IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/uhejxx/v91y2020i3p378-401.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Framing the Search: How First-Generation Students Evaluate Colleges

Author

Listed:
  • Megan M. Holland

Abstract

Although college access has increased, first-generation college students are still less likely to enroll in postsecondary education, and when they do enroll, are more likely to attend less selective schools compared to their peers whose parents are college-educated. In order to understand how first-generation students end up where they do, we must consider how they decide which colleges to apply to. Using interview and observational data with 29 first-generation college students and 22 school counseling staff members at two high schools, I examined how students evaluated colleges during the search process. I find that first-generation college students employed three frames to evaluate colleges: incidental, limited and personal fit. Evaluative frames are informed by cultural knowledge about college and social networks and the most common frame that students with limited knowledge used was the incidental frame. Students employing this frame focused on college attendance and deemphasized differences between colleges. Although few first-generation college students evaluated colleges using the personal fit frame, this was the frame most counselors used. Employing different frames meant that counselors and students approached the search with different purposes, making counselors less effective during a critical component of the college process.

Suggested Citation

  • Megan M. Holland, 2020. "Framing the Search: How First-Generation Students Evaluate Colleges," The Journal of Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 91(3), pages 378-401, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:uhejxx:v:91:y:2020:i:3:p:378-401
    DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2019.1647582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00221546.2019.1647582
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00221546.2019.1647582?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:uhejxx:v:91:y:2020:i:3:p:378-401. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/uhej .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.