience, I next sought to understand if factors related to social class would impact students’ intentions to obtain a job during college. High Perceived family contribution, very high cost of college stress, and not working during high school were significant predictors of students’ intentions to work during college. The regression indicated that students who did not work in high school were less likely to indicate that they will work in college and students who perceived their families as contributing more were less likely to think that they would work during college. It also indicated that students with very high and high cost of college stress were both more likely to see themselves as working during college than students with low/moderate cost of college stress. The proposed model accounted for 7.8% of the variance in students’ intention to work during 84 college and a summary of the results of the logistic regression can be seen in Table 23 located in Appendix C. Perceived Learning in Co-Curricular Experiences The next question addressed the relationship between students’ social class and their pre-college perception of skill development from collegiate co-curricular experiences. I used four continuous variables that measure students’ perception of the ability to learn leadership through positional leadership experience, learn leadership through membership in on-campus experiences, learn work ethic through positional leadership experiences, and learn work ethic through membership in on-campus experiences as dependent variables. To address each of these dependent variables, I utilized a multiple linear regression. This method allowed me to determine the influence each factor played on the dependent variable and to understand which factors related to social class impact students’ perceptions of their ability to learn through leadership and to learn work ethic through co-curricular experiences. Leadership Learned Through Membership First, I addressed students’ perceptions that leadership can be learned through membership in on-campus experiences using multiple linear regression. Subjective social status, SES Awareness, Gender, having extrinsic career goals, having social change related career goals, and Working 1-10 hours in High School explained a significant proportion of variance in students’ perceptions that membership experiences on campus can teach them leadership skills, R2 = 0.059, F(19, 804) = 3.700, p < .001. Students with higher subjective social class and students with higher SES awareness were more likely to believe that they could learn leadership through membership in on-campus experiences. Women were more likely to believe they could 85 learn leadership through membership than male students. Students who worked 1-10 hours in high school more likely to believe they could learn leadership through membership than students who worked more than 10 hours or not at all during high school. Students who had extrinsic goals for their first destination jobs were less likely to believe they would learn leadership through membership in co-curricular activities than those who did not, while students with first job goals related to social change were more likely to believe they could learn leadership through membership experiences than those who did not have first job goals related to social change. This model accounted for 5.9 percent of the variance. The results of the regression can be seen in Table 24 in Appendix C. Leadership Learned Through Positional Leadership Next, I utilized multiple regression to understand students’ perceptions of their ability to learn leadership through positional student leadership experiences on campus. SES Awareness, Gender, and identifying as Black or African American explained a significant proportion of variance in students’ perceptions that leadership skills can be learned through membership in a student organization, R2 = .023, F(19,804) = 2.022, p < .01. Women students were more likely to believe they would learn leadership through positional leadership experiences than male students. White students were more likely to believe they would learn leadership through positional leadership experiences than Black and African American students. Students with higher SES awareness were more likely to believe they would learn leadership through positional leadership experiences than students with lower SES awareness. This model accounted for 2.3 percent of the variance. The results of the regression can be seen in Table 25 in Appendix C. 86 Work Ethic Through Membership I completed a multiple linear regression to understand if students’ perceived membership in on-campus programs as being able to help them learn work ethic. SES Awareness, Gender, identifying as Black or African American, high school involvement, and working 1-10 hours in high school explained a significant proportion of the variance in students’ perceptions that work ethic can be learned through leadership positions on campus, R2 = .048, F(19,804) = 3.205, p < .001. The higher a student’s SES Awareness was, the more likely students believed they could learn work ethic through membership experiences. Black or African American students were less likely than white students and students of other minoritized races to believe they would learn work ethic through membership in a campus experience. Students who identified as a woman were more likely to believe that they would learn work ethic through membership than male students. Students who were more involved in extracurricular activities during high school were more likely to believe that they would learn work ethic through membership than students who were less involved during high school. Students who worked 1 to 10 hours in college were more likely to believe that they would learn work ethic through membership than student who did not work or worked more than 10 hours. This model accounted for 4.8 percent of the variance. The results of the regression can be seen in Table 26 in Appendix C. Work Ethic Through Positional Leadership I ran another linear regression to understand students’ perceptions of their ability to learn work ethic through leadership positions. SES Awareness, identifying as a woman, and not working in high school explained a significant proportion of the variance in students’ 87 perceptions that work ethic can be learned through leadership on campus, R2 = .033, F(19,804) = 2.492, p < .001. Students with higher SES Awareness were more likely to believe they would learn work ethic through positional leadership experiences than students with lower SES awareness. Women students were more likely to believe they would learn work ethic through positional leadership than men. Students who had not worked during high school were also more likely to believe they would learn work ethic through positional leadership than students who had worked. This model accounted for 3.3% of the variance. The results of the regression can be seen in Table 27 in Appendix C. Summary The multiple linear regressions were performed to understand students’ perceptions of whether membership experiences and leadership experiences can teach them work ethic and leadership. Through this, I was able to demonstrate that there is a significant relationship between both students’ SES Awareness and Gender with students’ perceptions of what they’ll gain through membership and leadership experiences. There are occasionally significant relationships between students’ subjective social status, students’ race being Black of African American, and students’ time spent working during high school on the perceptions of what they’ll gain through membership and leadership experiences. These factors all consistently accounted for a small amount of the variation in their perceptions. 88 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND CONCLUSION This study explored the role that social class plays in college students’ pre-college interest in co-curricular engagement, their reasons for getting involved during college, and whether they believe they will learn leadership and work ethic skills from membership and leadership experiences within co-curricular experiences. The study was designed to explore the impact that social class, in its different conceptualizations, has on first-year student involvement. In this chapter, I analyze the results of this study and contextualize them within the larger body of literature on co-curricular involvement and social class. First, I discuss students’ interest in involvement and on-campus employment. Then, I discuss the impact of social class on students’ rationale for engaging in co-curricular experiences and on students’ interest in specific activities. Next, I outline how social class impacts students’ perceptions of their ability to learn leadership and work ethic from co-curricular experiences. Finally, I will outline how the findings from this study have implications for theory, practice, and research within the field of higher education. Getting Involved on Campus Through this study, I found that the only statistically significant factor related to social class that impacted students' intentions to get involved in co-curricular activities more than five hours a week in college was students’ SES Awareness (how often they thought about their socioeconomic status in the last year). The more often a student had thought about their SES, the more likely they were to desire to get more involved on campus. The SES Awareness measure is non-significantly correlated with the other social class related measures, which suggests that it is not assessing either subjective social status or income based socioeconomic 89 status and is instead, addressing an altogether different concept. Based on this study, it is impossible to say whether students from lower- or higher-class backgrounds were more likely to consider their SES more often than students from other class backgrounds. Research on the concept of SES Awareness is limited. Buckley and Park addressed the complexity of social class identity awareness in their 2019 study. They found that for some students, regardless of their social class, the concept of social class did not become salient until they arrived on campus. Income-based conversations with their parents through the FAFSA process, living with peers, and course content all led students to consider their social class more frequently. The authors also found that some wealthier students at public institutions considered their own class standing more often once they were around peers with different class privilege (Buckley & Park, 2019). Little research has previously considered how students construct their social class identities (Graham-Bailey et al., 2019). In my study, SES Awareness had very low correlations with other more hierarchical measures of social class like income, expected family contribution, or subjective social status. This lack of correlation, combined with the findings of Buckley and Park (2019), make it difficult to infer about the class standing of students with high SES Awareness and instead make it likely that this question is a proxy for understanding students’ social identity awareness and saliency more broadly. Further research is needed that explores the role that awareness of SES plays in the experiences of college students (Graham-Bailey, 2019). The insignificance of the measures Expected Family Contribution, Perceived Family Contribution, and stress of paying is similar to the findings of Silver (2020). Silver (2020) found that students from all social class backgrounds have similar post-college career goals, but it is 90 students’ motivations for these goals and manifestations of their goals that are impacted by their social class upbringing. In my study students across all sociodemographic characteristics had similar pre-college goals as well. And accordingly, previous research that measured students’ co-curricular participation rates during and after college- instead of their pre-college interest- has found significant differences in students’ participation rates based on their social class (Lott, 2002; Park, 2012; Pascarella, et al., 2004; Soria, 2013a). The inconsistency between the finding of students’ interest in engagement and previous research on actual student engagement provides further support for the idea that there may be systematic barriers on college campuses which prevent students’ participation in co-curricular activities (Langhout et al., 2007; Locke & Trolian, 2018; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). My findings challenge the work of Barratt (2012) and his suggestion that “students perceive or fail to perceive the need to participate in planned experiences based on their social class identity and economic, cultural and social capital” (p. 1). The lack of statistical significance of most hierarchical social class related factors indicates that students from all social class backgrounds similarly perceive the need to participate in co-curricular experiences. Rather, the barriers to co-curricular engagement occur on campus (Langhout et al., 2007; Locke & Trolian, 2018; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). Although Stuber (2009) explained that working-class and poor sophomores and juniors recalled being skeptical of engagement from the onset of college, my study demonstrates that initially working-class and poor students at least had a comparable level of interest in participating in co-curricular activities as compared to their middle- and upper-class peers. That working-class and poor students have similar interest in spending more than five 91 hours a week involved in co-curricular experiences to their more privileged peers is encouraging given the research on the ability of co-curricular experiences to provide support for working- class individuals (Bowman & Homles, 2017; Soria, 2013a). With interest not a barrier to working-class and poor students’ co-curricular participation, Bettencourt’s (2020) call for low cost and free activities to support the needs of working-class and poor individuals is that much more important. While this piece of my research may not have specifically answered Soria’s (2013b) nor Walpole’s (2003) suggestions for additional research on why working-class and poor students do not get involved, it further complicates the discussion about social class and co-curricular involvement by identifying that working-class and poor students do indeed have comparable interest to their more privileged peers in engaging in co-curricular experiences, and my research removes interest as a rationale for why these students may not engage at similar rates to their peers. Next, I explore the impact of socio-economic factors on students’ interest in working during college. Rationales for Joining Organizations As I explored students’ rationales for getting involved on campus, there were social class related factors that predicted students’ use of most, but not all, of the different rationales as reasons for getting involved in co-curricular experiences. When there was a difference, which of the social class related measures (SES Awareness, working during High School, or Poverty Zip Code) that best accounted for the difference was inconsistent. In addition to differences in students’ interest in engagement according to social class, I also found differences for students of other minoritized backgrounds (specifically race and gender), which demonstrates the importance of utilizing language that is intentional and inclusive when seeking to promote 92 experiences to minoritized populations. Research supports the idea that for students with minoritized identities, specific rationales and motivations impact their decision making both before and during college (Bui, 2002; Tsai, et al., 2020). For example, Tsai and colleagues (2020) explored the differences in first-generation high school students’ motivations for attending college and urged school administrators to use these rationales as measures of when to intervene with high school students to support their college attendance. Using rationale that speaks to working-class and poor students, and creating spaces that provide the benefits they seek may be an important tool in helping to design effective interventions and encourage students of all backgrounds to get engaged on campus in co-curricular activities. My research is also incredibly pertinent given Trolian’s (2019) finding that pre-college attitudes toward career goals can impact students’ selection of co-curricular activities. While the specific rationales for involvement were different between my study and Trolian’s and Trolian did not look specifically at the role of social class, Trolian’s study demonstrated that pre- college attitudes and perspectives can impact the co-curricular engagement decisions students make. In this section I will outline key findings on the way that social class impacts students’ rationale for participating in co-curricular activities. To Learn Skills That Will Help Me in My Career Of the choices that students had the opportunity to select as a reason that they would be interested in getting involved in co-curricular experiences on campus, “To learn skills that will help me in my career” was the most highly selected rationale by the students in the study. When considering the impact of social class on student utilization of the rational to “To learn skills that will help me in my career”, zip code poverty over 20 percent was a significant 93 predictor of students’ selection of this rationale. The higher a student’s poverty rate was, the more likely they were to be interested in getting involved to learn skills that will help them in their career. This finding supports the work of Barrett (2012) in his assessment that working-class and poor students are likely to view college as a means to post-college employment. While student affairs administrators are often hesitant to take a neo-liberal approach (suggesting that the core benefit of these experiences is for career related outcomes) when marketing student affairs activities, utilizing a neo-liberal approach may act as a gateway for individuals to engage in activities. Co-curricular experiences and on-campus employment have the potential to teach liberal arts skills (Dugan, 2013; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Kuh et al., 2005; McClellan et al., 2018), so it is worth considering if student affairs practitioners should focus on speaking to the students’ motivation for joining to get them engaged in activities and then focus on designing the activities to promote liberal arts skill development. For students from high poverty communities, the emphasis on experiences that will directly relate to career development is an important draw. It Will Look Good on My Resume None of the social class related measures were significant predictors of students’ use of “It will look good on my resume” as a rationale for getting involved on campus, meaning that it spoke similarly to students from all social class backgrounds. This rationale is an alternate take on the neo-liberal ideals suggested by “To learn skills that will help me in my career” and it directly connects the value of co-curricular engagement to career related outcomes. Previous research has suggested to use career focused rationales to specifically recruit working-class and 94 poor students to co-curricular experiences (Houze, 2021), and these findings do not negate the ability of this rationale to speak to working-class and poor students. Instead, knowing that this rationale for encouraging engagement speaks to all students, regardless of background, makes it a powerful tool for encouraging involvement on college campuses. Use of this rationale by practitioners requires additional work after students are involved to help them articulate their learning from these experiences into job interviews. Employers want employees to be able to explain what they learned or gained more than they want individuals with extensive resumes and no ability to articulate what they gained through these experiences (Ampaw, et al., 2019). As a result, the core concern with this ideology towards involvement is that students may be drawn to select many activities without plans for long term or sustained engagement or learning from the activity. While resume building is not necessarily a bad reason to help a working-class or poor student get their foot into the door of involvement, it means additional work may need to be done to help the students be intentional in their selection of activities in order to ensure that the students are focusing on a few substantive experiences rather than building a long list of occasional engagements that have the potential to support their long-term development (Peck & Preston, 2018). This is particularly important as faculty and staff on college campuses work to help working-class and poor students make the most of their potentially limited time for engagement in co-curricular activities. To Make a Connection with Faculty and Staff This rationale was used uniformly across measures of social class. However, this rationale was more common in students who were employed in high school. As described 95 above, working in high school does have implications for students’ SES, but those differences are not as straight forward as many initially assume; students from higher income backgrounds are actually more likely to work during high school than those from lower income backgrounds (Staff et al., 2020). Thus, this finding is not particularly relevant when considering how social class impacts students’ perceptions of this rationale. It is helpful to understand that students’ pre-college employment experiences impact co-curricular interest during college. Women and African American and Black students were also more likely to be interested in this justification for co-curricular experiences. This is interesting given the work of Walpole (2007) that reported black, lower SES students had less contact with faculty during their college careers than their peers. Despite prioritizing this as a reason for engaging and valuing faculty engagement as part of the co-curricular experience, other barriers exist that limit minoritized students’ ability to engage with faculty at the same frequency as their more privileged peers (Kim & Sax, 2009; Walpole, 2007). No longer can we say that racially minoritized students and women are less likely to see the ability to interact with faculty as a benefit or reason to be engaged. Instead, it supports further research on strategies to dismantle the barriers that minoritized students experience once they are on campus that limit their ability to participate in co-curricular experiences (Langhout et al., 2007; Locke & Trolian, 2018; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). If working-class and poor students are joining student organizations to build relations with faculty and staff, it is also important to ask with whom we are connecting students to when they join student organizations, given the risk of microaggressions for working-class and poor students within the university (Locke & Trolian, 2018). A participant in Bettencourt’s 96 (2020) study supported the idea that not all faculty and staff are able to provide the support working-class and poor students need when that participant said, "You can't be a class ally if you're an Upper-Class person because you don't understand." This student reported not feeling as if most university faculty and staff were prepared to support their unique needs, because they could not relate to the student’s lived experiences. If students seek involvement for connection with faculty and staff but have experiences similar to those in Bettencourt’s study, they could be turned off from exploring further involvement opportunities. Ensuring that faculty and staff working with student organizations are prepared to support working-class and poor students is essential to encouraging their collegiate involvement. Connecting students with faculty and staff from working-class and poor backgrounds introduces its own set of challenges. Working-class and poor faculty face microaggressions within the institution that leave them feeling othered and forced to conform to the middle-class values of the institution rather than demonstrate the values of their social class of origin (Ardoin & martinez, 2019; Lee, 2017). Working-class and poor students are less likely to earn advanced degrees and less likely to attend prestigious institutions (Walpole, 2003). As a result, working-class and poor students are also less likely to be eligible to become faculty- and this difference is more pronounced at more prestigious institutions (Ostrove et al., 2011; Walpole, 2003; Wright et al., 2018). This pipeline problem then over burdens a small number of faculty with the work of supporting working-class and poor students. It can also be challenging for students to identify faculty from working-class and poor backgrounds given the pressure within academia for faculty to conform to the middle-class values of the institutions (Lee, 2017). Panels of working-class and poor faculty during orientation, stickers for faculty office doors, and 97 intentionally designed mentorship programs could all help students to identify faculty who grew up working-class or poor. Although the academy needs to address the pressure to conform and work to promote and hire more faculty from diverse social class backgrounds to act as role models, this may not be immediately possible. Thus, universities must work to train and prepare all faculty and staff on how to support working-class and poor students. Ensuring that universities are connecting working-class and poor students to staff that are trained to support their needs is an incredibly important, yet challenging proposition (Rosati et al., 2019). Co-curricular experiences provide a tremendous opportunity to increase the level of faculty and staff engagement for minoritized students given they are just as aware of this benefit as their peers. However, there is a pertinent need to remove the barriers in place that limit this engagement once they arrive on campus and ensure that these interactions are supportive relationships. To Feel a Sense of Belonging Students with higher SES Awareness were more likely to select “To feel a sense of belonging” as a reason for getting involved on campus than students with lower SES Awareness. But men and African American and Black students were less likely to select this rationale than women and white students were. Given that working-class students have historically had a lower sense of belonging than their upper- and middle-class peers, many may be looking for ways to find this connection (Ardoin, 2018b; Backhaus, 2009; Nunn, 2021; Soria et al., 2014). As previously discussed, SES Awareness is not necessarily a measure that can be used to classify individuals as upper or lower class, but instead helps to conceptualize the idea that students who are more often aware of their social class identities are more likely to seek belonging on 98 campus (Buckley & Park, 2019). Although my findings indicated that students’ sought involvement to support their sense of belonging prior to college, once in college students instead prioritized their career, economic, and academic goals likely due to financial stress caused by high levels of debt (Baker, 2019). It is possible that students can understand the role that a sense of belonging might play in their success, but once they get to college barriers lead them to shift their focus away from finding belonging towards other goals and objectives. The lack of interest by men and black and African American students invites a discussion about the importance of language when recruiting students to co-curricular experiences. While “to feel a sense of belonging” may work as a tool to promote co-curricular experiences to some populations of students, it is less effective for men than women and for Black and African American students than white students. Concerningly, men and black and African American students are also less likely to participate in co-curricular experiences (Polmear, et al., 2021; Simmons & Chau, 2021; Walpole, 2007), suggesting that solely relying on this rationale could further exclude men and Black and African American students from co-curricular involvement. This does not mean that that promoting a sense of belonging should not be used to recruit students into co-curricular experience, but it is paramount that those leading these experiences not rely solely on sense of belonging as a reason that students get involved on campus. Incorporating other rationales that speak to men and black and African American students is required to creating an equitable college experience for students from all backgrounds. Conclusions Students from working-class and poor backgrounds are as interested in getting involved 99 as their peers from more privileged social class backgrounds and have interest in using co- curricular experiences as a tool for reaching their professional and career related goals. While there were clear social class implications for students’ identification of specific rationales for engaging in co-curricular experiences, the lack of social class significance in involvement as a tool for promoting belonging and faculty and staff engagement was also important. Understanding how to use these rationales to both speak specifically to minorized students and how to use these rationales to speak to all students in a way that does not exclude other minoritized student populations is essential to promoting equitable student engagement on campus. These findings support the idea that messaging matters when encouraging involvement in college if the goal is really inclusion of all individuals. Joining Co-Curricular Experiences Although social class can play a role in the rationales students provide as motivating them to get involved during college, its significance shows up differently in the types of organizations students are interested in getting involved with. In the following sections, I discuss the role that social class plays in students’ interest in joining four specific types of co- curricular experiences on campus: fraternities and sororities, on-campus employment, professional student organizations, and student government. Fraternities and Sororities Factors related to social class were not significant predictors of students’ interest in joining fraternities and sororities. These results are particularly interesting given research that finds that fraternity and sorority members are generally from more affluent backgrounds than their peers (Chang & DeAngelo, 2002; Stuber, 2009). The inconsistency between students’ 100 interest in joining these experiences and the research on who participates in these organizations supports the notion that there are systematic barriers- many of which are related to students’ economic, social, and cultural capital- present on campus that limit students’ participation in these organization (Ardoin & martinez, 2019; Soria, 2013a; Stuber, 2009). Additional research is needed on the inconsistency between interest and participation in fraternity and sorority life, particularly for working-class and poor students. It is also worth exploring how the type of institution and the fraternity and sorority culture at that institution impact the differences between interest and participation for working-class and poor students. Given the potential for aspects of the fraternity and sorority experience to promote a sense of belonging on campus for working-class and poor students who would benefit from an increased sense of belonging, and the interest of working-class and poor students to engage in fraternity and sorority life, university administrators must examine these organizations from a class-based lens (Soria, 2013a). Research has long talked about the financial barriers to participation in these organizations (Barrett, 2012; Stuber, 2009). Researchers have also explored many systematic barriers related to social and cultural capital (including expectations of clothing and physical appearance, the organizations espoused values, and the need for alumni connections to gain membership) that make it challenging for working-class and poor students to join fraternities and sororities (Ardoin & martinez, 2019; Soria, 2013a; Stuber, 2009). But despite this, my findings demonstrate the same interest of working-class and poor students to join fraternities and sororities. The findings collectively demonstrate that these organizations must change if they are going to benefit working-class and poor students. I will further explore the implications these findings have for practitioners later in this chapter. 101 On-Campus Jobs Students with a lower perceived family contribution were more likely to prioritize having a job on campus over other co-curricular experiences. Students with very high stress related to paying for college were also more likely to be interested in an on-campus job than students with lower stress of paying for college. This finding is consistent with data on which students work during college. Whether on-campus or off-campus employment, lower income students are more likely to need to work a greater number of hours than their middle- and upper-class peers during college, giving them less time to be involved in other experiences (Carnevale & Smith, 2018; Langhout et al., 2007). While research suggests that working can be a high impact practice and positively impact the students, off-campus employment poses a threat to students’ on-campus success (McClellan et al., 2018; Nunez & Sansone, 2016). Baum (2010) found that less than ten percent of students who work during college work on campus, suggesting that the vast majority of working-class and poor students are working off-campus jobs. University administrators must assess whether there are enough on-campus jobs- and that those jobs that exist pay similar to that of off-campus jobs- to meet the needs of working- class and poor students. The question of how students rank on-campus employment among other involvement opportunities was different than the previous question that measured students’ intention to work during college for two reasons. The first is because asking them to rank on-campus employment among other opportunities forced them to prioritize their interest in holding a job against their interest in engaging in other co-curricular experiences. The way that this question asked students to rank activities mirrors their decision process in college. For students who 102 need or want to work, they will presumably be unable to choose as many non-paid activities. Second, this question specifically addressed the desire of students to have an on-campus job. Research has supported the ability of on-campus work to serve as a meaningful co-curricular experience for students, suggesting that for working-class and poor students who need to work, on-campus jobs may be able to serve many of the same purposes as the other experiences available (Barnhardt et al., 2019; Black 2020; McClellan et al., 2018; Rossmann, 2019). For poor and working-class students, the need to prioritize employment during college plays a key role in their decision-making process once they are at college. Research by Backhaus (2009) and Langhout and colleagues (2007) demonstrated the ways in which working-class and poor students are often forced to choose between working and co-curricular experiences in an effort to balance their commitments during college, echoing my findings. Professional Student Organizations While many types of organizations have the potential to prepare students for professional fields (Peck & Preston, 2018), professional student organizations that are explicitly linked to future career paths, like the Future Mathematicians Association or the Future Psychologists Association, may present a unique opportunity for working-class and poor students. Most factors related to socioeconomic status did not predict students’ interest in professional student organizations, but students from first-generation backgrounds were less likely to want to participate in professional student organizations than non-first-generation students. Given the increased interest of students from working-class and poor backgrounds to engage in co-curricular experiences to learn career related skills, recruiting these students to 103 professional student organizations should be conceivable. Even though these organizations often require a smaller time and financial commitment than other organizations and co- curricular experiences on campus (like Fraternity or Sorority Life), students still report the cost associated with professional student organizations as limiting their participation (Kendall, et al., 2020). Student Government None of the social class related variables were significant predictors of the small percent of students who expressed interest in participating in Student Government Association as a co- curricular opportunity. For this small number of students, neither SES nor social class, race, gender, first-generation status, nor past involvement were predictive of their interest in being involved in student governance, meaning that student government spoke to all students of diverse backgrounds similarly. Conversely, students’ interest in having a job after college that supports social change positively predicted interest in joining student government association. Participation in student government has been found to support students’ professional development (May, 2010), development of a sense of purpose (Azmitia et al., 2013; Kuh & Lund, 1994), and assists in their development of goal setting and budgeting skills (Diorio, 2007). Given these benefits, and the uniform interest for students from all backgrounds, student government has the potential to be a powerful tool for supporting working-class and poor students’ participation in co-curricular experiences. Additionally, having a diverse and representative student government that includes working-class and poor students is important to having the values of all students reflected in the leaders’ voices and helping improve the climate on campus for working-class and poor students (Schueler et al., 2009). 104 Participation in student government is not always accessible for working-class and poor students. For example, student government elections often rely on campaigns. This may cost the students money to campaign and will take social and cultural capital to get elected to the positions, all things that working-class and poor student generally have less of than their middle- and upper-class peers (Houze, 2021). Campus administrators must find ways to minimize the impact of expensive elections with college provided funds for elections and hard spending limits. They must also offer mentorship to young members of the student government to ensure that potential presidents from all backgrounds are prepared to lead. Student government leadership positions also work closely with university presidents and boards of trustees in more formal settings (May, 2009). If working-class and poor students are not prepared for these interactions, they could be potentially jarring. Ensuring that student government leaders have strong advising and mentorship from university staff that understand these concerns in essential for the success of working-class and poor students in these roles (Miles, 2011). Recent articles have identified concerns with access to leadership experiences for working-class and poor students (Bureau et al., 2021; Soria et al., 2014; Soria, 2021). If intentionally designed to be thoughtful to needs of working-class and poor students, student government provides a fantastic means for working-class and poor students to get engaged on campus as it can be a free or low-cost experience and can act as a meaningful development experience. By ensuring that students meet within the normal business day, providing campus funds to cover campaign related expenses (with reasonable spending limits on campaigns), and providing intentional mentorship to new leaders within the organization, student government 105 participation can start to answer Bettencourt’s (2020) call for more free and low-cost engagement experiences on campus. While the low interest rate in student government from students in my study is discouraging, the opportunity for it to support students regardless of their social identity makes student government an experience worth exploring. Working During College Students’ perceptions of their family’s contribution to their college education, how stressed they were about the cost of college, and whether they worked during high school were all significant factors in predicting students’ interest in working during college. This finding aligns with research by Carnevale and Smith (2018), which found that lower income students generally work more hours than their higher income peers; Walpole’s (2003) finding that working-class students value investment in economic capital matches this finding as well. In the current study, students’ pre-college interest in working during college was better explained by relative measures of socio-economic status (perceived family contribution and stress of paying for college) than by the income-based metric of socioeconomic status (Expected Family Contribution) that have historically been used in studies on college student behaviors (Carnevale & Smith, 2018; Soria, 2018; Walpole, 2003). Soria (2018) suggests that one of the problems with income, or income related measures like Expected Family Contribution, is the fluid nature of income and suggests metrics that consider a family’s long term wealth patterns may be more useful in conceptualizing social class than point-in-time metrics. Additionally, income-based measures that present as being objective likely incorporate some level of calculation and interpretation that makes them more subjective than most would initially imagine. For example, if a parent, student, or spouse are defined as a dislocated worker, they 106 currently qualify for an automatic zero Expected Family Contribution, regardless of the role this earners wages played in the family’s financial picture (NASFAA Higher Education Act Reauthorization Priorities — Accomplished Recommendations, 2021). While in theory, supporting dislocated workers makes sense, if they are not an essential portion of the family’s income, leads EFC to be an inaccurate representation of the family’s financial situation. Therefore, subjective metrics that do not front as being objective likes stress of college cost and perceived family contribution likely do a better job in understanding a family’s long-term class standing than point-in-time income-based measures alone. These findings are also interesting when one considers how eligibility is determined for federal work study programs- programs that encourage campuses to hire lower income students for on-campus positions and provide financial support for their college attendance and co-curricular engagement. Federal work study support eligibility is determined using a federal financial aid process that relies upon Expected Family Contribution (EFC). The lack of significance in EFC in students’ intentions to work begs the question of whether this is really the best way to support students’ desire to work on campus (Baum, 2010). It is also important to recognize that for students needing more than 20-25 hours of employment, on-campus jobs may not be an option. Federal requirements for employer-provided health care (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 2010) and state laws mandating sick time accrual for full- time employment (Paid Medical Leave Act, 2018) cause many institutions to limit students’ hours working on campus to avoid the students being classified as full-time employees, which forces those students to juggle a combination of jobs or to work exclusively off campus. Finally, students who did not work during high school did not have an expectation of 107 working during college. But beyond this, the significance of students’ experience having worked in high school is more complicated to explore given the findings of Staff et al., (2020). Staff et al. found that lower SES high school students are less likely to work during high school than their higher SES peers are. Thus, having worked in high school may not actually be a proxy for being from a working-class or poor background. Further exploration into the ways that high school employment behavior predicts college employment behavior may be necessary. Perceptions of Learning and Social Class While measures of social class were significant predictors of students’ perceptions of their ability to learn from co-curricular experiences, the specific factors that predicted these perceptions were not consistent between learning work ethic through positional leadership and membership and learning leadership through positional leadership and membership. SES Awareness consistently predicted students’ belief that they could learn leadership and work ethic from both leadership and membership in campus activities, while subjective social status, working in high school, and high school co-curricular involvement were significant predictors for some of the students’ perceptions. In the following sections I first talk about students’ perceptions of learning work ethic as a leader and as a member. Then I will discuss students’ perceptions of learning leadership as a positional leader and as a member. Work Ethic Students with higher SES Awareness were more likely to view activities, both as leaders and members, as ways to learn work ethic than were students with less SES awareness. Those who had worked 1-10 hours in high school were more likely to view work ethic as learned through membership. Students working this number of hours are more likely to come from 108 middle- and upper-class backgrounds (Carnevale & Smith, 2018). If Carnevale and Smith’s findings hold true for this population, working-class and poor students are less likely to view work ethic as being learned from membership experiences than their upper- and middle-class peers. Students who had not worked in high school were more likely to view work ethic as learned through positional experiences. These findings demonstrate the complexity of social class and the ways in which different measures address different pieces of the social class experience. Ensuring that all students can understand the ability of these experiences to teach them these essential skills, and then later articulate that learning regardless of their social class background, is important to their long-term employment outlook (Ampaw, et al., 2019). Despite the predictive nature of these variables, the percentage of students who perceived these experiences as being able to teach them work ethic is still a low proportion of the student body. Student affairs practitioners have work to do in this area given the emphasis that employers put on students’ ability to articulate how they learned skills like work ethic and leadership during college as part of their hiring processes. Leadership Students with higher SES Awareness were more likely to view leadership as being learned through both membership and positional leadership experiences than their peers and higher SES Awareness also increased students’ interest in involvement. Research supports the idea that co-curricular experiences have the opportunity to teach students leadership skills (Dugan, 2013; Dugan & Komives, 2007, 2010). For these students, there is direct recognition of the potential for these experiences to teach them leadership skills and an interest in engaging in these activities. 109 Students with higher subjective social status also viewed membership in co-curricular experiences as being able to teach them leadership skills. This is the only time in the study that Subjective Social Status was a significant predictor of students’ interests or beliefs. Based on the MacArthur ladder scales (Adler et al., 2000), this factor assesses how students view their social status as fitting among their community and the country as a whole. Students were asked to rank where they fall within both their community and the US as a whole on a 10-point scale. These two items were combined during the factor analysis. Similar versions of the MacArthur ladder scale have been used within higher education to understand things like the impact of socio-economic status on college student sleep patterns, college students’ experience with classism on campus, and the body image experiences of college students (Allan, et al, 2016; Counts, et al., 2018; Nouri, et al., 2009). The MacArthur scale answers the American Psychological Associations call for including subjective social status in definitions of social class (American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status, 2015). According to Peck and Preston (2018), students need to learn through membership roles to progress into leadership positions and learn the skills they need to lead after college. Working-class and poor students’ less frequent perceptions of the benefits of membership experiences may inhibit engaging in these experiences when compared to their more privileged peers, thus inhibiting them from progressing on to organizational leadership positions during college. Peck and Preston (2018) argue that the lack of participation in college leadership experiences will then hinder students from eventually gaining leadership roles within their post-college employment. Students’ perceptions of the benefits of the introductory opportunities they have on campus (membership roles) create a pipeline for their future 110 engagement and their perceptions cannot be ignored. Additional attention must be given to ensure working-class and poor students have similar perceptions of their ability to gain skills through membership experiences as their more privileged peers rather than thinking that they can only learn leadership through positional leadership experiences. Working in High School. Working in high school significantly impacted students’ interpretations of what they believe they will learn through co-curricular experiences at the membership level, but it did not impact what they believed they would learn through the positional leadership level. Students who worked 1-10 hours were more likely to believe leadership can be learned through membership in an organization than their peers who did not work at all during high school or those that worked more than 10 hours during high school. Carnevale and Smith’s (2018) research supports the idea that students who work a low number of hours a week are likely to not be from poor and working-class backgrounds. My finding, in conjunction with Carnevale and Smith’s work, supports the idea that working-class and poor students are less likely than their peers to perceive themselves as learning leadership through membership experiences and serving in membership roles is often required to acquire leadership positions. The increased likelihood of more privileged students seeing membership as teaching them leadership has the potential to cause a pipeline problem in on-campus co- curricular experiences that ultimately favors middle- and upper-class students gaining leadership roles. High School Sports and Involvement. Participation in co-curricular activities and sports in high school was not predictive of students’ belief that they could learn leadership or work ethic as leaders or members in on-campus co-curricular experiences. Despite research finding 111 that students learn these skills through participation in youth sports and high school co- curricular activities (Extejt & Smith, 2009; Galante & Ward, 2017), having high school co- curricular experiences did not contribute to their ability to see college co-curricular experiences as able to teach them leadership or work ethic. This study is not able to conclude why this is, although it is possible that either these students are not aware of what they learned through their high school co-curricular experiences, or they do not view their high school experiences as parallel to potential college experiences. One concern with this is the potential that the same problems could occur in their transition from college to post college. Peck and Preston (2018) clearly articulate the ways that co-curricular college experiences model the post college career experience, so ensuring that students are able to see the learning occurring in experience through transitions is essential to their long-term success. Goal Orientation. Students’ pre-college goal orientation was a significant predictor of students’ interest in engaging in co-curricular experiences, use of specific rationales for involvement (faculty and staff), interest in specific types of student experiences (fraternity and sorority life, professional student organizations), and students’ perceptions of their ability to learn leadership through membership in co-curricular experiences. The findings from this study support the work of Trolin (2019), who found that pre-college goals impacted students’ decisions around what they engaged in during college. While this study did not examine the relationship between goal orientation and social class, this finding helps to expand the understanding of factors that contribute to an individual student’s engagement decision making outside of demographic factors. 112 Non-significant Metrics Some of the most interesting and important findings in this research come from factors that were not statistically significant in my research. In this section, I discuss Expected Family Contribution, rural zip code, and underrepresented race as important non-significant findings. Expected Family Contribution One of the primary goals of this study was to explore the metrics that are utilized to understand and measure social class in higher education research. Income, Expected Family Contribution (EFC), and Pell eligibility are metrics often utilized for socio economic status in academic research and student affairs identification of working-class and poor students (Houze, 2021; Soria, 2018). Without exception, Expected Family Contribution (EFC) was not a significant predictor of students’ pre-college perception of interest in co-curricular involvement at any point in this study. This is worrisome given higher education researchers’ reliance on these income-based metrics to conceptualize social class and socio-economic status. Separate from the critiques of the EFC as an ineffective measure of students’ financial status (Baum & Rueban, 2020; Fletcher & Fuller, 2021; Goldrick-Rab, 2016), EFC is a snapshot of a student’s family income at one given time. As we seek to understand SES and social class, we are looking to understand the impact of a student’s social class across their lifetime on their current decision making. More subjective measures paint a broader picture of students’ lived experience, providing a more long-term understanding of students’ social class than EFC and other income-based point-in-time metrics. It is worth noting that while in 2020 it was announced that Expected Family Contribution (EFC) will become the Student Aid Index (SAI), the change offers few revisions 113 beyond the name (National Association of Student Financial Aid, 2021). The name change may provide less confusion for working-class and poor students as to what this metric is attempting to measure, which is much needed from an equity and access perspective. However, it is unlikely to make the metric any more accurate than the existing measure when studying the impact of students’ social class on their college experience. One of this study’s most significant findings was the insignificance of Expected Family Contribution (EFC) in favor of other subjective measures of students’ socioeconomic status and their subjective social status. The implications for this finding will be more fully discussed in the coming sections. Rural Zip Code Students’ zip code of origin indicating rural or urban did not have a significant impact on their pre-college beliefs and interest in co-curricular experiences for this population of students. Authors like Vance (2016) have articulated the importance of living in working-class and rural communities on students’ perspectives and authors have found significant differences in the experiences of rural or urban students when coming to college (Ardoin, 2018a; Byun et al., 2012; Cain & Smith, 2020) and in their participation in co-curricular experiences (Ganss, 2016). It is still possible that co-curricular experience decision making is better described by individual subjective measures of social class than measures based on one’s community of origin. Underrepresented Race The lack of significance of the underrepresented race category, except in the case of fraternity and sorority interest, is not surprising given the limited diversity within the sample. The limited racial and ethnic diversity of the sample that led to combining several racial 114 identities into one category is a significant limitation of this study and an area that should be addressed in future research on the topic. Conclusion Factors measuring social class had a significant impact on students’ interest in employment during college, interest in professional student organizations, use of “it will look good on my resume” and “to learn skills that will help me in my career” as rationales for involvement, and perceptions of learning from co-curricular experiences. In some situations, the lack of significance of social class was particularly interesting. Expected Family Contribution (EFC) was not a significant predictor of students’ perspectives or interest in any of the measured items and instead, other measures of social class and socioeconomic status were significant. In the next section, I discuss the limitations of this study. Limitations With every research study, there are limitations that must be explored. In addition to my previous acknowledgment of the limitations of the use of archival data, and my recognition that quantitative surveys do not allow for the inclusion of all possible interests and motivations a student might have, the generalizability of a single institution sample and the role of residence hall participation on social class are both limitation that must be considered. Because this survey was done at a single institution, its generalizability beyond the campus of the sample is very limited. Although both surveys used in this study had large participation rates and were distributed during times all students could complete the surveys, student self-selection limits the data analysis. Despite these limitations, the data contribute additional understanding of the impact of social class on this campus that may support the 115 development of further research. In order to participate in the engagement and employability research study, students had to be living in residence halls. Although the host institution has a requirement for first-year students to live on campus, there are exceptions made to this policy for students whose home address is in a 25-mile radius of the campus. For the sample population, 149 of the 3,076 first- year students chose to live off campus. As discussed in chapter two, research indicates that students from lower SES background are less likely to live in residence halls than their higher- class peers (King, 2005; Paulsen & St. John, 2002). It is possible that lower-class individuals living in a close proximity may be excluded from the study because of their decision to live off campus. With these limitations in mind, I now discuss the implications of this study for practice, theory, and research. Implications for Practice Within higher education, and more specifically student affairs, this study has several implications for practice. In the next sections, I outline how this study supports the need to remove barriers for participation in student activities for minoritized populations, to prepare professionals to recruit and orient students to the campus in an inclusive manner, to explore the ways we support students in finding on-campus jobs and ensure these experiences are meaningful, and to talk frankly about the financial, cultural, and social capital required by specific types of organizations. Recruitment and Orientation Peck and Preston (2018) demonstrate the role that co-curricular on-boarding plays in students’ engagement on campus and their eventual ability to engage in leadership positions 116 on campus. If their hypothesis holds true that these experiences mirror the employment process for college graduates, then providing these experiences during college is paramount for equalizing students’ post college experience. My study indicated that being a working-class and poor student does not predict interest in participating in co-curricular experiences and a significant body of literature has explored the reasons these same students are not able to get involved once they are on campus (Houze, 2021; Langhout et al., 2007; Soria, 2021). Now, further research is needed that explores interventions to support working-class and poor students’ ability to participate in on-campus co-curricular experiences. This research should explore interventions directed at encouraging and supporting individual working-class and poor students and the elimination of barriers to involvement for these students. In this section, I discuss how recruitment and onboarding professionals can utilize this research to support the creation of inclusive outreach and marketing for co-curricular experiences, design their student leadership development trainings to help make student leaders allies in creating more equitable co-curricular experiences, and facilitate opportunities for intentional conversations about co-curricular involvement with working-class and poor students. 117 Creation of Inclusive Outreach and Marketing. Admissions and recruitment staff that talk to new students must thoughtfully ask themselves if they are portraying the institution and the opportunities that are available in a way that working-class and poor students are able to connect to. For example, recognizing that on-campus jobs may appeal more to working-class and poor students than other opportunities that are typically promoted can help these professionals design intentional and targeted marketing materials that will reach these students and talk about the developmental- as well as financial- benefits of these experiences. That being said, it is also essential that those responsible for recruiting new students to the institution and to specific experiences are conscious of how other minorized populations hear their marketing. For example, social class did not predict students’ use of “To feel a sense of belonging” as a motivation for involvement, meaning that it is a seemingly neutral rationale for promoting involvement to working-class and poor students. But African American and Black students were less likely than white students to use this as a reason for getting involved and men were less likely than women to use this rational for getting involved on campus. So, if recruiters exclusively rely “to feel a sense of belonging” as a rationale for encouraging new students to get involved, they may unintentionally further marginalize another population of students that already engage in co-curricular experiences at lower rates. This study highlights the importance of using research to drive inclusive practices in recruiting and onboarding of new college students. Additionally, the gap in students’ perceptions of the ability to learn leadership through membership and positional leadership experiences demonstrate the importance of highlighting the learning that happens at all levels of student organizations and on campus experiences. It is 118 easy to put organization presidents and positional leaders in marketing materials to talk about the work they have done and what they have learned, but finding ways to recognize and market the learning that happens at all levels of the organization will help students come to college with a better understanding of what they can expect to gain through these experiences. Demonstrating that there is learning to be gained from membership positions that frequently require a lower commitment level may be motivating to working-class and poor students who do not have the time to dedicate to serving in a leadership role or may not see positional leadership as being in line with their self-image as they are starting college. 119 Student Development. It is critical that student affairs administrators work to remove barriers to working-class and poor students’ participation in co-curricular involvement like dress codes, punitive responses to missing meetings for attending to work or family responsibilities, and prohibitive dues and expenses (Houze, 2021; Langhouot et al., 2007; Soria, 2021). It is also essential that these same professionals work to support the students’ ability to predict and navigate these barriers in the interim. Knowing that working-class and poor students have similar interests to their peers in engaging in co-curricular experiences, it would be helpful to have intentional conversations with these students and provide them with strategies for how they might work through the barriers before they encounter them. Admissions and orientation staffs have the unique opportunity to do this prior to the student arriving on campus and before campus involvement fairs take place. Honest conversations about cost, time management, potential obstacles, and the benefits may help students accomplish their intended goals of engaging in these co-curricular experiences during college. Student Leadership Training. Bettencourt (2020) suggests that working-class and poor students recognize the importance of feeling a sense of belonging on campus, but they believed that the spaces in which they would belong needed to be created by the students instead of by the institution. Because student organizations are largely student leader driven, these organizations and other student lead initiatives have a unique opportunity to provide student lead co- curricular experiences targeted at working-class and poor students. Engaging student leaders in facilitating key experiences for working-class and poor students is a potential avenue for doing this, but university administrators must be prepared to engage these student leaders in intentional conversations to ensure the resulting experiences promote equitable participation. 120 As part of this process, university staff and faculty advisors must work to remove barriers to student participation in co-curricular experiences- even those barriers that they or members of their team have put into place (Owen et al., 2021; Nunn, 2021; Soria, 2021). This can be particularly challenging when those activities are student led, as in student organizations because student leaders are generally left in charge of making the day-to-day decisions within these organizations. Student leaders may lack the perspective to recognize the ways in which their organizations are excluding working-class and poor students. Whether that means working to minimize dues and costs, removing mandatory attendance requirements and dress codes when possible, providing flexible meeting times, or removing other structural barriers to participation, student leaders are often the ones with the power in student organizations to create meaningful change, but this may require tremendous support from student affairs professionals. Engaging student leaders in meaningful training to ensure that they are working to actively remove the barriers (and not creating additional barriers) in their student organizations for working-class and poor students is an important step in making these organizations accessible to all students. Knowing that students have similar interest in co- curricular engagement regardless of social background is helpful in directing the pressure back to university administrators to support the student leaders in creating spaces that are welcoming and inclusive for their members (Nunn, 2021). Helping student leaders think about how they design student organization activities, and how they can help to intentionally recruit and retain working-class and poor students as members is important to promoting their belonging on campus (Warnock et al., 2018). By emphasizing activities that support working-class and poor students’ rationales for 121 engagement, the student leaders can encourage these students’ continued involvement in the organization. It is important that these student organizations consciously demonstrate the way that membership will teach skills that promote career development, build students’ resumes, promote belonging within the campus community, and connect them to faculty and staff. Having their student organization advisor or program supervisor present at early meetings, reflecting and talking about what students have learned through the organization and how being a member in these activities has helped students get internships or prepare for the job search, and planning free social events early in the year could all help keep new students engaged within the organizations and activities in order to encourage their retention in the organization and development through membership. Next, I talk about the importance of designing meaningful and inclusive student employment to be a co-curricular experience for working-class and poor students. Student Employment Given the finding that working-class and poor students were more likely to prioritize working on campus, finding ways to support student development through these experiences is paramount to creating equitable and just experiences. Bettencourt (2020) highlighted the need for low and no cost activities that take an asset-based approach to social class to support the needs of working-class and poor individuals, but what if we had paid ways of providing students with these same meaningful experiences? Student employment presents an opportunity to provide students with meaningful co-curricular experiences and receive the much-needed financial support (Houze, 2021; McClellan et al., 2018; Soria, 2021). Work study has been seen as a means of prioritizing work positions for poor and 122 working-class students and has significant financial benefit for the institution (Baum, 2010), but university administrators must address whether work study is really the best way of compensating students for work to ensure their success during college. The way that financial aid is calculated, students have to give up loan eligibility to access work study dollars. Thus, for work study students, administrators may assume that they have no financial needs beyond tuition, room and board, and that they have the means to pay tuition upfront and wait for part of their financial budget to be paid out as a weekly paycheck. For many working-class and poor students, this is not the case. Given concerns with the impact of off-campus employment on student retention (Logan et al., 2016) and the inability of institutions to shape learning for students within off-campus employment (McClellan et al., 2018), supporting first-year students in their desire to gain on- campus employment is key. Many campus entities seek to complete their hiring in the spring of one year for the fall of the following year. This allows them to complete training prior to students leaving campus for the spring. Although this is likely ideal for offices on campus, it does not support the needs of new students to apply for on-campus jobs for their first year. Providing a wide variety of openings early in the academic year is important to helping first- year students find employment. Even better, administrators could host a job fair during orientation. This may require that administrators provide access to resume writing and review prior to the students arriving on campus so that working-class and poor students are prepared to job search. Through this process, university staff should be helping students understand that they can gain many of the same essential skills through on-campus employment as they can through unpaid co-curricular experiences and normalize the need to work while in college. 123 The final step in this process needs to ensure that on-campus employment is intentionally designed utilizing a student learning outcome framework, developmentally meaningful to college students as is defined by the relevant student development theories, and assessed on a regular basis (Soria, 2021). In addition to providing flexible scheduling that supports the student’s education (i.e., exam week specific schedules, opportunities to take academic breaks off if desired, or free holiday break housing), these positions should support students’ co-curricular skill development. This will mean collaborating across the institution as offices and departments work to develop strategic learning outcomes for each position, clear integration with institutional priorities, embedded reflection experiences that help students connect their on-campus jobs to their long-term skill development and career outcomes, and regular assessment to measure student learning. Intentionally designing on-campus employment to be developmentally meaningful will require substantial training to on-campus supervisors, but it has the potential to greatly improve the co-curricular experience for working- class and poor students. Things like including intended learning outcomes on job postings, hosting university or department wide professional development trainings and materials, and engaging students in meaningful one-on-one conversations with supervisors could all help to bridge this gap. These opportunities allow practitioners to highlight the non-monetary benefits of employment on campus, thus supporting and encouraging working students’ development of transferable skills. If there are not enough jobs on campus, or if hour limits and wage caps prohibit working-class and poor students from earning what they need to through on-campus jobs to support themselves, student affairs practitioners must get creative to find solutions for these 124 students that replicate the benefits of co-curricular experiences on-campus while meeting students’ financial needs. This could mean partnering with local community organizations and businesses to build cohorts of students working together off-campus. Different than off-campus internships in that the positions would not directly tie to any students’ future career path, these partnerships could be designed to offer long-term employment to students in entry level positions at local restaurants or nursing homes. University leaders would ensure these positions provide many of the same benefits as on-campus employment, like flexible scheduling for exams, access to staff mentors, and housing options over breaks. They could also consider including off-campus employed students in on-campus paid professional development experiences to ensure that students working off-campus have access to similar resources as on- campus employed students. Supporting working-class students’ need for financial support is essential to ensuring their success on-campus, and if done right, presents an excellent way for also ensuring their co-curricular learning in the process. Exploring Fraternity and Sorority Life The incongruency between interest and participation in fraternity and sorority life for working-class and poor students is something that institutions need to be prepared to address. The harsh reality of co-curricular involvement is that some of these experiences, like fraternity and sorority life, have historically excluded minorized individuals, including those from lower- class backgrounds (Bureau, et al., 2021; Routon & Walker, 2014; Soria, 2013a). Institutions may provide additional support staff, recruitment support, leadership development, and guidance to these organizations, but national organizations and elected student leaders also set policies that impact the organizations. As a result, external forces play a substantial role in the cost 125 (both financial and mental) of participating in these organizations, determining how much the students pay for dues, what the required philanthropic costs are, how frequently students may need to purchase gifts for other members, or when they need to purchase specific apparel for events (Nykiel, 2021). University administrators often rely on student leadership decision making to drive systematic change within the organization. Bureau and colleagues (2021) called for campuses to begin taking note and providing feedback of the class-based inequities within fraternities and sororities. I would challenge that we must go a step further and begin finding ways of encouraging and even requiring organizations to make changes to address these inequalities. First, these organizations must address the secrecy related to the financial cost of participation. Within the recruitment process, sorority members are often told they should not discuss the “3 B’s, with these three B’s being, “Booze, Boys, and Bank” (Williams, 2013). Even when dues and cost are publicly displayed, what is included and what is not is often vague and uncertain with some groups including “optional” apparel costs and gift estimates while other organizations only identify organization paid dues (Kamath, 2017). Because the cost of participation may not be calculated the same way for different organizations, potential new members may not have all the information that they need to make the most informed financial choice. And, when members do join and are unable to pay, the local organizations have the ability to send the individual members to collections, potentially harming these working-class and poor students’ credit significantly (Holmes, 2018). So, new members having all of the financial information up front is incredibly important. In addition to financial concerns, the fraternity and sorority recruitment process often 126 requires specific types of social and cultural capital around physical dress, conversation topics, and inflexible time commitments. While institutions might already try to discourage some of these behaviors on individual campuses and in specific chapters, wide scale change to promote participation of students from all class backgrounds needs to be promoted to the fraternity and sorority community nationwide. Given the clear equal interest in co-curricular experiences of students from across social class, but the unequal participation rates, universities must have a system of addressing these issues to better support working-class and poor students. Given the national affiliations of these chapters, the strong alumni backing, and the organizations’ historical foundations in exclusion (Reuter & Backer, 2015), making widescale change within these organizations can be incredibly difficult. It will require a substantial commitment from university leadership and buy-in from current student leaders to make this change happen if they actually desire to have a campus inclusive of working-lass and poor students. Implication for Theory In addition to this research having significant implications for practitioners, it also has implications for higher education theory, and specifically how we conceptualize social class and the theoretical Co-Curricular Career Connections Model of Leadership (Peck & Preston, 2018). In this section, I discuss the theoretical implications for how social class can be conceptualized in higher education and how this study impacts the assumption that SES and subjective social status can always be linked back to income-based measures. Then I discuss how this research supports the use of the Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model and offer two recommendations for clarifying the model. 127 Conceptualizing Social Class The American Psychological Association defines social class as a combination of socioeconomic status and subjective social status (American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status, 2015). Throughout this study, Perceived Family Contribution and Cost of College Stress were the statistically significant factors when considering the role social class plays in students’ pre-college intentions to be employed during college. For some students, Perceived Family Contribution and Cost of College Stress are more complex, and subjective, conceptualizations of a student’s socioeconomic status as it relates to the student’s ability to finance educational pursuit. It takes into account all of the financial commitments a student holds, the variety of family members who may (or may not be) paying for the students’ education regardless of that person’s income, a family’s ability to save for college across the student’s lifetime, and in some cases, the family’s prioritization of supporting their student’s educational pursuits. The decisions around paying for college have strong foundations in socioeconomic status, but they do start to venture into more subjective status discussions than pure socioeconomic decisions. They do not necessarily measure subjective social status (SSS) given the need of SSS to be comparative in nature. Theoretically speaking, this research suggests that it may not be possible for researchers to separate socioeconomic status and subjective social status as neatly as the APA definition suggests. SES Awareness was another construct that was frequently significant in this research and has important implications for the theoretical definitions of social class. Considering social class through the lens of individual SES Awareness presents a new opportunity for how we subjectively consider individuals’ experience with social class and removes the comparative 128 concerns introduced by using subjective social status. Perceived Family Contribution, SES Awareness, and Cost of College Stress expand the ways we measure SES quantitatively and how we conceptualize social class in quantitative research. These findings help to build on the existing literature (e.g., Diemer et al., 2013; Soria, 2018) and challenge the notion of what really is contained within the construct of social class, suggesting that there may be ways of incorporating socioeconomic status and subjective social status together cohesively in quantitative settings. Co-Curricular Career Connections Leadership Model In addition to having implications for how we conceptualize social class, this research has implications for use of the Co-Curricular Career Connections Model (Peck & Preston, 2018). By and large, the findings from this study supports the notion that students, regardless of social class background, come to college interested in beginning at the co-curricular onboarding phase of Peck and Preston’s (2018) model. From a social class perspective, only SES Awareness, or the frequency with which students considered their socio-economic status, had a positive effect on their interest in involvement. This research, in conjunction with research on students’ participation rates during college (Lott, 2002; Pascarella et al., 2004; Soria, 2013b; Walpole, 2007), suggests that the bigger sticking point for working-class and poor students likely comes when it is time to actually join and participate in co-curricular experiences. Additionally, the finding that students with higher subjective social status are more likely to view member experiences as being able to teach them leadership has further implications for the co-curricular onboarding phase of the model (Peck & Preston, 2018). According to the model, students’ awareness that specific co-curricular activities can teach 129 them skills occurs during this phase. The findings from the current study indicate that additional support may be needed for different students to navigate through this phase based on their social class and including language as such in the model would improve its usefulness for practitioners. Intervention may be needed to get students involved, or in the words of Peck and Preston (2018), to help them transition between the co-curricular onboarding and co-curricular involvement phases of the model. While the model identifies the role that reflection and learning play in transitions individuals from participant to leader, the model could be improved by recognizing that movement between the phases is impacted by identity-based factors. Implications for Research In addition to having implications for theory and practice, this study has implications for higher education research. This study introduces the need to conceptualize how social class is measured, explore additional factors that predict students’ co-curricular decision making, opens up opportunities for expanded qualitative studies of the impact of social class, and begins discussions of the difference between students’ pre-college perceptions and actions. It is worth noting that the variance explained of the models in my study varied between two percent and ten percent, suggesting that there are additional factors that were missing from this study. While there were important findings related to factors connected to social class and socioeconomic status, the low variance suggests that this is an area that needs to be studied further. Understanding what factors beyond the ones addressed through this study account for students’ perceptions of learning through co-curricular involvement will help practitioners better support students’ transition into college and selection of experiences that can help them achieve both their academic and professional goals 130 Measuring Social Class in Research This research supports Soria’s (2018) argument that research on social class must work to expand both the use of different objective measures of social class and incorporate subjective measures of social class into higher education research. At the end of the day, the consistent significance of different measures of social class within this research demonstrates the importance of including a variety of measures of social class in all higher education research. The problem with measuring social class quantitively is that, like many other demographic characteristics, it is a highly complex socially constructed idea (Archer, 2005; Soria, 2018). Attempting to boil this idea down into more simple quantitative metrics minimizes the complexity of individuals’ life experiences beyond money. This leads higher education researchers to resort to the easiest metric available, which could leave the researcher with an incomplete understanding of the topic at hand and cause the researcher to draw incorrect conclusions and suggest ineffective strategies to support students, or target interventions towards the wrong students. Building on the theoretical implications of this research, the ways in which we conceptualize and measure social class have specific implications for higher education researchers. Higher education researchers looking to incorporate measures of social class and socio-economic status into their research need to carefully consider whether they are looking for a point-in-time measurement of the student’s current financial situation, or if they are looking to incorporate subjective measures that address both students’ financial status as well as their position within society. Furthermore, this study highlights the need for research on the impact of co-curricular 131 experiences that includes multiple metrics of social class- inclusive of both SES and SSS- in their understanding of students’ background and identity. Except in the case of income, Expected Family Contribution (EFC), and Pell Eligibility, the metrics used to assess social class generally had weak, yet significant correlations in this study. This supports DiMaggio’s (2012) call for the use of multivariate statistics in research when measuring social class due to the lack of correlations between factors commonly used to assess social class. While income-based measures were not significant in this study, that does not mean that they do not have a role in understanding students’ co-curricular choices once they arrive on campus or other aspects of their college experience. Instead, I advocate for a combination of income based and subjective metrics to be used in quantitative studies in the effort to understand the nuanced combination of factors that encompass an individual’s social class and socio-economic status in line with DiMaggio’s (2012) recommendations. Work Ethic Based on this research, students believe themselves to be able to gain a work ethic through their co-curricular experiences, although there is limited research on whether this actually happens (Chen et al., 2017; Green et al., 2011). This research creates a space for researchers to start considering how they would measure students’ experiences with gaining work ethic to determine if the students’ pre-college perceptions are actually accurate. The National Association of Colleges and Employers (2017) have identified work ethic as an essential career related skill that students need to enter the work force and identified colleges and universities as an avenue for ensuring students are prepared with these essential skills. Universities have a duty to know if these experiences are actually teaching students work 132 ethic, especially given the increased belief by working-class and poor students that these experiences can teach work ethic in comparisons to their middle- and upper-class peers. These students deserve honesty in what they can expect to gain when they are making decisions about how to use their limited time, talent, and financial resources. Research on Interest Compared to Participation Rates Research is needed that not only looks at the role of social class on students’ pre-college interest, but longitudinally explores the role of social class in students’ decision making around co-curricular experiences throughout their college years. This should look at not only pre- college interest and beliefs but explore how these beliefs impact the activities a student chooses to (or chooses not to) engage in during college. It should also explore how students’ co-curricular involvement decisions impact their decision making around their first jobs after college. Understanding how pre-college beliefs about involvement impact the college experiences, retention, and liberal arts learning outcomes is essential to creating more equitable experiences for working-class and poor students. In the next section I will discuss future research studies that could help to explore this incongruency. Future Research This study provides several opportunities for further research. Research on the intersection of gender, race, and social class on students’ pre-college beliefs and expectations, exploring other factors that predict interest in involvement, and further understanding of perceived family contribution would also expand the ability of researchers and practitioners to understand the students’ experience and help shape meaningful change on college campuses. While this study sought to explore how socioeconomic status and social class impact 133 students’ precollege perceptions of co-curricular involvement, research has identified that there are unique experiences within class and gender and the intersection of these identities in regard to social class (martinez & Williams, 2021; Pierre & Haber-Curran, 2021). Although this study did not explore intersectional effects, the results from this study suggest that it would be interesting to further explore how gender and race interact with social class to impact students’ beliefs. Another interesting finding from this study is the higher expectation of participation by men in co-curricular involvement prior to beginning college, given the lagging co-curricular participation rates of men on campus (Polmear et al., 2021; Simmons & Chau, 2021). Further research is needed to understand if this difference is explained because men become less interested in involvement once they arrive on campus or because women become more interested in involvement. Female students were also significantly more likely to believe they would learn leadership and work ethic through both positional and leadership experiences than men were. While this study does not necessarily answer why these differences exist, these findings help support the concept that there are identity-based implications for interest in co- curricular experiences prior to the start of college and open up the opportunity for future research. While this study took a quantitative approach to understanding students’ pre-college perceptions of co-curricular involvement, qualitative research that explores dimensions of perceived family contribution, SES Stress, and subjective social status in the context of co- curricular involvement are essential to help inform measures social class and socio-economic status in future research. Building off of the work being done by Ardoin & Martinez (2019) and Bettencourt (2021), qualitative research that uses the same research questions as my study 134 would help to address why these different dimensions of social class account for different parts of first-year students’ interest in co-curricular involvement and their perceptions of what they will learn from these experiences. Additionally, qualitative research could also help to better understand the role that lived social class plays in SES Awareness. The frequent significance of SES Awareness throughout this study combined with its lack of correlation to the other social class metrics make this question even more urgent to address. Finally, this study focused on measures of social class that directly impacted the college experience, but research is need that more deeply explores students’ social class in the context of their lives off-campus. Understanding their families of origin and upbringing more deeply, as well as the family commitments they have during college, is incredibly important to understanding the potential impact of social class on involvement. Although the findings from this study were statistically significant, many of the regression models in the study predicted only a small portion of the variance in students’ interest in getting involved in specific activities (varying from 2 to 10 percent). There is a need for further research that explores what other factors predict students’ interest in engaging in co-curricular involvement prior to college. A longitudinal study that is able to not only capture students’ pre-college attitudes and beliefs, but then also tracks the types of experiences students engage in and where they go after college could help to more completely tell the story of the role social class plays in the students’ decision making around college co-curricular experiences. This study was completed at a regional comprehensive, rural institution which has specific implications for the range of variance in students’ social class and socioeconomic 135 status. Called the “People’s Institution”, regional comprehensive institutions have historically existed to serve students with less class privilege than the students that flagship state institutions or private schools recruit, but potentially more class privilege than students attending community college (Orphan & Broom, 2021). Thus, it is likely that this study is over- representative of working-class and poor students when compared to students from some institution types, and under-representative in comparison to others. Completing a similar study on a broader population would be interesting to introduce a wider range of socioeconomic and social class backgrounds to the sample population and help to understand how having greater variety in students’ backgrounds impacts the campus experience. Finally, it is worth noting the data for this study was collected before the Coronavirus Pandemic and the results were analyzed in the midst of the pandemic. It is becoming growingly evident that the impact of the pandemic is being most felt by those with the least economic, social, and cultural capital (Goudeau, et. al, 2021; Soria, et. al, 2021). In the coming years, increased research on the impact of social class on the college experience will become more important as campuses work to combat the impact of the pandemic on minoritized populations. Conclusion Sullivan (2014) writes that “the gendered, raced, classed, and other patterns of transacting with the world that a person develops help constitute who that person is” (p. 28). This study affirms that class backgrounds play a role in students’ expectations around collegiate co-curricular experiences. And although this study sought to explore links to social class, it is clear that race and gender also play a role in students' pre-college interest in and decision 136 making around co-curricular engagement and employment opportunities. Other research supports that social class does impact students’ engagement in co-curricular experiences on campus (Lott, 2002; Pascarella, et al., 2004; Soria, 2013b; Walpole, 2007). Rather than continuing to treat all students as if they fit the middle-class mold, academia needs to meet students where they are, or as Sullivan suggests: who they are. Understanding that working-class and poor students have similar pre-college interests in engaging in co-curricular experiences to their upper-class peers means that we, as higher education professionals, must stop blaming pre-college barriers for the differences in participation rates and recognize that these differences occur because the barriers to involvement exist on our campuses during the students’ time with us. This study provides further ammunition for student affairs practitioners to advocate for and create meaningful and systematic change on college campuses towards equitable participation in on-campus activities by working-class and poor students. It also provides researchers the opportunity to further explore the factors that create inequitable experiences on campus. Finally, this study encourages professionals in all roles to further address the ways that we conceptualize social class within higher education. 137 APPENDICES 138 APPENDIX A: ENGAGEMENT AND EMPLOYABILITY SURVEY 139 The following survey is to better assess the perspective of incoming students in regards to involvement in clubs, organizations, and on-campus activities. All responses are confidential. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Dr. Frim Ampaw at ampaw1fd@cmich.edu. Thank you. Q1 Survey Number_______ Q2 In addition to scholarships and financial aid, what percentage is your family contributing to your college tuition and expenses (including loans, classes, books, course materials, and supplies)? m0-24% m25-49% m50-74% m75-79% m80-100% Q3 What percentage is your family contributing to your living expenses during college (including phone bill, gas, insurance, food, etc.)? m0-24% m25-49% m50-74% m75-79% m80-100% Q4 How likely are you to feel stress about the cost of your higher education? mVery likely mSomewhat likely mSomewhat unlikely mNot at all likely Q5 How likely are you to discuss the organizations or activities you intend to join with your family? mVery likely mSomewhat likely mSomewhat unlikely mNot at all likely Q6 How likely are you to discuss the organizations or activities you intend to join with your friends and peers? mVery likely mSomewhat likely mSomewhat unlikely mNot at all likely 140 Q7 How likely are you to join an organization or activity that your family viewed negatively? mVery likely mSomewhat likely mSomewhat unlikely mNot at all likely Q8 Once already a member, how likely are you to continue involvement with an organization or activity that your family viewed negatively? mVery likely mSomewhat likely mSomewhat unlikely mNot at all likely Q9 Do you plan on having a job during the academic year? mYes, I plan on working 20+ hours a week mYes, I plan on working 0-20 hours a week mI do not plan on having a job during the academic year Q10 Do you intend on getting involved in on-campus activities and organizations during the academic year? mYes, I intend on being involved 0-5 hours a week mYes, I intend on being involved 5-10 hours a week mYes, I intend on being involved 10-15 hours a week mYes, I intend on being involved but not sure how many hours a week mNo, I do not intend on being involved in on-campus actives and organizations during the academic year Q11 Rank the following in order of importance (1 being most important, 4 being least important) in finding a job following graduation: ______ Overall college grade point average (GPA) ______ Involvement in clubs and/or activities ______ Skills learned through specific coursework ______ Skill learned through involvement in organizations Q12 Rank the following in order of likeliness (1 being most likely, 6 being least likely) you will get involved in the following types of involvements and/or activities: ______Student Government Association ______Professional Organizations (ex: Future Mathematicians Association, Future Psychologists Association) ______Social Organizations (ex: Chess Club, Ultimate Frisbee Club, Squirrel Watching Club) ______Fraternity/Sorority Life ______Residence Assistant (RA)/ Safari Guide ______On-Campus Employment 141 Q13 Rank the following reasons for getting engaged (1 being most important reason, 8 being least important reason) on campus: ______ It will look good on my resume. ______ To meet friends. ______ To have fun in college. ______ To get connected to faculty and staff on campus. ______ To feel a sense of belonging on campus. ______ My parents told me I should join organizations. ______ My friends told me I should join organizations. ______ To learn skills that will help me in my future career. ______ For immediate financial gain Q14 In each of the following LEADERSHIP roles on campus, please indicate which job skills (Leadership Skills, Ability to Work in a Team, Communication Skills, Problem-Solving, Strong Work Ethic, Ability to take Initiative) you could obtain from involvement in that role: • Student Government President • Professional Organization President • Social Organization President • Fraternity/Sorority President • Resistant Assistant/Safari Guide • On-Campus Employment Supervisor Q15 In each of the following PARTICIPANT/MEMBER roles on campus, please indicate which job skills (Leadership Skills, Ability to Work in a Team, Communication Skills, Problem-Solving, Strong Work Ethic, Ability to take Initiative) you could obtain from involvement in that role: • Student Government Association Member • Professional Organization Member • Social Organization Member • Fraternity/Sorority Member • Residence Life Hall Council/Leadership Safari Participant • On-Campus Employment Employee Q16 What is the minimum GPA you need to get a job, when you have no leadership experience? (Please choose a GPA between 0.0 and 4.0) _______ Q17 When looking for a job, what is the minimum GPA you need when you have extensive leadership experience? (Please choose a GPA between 0.0 and 4.0) _______ 142 Q18 Below you will find a series of student synopses. Please rank the synopses in order of employability (how likely they are to get a job). The student most likely to get a job would be 1, the second best would be 2, and 3 would be the student least likely to get a job. ______ During my undergraduate career, I was very involved with an environmental education program that focused on recycling. I had the opportunity to serve as the vice-president of the organization, where I managed our relationship with the University’s waste management team, coordinated weekly meetings, and led educational sessions. Apart from the environmental education program, I participated in student government as a class representative. In that role, I tried to understand the thoughts of my fellow students and communicated those ideas to the larger student government association. I was also a member of a film organization, where we would meet to watch and discuss recent movies. ______ As an undergraduate student, I concentrated on academics and completing my degree. In my free time, I attend meetings for a professional organization related to my career. They would put on networking events and information sessions. During my last year, I had the opportunity to attend a conference, where I learned about research happening in my field. ______ As an undergraduate student, I worked in the University’s bookstore. At this job, I was responsible for helping customers, putting together orders, and restocking inventory. Apart from my job, I was involved in a chapter of a national Greek organization. In this organization, I held the position of secretary which had duties including keeping meeting minutes, creating member attendance records, and compiling reports to our national organization. Q19 Below please provide a brief rationale of why you chose to rank the synopses in that order: 143 APPENDIX B: FIRST-YEAR STUDENT SURVEY 144 Introduction Thank you for sharing your views and experiences. We are excited to welcome you to CMU and to learn more about you. In this survey, you will be asked about your experiences in high school, your current attitudes and beliefs, and your expectations for your CMU experience. Please note that your responses will be confidential and will not affect your academic record or use of any services at CMU. A summary of responses will help your faculty and staff create the best learning and growth experiences for students at CMU. High School Experiences The first set of questions will ask about your experiences in high school. When you were in high school (grades 9-12), did you meaningfully engage in any of the following activities? (check yes or no for each row) • Held a leadership position in a student club, group, or sports team • Took part in leadership development conferences, workshops, or retreats • Belonged to an organization centered around social identities (for example, Diversity, Gay-Straight Alliance) • Participated as a general member in any student club, group, or sports team In your last year of high school (grade 12) how much time did you spend doing the following in a typical week? (check one response for each row: NONE, Less than 2 HOURS, 2-5 HOURS, 6-10 HOURS, 11-15 HOURS, 16-20 HOURS, OVER 20 HOURS • Studying (outside of class) • Playing on a sports team or with a sports club • Taking part in student clubs and organizations • Social life • Working for pay • Volunteering in the community or to help others Think about the class in high school where you learned the most. Which of the following approaches did the teacher use? (Check up to three that apply) • COMMUNITY SERVICE • FIELD TRIPS • LECTURES BY THE TEACHER • STUDENT-LED CLASS • MULTIMEDIA • GROUP PROJECTS • INTERACTIVE AND HANDS-ON ACTIVITIES 145 • LABS • OTHER How often in the past year did you do each of the following? (check one response for each row: NEVER, SELDOM, SOMETIMES, OFTEN, VERY OFTEN) • Support your opinions with a logical argument • Feel challenged to think more broadly about an issue • Seek alternative solutions to a problem • Make an effort to educate others about social issues • Analyze multiple sources of information before coming to a conclusion • Make an effort to get to know people from diverse backgrounds • Evaluate the quality or reliability of information you received • Challenge others on issue of discrimination • Apply concepts from classes to real life situations • Recognize the biases that affect your own thinking • Accept mistakes as part of the learning process • Critically evaluate your own position on an issue • Discuss issues related to sexism, gender differences, or gender equity Now we are going to ask you a series of questions about working in groups, interpersonal skills, and sense of identity. There are no right or wrong answers here. We just want to get to know you and your interests better. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following items: (check one response for each row) Please indicate your level of agreement with the following items: (check one response for each row: STRONGLY DISAGREE, DISAGREE, NEUTRAL, AGREE, STRONGLY AGREE) • I am usually self-confident • I can make a difference when I work with others on a task • I participate in activities that contribute to the common good • Others would describe me as a cooperative group member • I work with others to make my communities better places • I could describe my personality • I am seen as someone who works well with others Please indicate your level of agreement with the following items: (check one response for each row: STRONGLY DISAGREE, DISAGREE, NEUTRAL, AGREE, STRONGLY AGREE) We are all members of different social identity groups (for example, socioeconomic class, gender). • I believe my work has a greater purpose for the larger community 146 • I actively listen to what others have to say • I enjoy working with others toward common goals • I value opportunities that allow me to contribute to my community • My contributions are recognized by others in the groups I belong to • I am able to articulate my priorities • It is important to me that I play an active role in my communities • I know myself pretty well • I believe I have responsibilities to my community • I can describe how I am similar to other people • I am comfortable expressing myself How often in the past year have you thought about each of these identities? (check one response for each row: NEVER, SELDOM, SOMETIMES, OFTEN, VERY OFTEN) • Your socioeconomic class • Your gender • Your race/ethnicity • Your sexual orientation To what extent have you experienced the following with students from a racial/ethnic group other than your own? (check one response for each row: NEVER, SELDOM, SOMETIMES, OFTEN, VERY OFTEN) • Had meaningful and honest discussions about race/ethnic relations outside of class • Had guarded, cautious interactions • Felt insulted or threatened because of your race/ethnicity • Studied or prepared for class • Socialized The following statements ask about your thoughts and feelings in a variety of situations. For each item, be as honest as possible in indicating how well it describes you. (check one response for each row: DOES NOT DESCRIBE ME WELL TO DESCRIBES ME WELL ) • I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision • I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective • I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both • When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in their shoes" for a while • Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place College expectations Now we will ask you a series of questions about your anticipated college experience. How much time each week do you expect to spend in college doing the following? (check one response for each row: NONE, Less than 2 HOURS, 2-5 HOURS, 6-10 HOURS, 11-15 HOURS, 16- 147 20 HOURS, OVER 20 HOURS • Studying (outside of class) • Playing on a sports team or with a sports club • Taking part in student club and organizations • Social life • Working for pay • Volunteering in the community or to help others How likely are you to: (check one response for each row: HAVE NOT SELECTED, NOT AT ALL LIKELY, SOMEWHAT LIKELY, VERY LIKELY) • Change your current major field of study • Change career choice How many years do you expect it will take you to graduate from CMU? (check one response) • 1-2 YEARS • 3 YEARS • 4 YEARS • 5 YEARS • 6 YEARS OR MORE • I DO NOT PLAN TO GRADUATE FROM CMU When thinking about your first job after college, how important are the following considerations? (check one response for each row: ESSENTIAL, VERY IMPORTANT, MODERATELY IMPORTANT, NOT TOO IMPORTANT, NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT) • Intellectually stimulating work • Working for social change • High income potential • Social status • Stable, secure future Demographic The last series of questions focus on your background and will be used for summary purposes only. Think of a 1-10 scale as representing the social standing of people in the United States. At the top (10) are the people who have the most money, most education, and the most respected jobs. At the bottom (1) are the people who have the least money, least education, and the least respected jobs. Please mark on this scale where your family stands relative to the other people in the United States. FROM LEAST MONEY, EDUCATION, RESPECT, MOST MONEY, EDUCATION, RESPECT) 148 Think of your parent or guardian who has the HIGHEST level of formal education. What is his or her highest level of education? (check one response) • LESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA OR LESS THAN A GED • HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA OR GED • SOME COLLEGE OR TECHNICAL DEGREE • ASSOCIATES DEGREE • BACHELORS DEGREE • SOME GRADUATE SCHOOL BUT NO DEGREE • MASTERS DEGREE • DOCTORATE OR PROFESSIONAL DEGREE (Example: JD, MD, PhD) • DON'T KNOW Think of a 1-10 scale as representing where people stand in their communities. Please define your community in a way that is meaningful to you. At the top (10) are the people who have the highest standing and influence in their community. At the bottom (1) are the people who have the lowest standing and influence in their community. Please mark on this scale where your family stands relative to the other people in your defined community. FROM LOWEST STANDING AND INFLUENCE TO HIGHEST STANDING AND INFLUENCE. Race/Ethnicity: (check all that apply) • AFRICAN AMERICAN OR BLACK • AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE • ASIAN AMERICAN • LATINO/A/X OR HISPANIC • MIDDLE EASTERN OR NORTH AFRICAN • NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER • WHITE OR CAUCASIAN • MULTIRACIAL • RACE NOT LISTED: In the past 24 hours, which of these social media platforms have your used? (check all that apply) • INSTAGRAM • SNAPCHAT • TWITTER • FACEBOOK • OTHER Do you have any concern about your ability to finance your college education? (check one response) • NONE- I AM CONFIDENT THAT I WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS • SOME - BUT I PROBABLY WILL HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS • MAJOR - NOT SURE I WILL HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO COMPLETE COLLEGE 149 APPENDIX C: TABLES 150 Table 1 Spearman Rank Order Correlation of Social Class Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Subjective Social 5.91 1.41 - Status: Community 2. Subjective Social 5.67 1.74 0.44** - Status: United States 3. SES Awareness 2.78 1.16 -0.02 -.049 - 4. Family Contribution: 2.85 1.55 0.10** 0.27** -0.04 - Tuition 5. Family Contribution: 3.14 1.58 0.02 0.22** -0.03 0.55** - Living Expenses 6. Cost of College Stress 3.18 0.84 -0.12** -0.28** 0.07* -0.23** -0.15** - 7. HS Involvement: 2.67 1.35 0.11** -0.00 0.11** -0.08* -0.09* 0.05 - Volunteering 8. HS Involvement: Clubs 2.97 1.51 0.04 -0.00 0.16** -0.08* -0.06 0.08* 0.44** - *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 Table 2 Factor Loadings Based on a Principal Components Analysis Factor Name Factor Loading Perceived Family Contribution What percentage is your family contributing to you tuition? 0.86 What percentage is your family contributing to your living expenses? 0.89 µ = 0.71 High School Involvement In your last year of high school how much time did you spend in clubs? 0.85 In your last year of high school how much time did you spend volunteering? 0.78 µ = 0.60 Subjective Social Status Think of a 1-10 scale as representing where people stand in their communities. 0.901 Think of a 1-10 scale as representing where people stand in their communities. 0.789 µ = 0.60 Table 3 Correlations of Post College Career Goals M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Intellectually 2.08 0.78 - Stimulating Work 2. Working for Social 2.53 0.96 0.26*** - Change 3. High Income Potential 2.26 0.87 0.11** 0.09* - 4. Social Status 3.03 0.99 0.02 0.19*** 0.50*** - 5. Stable, secure future 1.59 0.72 0.25*** 0.09** 0.38*** 0.15*** - *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 153 Table 4 Factor Loadings Based on a Principal Components Analysis Factor Name Factor Loading Extrinsic Future Outcomes First job after college: High income potential 0.880 First job after college: Social status 0.815 First job after college: Stable, secure future 0.495 µ = 0.63 Intrinsic Future Outcomes First job after college: Intellectually stimulating work 0.855 First job after college: Working for social change 0.687 µ = 0.41 154 Table 5 Spearman Rank Order Correlation of Leadership Learning Perception Table 6 Factor Loadings Based on a Principal Components Analysis for Learning Leadership Factor Name Factor Loading Leadership Through Membership Social Organization Member 0.961 Fraternity/Sorority Member 0.930 Professional Organization Member 0.823 Student Government Member 0.761 On-Campus Employee 0.744 Residence Hall Council Member 0.527 µ = 0.915 Leadership Through Position Social Organization President 0.816 Professional Organization President 0.815 Fraternity/Sorority President 0.759 Resident Assistant 0.739 On-Campus Job Supervisor 0.725 Student Government President 0.661 µ = 0.915 156 Table 7 Spearman Rank Order Correlations of Work Ethic Skills Perception 157 Table 8 Factor Loadings Based on a Principal Components Analysis for Learning Work Ethic Factor Name Factor Loading Work Ethic Through Membership Fraternity/Sorority Member 0.926 Social Organization Member 0.847 Residence Hall Council Member 0.707 Professional Organization Member 0.704 Student Government Member 0.584 On-Campus Employee 0.515 µ = 0.859 Work Ethic Through Position Social Organization President 0.841 Student Government President 0.839 Professional Organization President 0.832 On-Campus Job Supervisor 0.662 Residence Assistant 0.575 Fraternity/Sorority President 0.502 µ = 0.840 158 Table 9 Racial Identity of Students Racial Identity Study Frequency Population Frequency African American or Black 85 (10.1%) 420 (13.7%) Asian American 16 (1.9%) 64 (2.1%) American Indian or Alaskan Native 11 (1.3%) 61 (2.0%) Latino/a/x 33 (3.9%) 136 (4.4%) Middle Eastern or North African 2 (0.2%) --- Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 2 (0.2%) 6 (0.2%) White or Caucasian 726 (86.5%) 2355 (76.6%) Multiracial 19 (2.3%) ---- Nonresident Alien ---- 14 (0.5%) Not Listed/unknown 2 (0.2%) 20 (0.7%) 159 Table 10 Demographic Characteristics of Participants Variable Frequency Gender Man 283 (33.7%) Woman 556 (66.3%) First-Generation At least one parent obtained a bachelor’s 516 (61.5 %) degree or higher Parent did not obtain a bachelor’s degree 323 (38.5%) Pell Eligibility Yes 263 (31.3%) No 576 (68.7%) Age 18 639 (76.2%) 19 192 (22.9%) 20 7 (.8 %) Sports in High School Played Sports 273 (32.5%) Did Not Play Sports 566 (67.5%) Working in High School Worked 0 Hours per week 214 (25.5%) Worked 1-10 Hours per week 237 (28.2%) Worked More than 10 Hours per week 388 (46.2 %) Poverty Rate by Zip Code Poverty rate 20% and greater 109 (13.0%) Poverty rate less than 20% 734 (86.3%) Rural Zip Code Rural County 103 (12.3%) Not Rural County 736 (87.7%) Intended Involvement in College Involved less than 5 hours per week 389 (46.4%) Involved more than 5 hours per week 450 (53.6%) Intended Job in College No Job 270 (32.2%) Job 562 (67.0%) Stress of College Cost Very High Stress 344 (41.0%) High Stress 349 (41.6%) Medium or Low Stress 146 (17.4%) 160 Table 10 (cont’d) 161 Table 11 Continuous Demographics Characteristics Mean SD Minimum Maximum Expected Family Contribution 15058.56 17252.29 0 93466 FAFSA Reported Income 97034.98 79430.79 0 668274 HS Involvement 2.83 1.21 1 7 Perceived Family Contribution 3.00 1.37 1 5 Subjective Social Class 5.79 1.34 1 10 First Job Extrinsic 2.83 0.66 1 4.67 Table 12 Frequency of Binary Dependent Variables Ranked High (1) Ranked Low (0) Reason for Getting Involved It will look good on my resume. 350 (41.7%) 483 (57.6%) To make connections with faculty and staff. 289 (34.4%) 543 (64.7%) To feel a sense of belonging on campus. 315 (37.5%) 518 (61.7%) To learn skills that will help me in my career. 448 (53.4%) 382 (45.5%) Interest in Activities On-Campus Job 433 (51.6%) 398 (47.4%) Fraternity and Sorority Life 168 (20.0%) 660 (78.7%) Professional Organization 269 (32.1%) 560 (66.7%) Student Government Association 68 (8.1%) 761(90.7%) 162 Table 13 Frequency of Continuous Dependent Variables Mean SD Minimum Maximum Leadership through Membership 0.45 0.37 0 1 Leadership through Position 0.75 0.32 0 1 Work Ethic through Membership 0.52 0.37 0 1 Work Ethic through Postion 0.60 0.36 0 1 Table 14 Logistic Regression of Time Students Anticipated Spending Involved in Activities Variable Odds Ratio SE Expected Family Contribution 0.971 0.047 Perceived Family Contribution 1.010 0.059 Subjective Social Status 0.997 0.063 Cost Stress Very High 0.792 0.226 Cost Stress High 1.032 0.218 SES Awareness 1.406* 0.156 Woman 0.677* 0.172 First Generation 1.169 0.168 Under Represented Race 1.104 0.267 African American or Black 1.591 0.283 Rural Zip Code 0.798 0.230 Poverty Zip Code 0.755 0.460 HS Involvement 1.616*** 0.071 Working in HS None 0.725 0.190 Working in HS 1-10 Hours 0.855 0.178 Sports in HS 1.378 0.165 First Job Stimulating Work 0.915 0.169 First Job Social Change 1.174 0.156 First Job Extrinsic 1.188 0.121 Constant 0.217* 0.631 -2 log likelihood = 1052.139 % predicted = 9.9% *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 163 Table 15 Logistic Regression of “It will look good on my resume” Variable Odds Ratio SE Expected Family Contribution 1.041 0.046 Perceived Family Contribution 0.978 0.057 Subjective Social Status 1.054 0.061 Cost Stress Very High 1.277 0.219 Cost Stress High 0.869 0.213 SES Awareness 0.995 0.154 Woman 0.775 0.165 First Generation 1.081 0.162 Under Represented Race 0.761 0.260 African American or Black 1.071 0.265 Rural Zip Code 1.011 0.240 Poverty Zip Code 1.040 0.235 HS Involvement 0.939 0.630 Working in HS None 0.974 0.185 Working in HS 1-10 Hours 0.821 0.175 Sports in HS 1.192 0.162 First Job Stimulating Work 0.963 0.165 First Job Social Change 1.031 0.130 First Job Extrinsic 0.853 0.118 Constant 0.920 0.612 -2 log likelihood = 1095.872 % predicted = 2.1% *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 164 Table 16 Logistic Regression of “To make connections with faculty and staff” Variable Odds Ratio SE Expected Family Contribution 0.961 0.048 Perceived Family Contribution 0.933 0.060 Subjective Social Status 1.052 0.064 Cost Stress Very High 1.045 0.235 Cost Stress High 1.172 0.227 SES Awareness 0.914 0.161 Woman 1.621** 0.180 First Generation 0.915 0.171 Under Represented Race 1.594 0.260 African American or Black 1.849* 0.274 Rural Zip Code 0.993 0.234 Poverty Zip Code 0.861 0.252 HS Involvement 1.053 0.065 Working in HS None 0.639* 0.197 Working in HS 1-10 Hours 0.734 0.183 Sports in HS 1.005 0.168 First Job Stimulating Work 1.392 0.177 First Job Social Change 1.074 0.159 First Job Extrinsic 1.329* 0.123 Constant 0.152 0.650 -2 log likelihood = 1019.274 % predicted = 4.5% *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 165 Table 17 Logistic Regression of “To learn skills that will help me” Variable Odds Ratio SE Expected Family Contribution 0.979 0.046 Perceived Family Contribution 1.003 0.057 Subjective Social Status 1.013 0.061 Cost Stress Very High 1.351 0.220 Cost Stress High 1.426 0.213 SES Awareness 0.846 0.154 Woman 1.281 0.166 First Generation 1.304 0.163 Under Represented Race 0.783 0.257 African American or Black 1.413 0.275 Rural Zip Code 0.834 0.220 Poverty Zip Code 1.701* 0.244 HS Involvement 1.127 0.064 Not Working in HS 0.864 0.185 Working 1-10 Hours in HS 0.856 0.175 Sports in HS 1.438* 0.161 First Job Stimulating Work 1.217 0.165 First Job Social Change 0.892 0.153 First Job Extrinsic 1.091 0.118 Constant 0.325 0.616 -2 log likelihood = 1092.055 % predicted = 3.9 % *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 166 Table 18 Logistic Regression of “To feel a sense of belonging” Variable Odds Ratio SE Expected Family Contribution 0.993 0.047 Perceived Family Contribution 1.008 0.059 Subjective Social Status 0.921 0.063 Cost Stress Very High 0.805 0.229 Cost Stress High 1.027 0.220 SES Awareness 1.450* 0.160 Woman 1.762** 0.176 First Generation 0.865 0.168 Under Represented Race 1.402 0.260 African American or Black 0.481* 0.297 Rural Zip Code 0.992 0.228 Poverty Zip Code 1.126 0.247 HS Involvement 1.046 0.065 Not Working in HS 1.099 0.191 Working 1-10 Hours in HS 1.252 0.179 Sports in HS 0.784 0.164 First Job Stimulating Work 1.121 0.171 First Job Social Change 0.851 0.157 First Job Extrinsic 0.935 0.121 Constant 0.667 0.636 -2 log likelihood = 1048.465 % predicted = 4.2 % *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 167 Table 19 Logistic Regression of Students Intention to Join Fraternity and Sorority Life Variable Odds Ratio SE Expected Family Contribution 0.949 0.055 Perceived Family Contribution 1.095 0.071 Subjective Social Status 1.108 0.078 Cost Stress Very High 0.761 0.273 Cost Stress High 1.008 0.254 SES Awareness 1.398 0.197 Woman 0.796 0.201 First Generation 1.165 0.203 Under Represented Race 0.472 0.385 African American or Black 1.536 0.307 Rural Zip Code 0.598 0.322 Poverty Zip Code 0.804 0.306 HS Involvement 1.042 0.078 Not Working in HS 0.657 0.240 Working 1-10 Hours in HS 0.750 0.217 Sports in HS 1.083 0.205 First Job Stimulating Work 0.744 0.203 First Job Social Change 0.802 0.193 First Job Extrinsic 0.688* 0.150 Constant 0.416 0.771 -2 log likelihood =777.182 % predicted = 4.8 % *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 168 Table 20 Logistic Regression of Students Intention to Pursue On-Campus Employment Variable Odds Ratio SE Expected Family Contribution 1.013 0.046 Perceived Family Contribution 0.889* 0.057 Subjective Social Status 0.964 0.062 Cost Stress Very High 1.802** 0.222 Cost Stress High 1.337 0.214 SES Awareness 0.772 0.155 Woman 1.365 0.167 First Generation 1.091 0.164 Under Represented Race 1.547 0.269 African American or Black 0.888 0.272 Rural Zip Code 0.884 0.226 Poverty Zip Code 1.723* 0.247 HS Involvement 0.870* 0.064 Not Working in HS 0.948 0.186 Working 1-10 Hours in HS 1.216 0.176 Sports in HS 1.104 0.162 First Job Stimulating Work 0.878 0.166 First Job Social Change 1.220 0.154 First Job Extrinsic 0.939 0.118 Constant 1.679 0.618 -2 log likelihood = 1082.970 % predicted = 5.6 % *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 169 Table 21 Logistic Regression of Interest in Professional Student Organization Variable Odds Ratio SE Expected Family Contribution 1.025 0.049 Perceived Family Contribution 1.018 0.060 Subjective Social Status 1.062 0.065 Cost Stress Very High 0.987 0.229 Cost Stress High 0.981 0.220 SES Awareness 1.161 0.164 Woman 0.821 0.175 First Generation 0.697* 0.175 Under Represented Race 0.845 0.291 African American or Black 1.020 0.292 Rural Zip Code 1.206 0.234 Poverty Zip Code 1.056 0.259 HS Involvement 0.940 0.068 Not Working in HS 0.897 0.197 Working 1-10 Hours in HS 0.993 0.184 Sports in HS 0.969 0.171 First Job Stimulating Work 1.689** 0.181 First Job Social Change 0.937 0.162 First Job Extrinsic 1.218 0.124 Constant 0.197* 0.658 -2 log likelihood = 1002.654 % predicted = 3.1% *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 170 Table 22 Logistic Regression of Interest in Student Government Association Variable Odds Ratio SE Expected Family Contribution 1.161 0.093 Perceived Family Contribution 0.874 0.105 Subjective Social Status 0.950 0.111 Cost Stress Very High 0.997 0.394 Cost Stress High 0.736 0.397 SES Awareness 1.381 0.295 Woman 0.844 0.303 First Generation 1.196 0.292 Under Represented Race 1.725 0.385 African American or Black 0.719 0.528 Rural Zip Code 1.426 0.363 Poverty Zip Code 0.790 0.437 HS Involvement 1.075 0.107 Not Working in HS 0.914 0.344 Working 1-10 Hours in HS 0.907 0.320 Sports in HS 0.922 0.290 First Job Stimulating Work 0.569 0.294 First Job Social Change 2.052* 0.286 First Job Extrinsic 0.685 0.214 Constant 0.204 1.070 -2 log likelihood = 447.198% predicted = 2.5% *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 171 Table 23 Logistic Regression of Students Intention to Work During College Variable Odds Ratio SE Expected Family Contribution 1.003 0.050 Perceived Family Contribution 0.791*** 0.062 Subjective Social Status 0.951 0.066 Cost Stress Very High 1.949** 0.231 Cost Stress High 1.556* 0.219 SES Awareness 0.983 0.166 Woman 1.037 0.179 First Generation 1.169 0.179 Under Represented Race 1.541 0.312 African American or Black 1.090 0.300 Rural Zip Code 1.075 0.250 Poverty Zip Code 1.282 0.275 HS Involvement 1.132 0.072 Working in HS None 0.640* 0.197 Working in HS 1-10 Hours 0.947 0.191 Sports in HS 0.933 0.178 First Job Stimulating Work 1.060 0.111 First Job Social Change 1.191 0.166 First Job Extrinsic 0.931 0.128 Constant 0.217* 0.673 -2 log likelihood = 962.552 % predicted = 7.8% *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 172 Table 24 Multiple Regression of Perceptions of Learning Leadership through Membership Variable β SE (constant) 0.274* 0.108 Expected Family Contribution 0.004 0.008 Perceived Family Contribution -0.005 0.010 Subjective Social Status 0.028** 0.011 Cost Stress Very High -0.006 0.039 Cost Stress High -0.026 0.037 SES Awareness 0.081** 0.027 Woman 0.126*** 0.029 First Generation 0.036 0.029 Under Represented Race -0.029 0.045 African American or Black -0.058 0.047 Rural Zip Code 0.064 0.039 Poverty Zip Code -0.053 0.042 HS Involvement 0.004 0.011 Not Working in HS 0.064 0.033 Working 1-10 Hours in HS 0.062* 0.031 Sports in HS -0.034 0.028 First Job Stimulating Work -0.042 0.029 First Job Social Change 0.054* 0.027 First Job Extrinsic -0.057** 0.021 Adjusted R2 = 0.059 F-statistic(19, 804) = 3.700, p <.001 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 173 Table 25 Multiple Regression of Perceptions of Learning Leadership through Position Variable β SE (constant) 0.588*** 0.095 Expected Family Contribution 0.002 0.007 Perceived Family Contribution -0.004 0.009 Subjective Social Status 0.011 0.009 Cost Stress Very High 0.004 0.034 Cost Stress High 0.006 0.033 SES Awareness 0.067** 0.024 Woman 0.054* 0.026 First Generation -0.027 0.025 Under Represented Race -0.013 0.040 African American or Black -0.089* 0.042 Rural Zip Code -0.003 0.035 Poverty Zip Code -0.006 0.037 HS Involvement 0.012 0.010 Not Working in HS 0.044 0.029 Working 1-10 Hours in HS 0.033 0.027 Sports in HS -0.031 0.025 First Job Stimulating Work 0.013 0.026 First Job Social Change 0.038 0.024 First Job Extrinsic -0.009 0.018 2 Adjusted R = 0.023 F-statistic(19,804) = 2.022, p < .01 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 174 Table 26 Multiple Regression of Perceptions of Learning Work Ethic Through Membership Variable Β SE (constant) 0.240* 0.108 Expected Family Contribution 0.004 0.008 Perceived Family Contribution -0.004 0.010 Subjective Social Status 0.016 0.011 Cost Stress Very High 0.034 0.039 Cost Stress High 0.019 0.038 SES Awareness 0.063* 0.027 Woman 0.076* 0.029 First Generation 0.004 0.029 Under Represented Race - 0.015 0.046 African American or Black - 0.126* 0.047 Rural Zip Code 0.064 0.040 Poverty Zip Code -0.045 0.042 HS Involvement 0.031** 0.011 Not Working in HS 0.056 0.033 Working 1-10 Hours in HS 0.062* 0.031 Sports in HS -0.016 0.029 First Job Stimulating Work -0.013 0.029 First Job Social Change 0.047 0.027 2 Adjusted R = 0.048 F-statistic (19,804) = 3.205, p < 0.000 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 175 Table 27 Multiple Regression of Perceptions of Learning Work Ethic Through Position Variable β SE (constant) 0.396*** 0.105 Expected Family Contribution -0.002 0.008 Perceived Family Contribution -0.002 0.010 Subjective Social Status 0.010 0.010 Cost Stress Very High 0.044 0.038 Cost Stress High 0.010 0.036 SES Awareness 0.073** 0.026 Woman 0.085** 0.028 First Generation -0.015 0.028 Under Represented Race 0.003 0.044 African American or Black -0.064 0.046 Rural Zip Code 0.052 0.038 Poverty Zip Code -0.007 0.041 HS Involvement 0.019 0.011 Not Working in HS 0.070* 0.032 Working 1-10 Hours in HS 0.044 0.030 Sports in HS -0.029 0.028 First Job Stimulating Work -0.006 0.028 First Job Social Change 0.037 0.026 First Job Extrinsic -0.017 0.020 Adjusted R2 = 0.033 F-statistic (19,804) = 2.492, p < 0.001 *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 176 REFERENCES 177 REFERENCES Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0000 Academic Planning Analysis. (2019). Fall on-campus enrollment by student level (1970-2018). Mount Pleasant, MI: Central Michigan University. Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, white women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586 Akos, P., Leonard, A.J., & Bugno, A. (2021), Federal work-study student perceptions of career readiness. The Career Development Quarterly, 69, 78-83. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12250 Alexander, K. L., & Eckland, B. K. (1977). High school context and college selectivity: Institutional constraints in educational stratification. Social Forces, 56(1), 166-188. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/56.1.166 Allan, B. A., Garriott, P. O., & Keene, C. N. (2016). Outcomes of social class and classism in first- and continuing-generation college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(4), 487–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000160 American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status. (2015). Stop skipping class campaign. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/class Ampaw, F., Drevon, J., Evans, Z., & Rossman, D. (2019, March 3-6) Perceptions of the effect of campus engagement on employability [Conference Presentation]. ACPA Annual Conference, Boston, MA, United States. Andrews, B. D. (2018). Delayed enrollment and student involvement: Linkages to college degree attainment. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(3), 368-396. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2017.1390972 Archer, L. (2005). Social class and higher education. In L. Archer, M. Hutchings, & A. Ross (Eds.), Higher education and social class: Issues of exclusion and inclusion. Routledge. 178 Ardoin, S. (2018a). College aspirations and access in working-class, rural communities: The mixed signals, challenges, and new language first-generation students encounter. Lexington Books. Ardoin, S. (2018b). Helping poor-and working-class students create their own sense of belonging. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(162), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20263 Ardoin, S., & martinez, b. (2019). Straddling class in the academy: 26 stories of students, administrators, and faculty from poor and working-class backgrounds and their compelling lessons for higher education policy and practice. Stylus Publishing, LLC. Armstrong, E. A., & Hamilton, L. T. (2013). Paying for the party. Harvard University Press. Aries, E., & Seider, M. (2005). The interactive relationship between class identity and the college experience: The case of lower income students. Qualitative Sociology, 28(4), 419-443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-005-8366-1 Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308. https://www.middlesex.mass.edu/ace/downloads/astininv.pdf Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass. Astin, H. S., Astin, A. W., Boatsman, K., Bonous-Hammarth, M., Chambers, T., & Goldberg, S. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook (3rd ed.). Higher Education Research Institute. Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining "equity" of American higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321-341. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2004.0001 Auerbach, S. (2007). From moral supporters to struggling advocates: Reconceptualizing parent roles in education through the experience of working-class families of color. Urban Education, 42(3), 250-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907300433 Azmitia, M., Syed, M., & Radmacher, K. (2013). Finding your niche: Identity and emotional support in emerging adults' adjustment to the transition to college. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(4), 744-761. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12037 Baca, O., Pierard, C., & Schultz, A. (2020, June). Connecting student employment to student learning & development [Conference Presentation]. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment, Urbana, IL, United States. https://www.learningoutcomesassessment.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/AiP- BacaPierardSchultz.pdf 179 Backhaus, A. L. (2009). The college experience: Exploring the relationships among student socioeconomic background, experiences of classism, and adjustment to college (Order No. 822505048) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Baker, A. R. (2019). Implications of financial concerns for college goal commitment among undergraduate students in the United States. Social Psychology of Education, 22(1), 63- 89. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9467-5 Bailey, M. J., & Dynarski, S. M. (2011). Gains and gaps: A historical perspective on inequality in college entry and completion. In G. Duncan & R. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 117-132). Russell Sage Foundation. Barnhardt, C. L., Trolian, T., An, B., Rossmann, P. D., & Morgan, D. L. (2019). Civic learning while earning? The role of student employment in cultivating civic commitments and skills. The Review of Higher Education, 42(2), 707-737. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2019.0012. Barratt, W. (2007, April 25). Talking about social class on campus. NASPA’s Net Results. http://naspa.org/netresults/ Barratt, W. (2012a). Social class on campus: Theories and manifestations. Stylus Publishing, LLC. Barratt, W. (2012b). Social class and the extracurriculum. Journal of College and Character, 13(3), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1515/jcc-2012-1906 Bartkus, K. R., Nemelka, B., Nemelka, M., & Gardner, P. (2012). Clarifying the meaning of extracurricular activity: A literature review of definitions. American Journal of Business Education, 5(6), 693-704. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v5i6.7391 Baum, S. (2010). Working during college: Its relationship to student engagement and education outcomes. In L.W. Perna (Ed.), Improving educational opportunities for college students who work, (pp. 117-140). Stylus Publishing, LLC. Baxter, A., & Britton, C. (2001). Risk, identity and change: Becoming a mature student. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 11(1), 87-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09620210100200066 Baum, S., & Rueben, K. (2020). Simplifying student aid [White paper]. Urban Institute Center on Education Data and Policy. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103084/simplifying-student- aid_1.pdf 180 Bechhofer, F., & Paterson, L. (2012). Principles of research design in the social sciences. Routledge. Benjamin, M., & Davis, L. (2016). "What haven't I learned?" Learning resulting from the resident advisor role. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 42(3), 12-25. http://www.acuho-i.org/resources/publications/journal/archive-issues Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(6), 641-664. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018708813711 Bettencourt, G. M. (2020). "When I think about working class, I think about people that work for what they have": How working-class students engage in meaning making about their social class identity. Journal of College Student Development, 61(2), 154-170. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2020.0015 Black, E. L. (2020). Library student employment and educational value beyond the paycheck. In S. Vong and M. Vrkljan (Eds.), Learning beyond the classroom: Engaging students in information literacy through co-curricular activities (pp. 57-73). Association of College and Research Libraries. Bok, D. (2015). Higher education in America. Princeton University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood. Bowman, N. A., & Holmes, J. M. (2017). A quasi-experimental analysis of fraternity or sorority membership and college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 58(7), 1018-1034. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0081 Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Neighborhood poverty: Context and consequences for children. Russell Sage Foundation. Buckley, J.B., & Park, J.J. (2019). "When you don't really focus on it": Campus climate for social class diversity and identity awareness. Journal of College Student Development 60(3), 271-289. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0026 Bui, K. V. T. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year experiences. College Student Journal, 36(1), 3-12. http://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A85007762/AONE?u=anon~9414f991&sid=googleSchola r&xid=ecb581d9. 181 Bureau, D. A., Sasso, P. A., Barber, J. P., De Freitas, K. M., Ray, D. C., & Ryan, H. G. (2021). Contextualizing social class and leadership in fraternity and sorority communities. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2021(169), 85-92. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/yd.20424 Byun, S. Y., Irvin, M. J., & Meece, J. L. (2012). Predictors of bachelor’s degree completion among rural students at four-year institutions. The Review of Higher Education, 35(3). https://doi.org/ 10.1353/rhe.2012.0023 Cahalan, M., Perna, L. W., Yamashita, M., Wright, J., & Santillan, S (2018). 2018 indicators of higher education equity in the United States: Historical trend report. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), and Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy of the University of Pennsylvania (PennAHEAD). Cantor, M. R. (2019). Retention of Long Island Millennials at a Suburban Community College: Are They College Ready?. Journal for Leadership and Instruction, 18(1), 36-41. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1222242.pdf Cain, E.J. (2020). "African American rural students: Exploring the intersection of place and race", in C.R. Chambers and L. Crumb (Eds.), African American rural education (pp. 1-15). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2051-231720200000007002 Cain, E. J., & Smith, N. L. (2020). Using critical race theory to explore the experiences of college students from rural areas. Georgia Journal of College Student Affairs, 36(1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.20429/gcpa.2020.360102 Cardone, T., Turton, E. S., Olson, G., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2013). Learning partnerships in practice: Orientation, leadership, and residence life. About Campus, 18(5), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.21131 Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Kahlenberg, R. D. (2004). America's untapped resource: Low- income students in higher education. The Century Foundation. Carnevale, A., & Smith, N. (2018). Balancing work and learning: Implications for low-income students. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/LearnAndEarn/#full-report Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Price, E. W. (2015). Learning while earning: The new normal. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/Working-Learners- Report.pdf 182 Career Advisory Board. (2017). Job preparedness indicator 2017. DeVry University. https://devryworks.devry.edu/content/dam/dvu/devryworks_devry_edu/d/dw-skills- gap-survey-2017.pdf Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers' perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century US workforce. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519465.pdf Census Urban and Rural Classification and Urban Area Criteria. (2021, October 8). US Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo- areas/urban-rural/2010-urban-rural.html Chang, M. J., & DeAngelo. (2002). Going Greek: The effects of racial composition on white students' participation patterns. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 809-821. Chen, S. S., Stapleton, S., Ratliff, J., & Blevins, A. (2017). Business students’ perceptions of expected skills and traits for their professional success. Review of Contemporary Business Research, 6(2), 1-9. http://doi.org/10.15640/rcbr.v6n2a1 Chen, R., & Wiederspan, M. (2014). Understanding the determinants of debt burden among college graduates. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(4), 565-598. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777340 Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility (No. w23618). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Choy, S. P., & Carroll, C. D. (2003). How families of low- and middle-income undergraduates pay for college: Full-time dependent students in 1999–2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Clark, G., Marsden, R., Whyatt, J. D., Thompson, L., & Walker, M. (2015). ‘It’s everything else you do…’: Alumni views on extracurricular activities and employability. Active Learning in Higher Education, 16(2), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415574050 Counts, C. J., Grubin, F. C., & John-Henderson, N. A. (2018). Childhood socioeconomic status and risk in early family environments: Predictors of global sleep quality in college students. Sleep Health, 4(3), 301-306. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sleh.2018.02.003 Crisp, G., Doran, E., & Reyes, N. A. S. (2018). Predicting graduation rates at 4-year broad access institutions using a Bayesian modeling approach. Research in Higher Education, 59(2), 133-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9459-x 183 Curl, A. L., & Benner, K. (2017). The Influence of employment on college students' academic experiences. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 28(3), 183-200. http://celt.muohio.edu/ject/issue.php?v=28&n=3 Diemer, M. A., Mistry, R. S., Wadsworth, M. E., López, I., & Reimers, F. (2013). Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 77-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12001 DiMaggio, P. (2012). Sociological perspectives on the face-to-face enactment of class distinction. In S. T. Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class: How societal rank influences Interaction, (pp. 15-38.) Russell SAGE Foundation. Diorio, K. (2007). Perceived benefits of involvement in student government (Unpublished master’s thesis). Rowen University. Dudley-Marling, C. (2007). Return of the deficit. Journal of Educational Controversy, 2(1), 1-13. https://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol2/iss1/5 Dugan, J. P. (2013). Patterns in group involvement experiences during college: Identifying a taxonomy. Journal of College Student Development, 54(3), 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0028 Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college students. National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2010). Influences on college students' capacities for socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 525-549. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2010.0009 Dundes, L., & Marx, J. (2006). Balancing work and academics in college: Why do students working 10 to 19 hours per week excel?. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.2190/7UCU-8F9M-94QG-5WWQ DuPre, C., & Williams, K. (2011). Undergraduates' perceptions of employer expectations. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 26(1), 8-19. http://doi.org/10.21061/jcte.v26i1.490 Early, S. L. (2017). Race and gender mentor-protégé pairings of resident assistants: An exploration on leadership capacity. Journal of Leadership Education, 16(1), 1-17. http://doi.org 10.12806/V16/I1/R1 Extejt, M. M., & Smith, J. E. (2009). Leadership development through sports team participation. Journal of Leadership Education, 8(2), 224-237. https://doi.org/10.12806/V8/I2/RF7 184 Framble, D.E.S. (1997). Gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, and class identities. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 139-162. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.139 Galante, M., & Ward, R. M. (2017). Female student leaders: An examination of transformational leadership, athletics, and self-esteem. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 157- 162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.017 Ganser, S. R., & Kennedy, T. L. (2012). Where it all began: Peer education and leadership in student services. New Directions for Higher Education, 2012(157), 17-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/he.20003 Ganss, K. M. (2016). The college transition for first-year students from rural Oregon communities. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 53(3), 269-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1157487 Garcia, V. (2010). First-generation college students: How co-curricular involvement can assist with success. The Vermont Connection, 31(1). https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/tvc/vol31/iss1/6 Garriott, P. O. (2019). A critical cultural wealth model of first-generation and economically marginalized college students’ academic and career development. Journal of Career Development. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845319826266 Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta- analysis of the literature, 1991-2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 746- 762. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0066 Goldman, A. M. (2019). Interpreting rural students’ stories of access to a flagship university. The Rural Educator, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v40i1.530 Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the price: College costs, financial aid, and the betrayal of the American dream. University of Chicago Press. Goudeau, S., Sanrey, C., Stanczak, A., Manstead, A., & Darnon, C. (2021). Why lockdown and distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to increase the social class achievement gap. Nature human behaviour, 5(10), 1273-1281. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01212-7 Graham-Bailey, M., Richardson Cheeks, B. L., Blankenship, B. T., Stewart, A. J., & Chavous, T. M. (2019). Examining college students’ multiple social identities of gender, race, and socioeconomic status: Implications for intergroup and social justice attitudes. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(4), 377-389. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000098 185 Green, B. P., Graybeal, P., & Madison, R. L. (2011). An exploratory study of the effect of professional internships on students’ perception of the importance of employment traits. Journal of Education for Business, 86(2), 100-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.480992 Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2007). Student organizations as venues for Black identity expression and development among African American male student leaders. Journal of College Student Development, 48(2), 127-144. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0012 Harms, P. D., Woods, D., Roberts, B., Bureau, D., & Green, A. M. (2006). Perceptions of leadership in undergraduate fraternal organizations. Leadership Institute Faculty Publications, 2(2), 81-94. https://doi.org/10.25774/mdw5-2106 Hart Research Associates (2013). It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and success. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/it-takes-more-major- employer-priorities-college-learning-and Hearn, J. C. (1984). The relative roles of academic, ascribed, and socioeconomic characteristics in college destinations. Sociology of Education, 57(1), 22-30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112465 Houle, J. N., & Warner, C. (2017). Into the red and back to the nest? Student debt, college completion, and returning to the parental home among young adults. Sociology of Education, 90(1), 89-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716685873 Hill, R. B., & Fouts, S. (2005). Work ethic and employment status: A study of jobseekers. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 42(3), 48-65. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v42n3/hill.html Hill, R. B., & Petty, G. C. (1995). A new look at selected employability skills: A factor analysis of the occupational work ethic. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 20(4), 59-73. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.514.8366&rep=rep1&type= pdf Holmes, C. (2018, July 5). You never really want to write off sorority dues, but are there times you should? OmegaFi Blog. https://blog.omegafi.com/you-never-really-want-to-write- off-sorority-dues-but-are-there-times-you-should Holzweiss, P., Rahn, R., & Wickline, J. (2007). Are all student organizations created equal? The differences and implications of student participation in academic versus non-academic organizations. College Student Affairs Journal, 27(1), 136-150. http://www.sacsa.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=18 186 Hosmer Jr, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression (Vol. 398). John Wiley & Sons. Houze, S. K. (2021). Social class barriers to traditional student leader roles. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2021(169), 77-84. http://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20423 Huie, F. C., Winsler, A., & Kitsantas, A. (2014). Employment and first-year college achievement: The role of self-regulation and motivation. Journal of Education and Work, 27(1), 110- 135. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2012.718746 Jach, E. A., & Trolian, T. L. (2020). First-year undergraduate employment and students’ academic motivation. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120947350 Johnson, B. (2001). Toward a new classification of nonexperimental quantitative research. Educational Researcher, 30(2), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X030002003 Jones, S. R., & Hill, K. E. (2003). Understanding patterns of commitment: Student motivation for community service involvement. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(5), 516-539. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2003.11778888 Joo, S. H., Durband, D. B., & Grable, J. (2008). The academic impact of financial stress on college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 10(3), 287- 305. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.10.3.c Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116 Kamath, R. (2017, October 5). High dues, hidden expenses: The cost of Greek life. Columbia Daily Spectator. https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2017/10/05/high-dues-hidden- expenses-the-cost-of- greeklife/#:~:text=Already%20branded%20with%20a%20reputation,gifts%20to%20form als%20and%20cruises. Kelchen, R. (2015). Financial need and aid volatility among students with zero expected family contribution. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 44(3), 179-201. https://ir.library.louisville.edu/jsfa/vol44/iss3/2/ Kendall, N., Goerisch, D., Kim, E. C., Vernon, F., & Wolfgram, M. (2020). The True Costs of Student Fees. In The True Costs of College (pp. 91-122). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53861-3_1 187 Kezar, A. J., Walpole, M., & Perna, L. W. (2015). Engaging low-income students. In S.J. Quaye & S.R. Harper (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 237-255). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203810163 Kim, M. (1998). The working poor: Lousy jobs or lazy workers? Journal of Economic Issues, 32(1), 65–78. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4227278 Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 437-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9127-x King, J. E. (2005). Academic success and financial decisions: Helping students make crucial choices. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), Improving the first year of college: Research and practice (pp. 3-25). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Koricich, A., Chen, X., & Hughes, R. P. (2018). Understanding the effects of rurality and socioeconomic status on college attendance and institutional choice in the United States. The Review of Higher Education, 41(2), 281-305. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0004 Komives, S. R., & Johnson, M.R. (2009). The role of high school experience in college student leadership development. Educational Considerations, 37(1). https://doi.org/ 10.4148/0146-9282.1142 Kuh, G. D. (2007). What student engagement data tell us about college readiness? Peer Review, 9(1), 4–8. https://hdl.handle.net/2022/24379 Kuh, G. D. (2012). “High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter.” Peer Review: Emerging Trends and Key Debates in Undergraduate Education, 14(3), 29. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A311500181/AONE?u=anon~ce64a0e4&sid=googleScho lar&xid=79789dfd Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563. http://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0019 Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass Publishers. Kuh, G. D., & Lund, J. P. (1994). What students gain from participating in student government. New Directions for Student Services, 66, 5-17. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/SS.37119946603 188 Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in recent theoretical developments. Sociological Theory, 6(2), 153-168. https://doi.org/10.2307/202113 Langhout, R. D., Rosselli, F., & Feinstein, J. (2007). Assessing classism in academic settings. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 145-184. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2006.0073 Lee, E. M. (2017). ‘‘Where people like me don’t belong’’: Faculty members from low- socioeconomic-status backgrounds. Sociology of Education, 90(3), 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040717710495 Lennon, R. P., Sakya, S. M., Miller, E. L., Snyder, B., Yaman, T., Zgierska, A. E., Ruffin, M.T., & Van Scoy, L. J. (2020). Public intent to comply with COVID-19 public health recommendations. Health Literacy Research and Practice, 4(3), 161-165. http://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20200708-01 Leupold, C., Lopina, E., & Skloot, E. (2020). An examination of leadership development and other experiential activities on student resilience and leadership efficacy. Journal of Leadership Education, 19(1). http://doi.org/10.12806/V19/I1/R1 Lewine, R., Manley, K., Bailey, G., Warnecke, A., Davis, D., & Sommers, A. (2019). College success among students from disadvantaged backgrounds: “Poor” and “Rural” do not spell failure. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 23(3), 686-698. http://doi.org/1521025119868438 Liu, W. M., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K., & Pickett Jr, T. (2004). A new framework to understand social class in counseling: The social class worldview model and modern classism theory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32(2), 95-122. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2004.tb00364.x Locke, L. A., & Trolian, T. L. (2018). Microaggressions and social class identity in higher education and student affairs. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(162), 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20262 Lohfink, M. M., & Paulsen, M. B. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first- generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 409-428. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_college_student_development/toc/csd46.4.ht m Logan, J., Hughes, T., & Logan, B. (2016). Overworked? An observation of the relationship between student employment and academic performance. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 18(3), 250-262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115622777 189 Lott, B. (2002). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American Psychologist, 57(2), 100-110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.2.100 Lubrano, A. (2010). Limbo: Blue-collar roots, white-collar dreams. John Wiley & Sons. Lundberg, C. A. (2007). Student involvement and institutional commitment to diversity as predictors of Native American student learning. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 405-416. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_college_student_development/toc/csd48.4.ht ml Martin, G. L., Hevel, M. S., Asel, A. M., & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). New evidence on the effects of fraternity and sorority affiliation during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 52(5), 543-559. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2011.0062 Martin, G. L., Hevel, M. S., & Pascarella, E. T. (2012). Do fraternities and sororities enhance socially responsible leadership?. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(3), 267-284. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2012-6245 Martin, G. L., Smith, M. J., & Williams, B. M. (2018). Reframing deficit thinking on social class. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(162), 87-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ss.20264 Martin, G. L., Williams, B., & Reynolds Young, C. (2018). Understanding social class as identity. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(162), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20258 Martinez, B., & Williams, T. O. (2021). Building class and race intersections in leadership development. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2021(169), 43-50. http://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20419 May, W. P. (2009). Student governance: A qualitative study of leadership in a student government association [Doctoral Dissertation, Georgia State University]. Georgia State University Repository. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/eps_diss/36/ McClellan, G. S., Creager, K. L., & Savoca, M. (2018). A good job: Campus employment as a high- impact practice. Stylus Publishing, LLC. McCormick, A. C., Moore, J. V. III, & Kuh. G. D. (2010). Working during college: Its relationship to student engagement and education outcomes. In L. W. Perna (Ed.), Improving educational opportunities for college students who work (pp. 179-212). Stylus. 190 McCulloh, E. (2020). An exploration of parental support in the retention of rural first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120907889 Mertler, C. A., & Reinhart, R. V. (2016). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation. Routledge. Miles, J. M. (2011). Reflections of student government association leaders: Implications for advisors. College Student Journal, 45(2). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A259679616/AONE?u=anon~48cdecba&sid=googleScho lar&xid=c084e6eb Miller, E. I. (1997). Parents' views on the value of a college education and how they will pay for it. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 27(1), 7-20. https://ir.library.louisville.edu/jsfa/vol27/iss1/1 National Association of Colleges and Employers (2017). Career readiness defined. NACE CENTER. http://www.naceweb.org/career-readiness/competencies/career-readiness-defined/ National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (2020, December 23). Q&A on Changes to Federal Student Aid Policy Included in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021. National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. https://www.nasfaa.org/qa_consolidated_approps_21 National Association for Student Financial Aid Administrators. (2021, September 14). NASFAA Higher Education Act Reauthorization Priorities - Accomplished Recommendations. National Association for Student Financial Aid Administrators https://www.nasfaa.org/accomplished_recs Neem, J. N. (2019). What's the point of college?: Seeking purpose in an age of reform. JHU Press. Norwood, F. B., & Henneberry, S. R. (2006). Show me the money! The value of college graduate attributes as expressed by employers and perceived by students. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(2), 484-498. http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467- 8276.2006.00873.x Nouri, M., Hill, L. G., & Orrell-Valente, J. K. (2011). Media exposure, internalization of the thin ideal, and body dissatisfaction: Comparing Asian American and European American college females. Body Image, 8(4), 366-372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2011.05.008 191 Nuñez, A. M., & Sansone, V. A. (2016). Earning and learning: Exploring the meaning of work in the experiences of first-generation Latino college students. The Review of Higher Education, 40(1), 91-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2016.0039 Nunn, L. M. (2021). College belonging: How first-year and first-generation students navigate campus life. Rutgers University Press. Nykiel, T. (2021, February 8). Sorority costs: Are the benefits worth it? NerdWallet. https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/student-loans/sorority-life-expenses. O’Donnell, C. T., & Blankenship, C. (2018). Status frustration among college students: The relationship between socioeconomic status and undergraduate performance. Deviant Behavior, 39(6), 679-693. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1286197 Orphan, C. M., & Broom, S. (2021). Life at the “people’s universities”: Organizational identification and commitment among regional comprehensive university faculty members in the USA. Higher Education, 82(1), 181-201. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734- 020-00629-9 Ovink, S., Kalogrides, D., Nanney, M., & Delaney, P. (2018). College match and undermatch: Assessing student preferences, college proximity, and inequality in post-college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 59(5), 553-590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9482-y Ostrove, J. M., & Cole, E. R. (2003). Privileging class: Toward a critical psychology of social class in the context of education. Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), 677-692. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00084.x Ostrove, J. M., & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications for college adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 363-389. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0028 Ostrove, J. M., Stewart, A. J., & Curtin, N. L. (2011). Social class and belonging: Implications for graduate students' career aspirations. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(6), 748-774. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2011.11777226 Owen, J. E., Rigaud, S., & McCarron, G. P. (2021). Hidden costs and commitments: Leadership, social class, and experiential learning. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2021(169), 103-110. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20426 Padgett, R. D., & Grady, D. L. (2009). Student development and personal growth in employment. In B. Perozzi (Ed.), Enhancing student learning through college employment, (pp. 31-43). Dog Ear Publishing. 192 Paid Medical Leave Act, Mich. Stat. § 338 (2018). Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). Park, J. J. (2012). Asian American women's perspectives on historically White sorority life: A critical race theory and cultural capital analysis. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 7(2), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.25774/v8y6- 6964 Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284. http://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2004.11772256 Paulsen, M., & St. John, E. (2002). Social class and college costs: Examining the financial nexus between college choice and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 189- 236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777141 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010). Peck, A., & Preston, M. (2018). Connecting bridges: Introducing the cocurricular career connections leadership model. http://www.naceweb.org/career- readiness/competencies/connecting-bridges-introducing-the-cocurricular-career- connections-leadership-model/ Peng, C. Y. J., So, T. S. H., Stage, F. K., & John, E. P. S. (2002). The use and interpretation of logistic regression in higher education journals: 1988–1999. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 259-293. Perna, L. W., & Titus, M. A. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 485-518. https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/14 Petty, G. C. (1993). Development of the occupational work ethic inventory. Paper presented at the 1993 annual American Vocational Association meeting, Nashville, Tennessee. Pierre, D. E., & Haber-Curran, P. (2021). Layering social class and gender in leadership development. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2021(169), 51-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yd.20420 Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & Massa-McKinley, R. C. (2008). First-year students' employment, engagement, and academic achievement: Untangling the relationship between work and grades. NASPA Journal, 45(4), 560-582. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.2011 193 Polmear, M., Chau, A. D., & Simmons, D. R. (2021). Intersection of diversity, out-of-class engagement, and engineer of 2020 outcomes for civil engineering students. Journal of Management in Engineering, 37(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943- 5479.0000901 Posner, B., & Brodsky, B. (1992). A leadership development instrument for college students. Journal of College Student Development, 33(4), 231-237. Reuter, T., & Backer, S. (2015). Operationalizing organizational change theory: Implications for practice in the fraternity/sorority movement. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 10(2), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.25774/a07k- ve62 Rios-Aguilar, C., Kiyama, J. M., Gravitt, M., & Moll, L. C. (2011). Funds of knowledge for the poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining funds of knowledge. Theory and Research in Education, 9(2), 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878511409776 Rosati, C., Nguyen, D. J., Troyer, R., Tran, Q., Graman, Z., & Brenckle, J. (2019). Exploring how student activists experience marginality and mattering during interactions with student affairs professionals. College Student Affairs Journal, 37(2), 113-127. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1255442.pdf Rosch, D. M., & Lawrie, J. D. (2011). Recent alumni perceptions of hall government leadership learning. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 37(2), 54-71. Rossmann, P. (2019). More than a paycheck: Applied learning within a student employment context. New Directions for Higher Education, 2019(188), 43-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20344 Routon, P. W., & Walker, J. K. (2014). The impact of Greek organization membership on collegiate outcomes: Evidence from a national survey. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 49, 63-70. http://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.socec.2014.02.003 Rutter, M. P., & Mintz, S. (2016). The curricular and the co-curricular. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/curricular-and-co-curricular Salisbury, M. H., Pascarella, E. T., Padgett, R. D., & Blaich, C. (2012). The effects of work on leadership development among first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 300-324. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0021 Schueler, L A., Hoffman, J. A., & Peterson, E. (2009). Fostering safe, engaging campuses for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students. In S. R. Harper & S. J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education (pp. 61-69). Routledge. 194 Silver, B. R. (2020). Inequality in the extracurriculum: How class, race, and gender shape college involvement. Sociological Forum, 35(4), 1290-1314. https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12648 Simmons, D. R., & Chau, A. D. (2021). Factors that predict participation in out-of-class activities for STEM students. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 22(1). ttps://jstem.org/jstem/index.php/JSTEM/article/view/2444/2202 Simmons, R., & Smyth, J. (2018). Education and social class: How did we get to this and what needs to change?. In R Simmons & J. Smyth (Eds.), Education and Working-Class Youth (pp. 233-259). Palgrave Macmillan. Sims, L. R., & Ferrare, J. J. (2021). "Since I am from where I am from": How rural and urban first- generation college students differentially use social capital to choose a college major. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 37(6), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.26209/jrre3706 Soria, K. M. (2013a). Social class reconsidered: Examining the role of class and privilege in fraternities and sororities. AFA Essentials, May 2013, 1-10. http://goo.gl/l0wX3i Soria, K. M. (2013b). What happens outside of the college class(ed) room? Examining college students' social class and social integration in higher education. [Doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota.] University of Minnesota Library Digital Conservatory. https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/154408 Soria, K. M. (2018). Counting class: Assessing social class identity using quantitative measures. New Directions for Student Services, 2018(162), 49-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ss.20261 Soria, K. M. (2021). The social class barriers to engagement in leadership experiences. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2021(169), 33-41. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/yd.20418 Soria, K. M., Horgos, B., & Roberts, B. J. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and students’ mental health. New Directions for Student Services, 2021(176), 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20404 Soria, K. M., Hussein, D., & Vue, C. (2014). Leadership for whom? Socioeconomic factors predicting undergraduate students' positional leadership participation. Journal of Leadership Education, 13(1). http://doi.org.10.12806/V13/I1/R2 Staff, J., Yetter, A.M., Cundiff, K., Ramirez, N., Vuolo, M., & Mortimer, J.T. (2020). Is adolescent employment still a risk factor for high school dropout?. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30, 406-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12533 195 Stephens, N. M., Brannon, T. N., Markus, H. R., & Nelson, J. E. (2015). Feeling at home in college: Fortifying school-relevant selves to reduce social class disparities in higher education. Social Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12008 Stephens, N. M., Markus, H.R., & Phillips, T. (2014) Social class culture cycles: How three gateway contexts shape selves and fuel inequality. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 611-634. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115143 Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S., & Dittmann, A. G. (2019). Social-class disparities in higher education and professional workplaces: The role of cultural mismatch. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(1), 67-73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418806506 Stout, S. M., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. (2018). It’s all Greek to me: Recruiters’ perceptions of résumé items. Journal of Career Development, 84(4), 409-433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894845318757916 Stuber, J. M. (2009). Class, culture, and participation in the collegiate extra-curriculum. Sociological Forum, 24(4), 877-900. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01140.x Sullivan, S. (2014). Good white people: The problem with middle-class white anti-racism. Suny Press. Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Ullman, J. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Pearson. Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education. JHU Press. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next?. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.2190/4YNU-4TMB-22DJ-AN4W Townsend, S. S., Stephens, N. M., Smallets, S., & Hamedani, M. G. (2019). Empowerment through difference: An online difference-education intervention closes the social class achievement gap. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(7), 1068-1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218804548 Tsai, C. L., Brown, A., Lehrman, A., & Tian, L. (2020). Motivation and postsecondary enrollment among high school students whose parents did not go to college. Journal of Career Development, http://doi.org/0894845320946397 196 Trolian, T. L. (2019). Predicting student involvement in the first year of college: The influence of students' precollege professional and career attitudes. Journal of College Student Development, 60(1), 120-127. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0009 Turrentine, C., Esposito, T., Young, M. D., & Ostroth, D. D. (2012). Measuring educational gains from participation in intensive co-curricular experiences at Bridgewater State University. The Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, 2(1), 30-54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jasseinsteffe.2.1.0030 U.S. Department of Labor. (2000). Report on the youth labor force. U. S. Government Printing Office. https://www.bls.gov/cps/trends-in-youth-employment-report-on-the-youth- labor-force-2000.pdf Vance, J. D. (2016). Hillbilly elegy. HarperCollins. Walker, J. K., Martin, N. D., & Hussey, A. (2015). Greek organization membership and collegiate outcomes at an elite, private university. Research in Higher Education, 56(3), 203-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-014-9345-8 Walpole, M. (2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 45-73. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2003.0044 Walpole, M. (2007). Economically and educationally challenged students in higher education: Access to outcomes. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(3), 1-113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3303 Warnock, D. M., Hurst, A. L., Barratt, W., & Salcedo, J. G. (2018). Students’ perceptions of campus climate by social class background. In K. Soria (Ed.), Evaluating campus climate at US research universities (pp. 103-124). Palgrave Macmillan. Wood, F. W. (1990). An American profile: Opinions and behavior, 1972-1989: Opinion results on 300 high-interest issues derived from the general social survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center. Gale Cengage. Williams, B. M., & Martin, G. (2021). Exploring the rhetoric of social class among first- generation, low-income college students in US higher education. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000360 Williams, B. (2013, August 29). Sorority Recruitment guide for dummies. Campus Circle. https://www.campuscircle.com/review.cfm?r=18229. Wright, E., Hao, Q., Rasheed, K., & Liu, Y. (2018). Feature selection of post-graduation income of college students in the United States. In International Conference on Social Computing, 197 Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction and Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation (pp. 38-45). Springer, Cham. Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006 Zager, S., Mendu, M. L., Chang, D., Bazick, H. S., Braun, A. B., Gibbons, F. K., & Christopher, K. B. (2011). Neighborhood poverty rate and mortality in patients receiving critical care in the academic medical center setting. Chest, 139(6), 1368-1379. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.10-2594 198