NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report June 1998

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

First-Generation Students:

Undergraduates Whose Parents Never

Enrolled in Postsecondary Education

U. S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-082
NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Statistical Analysis Report June 1998

Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports

First-Generation Students:

Undergraduates Whose Parents Never

Enrolled in Postsecondary Education

Anne-Marie Nunez

Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin

MPR Associates, Inc.

C. Dennis Carroll

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U. S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-082
2

U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Ricky Takai

Acting Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for

collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and

other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report

full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct

and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such

statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems;

and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide

consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and

report timely, useful, and high quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the

Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the

general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is

appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our

success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or

suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from

you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208–5651

June 1998

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. FirstGeneration Students: Undergraduates Whose Parents Never Enrolled in Postsecondary

Education, NCES 98-082, by Anne-Marie Nunez and Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin.

Project officer: C. Dennis Carroll. Washington DC: 1998.

Contact:

Aurora D’Amico

(202) 219-1365
iii

Highlights

This report uses data from the 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal

Study (BPS:90/94) and the 1993 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/94) to

examine the postsecondary experiences and outcomes of first-generation students relative to their

peers. After an overview of the demographic, aspirational, and enrollment characteristics of firstgeneration and non-first-generation students, the report compares the persistence and attainment

rates of each of these two groups. It then examines the labor market and further postsecondary

outcomes of these students. The major findings are:1

• First-generation students were more likely to be older, have lower incomes, be married,

and have dependents than their non-first-generation peers (figure 2).

• First-generation students were more likely to enroll in postsecondary education parttime, and to attend public 2-year institutions; private, for-profit institutions; and other

less-than-4-year institutions than their non-first-generation counterparts (table 4, table

3, figure 3).

• First-generation students were equally as likely to be taking remedial classes as nonfirst-generation students when they began their postsecondary education. However,

there were differences by sector on this measure. At private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, first-generation students were more likely to be taking remedial courses than

their counterparts whose parents had more than a high school education. At the same

time, the proportions of first-generation and non-first-generation students at public 4-

year and public 2-year institutions taking remedial coursework did not differ significantly (table 9).

• First-generation students were more likely than non-first-generation students to say that

being very well off financially and providing their children with better opportunities than

they had were very important to them personally (table 11).

• First-generation students were also more likely to say that obtaining the amount of financial aid they needed, being able to complete coursework more quickly, being able to

live at home, and being able to work while attending the school were very important influences in their decision to attend their particular postsecondary institution (table 11).

• First-generation students persisted in postsecondary education and attained credentials

at lower rates than their non-first-generation counterparts. This finding held for students at 4-year institutions and public 2-year institutions (figure 5).

 

1All findings reported in highlights were taken directly from the report, where all comparisons are tested for significance.
Highlights

iv

• If first-generation students attained bachelor’s or associate’s degrees, they earned comparable salaries and were employed in similar occupations as their non-first-generation

peers (table 22, table 23).

• Even when controlling for many of the characteristics that distinguished them from their

peers, such as socioeconomic status, institution type, and attendance status, firstgeneration student status still had a negative effect on persistence and attainment (table

25).
v

Foreword

This report examines the postsecondary experiences of first-generation college students,

students whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education, and compares them with those

of their non-first-generation counterparts. The report begins by describing first-generation and

non-first-generation students’ demographic characteristics, what mattered to them, how they selected their institution, and the characteristics of their enrollment (i.e, degree program). It then

goes on to examine their postsecondary persistence and attainment outcomes. The report concludes with an investigation of their labor market outcomes and access to further educational opportunities.

The report relies on data from the 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal

Study (BPS:90/94), the longitudinal component of the NPSAS:90 survey, a nationally representative sample that includes students enrolled in all types of postsecondary institutions, ranging from

4-year colleges and universities to less-than-2-year vocational institutions. The BPS:90/94 sample

was limited to students who enrolled in postsecondary education for the first time during the

1989–90 academic year. The BPS cohort was subsequently followed up in 1992 and 1994, with

the latter follow-up offering a wide range of information regarding student persistence and degree

attainment 5 years after the beginning students initially enrolled in postsecondary education. For a

more complete analysis of labor market and further educational outcomes among bachelor’s degree recipients, the analysis of the BPS:90/94 data was supplemented by using data from the 1993

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/94). B&B:93/94 is a nationally representative sample of students who completed their bachelor’s degrees in the 1992–93 academic

year. The first follow-up survey was conducted in 1994, one year after graduation.

The estimates (mostly percentages) presented in the report were produced using the

BPS:90/94 and B&B:93/94 Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The DAS is a microcomputer application that allows users to specify and generate their own tables. The DAS produces designadjusted standard errors necessary for testing the statistical significance of differences shown in

the tables. For more information regarding the DAS, readers should consult appendix B of this

report.
vi

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all those who contributed to the production of this report. At

MPR Associates, Andrea Livingston, Karyn Madden, and Barbara Kridl edited the final report,

and Mary Sukkestad, Don Eike, Helen Jang, and Francesca Tussing provided essential production

assistance. Laura Horn reviewed the report and made helpful suggestions from the early planning

stages through the final report.

We would also like to acknowledge the helpful guidance and criticism from C. Dennis

Carroll at NCES and Ellen Bradburn at the Education Statistics Services Institute. Finally, we

would like to thank the members of the adjudication panel: Kristin Perry, Frank Morgan, and

Robert Burton at NCES, David Bergeron at OPE, and Melanie Esten at NAICU for their careful

reading and thoughtful comments.
vii

Table of Contents

Page

Highlights.............................................................................................................................. iii

Foreword ............................................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................. vi

List of Tables......................................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... xii

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

Data ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Who Are First-Generation Students? .................................................................................. 7

Enrollment Characteristics................................................................................................... 13

What Mattered to First-Generation Students ..................................................................... 21

Why First-Generation Students Chose Their Institutions .................................................. 25

Cost-Related Factors......................................................................................................... 25

Location-Related Factors................................................................................................... 25

Reputation-Related Factors ............................................................................................... 27

Academic and Social Integration.......................................................................................... 29

Academic Integration ........................................................................................................ 29

Social Integration .............................................................................................................. 32

Persistence and Attainment.................................................................................................. 35

Labor Market Outcomes ...................................................................................................... 43

Graduate School Enrollment................................................................................................ 49

Influence of Demographic, Institutional, Enrollment, and Integration

 Characteristics on Persistence and Attainment.................................................................. 51

Summary ............................................................................................................................... 55
Table of Contents

viii

Page

Appendix A—Glossary ......................................................................................................... 57

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology................................................................ 79
ix

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

first-generation status, by type of institution................................................................. 7

2 Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students

according to demographics, by first-generation status .................................................. 10

3 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

type of first institution, by first-generation status.......................................................... 14

4 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

attendance status in 1989–90, by first-generation status ............................................... 16

5 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

local residence in 1989–90, by first-generation status................................................... 16

6 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

type of degree program in 1989–90, by first-generation status...................................... 17

7 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

delayed entry status in 1989–90, by first-generation status ........................................... 17

8 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students receiving various types of

financial aid in 1989–90, by first-generation status ....................................................... 18

9 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to number of

types of remedial education courses taken in 1989–90, by first-generation status and

institution type............................................................................................................. 19

10 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

whether worked full time while enrolled in 1989–90, by first-generation status............. 19

11 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who find various

professional/financial achievement matters important, by first-generation status............ 22

12 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who find various personal

achievement-related matters important, by first-generation status................................. 22
List of Tables

x

Table Page

13 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students with various

cost-related reasons for choosing the institution in 1989–90, by firstgeneration status.......................................................................................................... 26

14 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students with various location-related

reasons for choosing the institution in 1989–90, by first-generation status.................... 26

15 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students with various reputationrelated and other reasons for choosing the institution in 1989–90, by first-generation

status........................................................................................................................... 27

16 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

academic integration levels in 1989–90, by first-generation status and institution

type ............................................................................................................................. 30

17 Average academic integration score of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students, by

institution type and first-generation status.................................................................... 31

18 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

social integration levels in 1989–90, by first-generation status and institution type........ 33

19 Average social integration score of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students, by

institution type and first-generation status.................................................................... 34

20 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

persistence and attainment status as of 1994, by first-generation status

and institution type ...................................................................................................... 37

21 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 full-time beginning postsecondary students

according to persistence and attainment status as of 1994, by first-generation

status and institution type............................................................................................. 40

22 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students with various employment

characteristics, and of those employed, percentage distribution according to occupation, by first-generation student status and degree attained........................................... 44

23 Annual salary of bachelor’s degree recipients as of April 1994, by gender and firstgeneration status.......................................................................................................... 46

24 Percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients enrolled in graduate school and of those

enrolled, percentage distribution according to type of degree program as of April

1994, by first-generation status.................................................................................... 49
List of Tables

xi

Table Page

25 Among 1989–90 beginning students who indicated plans to attain a vocational

certificate, associate’s, or bachelor’s degree, the percentage who were enrolled in

or had attained a degree within five years, and the percentage after taking into

account the covariation of the variables in the table: 1989–94 ...................................... 52

B1 Standard errors for table 2: Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1989–90

beginning postsecondary students according to demographics, by firstgeneration status.......................................................................................................... 82
xii

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

first-generation status .................................................................................................. 8

2 Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to

demographics, by first-generation status....................................................................... 9

3 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to first-generation

status, by type of institution ......................................................................................... 13

4 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to first-generation

status, by first type of institution .................................................................................. 15

5 Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who attained a degree or

were enrolled as of 1994, by first-generation status and first-institution type ................ 35
1

Introduction

Over the past 25 years, the value of a college degree has increased substantially. For instance, in 1972, males aged 25 to 34 with a bachelor’s or higher degree earned 19 percent more

than their counterparts with only a high school diploma. By 1995, this figure had climbed to 52

percent.2 As the earnings gap between those who hold a bachelor’s degree and those who do not

has widened, the number of students enrolling in postsecondary education has grown. Between

1972 and 1995, the percentage of 16- to-24-year-old high school graduates immediately entering

college increased from 49 to 62 percent.3

Individuals enroll in postsecondary education for many reasons, including intellectual, economic, and social considerations; however, the degree to which these reasons affect the decision

to enroll varies among students. For many individuals, there is no question about their enrollment;

such students typically have parents who are college educated and who view postsecondary education simply as “the next logical, expected, and desired stage in the passage toward personal and

4 occupational achievement.” For others, enrollment represents a deliberate attempt to improve

their social, economic, and occupational standing. Many of these students are the first members of

their families to enroll in any education beyond high school. For these “first-generation students,”

postsecondary education offers both opportunity and risk, since it represents a departure from

family traditions.5

First-generation students often have family and background characteristics that are associated with risk for attrition. For example, they are more likely than their peers to be from lowincome families, have lower achievement (as measured by the Collegiate Assessment of

 

2U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 1997 (Washington, DC:

1997) , Indicator 33, pp. 120−121.

3U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 1997 (Washington, DC:

1997), Indicator 8, pp. 62−63.

4P.T. Terenzini, et al., “The Transition to College: Diverse Students, Diverse Stories,” Research in Higher Education 31(1)

(1994): 57−73.

5The majority of the research literature defines “first-generation” students as students whose parents have no postsecondary

education. In some cases, such as defining eligibility for the U.S. Department of Education’s TRIO programs, “first-generation”

students are defined as students whose parents have never earned a bachelor’s degree but may have some postsecondary experience.
Introduction

2

Academic Proficiency), and have lower overall degree aspirations. They are also more likely to be

older and to have dependent children than their non-first-generation counterparts.6

First-generation students also enroll predominantly in the 2-year sector.7 While enrollment in

this sector may be less expensive, some community colleges may lack the resources necessary to

provide the special support services that first-generation students might need. Once enrolled in

postsecondary education, first-generation students tend to work more hours off campus than their

non-first-generation counterparts, complete fewer total course hours during their first year, and

receive less support from family and friends for their enrollment.8 Finally, first-generation students

are less likely to attain a postsecondary credential than their counterparts.

Some research has used the concept of “integration and cultural transformation” to help explain the difficulties first-generation students face.9 Regardless of generational status, initial enrollment in postsecondary education is a time of great upheaval. Students must adapt academically

and socially to their new institutional surroundings, and the extent to which they adapt can play a

role in their postsecondary outcomes. Poor academic preparation, family responsibilities, and fulltime work, for instance, can pose severe challenges to a student’s ability to integrate into postsecondary institutional life. In addition to these social and academic adaptations, first-generation

students face the additional task of cultural adaptation.10 Specifically, there is a distinct element of

“cultural mobility” associated with postsecondary enrollment, particularly if no other family member has had any postsecondary education.11 While many students have no trouble making this

transition, others may encounter conflict between the cultures of their families/friends and their

new college culture. How first-generation students negotiate these conflicts may influence their

ultimate success.

 

6P.T. Terenzini, et al., “First-Generation College Students: Characteristics, Experiences, and Cognitive Development,” Research in Higher Education 37 (1) (1996): 1–22.

7In a study of community college students, Willett found that 80 percent of sampled 2-year college students came from backgrounds where no family members had earned a college credential. See L.H. Willett, “Are Community College Students FirstGeneration College Students?” Community College Review 17 (2) (Fall 1989): 48–52. In an analysis of the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:90/94), it was found that 55 percent of first-generation students attended public 2-

year institutions in 1994. See The Institute for Higher Education Policy, Policy Steps 4 (1) (Spring 1997): 1–10.

8P.T. Terenzini, et al., “First-Generation College Students,” 1996.

9J.P. Bean and B.S. Metzner, “A Conceptual Model of Nontraditional Undergraduate Student Attrition,” Review of Educational

Research 55 (4) (1985): 485–540; and H.B. London, “Transformations: Cultural Challenges Faced by First-Generation Students,” New Directions for Community Colleges 80 (Winter 1992): 5–11.

10H.B. London, “Breaking Away: A Study of First-Generation College Students and Their Families,” American Journal of

Education 97 (1) (1989): 144–170.

11H.B. London, “Breaking Away: A Study of First-Generation College Students and Their Families,” 1989.
Introduction

3

In order for postsecondary institutions to better understand the unique needs of firstgeneration students, more must be known about who they are and their particular enrollment experiences. The purpose of this report is to provide such information. The report begins by describing the background characteristics of first-generation students. Next, it looks at where firstgeneration students enroll and why they have chosen their particular institution, followed by an

analysis of measures of academic and social integration within the institution. The third section of

the report examines the postsecondary persistence and attainment outcomes of first-generation

students relative to their peers, and the report concludes by describing their labor market outcomes. Finally, to measure the independent effect of first-generation status on persistence and attainment, a multivariate analysis was conducted to control for covariation.

5

Data

Data from the 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Longitudinal Study (BPS:90/94) were

used to examine the participation of first-generation students in postsecondary education.

BPS:90/94 is the longitudinal component of the NPSAS:90 survey, a nationally representative

sample that includes students enrolled in all types of postsecondary institutions, ranging from 4-

year colleges and universities to 2-year and less-than-2-year vocational institutions. The

BPS:90/94 sample is composed of students who enrolled for the first time in postsecondary education during the 1989–90 academic year; the cohort was subsequently followed up in 1992 and

1994. BPS:90/94 offers a wide range of information regarding students’ academic and social experiences while enrolled, as well as their persistence and degree attainment 5 years after their initial enrollment in postsecondary education.

BPS:90/94 was also used to examine the labor market experiences of first-generation students relative to those of their peers who obtained less than baccalaureate degrees (associate’s

degrees and vocational certificates). BPS:90/94 spans 5 years, which is too little time for an

analysis of labor market outcomes among bachelor’s degree recipients, given that a majority of

them may have minimal post-degree labor market experience.12 Therefore, this analysis was supplemented with data from the 1993 Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/94),

a nationally representative sample of students who completed their bachelor’s degrees in the

1992–93 academic year. The first follow-up survey was conducted in 1994, one year after

graduation. B&B:93/94 provides information regarding students’ immediate entry into the labor

market, graduate education, or both (i.e., within 1 year after bachelor’s degree attainment).

 

12An analysis of data from the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/94) revealed that only 36 percent of

1992–93 bachelor’s degree recipients had completed their degree within 4 years of beginning postsecondary education. A.

McCormick and L. Horn, A Descriptive Summary of 1992–93 Bachelor's Degree Recipients 1 Year Later, With an Essay on

Time to Degree (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996), 28.

7

Who Are First-Generation Students?

First-generation students are defined as those whose parents’ highest level of education is a

high school diploma or less. In cases where parents have different levels of education, the maximum education level of either parent determines how the student is categorized. In this analysis,

these students are compared with two other groups: those whose parent(s) have attended some

college, but have attained less than a bachelor’s degree; and those whose parent(s) have attained a

bachelor’s or an advanced degree. Almost half (about 43 percent) of first-time beginning students

in 1989–90 were identified as first-generation (figure 1). For students not classified as firstgeneration, 23 percent had parents with some college experience, and 34 percent had parents who

had attained a bachelor’s or higher degree (table 1).

First-generation students were less likely to be white, non-Hispanic, than their non-firstgeneration counterparts and more likely to be Hispanic (11 percent versus 5 percent) (figure 2).

Compared with their counterparts, first-generation students were also more likely to be female

(57 percent versus 51 percent) (table 2).

Table 1—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to firstTable 1—generation status, by type of institution

Not a first-generation student

Parents have

 First-generation Parents have bachelor’s or

 student some college advanced degree Total

 Total* 43.4 22.9 33.7 56.6 

Institution type

 Public 4-year 29.5 26.8 43.7 70.5 

 Private, not-for-profit 4-year 25.0 21.6 53.4 75.0 

 Public 2-year 50.5 21.8 27.8 49.6 

 Private, for-profit 66.8 20.9 12.3 33.2 

*Students in other less-than-4-year institutions (private, not-for-profit; public, less-than-2-year; and private, 

not-for-profit less-than-2-year) are included in the total, but not in the detail because the sample sizes were too small.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.
Who Are First-Generation Students?

8

Figure 1—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to firstFigure 1—generation status

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

First-generation 

student

43%

Parents have 

bachelor’s or 

advanced degree

34%

Parents have some 

college

23%

Not a firstgeneration 

student

57%

In addition, according to 1989–90 data, the families of first-generation students had lower

family incomes than those of non-first-generation students. As an example, nearly one-quarter (23

percent) of first-generation students had family incomes in the lowest quartile, compared with 5

percent of students whose parents had attained higher educational levels.13 Meanwhile, 59 percent

of non-first-generation students had family incomes in the highest quartile, compared with 18 percent of their counterparts (table 2).

 

13These income quartiles were based on quartiles defined in the NPSAS:90 data, which included not only beginning postsecondary students, but all first-year students. Since students in the BPS: 89/90 sample were more likely to be traditional, dependent, and have higher incomes than other first-year students, they were more likely to have family SES in the highest

quartile.
Who Are First-Generation Students?

9

Figure 2—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to demographics, 

Figure 2—by first-generation status

*The category “not married” includes the following categories: single, never married; living as married, never married; 

divorced; widowed; and living as married, previously divorced.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

43

57

49

29

9

13

76

9

11

4

1

49 51

74

21

2 3

82

8

5 4

.06

0

20

40

60

80

100

Male 19–24 White, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander

Demographics

80

18

2

63

15

22 23

58

18

5

0.5

7 6 5

36

59

95 87

0

20

40

60

80

100

Not married1 Separated Single independent Lowest quartile Highest quartile

Percent

25–29 30 or 

more

Female 18 or less 19–24 Asian/

Pacific 

Islander

Hispanic American 

Indian/

Alaskan 

Native

Male

GENDER AGE

IN 1989–90

Black, nonHispanic

RACE–ETHNICITY

White, nonHispanic

Not married* Married Separated Dependent Independent, 

no dependents

Independent 

with 

dependents

Lowest 

quartile

Highest 

quartile

MARITAL 

STATUS

IN 1989–90

SOCIOECONOMIC 

STATUS

IN 1989–90

Middle 

quartiles

DEPENDENCY 

STATUS

IN 1989–90

Percent

14 18

38

30

6

31 36

22

4

0.3 4

8

35

53

4

18

36

29

12

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Trade

school

Bachelor's

degree

Less than

600

Trade 800–999 1200–1399

school

2-year 

degree

Bachelor's 

degree

Advanced 

degree

Less than 

600

600–799 800–999 1000–

1199

1200–

1399

1400 or 

more

EDUCATIONAL 

ASPIRATIONS

IN 1989–90

SAT TOTAL SCORE

 First-generation student Not a first-generation student

Percent
Who Are First-Generation Students?

10

Table 2—Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according

Table 2—to demographics, by first-generation status

 Not a first-generation student

Parents Parents have

First- have bachelor’s 

generation some or advanced

Total student Total college degree

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Gender

 Male 46.0 42.7 49.3 45.6 51.9 

 Female 54.0 57.3 50.7 54.4 48.2 

Age in 1989–90

 18 years or younger 61.2 49.4 74.2 66.7 79.2 

 19–24 years 24.3 29.2 21.3 25.9 18.2 

 25–29 years 5.0 8.8 2.1 3.1 1.3 

 30 years or older 9.5 12.6 2.5 4.4 1.3 

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 78.8 75.9 81.8 79.9 83.1 

 Black, non-Hispanic 8.8 9.2 8.1 10.7 6.3 

 Hispanic 7.6 10.5 5.2 6.4 4.4 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 4.0 3.6 4.3 2.9 5.3 

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.7 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.8 

Marital status in 1989–90

 Not married186.7 80.2 94.6 91.5 96.6 

 Married 12.2 18.0 5.0 7.5 3.2 

 Separated 1.2 1.7 0.5 1.0 0.1 

Dependency status in 1989–90

 Dependent 74.0 63.0 86.7 80.2 91.1 

 Independent, no dependents 10.9 14.9 7.0 10.9 4.3 

 Independent with dependents 15.1 22.1 6.3 9.0 4.5 

Socioeconomic status in 1989–902

 Lowest quartile 14.7 23.3 4.6 8.2 2.2 

 Middle quartiles 45.7 58.4 36.1 53.6 24.2 

 Highest quartile 39.7 18.3 59.3 38.2 73.7 

Educational aspirations in 1989–90

 Trade school 9.1 14.2 4.4 8.0 1.9 

 2-year degree 12.8 18.4 8.0 10.6 6.2 

 Bachelor’s degree 35.9 37.7 34.8 37.2 33.2 

 Advanced degree 42.1 29.6 52.9 44.2 58.7 
Who Are First-Generation Students?

11

Table 2—Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according 

Table 3—to demographics, by first-generation status—Continued

 Not a first-generation student

Parents Parents have

First- have bachelor’s 

generation some or advanced

Total student Total college degree

SAT total score

 Less than 600 4.6 6.1 3.9 4.3 3.8 

 600–799 21.9 31.2 18.2 24.1 15.6 

 800–999 35.6 36.3 35.5 36.7 35.0 

 1000–1199 26.9 22.4 28.8 27.8 29.2 

 1200–1399 9.6 3.6 11.8 6.1 14.3 

 1400 or more 1.4 0.3 1.8 1.0 2.1 

1The category “not married” includes the following categories: single, never married; living as married, never married; 

divorced; widowed; and living as married, previously divorced.

2These income quartiles were based on quartiles defined in the NPSAS:90 data, which included not only beginning postsecondary students, but all first-year students. Since students in the BPS:89/90 sample were more likely to be traditional,

dependent, and have higher incomes than other first-year students, they were more likely to have family SES in the highest

quartile.

NOTE: Unlike the other tables in this report, the distributions are by columns instead of rows. Details may not sum to

totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

In general, when surveyed in the 1989–90 school year, first-generation students were more

likely to be older, to be married, and to have dependents than students whose parents had attained

higher levels of education. For example, first-generation students were more likely to be 30 years

or older (13 percent versus 3 percent), and less likely to be 18 and under (49 percent) than nonfirst-generation students (74 percent) (table 2). Consistent with their age differences, firstgeneration students were more likely than non-first-generation students to be financially independent (both with and without dependents), and more likely to be married (table 2).

13

Enrollment Characteristics

The results from this study show that first-generation students were more likely than other

students to attend public 2-year institutions (51 percent versus 37 percent); private, for-profit institutions (15 percent versus 6 percent); and other less-than-4-year institutions (5 percent versus 3

percent) (figure 3).14 Students whose parents had any college education, on the other hand, were

more likely to attend either public 4-year (36 percent versus 20 percent) or private, not-for-profit

4-year institutions (19 percent versus 8 percent) (table 3).

Figure 3—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to type of first institution, by 

Figure 3—first-generation status

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

20

8

51

15

5

36

19

37

6

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Public

4-year

Private,

not-forprofit 4-

year

Public

2-year

Private,

forprofit

Other

lessthan-4-

year

First-generation student

Not a first-generation student

Percent

Private, not-forprofit 4-year

Public 4-year Public 2-year Private, for-profit Other less-than4-year

 

14Other less-than-4-year institutions include public less-than-2-year institutions (2 percent); private, not-for-profit less-than 2-

year institutions (0.3 percent); and private, not-for-profit 2-year institutions (2 percent). Despite the different functions of these

institutions, there are too few cases in each specific type of institution for reliable analyses.
Enrollment Characteristics

14

Table 3—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to type of first 

Table 4—institution, by first-generation status

 Private, Other

 Public not-for-profit Public Private, less-than-

 4-year 4-year 2-year for-profit 4-year

 Total 28.5 13.7 43.7 10.2 3.9 

First-generation student 20.4 8.4 51.2 15.0 5.0 

Not a first-generation student 35.9 18.5 37.0 5.5 3.1 

 Parents have some college 33.9 13.2 40.4 8.6 4.0 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 37.2 22.1 34.8 3.4 2.6 

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

Among all students whose parents had attended at least some college, there were no differences in the likelihood of attending a public 4-year institution between students whose parents had

attended some college but had not completed a degree and those whose parents had earned a

bachelor’s or an advanced degree (34 percent and 37 percent, respectively). However, students

whose parent(s) had attained a bachelor’s degree were more likely than those whose parents had

only some college to attend a private, not-for-profit 4-year institution (22 percent versus 13 percent) (table 3).

First-generation students composed more of the student body at public 2-year institutions

than either public 4-year or private not-for-profit 4-year institutions (51 percent versus 30 percent

and 25 percent). Even higher proportions of first-generation students enrolled in private, forprofit institutions than at public 2-year institutions, as well as both kinds of 4-year institutions

(figure 4).

Consistent with their concentration at public 2-year institutions, first-generation students

were much more likely than those whose parents had obtained more education (30 percent versus

13 percent) to attend part time during their first year in postsecondary education. Generally, as the

level of parents’ education increased, the likelihood of part-time attendance decreased (table 4).

An examination of students’ living arrangements reveals that first-generation students were

less likely to live on campus (16 percent versus 40 percent), and more likely to live off campus
Enrollment Characteristics

15

Figure 4—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to first-generation status, by 

Figure 4—first type of institution*

*Students in other less-than-4-year institutions (private, not-for-profit 2- to 3-year; public, less-than-2-year; and private,

not-for-profit less-than-2-year) are not included in the detail, because the sample sizes were too small.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

25 30

51

67

70

49

33

75

0

20

40

60

80

100

Private,

notforprofit

Public

4-year

Public

2-year

Private,

forprofit

First-generation student Not a first-generation student

Percent

Private,

not-for-profit 4-year

(39 percent versus 19 percent), than their counterparts whose parents had more than a high

school education. As the level of parental education increased from a high school degree or less

(16 percent), to some college (32 percent), to a bachelor’s or advanced degree (45 percent), so

did the likelihood of living on campus (table 5). Among students whose parents did not have

bachelor’s degrees, those whose parents had attended some college but had attained less than a

bachelor’s degree were no more likely than first-generation students to live with their parents (47

percent versus 45 percent, respectively) (table 5).
Enrollment Characteristics

16

Table 4—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to attendance status

Table 4—in 1989–90, by first-generation status

 Part-time More than part-time

 Total 21.7 78.3

First-generation student 30.1 69.9

Not a first-generation student 13.3 86.7

 Parents have some college 17.3 82.7

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 10.5 89.5

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

Table 5—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to local 

Table 5—residence in 1989–90, by first-generation status

 On Off With parents

 campus campus or relatives

 Total 28.3 30.1 41.6 

First-generation student 16.3 38.9 44.8 

Not a first-generation student 39.7 19.1 41.2 

 Parents have some college 31.6 21.4 47.1 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 45.3 17.6 37.2 

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

First-generation students, overall, were enrolled in different types of degree programs than

non-first-generation students. Reflecting their greater likelihood of enrolling in less-than-4-year

institutions, first-generation students were more likely than other students to be in certificate (22

percent versus 12 percent) or associate’s degree programs (39 percent versus 30 percent), and

less likely to be in a bachelor’s degree program (23 percent versus 43 percent) (table 6). The likelihood of being in a certificate program declined as parental education levels increased from high

school degree or less (22 percent), to some college (15 percent), to a bachelor’s or advanced degree (10 percent). At the same time, the likelihood of being enrolled in a bachelor’s degree program increased as the level of parental education increased (23 percent, to 37 percent, to 47

percent) (table 6).
Enrollment Characteristics

17

Table 6—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to type of degree 

Table 6—program in 1989–90, by first-generation status

 Associate’s Bachelor’s

degree degree Certificate Other

 Total 33.8 33.0 17.0 16.3

First-generation student 38.7 22.5 22.4 16.4

Not a first-generation student 29.8 43.2 12.1 14.9

 Parents have some college 32.8 37.3 15.3 14.7

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 27.8 47.3 9.9 15.1

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

With respect to when students first enrolled in postsecondary education, first-generation

students were more likely to delay their entry (46 percent versus 19 percent) than their counterparts whose parents had more than a high school education (table 7).

Table 7—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to delayed 

Table 8—entry status in 1989–90, by first-generation status

 Delayed

 High school No high school

 Did not delay diploma diploma

 Total 67.0 26.5 6.4

First-generation student 54.3 37.1 8.6

Not a first-generation student 80.9 15.7 3.4

 Parents have some college 75.8 20.0 4.3

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 84.4 12.8 2.8

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

First-generation students also differed from their non-first-generation counterparts in how

they financed their education. In particular, they were more likely to receive financial aid, in general (51 percent versus 42 percent), and grants (42 percent versus 35 percent) and loans (22 percent versus 18 percent), in particular, than their non-first-generation counterparts (table 8). At the

same time, students whose parents had a bachelor’s degree or higher were less likely than those
Enrollment Characteristics

18

Table 8—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students receiving various types of financial 

Table 9—aid in 1989–90, by first-generation status

 Any aid Grants Loans Other

 Total 45.7 38.1 19.6 11.6

First-generation student 50.5 42.4 22.4 10.4

Not a first-generation student 42.3 35.0 17.8 12.7

 Parents have some college 47.2 40.0 21.3 13.9

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 39.0 31.7 15.4 11.8

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

whose parents had some college but less than a bachelor’s degree to receive any financial aid (39

percent versus 47 percent). With respect to specific kinds of aid, students whose parents had

earned at least a bachelor’s degree were also less likely than their counterparts whose parents had

some postsecondary experience but less than a bachelor’s degree to receive either grants (32 percent versus 40 percent) or loans (15 percent versus 21 percent) (table 8).

Previous research has indicated that first-generation students are often less academically

prepared than non-first-generation students. Across all sectors, first-generation students did not

differ from their counterparts in terms of the number of remedial courses they were taking (15

percent and 16 percent, respectively) (table 9). Yet this study revealed differences within different

sectors of postsecondary education among first-generation and non-first-generation students on

the need for remedial education in order to obtain adequate preparation for college-level work. At

public 4-year institutions, there was not a significant difference between the proportions of firstgeneration and non-first-generation students who were taking remedial courses (table 9). At private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, however, first-generation students were more likely to be

taking remedial courses. While there appear to be significant differences in the proportions of

first-generation and non-first-generation students at public 2-year institutions enrolled in remedial

coursework, there was not enough statistical evidence to conclude that they were different.

First-generation college students were also more likely to be working full time while enrolled in school. Compared with their counterparts, more first-generation students reported

working full time while enrolled during their first year in postsecondary education (33 percent

versus 24 percent) (table 10).
Enrollment Characteristics

19

Table 9—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to number of types

Table 9—of remedial education courses taken in 1989–90, by first-generation status and institution type

 None One or more

 Total 84.7 15.3

 First-generation student 85.0 15.0

 Not a first-generation student 84.1 15.9

 Parents have some college 81.9 18.1

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 85.6 14.4

Public 4-year

Total 83.9 16.1

 First-generation student 81.8 18.2

 Not a first-generation student 85.0 15.0

 Parents have some college 80.9 19.1

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 87.5 12.6

Private, not-for-profit 4-year

Total 89.6 10.4

 First-generation student 86.2 13.8

 Not a first-generation student 90.8 9.3

 Parents have some college 86.4 13.6

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 92.5 7.5

Public 2-year

Total 81.5 18.5

 First-generation student 84.0 16.0

 Not a first-generation student 78.3 21.7

 Parents have some college 76.6 23.4

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 79.7 20.3

NOTE: Academic integration index is a composite based on how often student reported attending career-related lectures, 

participating in study groups with other students, talking about academic matter with faculty, or meeting with an advisor

concerning academic plans. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

Table 10—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to whether worked

Table 10—full time while enrolled in 1989–90, by first-generation status

 Did not work Worked

 full time full time

 while enrolled while enrolled

 Total 71.7 28.3

First-generation student 66.8 33.2

Not a first-generation student 76.4 23.6

 Parents have some college 76.1 23.9

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 76.6 23.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

21

What Mattered to First-Generation Students

The following section examines the relative importance of various matters to firstgeneration and non-first-generation students. These measures fall into two general categories:

those associated with professional/financial achievement and those associated with personal aspirations. Professional/financial achievement matters include being able to find steady work, being

successful in one’s line of work, becoming successful in one’s own business, becoming an authority in a given field, being very well off financially, being a leader in the community, or influencing

the political structure. Personal matters include getting away from a particular area of the country,

living close to parents and relatives, having children, giving their own children better opportunities, and having leisure time to enjoy personal interests. Examining differences in how important

these various factors are to first-generation and non-first-generation college students can shed

light on how they might differ in their motivations for enrolling in postsecondary education.

For each measure, students were asked whether the factor was “very important,” “somewhat important,” or “not important” to them. Compared with other students, first-generation students more often reported that factors related to financial security were very important to them

personally. In addition, they were more likely than students whose parents had more than a high

school education to say that “being very well off financially” was very important to them (61 percent versus 49 percent) (table 11). As a group, first-generation students and students whose parents had some postsecondary experience but less than a bachelor’s degree were more likely than

students whose parents had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher education level to say that

“being very well off financially” was very important to them (57 percent versus 47 percent). While

first-generation students were not more likely than students whose parents had some college (85

versus 86 percent) to report that “being able to find steady work” was very important to them,

both groups were more likely to report this as a very important matter than students whose parents had a college degree (81 percent).

By contrast, first-generation students were less likely than their counterparts to emphasize

measures related to having political power as matters of importance. In particular, they were

somewhat less likely than students whose parents had more than a high school education to report

“influencing the political structure” (15 percent versus 18 percent) or to report “being a
What Mattered to First-Generation Students

22

Table 11—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who find various professional/

Table 11—financial achievement matters important, by first-generation status

Become

 successful Be Be able Become an Be a 

 Influence in one’s successful to find Be well authority leader

 the political own in line of steady off in a given in one’s

 structure business work work financially field community

 Total 17.0 42.7 91.2 83.9 54.1 58.8 22.7

First-generation student 15.3 44.6 92.5 85.2 61.4 58.9 20.4

Not a first-generation student 18.4 41.5 90.8 83.0 48.7 58.8 24.3

 Parents have some college 17.9 43.0 90.8 86.3 51.0 60.4 23.4

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 18.8 40.5 90.8 80.8 47.1 57.7 25.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

leader in [their] community” (20 percent versus 24 percent) as very important to them (table 11).

While these last two differences were statistically significant, they are relatively small in terms of

practical significance.

According to first-generation student status, there were also several differences in the personal matters that students cited as very important (table 12). For example, first-generation

Table 12—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who find various personal 

Table 12—achievement-related matters important, by first-generation status

Give own 

 Get away from children a Have leisure Live close to

 this area of better Have time to enjoy parents and

 the country opportunity children interests relatives

 Total 11.6 80.9 52.3 66.6 17.0

First-generation student* 12.3 85.3 52.2 66.3 20.7

Not a first-generation student* 10.8 77.4 52.1 67.6 14.2

 Parents have some college 11.7 81.7 51.2 66.4 16.5

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 10.2 74.4 52.7 68.5 12.6

*In this table, a total of 52.3 percent of beginning postsecondary students indicate that to have children is very 

important to them. This total does not lie within the range of the subtotals for first-generation (52.2) and nonfirst-generation (52.1) students. In cases like this, values for totals may not be within range of subgroup values 

due to missing cases on the subgroup variables.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.
What Mattered to First-Generation Students

23

students were more likely than other students to cite “[giving their own] children better opportunities than [they’ve] had” (85 percent versus 77 percent) as very important to them than non-firstgeneration students. Students whose parents had some college were no less likely than firstgeneration students (82 and 85 percent, respectively) to report this as a very important goal, but

both groups were more likely than the group of students whose parents had a bachelor’s or advanced degree to report this as an important matter (74 percent) (table 12). In addition, firstgeneration students were also more likely than non-first-generation students to report “living

close to parents and relatives” (21 percent versus 14 percent) as a key matter of personal importance (table 12).

25

Why First-Generation Students Chose Their Institutions

Students were also asked whether specific cost-related, location-related, and reputation/other-related reasons were very important, somewhat important, or not very important to

them in their decision to attend a particular institution. As with the professional and personal

measures, for each reason, students were considered to have a positive response if they cited the

specific reason as very important. Cost-related reasons include obtained financial aid needed;

other living costs were less; tuition and other expenses were less; and could finish in a shorter

length of time. Location-related reasons include could go to school and work; could live at home;

school was close to home; and school was far away from home. Finally, reputation/other-related

reasons include that the school had a good reputation, in general; that it had a good reputation for

placing graduates; that the student had a better chance to get a job at school; and that the school

offered courses that students wanted.

Cost-Related Factors

Certain cost-related factors were more important to first-generation students than non-firstgeneration students in selecting an institution. Consistent with their lower incomes, firstgeneration students were more likely than others to report that “[obtaining] the financial aid [they]

needed at the school” was a very important reason for choosing their first institution (36 percent

versus 25 percent) (table 13). First-generation students were also more likely to report choosing

their institution because they could “finish the course in a short period of time” as a very important reason (35 percent versus 21 percent) (table 13). As parental education levels increased, the

likelihood of students reporting financial aid (36 versus 29 and 22 percent) or finishing in a

shorter time as a very important reason for attending an institution decreased as parental education increased (35 percent versus 25 percent and 19 percent) (table 13).

Location-Related Factors

First-generation students differed from their non-first-generation counterparts in terms of

the specific location-related reasons they cited as important in choosing their institutions. For example, first-generation students were more likely than their counterparts to cite being able to
Why First-Generation Students Chose Their Institutions

26

Table 13—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students with various cost-related reasons for

Table 13—choosing the institution in 1989–90, by first-generation status

 Obtained Other living Tuition and

 financial aid costs Shorter time other expenses

 needed were less to finish were less

 Total 30.0 24.5 27.8 36.5

First-generation student 36.0 25.5 34.9 37.9

Not a first-generation student 24.9 24.3 21.2 35.6

 Parents have some college 29.2 26.4 24.6 38.3

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 21.9 23.0 18.9 33.7

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

“live at home” (56 percent versus 35 percent) and being able to “work while attending the school”

(53 percent versus 36 percent) as very important reasons for selecting their institutions. For both

reasons, as the parents’ level of education increased, the likelihood that students cited these reasons as important decreased (table 14). First-generation students were also more likely to report

choosing their institution because “the school was close to [their] home” (45 percent) than were

non-first-generation students (35 percent). Yet they did not differ from the group of students

whose parents had some college but had not attained a bachelor’s degree in indicating this reason

as important in their decision. Both first-generation students (45 percent) and students

Table 14—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students with various location-related 

Table 14—reasons for choosing the institution in 1989–90, by first-generation status

 School is School is Could go to

 close to far away Could live school and

 home from home at home work

 Total 40.2 7.8 45.3 44.4

First-generation student 44.7 9.6 55.5 53.3

Not a first-generation student 34.6 6.4 34.7 36.1

 Parents have some college 41.3 7.7 42.4 44.6

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 30.0 5.6 29.5 30.4

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.
Why First-Generation Students Chose Their Institutions

27

whose parents had some college experience but no bachelor’s degree (41 percent) were more

likely than students whose parents had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (30 percent) to indicate that the school being close to home was a very important reason for attending.

Reputation-Related Factors

Certain reputation-related factors mattered more to first-generation students than to other

students in their selection of an institution. For instance, first-generation students were more likely

than others to report choosing their institution because they “had a better chance to get a job at

the school” (21 percent versus 13 percent) (table 15). First-generation students were also more

likely than other students to report choosing their institution because it “offered the course of

study [they] wanted” (72 percent versus 65 percent). They differed significantly from students

whose parents had a bachelor’s degree or higher but not from those whose parents had had some

college but less than bachelor’s degree in their likelihood of citing this as a very important reason

for selecting their particular institution (72 percent versus 63 percent and 67 percent) (table 15).

Table 15—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students with various reputationTable 15— related and other reasons for choosing the institution in 1989–90, by first-generation status

 Good reputation Offered courses School has a Better chance

 for placing that student good to get a job

 graduates wanted reputation at school

 Total 40.7 67.8 50.8 16.5

First-generation student* 41.6 71.6 51.6 20.8

Not a first-generation student* 40.8 64.8 50.2 13.2

 Parents have some college 42.4 67.1 49.8 14.8

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 39.6 63.1 50.5 12.1

*Value for total may not be within range of subgroup values due to missing cases on the subgroup variable.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

29

Academic and Social Integration

This study included an analysis of students’ academic and social integration during the

1989–90 academic year relative to their generation status; these measures represent students’ involvement in and adaptation to the institution. Each index is an average of students’ responses to

questions regarding the frequency of their participation in various academic and social activities

during their first year in postsecondary education. Academic integration is a composite based on

student responses regarding how often they attended career-related lectures, met with their advisor concerning academic plans, talked about academic matters with faculty, or participated in

study groups with other students. Social integration is a composite based on student responses

regarding how often they went places with friends from school, participated in school clubs, had

contact with faculty outside of class, or participated in student assistance centers/programs.15 The

behaviors used to measure academic and social integration may influence the persistence of

younger students differently from that of older students, who are more likely to be firstgeneration.16 In the next two sections, the analyses of academic and social integration are presented both overall and according to the type of institution the students attended.

Academic Integration

First-generation students, overall, showed lower levels of academic integration than other

students. They were less likely than students whose parents had at least some postsecondary experience to have high levels of academic integration (23 percent versus 33 percent), and more

likely to report low levels of integration (30 percent versus 19 percent, respectively) (table 16).

 

15Refer to appendix A for a more detailed description of how the academic integration and social integration variables were

derived.

16Refer to figure 2 or table 2 of this report for information about the relationship between age and first-generation status. Limited research has been conducted that compares how academic and social integration measures affect the postsecondary experiences of younger, more traditional, and older, more nontraditional, students. This study revealed an association between age

and low academic integration levels; students who were 18 years old or less were less likely than members of the other age

groups to have low academic integration levels (BPS:90/94 DAS). Tinto, who initially developed the concepts of academic and

social integration, acknowledges that measures of integration have largely been based on research about younger students enrolled in 4-year institutions and implies that integration measures may vary in importance for older, nontraditional students in a

wider range of institution types. V. Tinto, Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press, 1993), 135. According to one study that explored the differential impact of a model of academic and social integration on the persistence of younger and older students, integration was more important to the persistence

of younger students than it was for the older cohort. J. Grosset, “Patterns of Integration, Commitment, and Student Characteristics and Retention among Younger and Older Students,” Research in Higher Education 32 (2) (1991): 159–178.
Academic and Social Integration

30

Table 16—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to academic 

Table 16—integration levels in 1989–90, by first-generation status and institution type

 Integration index

 Low score Moderate score High score

Total 24.9 46.5 28.6 

 First-generation student130.4 46.8 22.8 

 Not a first-generation student119.1 47.6 33.3 

 Parents have some college 22.8 43.4 33.8 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 16.6 50.5 33.0 

Public 4-year

Total 15.1 51.0 33.9 

 First-generation student 15.5 52.7 31.9 

 Not a first-generation student 14.6 50.8 34.7 

 Parents have some college 17.6 48.3 34.1 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 12.7 52.3 35.0 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year

Total 8.2 43.7 48.1 

 First-generation student 12.4 41.0 46.6 

 Not a first-generation student 6.5 44.9 48.7 

 Parents have some college 8.2 43.0 48.8 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 5.8 45.6 48.6 

Public 2-year

Total 35.6 44.9 19.5 

 First-generation student139.7 46.5 13.8 

 Not a first-generation student128.5 46.6 24.9 

 Parents have some college 30.5 39.4 30.1 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 26.9 52.2 20.9 

Private, for-profit

Total 28.7 45.0 26.3 

 First-generation student129.1 44.8 26.2 

 Not a first-generation student126.9 43.3 29.7 

 Parents have some college 31.2 41.3 27.5 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 19.6 46.9 33.6 

Other less-than-4-year2

Total 27.3 41.6 31.1 

 First-generation student 33.7 37.7 28.7 

 Not a first-generation student 17.9 47.8 34.3 

 Parents have some college 18.4 48.1 33.5 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 17.4 47.4 35.1 

1Values for totals may not be within range of subgroup values due to missing cases on the subgroup variables.

2

 Includes students enrolled in private, not-for-profit 2-year and less-than-2-year institutions and public 

less-than-2-year institutions.

NOTE: Academic integration index is a composite based on how often student reported attending career-related lectures, 

participating in study groups with other students, talking about academic matter with faculty, or meeting with an advisor

concerning academic plans. Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.
Academic and Social Integration

31

Similar proportions of first-generation and non-first-generation students (47 and 48 percent) reported moderate levels of academic integration. Students whose parents had at least some college

were more likely than their first-generation counterparts to have a high academic integration score

(33 percent versus 23 percent). In addition, when the average academic integration scores were

examined, among all students, first-generation students had a lower average score (2.3) than nonfirst-generation students (2.5) (table 17).

Differences in levels of academic integration according to first-generation status varied with

the type of institution students attended. For example, at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions,

first-generation students were somewhat more likely than their non-first-generation counterparts

to report low levels of integration (12 percent versus 7 percent) and equally as likely to report

high and moderate levels (47 versus 49 percent high, 41 percent versus 45 percent moderate) (table 16). At public 2-year institutions, first-generation students were more likely than their counterparts to report low levels of academic integration (40 percent versus 29 percent) and less likely

to report high levels (14 percent versus 25 percent) (table 16). First-generation students in public

2-year institutions also had a lower average index score for academic integration (2.1) than nonfirst-generation students (2.3), as did students in other less-than-4-year institutions (2.3 vs. 2.5).

However, in other types of institutions, the average academic integration scores of both groups of

students did not differ (table 17).

Table 17—Average academic integration score of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students, by institution 

Table 17—type and first-generation status

Private,

not-for- Private, Other

Public profit Public for- less-thanTotal 4-year 4-year 2-year profit 4-year

 Total 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.2 2.3 2.4

First-generation student 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.1 2.3 2.3

Not a first-generation student 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.5

 Parents have some college 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.3 2.6

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.5

NOTE: Academic integration index is a composite based on how often a student reported attending careerbased lectures, participating in study groups with other students, talking about academic matters with faculty,

or meeting with an advisor concerning academic plans.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.
Academic and Social Integration

32

Social Integration

In addition to having lower levels of academic integration, first-generation students also had

lower levels of social integration in the college environment than their non-first-generation counterparts. As parental education increased from a high school diploma or less (17 percent) to some

college (23 percent) to a bachelor’s or advanced degree (33 percent), the likelihood of having

high levels of social integration increased (table 18). In general, first-generation students were less

likely than students whose parents had some college or had attained at least a bachelor’s degree to

have high levels of social integration (17 percent versus 29 percent), and more likely to have low

levels (38 percent versus 19 percent). These general patterns also held when institutions were examined separately, except for students in private, for-profit and other less-than-4-year institutions

(table 18).17 As suggested earlier, these lower scores in social integration may be related to the

fact that first-generation students tend to be older than non-first-generation students, and may

have less time or interest in participating in these kinds of activities.18 Alternatively, cultural differences, such as the value that students’ families place on attaining a postsecondary education

credential, may influence the extent to which students whose parents have different educational

levels choose to involve themselves in the institutional community.

When the average social integration scores were examined, among all students, firstgeneration students showed a lower average level of social integration (1.9) than non-firstgeneration students (2.2) (table 19). Differences in the scores between these two groups of students varied according to the kind of institution attended. For example, in public 4-year and private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, first-generation students had lower average index scores

for social integration than other students (2.2 versus 2.3, and 2.4 versus 2.6, respectively). Firstgeneration students in public 2-year institutions also scored lower (1.8) than non-first-generation

students (2.0). There were no measurable differences, however, between the average social integration scores of first-generation and other students at private, not-for-profit and other less-than4-year institutions. While it appears that the index scores differ for students in other less-than-4-

year institutions, there was not enough statistical evidence to conclude that they are different (table 19).

 

17First-generation students in public 2-year institutions were less likely to report moderate levels of integration than their

counterparts (42 percent versus 55 percent).

18As with academic integration, there was an association between age and low levels of social integration. With the exception

of the difference between the proportions of 25–29-year-olds and those 30 or older on low scores of social integration, as age

increased, the likelihood of a low score on social integration also increased. Conversely, with the exception of a difference between those in the 25–29 and 30 or older age groups, as age increased, the likelihood of a high score on social integration decreased (BPS:90/94 DAS).
Academic and Social Integration

33

Table 18—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to social 

Table 18—integration levels in 1989–90, by first-generation status and institution type

 Integration index

Low score Moderate score High score

Total 28.6 48.4 23.0 

 First-generation student 37.8 45.5 16.7 

 Not a first-generation student 19.0 52.4 28.6 

 Parents have some college 22.0 55.5 22.5 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 16.9 50.4 32.7 

Public 4-year

Total 15.1 55.1 29.8 

 First-generation student 21.5 53.7 24.8 

 Not a first-generation student 11.6 56.3 32.1 

 Parents have some college 14.4 57.1 28.5 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 10.0 55.8 34.3 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year

Total 9.2 42.1 48.7 

 First-generation student 17.4 41.8 40.8 

 Not a first-generation student 5.8 42.4 51.8 

 Parents have some college 9.5 45.4 45.1 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 4.3 41.3 54.5 

Public 2-year

Total 40.6 46.6 12.9 

 First-generation student 48.3 42.2 9.5 

 Not a first-generation student 28.8 55.0 16.2 

 Parents have some college 29.1 59.0 12.0 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 28.7 51.9 19.4 

Private, for-profit

Total 39.7 46.7 13.6 

 First-generation student138.5 46.9 14.6 

 Not a first-generation student138.1 47.0 14.9 

 Parents have some college 36.9 49.4 13.7 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 40.1 43.0 16.9 

Other less-than-4-year2

Total 29.8 49.5 20.7 

 First-generation student130.3 51.6 18.0 

 Not a first-generation student124.5 50.4 25.1 

 Parents have some college 23.0 54.6 22.4 

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 26.1 46.1 27.8 

1Values for totals may not be within range of subgroup values due to missing cases on the subgroup variables.

2

Includes students enrolled in private, not-for-profit 2-year and less-than-2-year institutions and public less-than-2-year

 institutions.

NOTE: Social integration index is a composite based on how often student reported having contact with faculty outside of 

class, going places with friends from school, or participating in student assistance centers/programs or school clubs.

Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.
Academic and Social Integration

34

Table 19—Average social integration score of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students, by institution type 

Table 19—and first-generation status

Private,

not-for- Private, Other

Public profit Public for- less-thanTotal 4-year 4-year 2-year profit 4-year

 Total 2.1 2.3 2.6 1.9 1.9 2.0

First-generation student 1.9 2.2 2.4 1.8 1.9 2.0

Not a first-generation student 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.0 1.9 2.1

 Parents have some college 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.9 1.9 2.1

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 2.3 2.4 2.7 2.1 1.9 2.2

NOTE: Social integration index is a composite based on how often student reported having contact with faculty outside of 

class, going places with friends from school, or participating in student assistance centers/programs or school clubs.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.
35

Persistence and Attainment

Whether or not a student attained a degree or was still enrolled in postsecondary education

was strongly associated with his or her parents’ education level (figure 5).

Over half (55 percent) of first-generation students had attained a degree or were still enrolled by 1994, yet first-generation students who began their postsecondary education in 1989–90

Figure 5—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students who attained a degree or were enrolled

Figure 5—as of 1994,* by first-generation status and first institution type

*Either attained any degree or enrolled in the spring of 1994.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

55

66

71

46

58 56

71

77

84

60

69 68

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total Public

4-year

Private,

not-forprofit 4-

year

Public

2-year

Private,

forprofit

Other

lessthan-4-

year

First-generation student

Not a first-generation student

Percent
Persistence and Attainment

36

were much less likely than non-first-generation students to have either attained a degree or to be

enrolled in postsecondary education 5 years after their initial enrollment.19 About 44 percent of

first-generation students had attained a postsecondary degree or certificate by the spring of 1994,

compared with 56 percent of their non-first-generation counterparts; 11 percent of firstgeneration students were still enrolled at the time of follow-up, compared with 16 percent of nonfirst-generation students. Almost half (45 percent) of first-generation students had attained no degree and were no longer enrolled by follow-up, compared with less than one-third (29 percent) of

other students (table 20). As parental education levels rose, so did the likelihood of persistence

(i.e., attained or still enrolled), from 55 percent for first-generation students to 65 percent for students whose parents had some college, and to 76 percent for those whose parents had a bachelor’s degree or higher (table 20).

With respect to the type of degree attained, first-generation students were less likely than

other students to have attained a bachelor’s degree (13 percent versus 33 percent) and more likely

to have attained a vocational certificate (18 percent versus 9 percent). As parental education rose,

the likelihood of students attaining a bachelor’s degree increased markedly, while the likelihood of

attaining a certificate decreased. On the other hand, the likelihood of having attained an associate’s degree did not differ according to first-generation status (13 percent versus 14 percent) (table 20). Underscoring the strong association of parents’ education level with students’ persistence

and attainment, there were also differences in persistence and attainment rates between firstgeneration students and students whose parents had some college experience but never attained a

bachelor’s degree. Students whose parents had some college experience but had attained less than

a bachelor’s degree were more likely than first-generation students to persist, to attain any sort of

degree, to earn a certificate, and to earn a bachelor’s degree (table 20).

When differences in persistence and attainment were examined according to institution type,

the results held for students who began at public 4-year and private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions. While a majority of first-generation students at these institutions had attained a degree or

were still enrolled as of 1994 (66 percent at public 4-year and 71 percent at private, not-for-profit

4-year institutions), first-generation students from both types of 4-year institutions were less likely

to have persisted overall than their non-first-generation counterparts. After 5 years, 34 percent of

first-generation students from public 4-year institutions and 29 percent of those from private, notfor-profit 4-year institutions had no degree and were no longer enrolled, compared with 23 percent and 16 percent, respectively, of their counterparts (table 20). About one-third (34

 

19Since these students were interviewed only 5 years after they began their postsecondary education, not enough time had

elapsed to determine if the students who were no longer enrolled were taking time off from school and planning to return to

complete their education or whether they had decided not to continue.
Persistence and Attainment

37

Table 20—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students according to persistence 

Table 20— and attainment status as of 1994, by first-generation status and institution type

Attained or still enrolled No degree, First degree attained

 Attained No degree, not No Associate’s Bachelor’s

 degree enrolled Total enrolled degree Certificate degree degree

Total 50.0 13.3 63.2 36.8 50.1 13.5 13.1 23.3 

 First-generation student 44.2 10.7 55.0 45.1 55.8 18.0 12.9 13.3 

 Not a first-generation student 55.5 15.9 71.3 28.6 44.5 9.0 14.0 32.5 

 Parents have some college 50.6 14.5 65.1 34.9 49.4 11.8 14.6 24.2 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 58.8 16.9 75.7 24.3 41.2 7.2 13.6 38.1 

Public 4-year

Total 54.8 18.4 73.2 26.8 45.2 3.4 5.5 46.0 

 First-generation student 46.4 19.8 66.1 33.9 53.7 6.2 6.1 34.1 

 Not a first-generation student 58.9 18.0 76.9 23.1 41.1 2.0 5.1 51.8 

 Parents have some college 53.3 17.4 70.7 29.3 46.7 1.5 5.7 46.2 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 62.3 18.3 80.7 19.3 37.7 2.3 4.8 55.3 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year

Total 71.9 8.6 80.5 19.5 28.1 2.9 4.5 64.5 

 First-generation student 62.9 8.2 71.1 28.9 37.1 3.2 4.6 55.1 

 Not a first-generation student 75.8 8.6 84.4 15.6 24.2 2.8 4.5 68.5 

 Parents have some college 70.6 8.5 79.2 20.9 29.4 4.3 6.0 60.3 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 77.9 8.6 86.5 13.5 22.1 2.2 3.9 71.9 

Public 2-year

Total 36.7 14.7 51.4 48.6 63.3 13.4 20.9 2.5 

 First-generation student 35.4 10.8 46.2 53.8 64.6 14.7 18.4 2.3 

 Not a first-generation student 39.8 20.1 60.0 40.1 60.2 10.9 26.0 3.0 

 Parents have some college 36.8 17.5 54.3 45.7 63.2 11.2 24.3 1.3 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 42.2 22.2 64.4 35.6 57.8 10.6 27.4 4.3 

Private, for-profit

Total 59.6 1.9 61.4 38.6 40.4 48.0 10.8 0.8 

 First-generation student 56.8 1.6 58.4 41.6 43.2 47.5 8.4 0.8 

 Not a first-generation student 65.9 3.0 68.9 31.1 34.1 49.8 15.1 1.1 

 Parents have some college 69.3 1.5 70.8 29.2 30.7 52.6 15.6 1.1 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 60.2 5.6 65.8 34.2 39.8 45.0 14.2 0.9 

Other less-than-4-year*

Total 54.4 7.6 62.0 38.0 45.6 37.5 15.5 1.4 

 First-generation student 51.0 5.3 56.3 43.7 49.0 38.6 12.2 0.3 

 Not a first-generation student 57.5 11.0 68.4 31.6 42.5 33.6 21.1 2.9 

 Parents have some college 57.3 8.1 65.3 34.7 42.8 41.4 14.2 1.7 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 57.7 14.0 71.7 28.3 42.3 25.4 28.3 4.1 

*Includes students enrolled in private, not-for-profit 2-year and less-than-2-year institutions and public less-than-2-year 

institutions.

NOTE: Details may not sum to total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.
Persistence and Attainment

38

percent) of first-generation students in public 4-year institutions and over half (55 percent) in private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions had earned bachelor’s degrees after five years. Among

those who began at both public and private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, first-generation students were also less likely to have attained bachelor’s degrees than were non-first-generation students.

First-generation students were also less likely than students whose parents had attended

some college but earned less than a bachelor’s degree to have attained bachelor’s degrees after

beginning at public 4-year institutions (34 percent versus 46 percent). On the other hand, at private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, first-generation students appeared as likely as these other

students to attain bachelor’s degrees (55 percent and 60 percent, respectively) (table 20).

When examining proportions of students who had attained a degree or were still enrolled

after 5 years, at public 4-year institutions, first-generation students were no less likely than students whose parents had some college but less than a bachelor’s degree to either still be enrolled

or have attained a degree (66 percent versus 71 percent). While they were as likely to have attained bachelor’s degrees from private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions, first-generation students

were less likely to either still be enrolled and have attained a degree after 5 years than students

whose parents had some college experience but had not received a bachelor’s degree (71 percent

versus 79 percent). This suggests that from public 4-year institutions, first-generation students

had similar persistence rates as students whose parents had some postsecondary education, but

they may have been taking longer to finish. However, although they attained degrees at similar

rates as their counterparts, it appears that first-generation students were less likely than students

whose parents had postsecondary experience below a bachelor’s degree to remain enrolled in private, not-for-profit 4-year institutions.

Among those who began at public 2-year institutions, after 5 years, first-generation students

were also less likely than their counterparts to have attained degrees or to be enrolled in 1994 (46

percent versus 60 percent). While there were no significant differences in the proportions of students who earned any degrees (35 percent first-generation versus 40 percent non-firstgeneration), a lower proportion of first-generation students (11 percent) than non-first-generation

students (20 percent) were still enrolled and working toward a degree after 5 years. However,

there is some evidence that first-generation students may have transferred without a degree from

2-year to 4-year institutions in higher proportions than their counterparts.20 Of all students who

 

20See U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989−90 Beginning Postsecondary Students

Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS: 90/94), Data Analysis System. Of all 1989 beginning postsecondary students, 35

percent had transferred to another institution by 1994. Of those who had attended more than one institution by the 1994 followup, 12 percent had earned an associate’s degree and 4 percent had earned a certificate at the first institution in which they
Persistence and Attainment

39

had persisted in 4-year public or private, not-for-profit institutions until 1994, first-generation

students were more likely than non-first-generation students (31 percent versus 25 percent) to

have transferred during the previous 5 years. But first-generation students who had persisted in

these institutions were no more likely than their peers to hold associate’s degrees (8 percent versus 6 percent). This finding suggests that this particular group of first-generation students were

actually still enrolled, but in a different postsecondary education sector, after 5 years. In comparing the persistence of first-generation students and their counterparts whose parents had some

college experience but no bachelor’s degree, first-generation students were as likely as members

of this other group to persist and to attain any degrees.

When beginning at private, for-profit institutions, a lower percentage of first-generation students (58 percent) than non-first-generation students (69 percent) had either attained a degree or

were still enrolled after 5 years. While the proportions who earned certificates were similar among

the two groups, almost twice as many non-first-generation students (15 percent) as firstgeneration students (8 percent) had earned associate’s degrees. There was not enough statistical

evidence to conclude that the persistence of first-generation students differed from that of their

non-first-generation counterparts in less-than-4-year institutions other than what was described

above (table 20).21

In terms of the relationship across institution types and persistence and attainment, similar to

their counterparts whose parents have any postsecondary education, first-generation students

were more likely to persist when they began at 4-year public and 4-year private, not-for-profit institutions than they were from public 2-year institutions (table 20). This is consistent with findings

in other studies demonstrating that undergraduates are more likely to persist at 4-year institutions

than they are at 2-year public institutions.22

In light of research linking part-time enrollment status to a lower probability of persistence

and attainment,23 it is also important to consider enrollment status when examining educational

outcomes. Among those attending full time, first-generation students remained less likely than

non-first-generation students to persist after beginning at 4-year public and 4-year private, notfor-profit institutions (table 21). On the other hand, first-generation students initially enrolled full

 

enrolled. See A. McCormick, Transfer Behavior Among Beginning Postsecondary Students: 1989−94 (Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1997), tables 2 and 4.

21These institutions included private, not-for-profit 2-year; private, not-for-profit less-than-2-year; and public less-than-2-year

institutions.

22L. Berkner, S. Cuccaro-Alamin, and A. McCormick, Descriptive Summary of 1989-90 Beginning Postsecondary Students: 5

Years Later (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996).

23U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education 1997 (Washington, DC:

1997), 38–39.
Persistence and Attainment

40

Table 21—Percentage distribution of 1989–90 full-time beginning postsecondary students according to 

Table 21—persistence and attainment status as of 1994, by first-generation status and institution type

Attained or still enrolled No degree, First degree attained

 Attained No degree, not No Associate’s Bachelor’s

 degree enrolled Total enrolled degree Certificate degree degree

Total 57.8 13.0 70.8 29.2 42.3 11.8 15.3 30.6 

 First-generation student152.8 10.3 63.1 36.9 47.2 17.2 16.0 19.6 

 Not a first-generation student160.8 15.0 75.8 24.2 39.2 7.7 15.3 37.8 

 Parents have some college 56.8 12.6 69.3 30.6 43.2 10.7 16.6 29.5 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 63.3 16.5 79.8 20.2 36.7 5.8 14.4 43.1 

Public 4-year

Total 57.6 18.3 75.9 24.1 42.4 3.1 5.3 49.2 

 First-generation student 47.8 20.5 68.4 31.7 52.2 5.1 5.6 37.1 

 Not a first-generation student 61.4 17.5 78.9 21.1 38.6 2.1 5.0 54.3 

 Parents have some college 55.7 17.7 73.3 26.7 44.4 1.2 5.3 49.2 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 64.8 17.3 82.1 17.9 35.2 2.6 4.8 57.3 

Private, not-for-profit 4-year

Total 76.0 7.7 83.7 16.3 24.0 2.6 4.7 68.7 

 First-generation student 67.6 6.8 74.4 25.6 32.4 2.3 4.8 60.6 

 Not a first-generation student 79.1 7.9 87.0 13.0 20.9 2.7 4.6 71.8 

 Parents have some college 74.0 8.0 82.0 18.0 26.0 3.5 6.1 64.4 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 81.1 7.9 89.0 11.0 18.9 2.3 4.0 74.8 

Public 2-year

Total 45.9 14.6 60.5 39.5 54.1 11.4 30.2 4.4 

 First-generation student 46.7 8.6 55.4 44.7 53.3 13.2 28.4 5.1 

 Not a first-generation student 45.8 19.5 65.3 34.7 54.2 8.8 32.9 4.1 

 Parents have some college 45.0 13.5 58.5 41.5 55.0 10.2 32.7 2.1 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 46.3 23.8 70.1 29.9 53.7 7.8 33.1 5.5 

Private, for-profit

Total 65.8 1.5 67.3 32.7 34.2 51.1 14.0 0.7 

 First-generation student 62.7 1.9 64.6 35.4 37.3 51.5 10.8 0.5 

 Not a first-generation student 71.3 1.2 72.5 27.5 28.7 50.6 19.5 1.2 

 Parents have some college 71.9 0.9 72.7 27.3 28.1 51.2 19.7 1.0 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 70.1 1.9 72.0 28.0 29.9 49.4 19.1 1.6 

Other less-than-4-year2

Total 59.0 5.6 64.6 35.4 41.0 38.2 18.9 1.9 

 First-generation student 55.3 4.2 59.5 40.5 44.7 38.3 16.6 0.4 

 Not a first-generation student 62.5 7.1 69.6 30.4 37.5 36.3 22.5 3.7 

 Parents have some college 65.9 0.7 66.7 33.4 34.1 46.4 17.3 2.2 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 59.1 13.4 72.5 27.6 40.9 26.3 27.7 5.1 

1Values for totals may not be within range of subgroup values due to missing cases on the subgroup variables.

2

Includes students enrolled in private, not-for-profit 2-year and less-than-2-year institutions and public 

less-than-2-year institutions.

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.
Persistence and Attainment

41

time in public 2-year institutions had similar persistence and attainment rates as those of their nonfirst-generation counterparts. Comparing across institution types, full-time first-generation students from public 4-year institutions had lower attainment rates (48 percent) than first-generation

students from 4-year private, not-for-profit institutions (68 percent). While their persistence rates

also appeared lower after beginning at public 4-year institutions, compared with 4-year private,

not-for-profit institutions (68 percent versus 74 percent), there was not enough evidence to conclude that first-generation students’ levels of persistence by each type of institution were different

(table 21). This finding suggests that first-generation students from public 4-year institutions may

have been taking a longer time to finish their degrees. Full-time first-generation students from

public 2-year institutions were as likely to attain degrees as their counterparts from 4-year public

institutions. While it appears that first-generation students were less likely to persist when initially

enrolling at public 2-year institutions than at public 4-year institutions (61 percent versus 76 percent), there is not enough statistical evidence to conclude that they are different. Consistent with

the findings for all first-generation students, when controlling for full-time enrollment status, firstgeneration students from 2-year public institutions were less likely either to attain degrees or persist than first-generation students from 4-year private not-for-profit institutions.

43

Labor Market Outcomes

As described earlier in this report, being well-off financially, being able to find steady work,

and being able to give their own children better opportunities were more important to firstgeneration students than to those whose parents had bachelor’s degrees. To examine whether degree attainment is an equalizing force in the occupational and social status of students who had

completed their degrees by 1994, this section analyzes 1989–90 beginning students’ occupations

as reported in the 1994 follow-up survey.

The labor market analysis was conducted separately for students who had attained subbaccalaureate credentials (associate’s degrees and certificates) and those who had earned bachelor’s

degrees. BPS:90/94 data were used for subbaccalaureate students, and B&B:93/94 data were

used for bachelor’s degree recipients. A general analysis of employment outcomes for students

who did not attain a degree and were no longer enrolled according to age was also conducted using BPS:90/94 data.

For subbaccalaureate degree recipients and for those not seeking a degree, labor market

participation was determined by their principal job in 1993, while for bachelor’s degree recipients

it was determined by their principal job as of April 1994. Measures of labor market participation

included whether they were employed, their occupation, whether their occupation was related to

their major, and whether they needed their education and training to get their principal job. For

bachelor’s degree recipients, starting salaries as of April 1994 were also examined after controlling for gender.

The results of this study show that similar proportions of first-generation students who received certificates, associate’s, or bachelor’s degrees were employed as their counterparts with

similar degrees (99 percent versus 91 percent certificate; 92 percent versus 87 percent associate’s;

89 percent versus 86 percent bachelor’s). On average, 89 percent of associate’s degree recipients,

96 percent of certificate completers, and 87 percent of bachelor’s degree completers were employed when they were followed up in 1993 or 1994 (table 22).

Among associate’s degree recipients, although it appears that first-generation students were

less likely to report that they had taken a job unrelated to their educational training than other
Table 22—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students with various employment characteristics, and of those employed, percentage

Table 21— distribution according to occupation, by first-generation student status and degree attained

 Job Could

 different have

 from obtained

 Employed education job Occupation

 April and without Crafts- Profess-

 1994 training1education1 Clerical man Manager ional Sales Service Technical Other

Certificate recipients (BPS)

Total 95.7 25.4 30.1 24.3 20.8 9.5 6.8 4.6 24.3 6.6 3.2 

 First-generation student298.7 25.2 29.6 26.8 21.6 9.5 7.3 4.4 22.7 5.6 2.0 

 Not a first-generation student291.0 27.4 29.9 21.9 17.3 10.7 6.2 5.8 25.7 7.6 4.9 

 Parents have some college 91.3 22.5 35.9 20.4 21.8 12.0 5.6 7.4 24.3 8.3 0.2 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 90.7 30.3 26.2 23.3 12.9 9.3 6.7 4.2 27.0 6.9 9.6 

Associate’s degree recipients (BPS)

Total 89.0 28.9 29.2 28.7 8.3 14.6 12.4 6.0 16.2 8.3 5.5 

 First-generation student292.2 21.1 27.2 28.8 6.9 19.2 10.0 3.6 16.8 7.8 7.0 

 Not a first-generation student286.5 35.3 29.9 29.4 8.5 10.8 14.2 7.9 16.3 8.5 4.4 

 Parents have some college 89.2 36.9 29.6 29.7 9.1 18.6 10.6 8.8 13.3 8.2 1.7 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 84.6 33.5 30.3 29.2 8.0 4.9 17.0 7.3 18.6 8.8 6.3 

Bachelor’s degree recipients (B&B)

Total 87.0 25.0 55.9 17.9 3.2 19.6 26.2 7.1 17.4 7.8 0.9 

 First-generation student 88.7 22.5 54.1 18.6 3.0 19.4 25.4 6.4 18.3 8.3 0.7 

 Not a first-generation student 86.1 26.0 57.2 17.6 3.2 19.7 26.4 7.4 17.1 7.7 0.9 

 Parents have some college 88.9 24.6 57.4 17.2 2.7 21.5 26.1 8.4 15.9 7.1 1.1 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 85.0 26.5 57.1 17.7 3.4 19.0 26.6 7.0 17.6 8.0 0.8 

No degree, no longer enrolled—total (BPS)

Total 99.0 39.3 61.8 24.2 20.1 18.0 5.8 7.0 13.7 3.4 7.9 

 First-generation student 99.0 37.5 59.0 23.5 23.5 12.9 5.4 7.6 15.5 4.2 7.3 

 Not a first-generation student 98.9 43.0 70.6 24.5 16.5 22.4 6.0 7.0 12.5 2.9 8.2 

 Parents have some college 99.9 37.6 69.6 22.8 17.8 23.8 4.7 7.8 11.2 1.7 10.3 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 97.9 47.8 71.4 26.2 15.2 21.0 7.2 6.3 13.8 4.0 6.2 
Table 22—Percentage of 1989–90 beginning postsecondary students with various employment characteristics, and of those employed, percentage

distribution according to occupation, by first-generation student status and degree attained—Continued

 Job Could

 different have

 from obtained

 Employed education job Occupation

 April and without Crafts- Profess-

 1994 training1education1 Clerical man Manager ional Sales Service Technical Other

No degree, no longer enrolled—younger than 23 years (BPS)

Total 99.1 45.1 66.6 24.7 21.4 18.0 5.0 7.7 12.6 3.2 7.5 

 First-generation student 98.8 40.8 59.2 23.5 26.6 14.7 4.9 8.1 12.5 3.3 6.5 

 Not a first-generation student 99.5 48.4 73.1 25.8 16.3 21.7 5.2 7.1 12.8 3.1 8.1 

 Parents have some college 99.9 48.9 70.2 25.4 17.2 23.0 2.4 8.2 11.5 1.9 10.3 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 99.0 48.1 75.1 26.0 15.5 20.6 7.5 6.3 13.9 4.1 6.2 

No degree, no longer enrolled—23 years or older (BPS)

Total 98.4 27.7 52.3 22.5 16.0 18.0 8.5 4.6 17.2 4.0 9.3 

 First-generation student299.5 31.2 58.6 23.5 15.1 7.8 7.0 6.3 24.1 6.6 9.6 

 Not a first-generation student293.9 — — 12.3 18.8 28.9 14.3 5.9 9.9 0.6 9.4 

 Parents have some college 100.0 — — 6.4 21.5 28.7 18.7 5.3 8.9 0.0 10.5 

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree — — — — — — — — — — —

—Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

1

These figures are for employed students only.

2Values for totals may not be within range of subgroup values due to missing cases on the subgroup variables.

NOTE: Details may not sum to total due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up 

(BPS:90/94) and Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93/94), Data Analysis Systems.
Labor Market Outcomes

46

students with similar degrees (21 percent versus 35 percent), there was not enough statistical evidence to conclude that this was the case (table 22). Among bachelor’s degree recipients, similar

proportions of both groups of students reported that they could have obtained their job without

their education (54 percent versus 57 percent). However, first-generation students were somewhat less likely than other students to report taking a job unrelated to their educational training

(23 percent versus 26 percent) (table 22).

Overall, when controlling for type of degree attained, there were no observed differences in

occupation between first-generation students and their non-first-generation counterparts. Additionally, no differences were found in average annual salaries as of April 1994 among bachelor’s

degree recipients according to first-generation status: both first-generation and non-firstgeneration students earned roughly $23,000, on average (table 23).24 Although males had considerably higher salaries than females,25 when salaries were examined separately for male and female

bachelor’s degree recipients, there were still no differences in earnings according to firstgeneration status (male $26,339 versus $25,816; female $20,368 versus $20,753). While it appears that the average salaries of females whose parents have some college are higher than those

of females whose parents have bachelor’s degrees, there was not enough statistical evidence to

conclude that they are different.

Table 23—Annual salary of bachelor’s degree recipients as of April 1994, by gender and firstTable 23—generation status

 Annual salary as of April 1994

 Male Female Total

 Total $25,978 $20,663 $23,026

 First-generation student 26,339 20,368 22,887

 Not a first-generation student 25,816 20,753 23,044

 Parents have some college 23,440 23,236 23,326

 Parents have bachelor’s or advanced degree 26,744 19,700 22,929

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal 

Study (B&B:93/94), Data Analysis System.

 

24Likewise, there were no significant differences in the 1993 salaries of students who had at most attained an associate’s degree or certificate by 1994 according to first-generation status. The total salaries of male and female certificate holders

($20,595 versus $12,704) differed significantly. (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Beginning Postsecondary Students [BPS:90/94], Data Analysis System.)

25The gender differences in earnings are statistically significant overall, and among both first-generation students and non-firstgeneration students.
Labor Market Outcomes

47

Among students who did not attain a postsecondary credential within 5 years and were no

longer enrolled in postsecondary education, there were few differences in the employment attributes of both groups according to first-generation status, except for two characteristics. Firstgeneration students were more likely to report working in the craftsman trades (24 percent versus

17 percent), and were less likely to report working in a managerial occupation (13 percent versus

22 percent) (table 22).

In this analysis, employment outcomes for students who received no degree and were no

longer enrolled were also examined. This analysis further took into consideration age, because

first-generation students tend to be older, and older individuals tend to have more experience in

the labor market. Although no overall differences were observed in the employment rates of students who attained no degree and were no longer enrolled according to first-generation status after controlling for age, there were some occupational differences (table 22). Similar to the results

found for all students who did not earn postsecondary credentials within 5 years, among those

under 23 years old who had not attained a degree and were no longer enrolled, first-generation

students were more likely than other students to be employed in the craftsman trades (27 percent

versus 16 percent), and less likely to hold managerial positions (15 percent versus 22 percent) (table 22). Among those older than 23, first-generation students were more likely than other students

to hold clerical positions (24 percent versus 12 percent), and more likely to be employed in the

service sector (24 percent versus 10 percent) (table 22).

49

Graduate School Enrollment

The final analysis in this study examined the rate of graduate school enrollment relative to

parents’ educational level. As of 1994, first-generation students were less likely than their counterparts whose parents had more than a high school education to be enrolled in graduate school

(23 percent versus 30 percent) (table 24). Among students who did enroll in graduate school,

there were also differences according to first-generation student status in the types of programs in

which students enrolled. At the same time, however, the majority of students who enrolled in

graduate study were in master’s degree programs, where first-generation students were as likely

as non-first-generation students to be enrolled (46 percent and 43 percent) (table 24). Within

other types of graduate programs, students whose parents had more than a high school education

were somewhat more likely than first-generation students to enroll in postbaccalaureate certificate

programs (4 percent versus 2 percent), first-professional programs (10 percent versus 6 percent)

and doctoral degree programs (6 percent versus 3 percent) (table 24).

Table 24—Percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients enrolled in graduate school, and of those enrolled, 

Table 24—percentage distribution according to type of degree program as of April 1994, by 

Table 24— first-generation status

Graduate degree

Post- First proNo bachelor’s Master’s Doctoral fessional 

 Enrolled degree certificate degree degree degree Other

 Total 27.3 21.2 3.3 43.7 4.8 9.1 17.9

First-generation student 23.0 21.5 1.7 45.5 2.6 6.0 22.7

Not a first-generation student 29.5 21.2 3.7 43.4 5.7 10.2 15.9

 Parents have some college 27.6 21.1 3.8 49.1 3.4 6.1 16.5

 Parents have bachelor’s or 

 advanced degree 30.2 21.2 3.7 41.4 6.5 11.7 15.7

NOTE: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal

Study (B&B:94), Data Analysis System.

51

Influence of Demographic, Institutional, Enrollment, and

Integration Characteristics on Persistence and Attainment

As described in this report, in addition to having parents who had never enrolled in postsecondary education, first-generation students have particular demographic, institutional, enrollment, and school integration characteristics that distinguish them from their non-first-generation

peers. In order to measure the relationship of a single variable, such as first-generation status, to

persistence and attainment, one must control for the effects of related variables. In this analysis, a

weighted least squares regression model was used to measure how each of these various factors

affected persistence and attainment. In the model, the dependent variable is defined as having attained any degree or being enrolled at the time of the 1994 follow-up survey. In addition to parents’ education, the independent variables in the model included gender, age, SES, race–ethnicity,

and institutional type (4-year, public 2-year, and other less-than-4-year public and private, not-forprofit institutions). Whether or not students attended full time or part time and how integrated

they were, both academically and socially, were also included in the model. Finally, the analysis

was based on only those students who indicated when they began postsecondary education that

their objective was to earn a credential (vocational certificate, associate’s, or bachelor’s degree).

The regression coefficients were subsequently used to adjust the original estimates of persistence

and attainment, taking into account the joint effects of all the independent variables (see appendix

B for methodology details).

The results of the analysis are displayed in table 25. The original (unadjusted) estimates of

the proportion of students who had attained or persisted in 1994 are listed in the first column, and

the adjusted percentages after controlling for the variation of all other variables are listed in the

second column. Asterisks in these columns identify cases where the percentage of students in a

given category who had attained or persisted is significantly different from that of the reference

group (italicized). For example, part-time enrollment (unadjusted) was associated with lower rates

of persistence and attainment than was full-time enrollment (48 percent versus 71 percent). This

pattern held even after controlling for all other characteristics in the model (60 percent versus 67

percent, adjusted).
Influence of Characteristics on Persistence and Attainment

52

Table 25—Among 1989–90 beginning students who indicated plans to attain a vocational certificate,

Table 25—associate’s, or bachelor’s degree, the percentage who were enrolled in or had attained a 

Table 25—degree within five years, and the percentage after taking into account the covariation of the 

Table 25—variables in the table: 1989–94

Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

percentage1percentage2coefficient3error

4

 Total 65.6 65.6 81.5 (†)

First-generation status

 First-generation student 57.4* 61.6* -7.0 1.8 

 Not a first-generation student 73.1 68.6 (†) (†)

Enrollment status 1989–90

 Part-time 47.9* 59.5* -7.6 3.5 

 Full-time 71.3 67.0 (†) (†)

Age as of 12/31/89

 18 years or younger 73.8 68.7 (†) (†)

 19–24 years old 58.0* 61.3* -7.4 1.8 

 25 years or older 47.5* 61.8* -7.0 3.5 

Gender

 Male 64.4 64.0* -3.1 1.5 

 Female 66.7 67.0 (†) (†)

Race–ethnicity

 Black, non-Hispanic 55.7* 57.1* -8.1 3.4 

 Hispanic 65.9 72.7 7.4 3.8 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 77.0* 76.0* 10.6 4.1 

 American Indian/Alaskan native 77.0 83.0 17.7 9.3 

 White, non-Hispanic 66.2 65.3 (†) (†)

Level and control of first institution

 4-year 77.0 70.3 (†) (†)

 Public 2-year 55.0* 59.8* -10.5 3.1 

 Other private or public less-than-4-year 62.5* 68.6 -1.7 3.2 

Academic integration

 Low score 51.3* 60.2* -6.7 2.2 

 Moderate score 67.7 66.9 (†) (†)

 High score 73.4* 68.0 1.1 2.0 

Social integration

 Low score 49.2* 59.1* -8.3 2.7 

 Moderate score 69.2 67.4 (†) (†)

 High score 76.7* 69.4 2.1 2.0 
Influence of Characteristics on Persistence and Attainment

53

Table 25—Among 1989–90 beginning students who indicated plans to attain a vocational certificate,

Table 24—associate’s, or bachelor’s degree, the percentage who were enrolled in or had attained a 

Table 24—degree within five years, and the percentage after taking into account the covariation of the 

Table 24—variables in the table: 1989–94—Continued

Unadjusted Adjusted WLS Standard

percentage1percentage2coefficient3error

4

Socioeconomic status

 Bottom 25% 49.1* 60.2 -5.1 2.8 

 Middle 50% 62.7 65.3 (†) (†)

 Top 25% 74.5* 67.8 2.4 2.0 

*p<.05.

(†) Not applicable for reference group.

1Estimates from the BPS:90/94 Data Analysis System.

2

Percentages adjusted for differences associated with other variables in the table (see appendix B for details).

3Weighted least squares (WLS) coefficient (see appendix B for details). Note that the coefficients presented here were 

multipled by 100 in order to represent the proportional difference between each category and its base comparison group.

4

Standard error of WLS coefficient, adjusted for design effect (see appendix B for details).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.

The initial finding that first-generation students were less likely than non-first-generation

students to persist and attain a degree (57 percent compared with 73 percent), held even when

controlling for the variation of other variables (62 percent versus 69 percent, adjusted). This

finding suggests that first-generation status, independent of other background and enrollment

factors with which it is correlated, has an effect on the likelihood of persistence and attainment.

Aside from the impact of first-generation status, the model also revealed some other findings

related to student background characteristics. After controlling for the variation of other variables, it was found that first enrolling in postsecondary education at the age of 19 or older was

negatively associated with persistence and attainment, compared with being 18 or younger (61

percent for those aged 19–24 and 62 percent for those aged 25 or older versus 69 percent for

those aged 18 or younger, adjusted). Compared with being female, being male was also negatively

associated with persistence and attainment (64 percent versus 67 percent, adjusted). In addition,

when examining the relationships between race–ethnicity and persistence, an initial negative association between being black, non-Hispanic and persistence and attainment, compared with being

white, non-Hispanic, also held when all other variables were controlled for (57 percent versus 65

percent, adjusted). A positive association between being Asian-Pacific Islander and persistence

and attainment, compared with being white, non-Hispanic, remained after taking into account the

covariation of the other variables (76 percent versus 65 percent, adjusted).
Influence of Characteristics on Persistence and Attainment

54

An analysis of the relationship between institution type and the likelihood of persistence and

attainment revealed that the initial negative association between being initially enrolled in a public

2-year institution, compared with being enrolled in a 4-year institution, also held when all other

variables were controlled for (60 percent versus 70 percent, adjusted). However, first attending

other types of less than 4-year institutions did not appear to have an effect on persistence and attainment, compared with attending a public or private, not-for-profit 4-year institution, after adjustment.

Particular levels of academic and social integration appeared to affect persistence and attainment. For example, the initial difference between low scores on academic integration and persistence and attainment, compared with moderate scores (51 percent versus 68 percent,

unadjusted), remained (60 percent versus 67 percent, adjusted). Likewise, an initial negative relationship between low scores in social integration measures and persistence and attainment, compared with moderate scores, also held (59 percent versus 67 percent, adjusted) after controlling

for the covariation of the other variables. On the other hand, although there initially appeared to

be a positive relationship between high academic or social integration scores and persistence and

attainment, after controlling for the covariation of the other variables, there was no evidence that

high academic or social integration scores affected persistence and attainment relative to moderate

scores.26

Finally, after controlling for all other factors, SES and persistence and attainment were not

significantly related. Thus, it appears that SES alone does not have an effect on persistence and

attainment, but may also be related to a number of other characteristics (including first-generation

status, 2-year public institution attendance, and part-time attendance), which in turn negatively

affect persistence and attainment.

 

26The results of the regression model did not change for the other variables when the academic and social integration variables

were removed from the model (BPS:90/94 DAS).
55

Summary

This report describes the characteristics and experiences of first-generation college students—i.e., those whose parents’ highest level of education is a high school diploma or less. Many

of the findings from this study were consistent with previous research about first-generation college students. In particular, this study revealed that first-generation college students had particular

demographic and enrollment characteristics that distinguished them from their non-firstgeneration peers. They were more likely than their counterparts to be female, older, and independent. In addition, first-generation students were more likely than non-first-generation students

to have dependents and lower incomes, and to be enrolled in 2-year institutions. While enrolled,

they were more likely than their counterparts to be enrolled part time, receiving some form of financial aid, and working full time. Consistent with their lower incomes and increased likelihood of

having dependents, first-generation students were more likely than non-first-generation students

to indicate that in selecting an institution they were influenced by the availability of financial aid,

the opportunity to finish coursework more quickly, being able to live at home while attending

school, and being able to work at the school while enrolled.

First-generation students were more likely than non-first-generation students to value improving their financial and professional status, which may reflect qualities such as their lower socioeconomic status and parental educational attainment. This study reveals that those firstgeneration students who completed degree programs appeared to achieve this goal. Five years

after beginning postsecondary education, first-generation students who had attained certificates or

degrees were employed in similar positions and earned comparable salaries to those of their

counterparts whose parents had attended college. At the same time, however, first-generation

students were less likely to complete their postsecondary education within 5 years. Compared

with their non-first-generation counterparts, they were more likely to be enrolled part-time, attend

public 2-year institutions rather than 4-year institutions, and have lower index scores on levels of

academic and social integration, all of which were negatively associated with persistence and attainment after controlling for covariation of related variables.27

 

27As described in this report’s earlier discussion about academic and social integration, little research has been conducted on

the applicability of academic and social integration models to younger, more traditional, and older, less traditional, students. It

should be kept in mind that the behaviors measured in academic and social integration may be more accessible and appealing

to younger students, who are less likely to be first-generation. One study conducted at a small urban community college found
Summary

56

Finally, even when demographic, enrollment, and institutional characteristics, as well as levels of academic and social integration, were controlled for in the multivariate analysis, firstgeneration students were less likely to persist in postsecondary education than their counterparts

whose parents had obtained more education. This finding highlights the salience of firstgeneration status even beyond its association with other factors likely to reduce persistence.

 

that integration did not play as strong a role in affecting the persistence of older students as that of younger students. J. Grosset,

“Patterns of Integration, Commitment, and Student Characteristics among Younger and Older Students,” Research in Higher

Education, 32 (2), (1991): 159–178.
57

Appendix A—Glossary

This glossary describes the variables used in this report. The variables were taken directly from the NCES

BPS:90/94 and the B&B:93/94 Data Analysis Systems (DAS), which are NCES software applications that generate

tables from the BPS:90/94 and the B&B:93/94 data. A description of the DAS software can be found in appendix

B. The variable labels below are in bold, capital letters and correspond to the names of the variables in the DAS.

The glossary is organized into two sections: variable definitions for the BPS:90/94 and the B&B:93/94 data sets,

respectively. In the index below, the variables in each section are listed in the order they appear in the report; the

glossary is in alphabetical order in each section by variable name (displayed in the right-hand column).

Glossary Index

BPS:90/94

Student Characteristics

Gender.................................................... H_GENDR

Age........................................................... AGE8990

Race–ethnicity .........................................BPSRACE

Marital status............................................MAR8990

Dependency for financial aid ...................DEPEND2

Local residence ..................................... LOCALRES

First-generation status (highest education

 level attained by either parent) ................RPARED

Socioeconomic status percentile ................SESPERC

Future Aspirations—Related Variables

Influence the political structure ..............POLSTRUC

Become successful in own business.......OWNBUSIN

Be successful in line of work.................... SUCCESS

Be able to find steady work ...................FINDWORK

Being very well off financially ................ WELLOFF

Become authority in given field............BECMAUTH

Be a leader in my community .............LEADCOMM

Get away from this area of country.........GETAWAY

Give own children a better opportunity....GIVEKIDS

Have children.........................................HAVEKIDS

Have leisure time to enjoy own interests.... LEISURE

Live close to parents and relatives...........LIVCLOSE

Institutional Choice—Related Variables

Obtained financial aid needed ......................FINAID

Other living costs were less.................... COSTLIVE

Could finish in shorter time .....................SHORTER

Tuition and other expenses were less.......TUITLESS

School is close to home..........................SCHCLOSE

School was far away from home ............ FARAWAY

Could live at home ................................LIVEHOME

Can go to school and work................... SCHLNWRK

Good reputation for placing graduates..PLACEMNT

Offered courses of study wanted.............COURSOFF

School has good reputation.........................GD_REP

Better chance to get job at school............BETTRJOB

Enrollment Characteristics

Attendance status .................................... ATST8990

Type of institution ...................................OFCO8990

Delayed entry after high school............... DELAYED

Degree program....................................... PROGTYP

Transfer status through first degree .......TRANSFER

Employment/enrollment status ..............EMWK8990

Academic and Social Characteristics

Composite SAT score ............................SATTOTAL

Number of and types of remedial

 courses received..................................REMEDIAL

Index of academic integration.................ACAD8990

Index of social integration .......................SOCL8990

Persistence and Attainment Characteristics

Educational aspirations................................ ASPIRE

Persistence and attainment status................PERSIST

First degree attained during

 postsecondary education ....................... DEGREE1

Degree working toward .......................... GOAL8990
Appendix A—Glossary

58

Highest degree obtained by spring 1994 ...DEGALL2

Employment and Post-Baccalaureate Enrollment

Characteristics

April 1994 unemployment indicator....... UNEM9404

Whether job different from

 education and training ...........................RJJDIFTR

Whether could have obtained job

 without education................................RJJWOTED

Primary occupation 1993 ......................... OCCUP93

Respondent earned income 1993 ............. SG93EAIN

Employed in April 1994........................M_MNTH51

Financial Aid Variables

Received financial aid................................ AID8990

Received grant or scholarship ................ GRSCHL89

Received non-family loan.......................NFLOAN89

Received other aid.......................................OTHR89

B&B:93/94 (follows BPS Glossary)

Student Characteristics

First-generation status (highest education

 level attained by either parent)..............PAREDUC

Gender ................................................. H_GENDER

Employment and Post-Baccalaureate Enrollment

Characteristics

Annual salary ....................................... APRANSAL

Taken courses since graduation ...............PBACHED

Any unemployment since graduation....UNEMPPRD

April job required college degree ...........AJOBDEGR

Program enrolled in at

 post-baccalaureate school.................... PBO1PROG

April 1994 occupation ............................. AJOBOCC

Employment status April 1994 ..............EMPLOY22

Relationship between April job and

 degree................................................. AJOBRELT
Appendix A—Glossary

59

BPS:90/94

Index of academic integration ACAD8990

Average academic integration score at the 1989–90 postsecondary institution. Students were asked to report how

often they did each of the following during the 1989–90 term: attend career-related lectures (ATLECTUR),

participate in study groups with other students (STUDYGRP), talk over academic matters with faculty

(TALKFAC), and meet with advisor concerning academic plans (TALKADV1). Scores included never (1), once

(2), sometimes (3), and often (4). A mean of the scores of the four variables was calculated to compose the

academic integration score. In order to compute mean scores with decimals to the hundredth place in the DAS, the

scores were multiplied by 100. Then the scores were classified into low, moderate, and high as described below:

Low score Academic integration score fell at or below the lowest 25th

percentile (0–191.49).

Moderate score Academic integration score fell between the 25th and the 75th

percentiles (191.5–291.49).

High score Academic integration score fell at or above the 75th percentile

(291.5–400).

Age AGE8990

Age when first enrolled at 1989–90 postsecondary institution. Age was defined in the following categories:

18 years or younger

19–24 years

25 years or older

Received financial aid AID8990

Indicates whether student received any financial aid in 1989–90. It was estimated from the student’s responses to

NPSAS:90 variables TOTAID and OTHSCAMT and aggregated to the following categories:

No aid

Received aid

Educational aspirations ASPIRE

Highest level of education that student expected to complete when questioned in 1989–90. Student response to the

question “Realistically, what is the highest level of education you ever expect to complete?” This variable

aggregates a variety of responses into the following categories:
Appendix A—Glossary

60

Trade school Includes completing less than 1 year of occupational/trade/technical/business

school; 1 but less than 2 years of occupational/trade/technical/business school;

2 years or more of occupational/trade/technical/business school.

2-year degree Includes completing less than 2 years of college, 2 or more years of college.

Bachelor’s degree Includes completing a bachelor’s degree (4- or 5-year degree).

Advanced degree Includes completing master’s degree or equivalent; M.D./D.D.S./L.L.B. or

other advanced professional degree; doctorate degree (e.g. Ph.D., Ed.D.,

D.B.A.)

Attendance status ATST8990

Percentage of months attended postsecondary institution full time during the 1989–90 school year. Based on

monthly enrollment and full-time/part-time status during the academic year.

Part-time Student attended the 1989–90 postsecondary institution full

time for less than 50 percent of the months during that year.

More than part-time Student attended the 1989–90 postsecondary institution full

time for more than 50 percent of the months during that year.

Become authority in given field BECMAUTH

Student response to the question “As I read the following statements, please tell me the importance of the statement

to you personally: becoming an authority in your field (BECMAUTH), influencing the political structure

(POLSTRUC), being very well off financially (WELLOFF), becoming successful in a business of your own

(OWNBUSIN), being successful in your line of work (SUCCESS), being able to find steady work (FINDWORK),

being a leader in your community (LEADCOMM), living close to parents and relatives (LIVCLOSE), getting away

from the area of the country where you grew up (GETAWAY), having leisure time to enjoy your own interests

(LEISURE), having children (HAVEKIDS), being able to give your children better opportunities than you’ve had

The responses were categorized as follows: very important, somewhat important, and not important. The

percentage of students who reported the above listed items as very important was used in this analysis.

Better chance to get job at school BETTRJOB

Student response to the question “Please tell me if [the following reason] was very important, somewhat important,

or not important in deciding upon the school you attended in the [fall of 1990]: the school had a good reputation

(GD_REP), you obtained the financial aid you needed at the school (FINAID), the school offered the course of

study you wanted (COURSOFF), ... you had a better chance to get a job at the school (BETTRJOB), your tuition

and other direct school expenses were less at the school than at other schools (TUITLESS), your other living costs

were less than at other schools (COSTLIVE)... the school was close to your home (SCHCLOSE), you could work

while attending the school (SCHLNWRK), you could live at home (LIVEHOME), the school was far away from

your home (FARAWAY), the school had a good reputation for placing its graduates (PLACEMNT), you could

finish the course in a short period of time (SHORTER).”
Appendix A—Glossary

61

The responses were categorized as follows: very important, somewhat important, and not important. The

percentage of students who reported the above listed items as very important was used in this analysis.

Race–ethnicity BPSRACE

This variable was created by combining two items in which respondents reported their race and whether or not they

were of Hispanic origin.

White, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East (except those of

Hispanic origin).

Black, non-Hispanic A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of

Africa, not of Hispanic origin.

Hispanic A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South

American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of

race.

Asian/Pacific Islander A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the

Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or Pacific

Islands. This includes people from China, Japan, Korea, the

Philippine Islands, Samoa, India, and Vietnam.

American Indian/Alaskan Native A person having origins in any of the original peoples of

North America and who maintains cultural identification

through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

Other living costs were less COSTLIVE

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important in his/her decision in choosing an

institution: other living costs at the school were less than at other schools. For a more detailed discussion of this

variable, see BETTRJOB.

Offered course of study wanted COURSOFF

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important in his/her decision in choosing an

institution: the school offered the course of study he/she wanted. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see

BETTRJOB.
Appendix A—Glossary

62

Highest degree obtained by spring 1994 DEGALL2

From 1994 student interview. This variable includes those with incomplete or minimal enrollment data.

None Respondent had not earned a credential by spring 1994.

Certificate Respondent’s highest degree attained by spring 1994 was a

vocational/technical certificate.

Associate’s degree Respondent’s highest degree attained by spring 1994 was an

associate’s degree.

Bachelor’s degree Respondent’s highest degree attained by spring 1994 was a

bachelor’s degree.

First degree attained during postsecondary education DEGREE1

First degree attained during postsecondary education. The categories include:

None Student did not attain any degrees during postsecondary

education.

Certificate Student attained a certificate or other formal award during

postsecondary education.

Associate’s degree Student attained an associate’s degree during postsecondary

education.

Bachelor’s degree Student attained a bachelor’s degree during postsecondary

education.

Delayed entry after high school DELAYED

Timing of entry into postsecondary education following high school. The variable determines entry into

postsecondary education relative to the type of high school credential the student obtained.

Did not delay Student did not delay entry into postsecondary education.

Delayed, high school diploma Student delayed entry after earning a regular high school

diploma.

Delayed, no high school diploma Student delayed entry and did not hold a regular high school

diploma before entry or held a GED.
Appendix A—Glossary

63

Dependency for financial aid DEPEND2

Categorizes independent students into those with and those without dependents, which are categories that

determine the type of need analysis formula used in determining financial aid eligibility. Based on dependency

status, marital status, and family size.

Dependent

Independent, no dependents

Independent with dependents

Employment/enrollment status EMWK8990

Full-time or part-time enrollment status during month began at 1989–90 postsecondary institution. Working full

time was defined as working 34 or more hours per week. All respondents who worked at some time while enrolled

and who considered themselves primarily employees between 1990 and 1994 were coded as working full time

while enrolled on the EMWK variable.

Did not work full time while enrolled Student worked less than 34 hours per week.

Worked full time while enrolled Student worked 34 or more hours per week.

School was far away from home FARAWAY

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important in his/her decision in choosing an

institution: the school was far away from home. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BETTRJOB.

Obtained financial aid needed FINAID

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important in his/her decision in choosing an

institution: obtained the financial aid needed at the school. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see

BETTRJOB.

Be able to find steady work FINDWORK

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important to him/her personally: being able to

find steady work. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BECMAUTH.
Appendix A—Glossary

64

School has good reputation GD_REP

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important in his/her decision in choosing an

institution: the school had a good reputation. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BETTRJOB.

Get away from this area of country GETAWAY

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important to him/her personally: getting away

from the area of the country in which the student grew up. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see

BECMAUTH.

Give own children better opportunity GIVEKIDS

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important to him/her personally: being able to

give his/her children better opportunities than he/she has had. For complete discussion, see BECMAUTH.

Degree working toward GOAL8990

Type of degree student was working toward at 1989–90 postsecondary institution. The categories include:

None Student did not report working toward any formal degree.

Vocational certificate / license Student reported working toward a certificate or formal award

other than an associate’s or bachelor’s degree.

Associate’s degree Student reported working toward an associate’s degree.

Bachelor’s degree Student reported working toward a bachelor’s degree.

Received grant or scholarship GRSCHL89

Indicates whether student received grant or scholarship in 1989–90.

No grant or scholarship Student did not receive grant or scholarship in 1989–90.

Grant or scholarship Student received grant or scholarship in 1989–90.

Have children HAVEKIDS

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important to him/her personally: having

children. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BECMAUTH.
Appendix A—Glossary

65

Gender H_GENDR

Student response to the question “Are you male or female?”

Be a leader in my community LEADCOMM

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important to him/her personally: being a leader

in his/her community. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BECMAUTH.

Have leisure time to enjoy own interests LEISURE

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important to him/her personally: having leisure

time to enjoy his/her interests. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BECMAUTH.

Live close to parents and relatives LIVCLOSE

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important to him/her personally: living close to

parents and relatives. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BECMAUTH.

Could live at home LIVEHOME

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important in his/her decision in choosing an

institution: could live at home. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BETTRJOB.

Local residence LOCALRES

Student’s residence during 1989–90 school term.

Campus housing Student lived in on-campus residential housing.

Off-campus Student did not live in on-campus residential housing.

With parents or other relatives Student lived with parents or other relatives.

Employed in April 1994 M_MNTH51

Respondent’s employment and enrollment status as of April 1994. Includes the following categories:

Not employed and not enrolled
Appendix A—Glossary

66

Enrolled and not employed

Employed and not enrolled

Employed and enrolled

In this report, the last two categories were combined to indicate employment status as of 1994.

Marital status MAR8990

Marital status during academic year 1989–90.

Not married This category includes respondents who are single, never

married; living as married, never married; divorced;

widowed; and living as married, previously divorced.

Married This category includes currently married respondents.

Separated This category includes currently separated respondents.

Received non-family loan NFLOAN89

Indicates whether student received non-family loan in 1989–90.

Received loan Student received non-family loans in 1989–90.

Did not receive loan Student did not receive non-family loans in 1989–90.

Primary occupation 1993 OCCUP93

Occupational category of principal job in 1993.

Clerical (1)

Craftsman/repair/laborer/machinist (2,3,5)

Manager/administrator (4)

Professional (6)

Sales (7)

Services (8)

Technical (9)

Other (10)

Type of institution OFCO8990

Level and control of 1989–90 postsecondary institution.
Appendix A—Glossary

67

Public 4-year A postsecondary education institution that is supported

primarily by public funds and operated by publicly elected or

appointed officials who control the programs and activities

and can award bachelor’s degrees or higher, including

institutions that award doctorate degrees and firstprofessional degrees. These degrees include chiropractic,

pharmacy, dentistry, podiatry, medicine, veterinary medicine,

optometry, law, osteopathic medicine, and theology.

Private, not-for-profit 4-year A postsecondary institution that is controlled by an

independent governing board and incorporated under Section

501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and can award

bachelor’s degrees or higher, including institutions that

award doctorate degrees and first-professional degrees. These

degrees include chiropractic, pharmacy, dentistry, podiatry,

medicine, veterinary medicine, optometry, law, osteopathic

medicine, and theology.

Public 2-year A postsecondary education institution that is supported

primarily by public funds and operated by publicly elected or

appointed officials who control the programs and activities

and that does not confer bachelor’s degrees, but does provide

2-year programs that result in a certificate or an associate’s

degree, or 2-year programs that fulfill part of the

requirements for a bachelor’s degree or higher at 4-year

institutions.

Private, for-profit A postsecondary institution that is privately owned and

operated as a profit-making enterprise. Includes career

colleges and proprietary institutions. Level and control can be

private, not-for-profit 4-year; private, not-for-profit 2-year; or

private, not-for-profit less-than-2-year.

Other less-than-2-year A postsecondary institution in which at least one of the

programs offered at the institution is 3 months or longer, and

produces a terminal award or certificate. In addition, no

program at the institution lasts longer than 2 years. The level

and control can be private, not-for-profit 2-year; public lessthan-2-year; and private, not-for-profit less-than-2-year

institutions.

Received other aid OTHR89

Indicates whether student received other aid in 1989–90.

Yes Student received other aid in 1989–90.
Appendix A—Glossary

68

No Student did not receive other aid in 1989–90.

Become successful in own business OWNBUSIN

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important to him/her personally: becoming

successful in a business of his/her own. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BECMAUTH.

Persistence and attainment status PERSIST

This dichotomous variable identifies students’ persistence and attainment by coding them as persisted—attained by

or enrolled in 1994 (1) or not persisted—not attained by or enrolled in 1994 (0). The overall persistence and

attainment outcomes were derived by categorizing the students’ persistence paths from initial enrollment at the

NPSAS institution until follow-up in spring 1994. This variable coded another variable describing student’s

persistence and attainment toward first degree (if any) or last enrollment (PERACUM) to identify students who

had attained or were still enrolled. Those who persisted included the following groups : 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

Those who did not persist included the following groups: 5, 6, 11, and 12.

1. Internal persister attained

2. Internal persister

3. Internal non-continuous—attained

4. Internal non-continuous—still enrolled

5. Internal non-continuous—not enrolled

6. Internal left without return

7. Transfer persister attained

8. Transfer persister

9. Transfer non-continuous—attained

10. Transfer non-continuous—still enrolled

11. Transfer non-continuous—not enrolled

12. Transfer left without return

Good reputation for placing graduates PLACEMNT

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important in his/her decision in choosing an

institution: the school had a good reputation for placing its graduates. For a more detailed discussion of this

variable, see BETTRJOB.

Influence the political structure POLSTRUC

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important to him/her personally: influencing

the political structure. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BECMAUTH.
Appendix A—Glossary

69

Degree program PROGTYP

Type of degree program student was enrolled in in 1989–90.

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s degree

Undergraduate certificate

Other undergraduate

Number of and types of remedial instruction received REMEDIAL

Number of and types of remedial instruction received as indicated by student in 1989–90. Based on remedial math

(REMMATH), remedial reading (REMREAD), remedial study skills (REMSTSK), remedial writing

(REMWRITE). The categories were defined as follows:

None

One or more

Whether job different from education and training RJJDIFTR

Indicates whether the student’s most recent (1993) job was different from education and training he/she received in

postsecondary education. This variable was recoded from the variable SCJDIFTR.

No The student’s job related to his/her education.

Yes The student’s job did not relate to his/her education.

Whether could have obtained job without education RJJWOTED

Indicates whether student could have gotten most recent (1993) job without the education and training he/she

received in postsecondary education. This variable was recoded from the variable SCJWOTED.

No The student could not have gotten job without education.

Yes The student could have gotten job without education.

First-generation status (highest education level attained by either parent) RPARED

Maximum of either father’s and/or mother’s education. For this analysis, this variable was used to indicate firstgeneration status.
Appendix A—Glossary

70

First-generation students included those whose parents had:

Less than high school education

High school diploma

Non-first-generation students were subdivided into those whose parents had some college:

Trade school

Less than 2 years of college

2 or more years of college

and those whose parents had earned a bachelor’s or advanced degree:

Bachelor’s degree

Postgraduate/professional degree

Composite SAT score SATTOTAL

Student’s combined SAT score. Score ranges included:

Less than 600

600–799

800–999

1000–1199

1200–1399

1400 or more

School is close to home SCHCLOSE

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important in his/her decision in choosing an

institution: the school was close to student’s home. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see

BETTRJOB.

Can go to school and work SCHLNWRK

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important in his/her decision in choosing an

institution: could work while attending the school. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BETTRJOB.

Socioeconomic status percentile SESPERC

Composite variable combining parents’ occupation (father/mother), dependents’ family income, and the existence

of a series of material possessions in the respondent’s home.

Lowest quartile Socioeconomic status fell at or below the 25th percentile.
Appendix A—Glossary

71

Middle quartiles Socioeconomic status fell between the 25th percentile and the

75th percentile.

Highest quartile Socioeconomic status fell at or above the 75th percentile.

Respondent earned income 1993 SG93EAIN

Student response to the question “How much of [your 1993 personal total gross income] was earned?

Could finish in shorter time SHORTER

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important in his/her decision in choosing an

institution: could finish the course in a short period of time. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see

BETTRJOB.

Index of social integration SOCL8990

Average social integration score at the 1989–90 postsecondary institution. Students were asked how often they did

each of the following during the 1989–90 term: had contact with faculty outside of class, go to places with friends

from school, go to school assistance centers, and participate in school clubs. Scores included never (1), once (2),

sometimes (3), and often (4). A mean of the scores of the four variables was calculated to compose the social

integration score. In order to compute mean scores with decimals to the hundredth place in the DAS, the scores

were multiplied by 100. Then the scores were classified into low, moderate, and high as described below:

Low score Social integration score fell at or below the lowest 25th

percentile (0–172.49).

Moderate score Social integration score fell between the 25th and the 75th

percentiles (172.5–272.49).

High score Social integration score fell at or above the 75th percentile

(272.5–400).

Be successful in line of work SUCCESS

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important to him/her personally: being

successful in line of his/her work. For a detailed discussion of the variable, see BECMAUTH.

Transfer status through first degree TRANSFER

Indicates whether student ever transferred during period before attainment of first degree.
Appendix A—Glossary

72

Did not transfer

Transferred

Tuition and other expenses were less TUITLESS

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important in his/her decision in choosing an

institution: tuition and other direct school expenses were less at the school than at other schools. For complete

discussion, see BETTRJOB.

April 1994 unemployment indicator UNEM9404

Variable indicates student’s unemployment status in April 1994.

Not unemployed in April 1994

Unemployed in April 1994

Being very well off financially WELLOFF

Indicates percentage of students who reported the following as very important to him/her personally: being very

well off financially. For a more detailed discussion of this variable, see BECMAUTH.
Appendix A—Glossary

73

B&B:93/94

Annual salary APRANSAL

This variable was constructed by annualizing the wages/salary reported by respondents for their primary April

1994 job. If a respondent had more than one job, the primary job was the one with the most hours worked; if the

number of hours was equal, the job with the highest salary was selected. APRANSAL was computed by

multiplying the sum of the wages reported per pay period by the number of pay periods within a year.

This variable was also used to compute average salaries. When this variable was used in table columns, the table

included only those whose annual salary was at least $1,000 and less than or equal to $500,000.

April job required college degree AJOBDEGR

Respondents were asked whether or not a bachelor’s degree was required to obtain their April job.

Yes

No

April 1994 occupation AJOBOCC

Occupation code for respondents’ primary (see APRANSAL for definition) April job. The occupation was coded

during the interview with an on-line coding program developed by NCES. This report aggregated the coded

occupations as follows (the numbers in parentheses are the codes from the on-line coding program):

Clerical

Secretarial (01)

Includes typists, receptionists, computer/machine operators, payroll/time-keepers, shipping/receiving

clerks, and stenographers.

Financial clerical (02)

Includes bookkeepers, bank tellers, billing clerks, cashiers, bill collectors, real estate appraisers, and

insurance adjusters.

Other clerical (03)

Includes ticket/travel agents, mail carriers/handlers, postal clerks, messengers, meter readers,

enumerators, interviewers, dispatchers, library assistants, teacher aides, and stock clerks.

Craftsman/laborer

Crafts, precision production/repair (04)

Includes bakers, mechanics, painters, carpenters, jewelers, machinists, repairers, excavators,

inspectors, electricians, millers, sign painters, tailors, telephone lineworkers, upholsterers, opticians,

plasterers, paper hangers, and plumbers.

Agriculture, fishing (05)

Includes farmers, horticulturists, gardeners/groundskeepers, trappers, foremen, and fish farmers.

Homemaker (06)

Laborer (07)
Appendix A—Glossary

74

Includes apprentices, construction workers, sanitation workers, longshoremen, stevedores, teamsters,

vehicle washers, miscellaneous laborers, freight/material handlers, and carpenter’s helpers.

Manager

Manager/administrator, sales/purchasing (8)

Includes sales managers, buyers, advertising agents, insurance brokers, and underwriters.

Manager/administrator, government (9)

Includes local, state, and federal government managers, supervisors, administrators, treasurers, assessors,

controllers, inspectors, and school administrators and principals.

Manager/administrator, retail/hospitality (10)

Stores, hotels, restaurants, bars, or other retail establishments.

Manager/administrator, manufacturing/construction (11)

Quality control and line supervisors.

Manager/administrator, other (12)

Professional

Arts and entertainment occupations (15)

Includes actors, artists, writers, athletes, dancers, designers, editors, reporters, musicians, composers,

photographers, public relations, radio/television announcers, and other entertainers.

Medical, nonphysician (16)

Includes registered nurses, therapists, pharmacists, dietitians, and clinical psychologists.

All professional engineers (17)

Includes mechanical, electrical, agricultural, aeronautical, chemical, mining, materials, and petroleum.

Physician (18)

Includes physicians, dentists, veterinarians, optometrists, chiropractors, and podiatrists.

Legal professions (lawyer, judge) (19)

All other professions (20)

Includes clergy, social workers, professors, scientists, architects, librarians, and accountants.

Proprietor/owner, retail/hospitality (21)

Proprietor/owner, manufacturing/construction (22)

Proprietor/owner, other (23)

Sales

Sales (25)

Includes all sales positions, advertisers, auctioneers, insurance agents, real estate agents, and brokers.

Service

Protective services (24)

Elementary/secondary school teacher (26)

Includes substitute and pre-school teachers.

Service (27)

Includes domestics, barbers, janitors, waiters/waitresses, attendants, nursing aides, baggage porters,

bellhops, orderlies, house-keepers, hairdressers, paper carriers, child care workers, launderers,

bootblacks, and lifeguards.

Technical

Skilled operative, machinery/equipment (14)
Appendix A—Glossary

75

Includes assemblers, drivers, machine operators, cutters, graders, meat cutters, sailors, fire fighters,

welders, textile carders/loopers/knitters, stitchers/sewers, riveters, punchers, mine operatives, and

bottlers.

Computer science, programming (28)

Includes computer technicians, systems analysts/specialists, and computer engineering assistants.

Noncomputer science technician (29)

Includes drafters, medical/dental technicians, hygienists, pilots, radiology technicians, clinical lab

technician, and engineering assistants.

Other

Military personnel (13)

Other (uncodeable) (0)

Relationship between April job and degree AJOBRELT

Indicates how closely related respondents’ primary April 1994 job was to their field of study. See entry for

APRANSAL for definition of “primary job.” Three options were offered: closely related; somewhat related; and not

at all related.

Employment status April 1994 EMPLOY22

Indicates employment status in April 1994. Respondents were asked to provide information for all their jobs since

graduating from college, including the beginning and ending dates, whether they were employed full or part time

in each job, if they had been looking for work (and if so, if they received unemployment benefits), and if they were

not working, the reason. Based on these dates, monthly indicators were constructed characterizing the employment

status of each respondent as: employed full time; employed part time; unemployed with benefits; unemployed

without benefits; and out of the labor force.

A job was considered full time if respondent reported working 35 or more hours. For respondents with more than

one job, the status variable characterizes the job they reported as their primary employment, i.e., the job they

worked the most hours. Thus, if they were employed in a full-time job and a part-time job, they were coded as full

time. If they worked two or more part-time jobs, they were coded as part time even if their hours totaled 35 or more

per week.

Respondents who were not working but looking for work were considered unemployed. For this report, the

unemployment categories (with and without benefits) were combined because almost no respondents were

receiving unemployment benefits. Respondents categorized as out of the labor force were those who were not

available for work and not looking for work.

Employed Includes full-time and part-time employed respondents.

Not employed Includes unemployed respondents who are either receiving or not receiving benefits and

respondents out of the labor force.
Appendix A—Glossary

76

Gender of student H_GENDER

Indicates the gender of the student. Students were asked their gender only if this information was missing from

NPSAS and not obvious during the interview. Respondents were categorized as male or female.

First-generation status (highest education level attained by either parent) PAREDUC

Maximum of either father’s and/or mother’s education. For this analysis, this variable was used to indicate firstgeneration status.

First-generation students’ parents had:

Less than a high school diploma

GED

High school diploma

Non-first-generation students were subdivided into those whose parents had some college experience,

including:

Less than 1 year of college

1 year but less than 2 years of college

2 years or more of college (but no bachelor’s degree)

Associate’s degree

and those whose parents had earned a bachelor’s or advanced degree:

Bachelor’s degree (4–5 year degree)

Master’s degree or equivalent

First-professional degree

Other advanced professional degree

Doctorate (Ph.D., Ed.D.)

Taken courses since graduation PBACHED

Indicates graduate student enrollment status. Student response to the question “Have you taken any courses, for

credit, offered by a college, university, technical or vocational school, since graduating from [the postsecondary

institution where you attained your degree]?”

No Has not taken any graduate courses for credit.

Yes Has taken graduate courses for credit.

Program enrolled in at post-baccalaureate school PBO1PROG

Asked of all respondents. Indicates graduate program enrolled in. The categories include:
Appendix A—Glossary

77

Non-degree

Post-baccalaureate certificate

Master’s degrees (M.A., M.S., M.B.A.)

Doctoral degrees (Ph.D., Ed.D., D.P.H.)

First-professional degree

Other

Any unemployment since graduation UNEMPPRD

Indicates whether bachelor’s degree recipient had any unemployment spells since graduation.

79

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study

The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:90/94) followed students

from the NPSAS:90 sample who were identified as first-time beginning (FTB) students in academic year 1989–90. A CATI (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interview) was conducted with

these students 2 and 4 years after the base year. The CATI system provided interviewers with

screens of questions to be asked of the respondents, with the software guiding the interviewer and

respondent through the interview, automatically skipping inapplicable questions based on prior

response patterns or suggesting appropriate wording for probes should a respondent pause or

seem uncertain in answering a question. This particular CATI collected information concerning

enrollment, program completion, education financing, employment, and family formation; graduate school access and enrollment; and civic participation. The data derived from this survey permit

a variety of analyses concerning postsecondary persistence and completion, entry into the work

force, and civic participation.

Unlike other NCES longitudinal surveys based on grade-specific cohorts (such as High

School and Beyond), the BPS design allows for the increasing numbers of “nontraditional” postsecondary students, such as those who have delayed their education due to financial needs or

family responsibilities. Students who began their postsecondary studies before 1989–90, stopped

out, and then returned to their studies in 1989–90 were not included, nor were students who were

still enrolled in high school.

The BPS survey sample, while representative and statistically accurate, is also not a simple

random sample. Instead, the samples are selected using a more complex three-step procedure with

stratified samples and differential probabilities of selection at each level. First, postsecondary institutions were initially selected within geographic strata. Once institutions were organized by zip

code and state, they were further stratified by control (i.e., public; private, not-for-profit; or private, for-profit) and degree offering (less-than-2-year, 2-year to 3-year, 4-year nondoctorategranting, and 4-year doctorate-granting).
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

80

For more information on BPS:90/94, consult Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94) Final Technical Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NCES 96-153).

Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study

The Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B:93) tracks the experiences of a

cohort of college graduates who received a bachelor’s degree during the 1992–93 academic year.

This group’s experience in the areas of further education and degree completion, employment,

public service, family formation, and other adult decisions will be followed for 12 years. B&B will

provide data to assess the outcomes of postsecondary education, including graduate and professional program access, labor market experience, and rate of return on investment in education.

Participants in the 1993 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:93) who received their bachelor’s degree between July 1992 and June 1993 form the base sample for the

B&B study. Approximately 12,500 NPSAS:93 respondents were identified as eligible for the first

followup survey, which was conducted between July 1993 and December 1994 (roughly one year

after participants’ graduation). Approximately 1,500 members of this initial sample were determined to be ineligible at the time of the followup interview, and about 900 others were not interviewed (usually because they could not be located or refused to participate), generating a final

sample of 10,080 college graduates. An overall response rate of 92 percent was achieved for the

first follow-up survey.

The B&B survey sample, while representative and statistically accurate, was not a simple

random sample. Instead, the survey sample was selected using a more complex three-step procedure with stratified samples and differential probabilities of selection at each level. The same

three-stage procedure described for BPS applies to B&B.

For information on procedures for the Baccalaureate and Beyond First Followup Study

(B&B:93/94), consult the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study: 1993/94 Methodology

Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, forthcoming).

Accuracy of Estimates

The statistics in this report are estimates derived from a sample. Two broad categories of error occur in such estimates: sampling and nonsampling errors. Sampling errors occur because ob-
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

81

servations are made only on samples of students, not on entire populations. Nonsampling errors

occur not only in sample surveys but also in complete censuses of entire populations. Nonsampling errors can be attributed to a number of sources: inability to obtain complete information

about all students in all institutions in the sample (some students or institutions refused to participate, or students participated but answered only certain items); ambiguous definitions; differences

in interpreting questions; inability or unwillingness to give correct information; mistakes in recording or coding data; and other errors of collecting, processing, sampling, and imputing missing

data.

Data Analysis System

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the BPS:90/94 and B&B:93/94

Data Analysis Systems (DAS). The DAS software makes it possible for users to specify and generate their own tables from the BPS and B&B data. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand

upon the tables presented in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates

proper standard errors28 and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table B1

contains standard errors that correspond to table 2 in the text, and was generated by the

BPS:90/94 DAS. If the number of valid cases is too small to produce a reliable estimate (fewer

than 30 cases), the DAS prints the message “low-N” instead of the estimate.

In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a correlation matrix of selected variables to

be used for linear regression models. Included in the output with the correlation matrix are the

design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. Since statistical procedures generally compute regression coefficients based on simple random sample assumptions, the standard errors must

be adjusted with the design effects to take into account the BPS and B&B stratified sampling

method. (See discussion under “Statistical Procedures” below for the adjustment procedure.)

The DAS can be accessed electronically at www.PEDAR-DAS.org. For more information

about the BPS:90/94 and B&B:93/94 Data Analysis Systems, contact:

 

28The BPS and B&B samples are not simple random samples and, therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating

sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and

calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. The method for computing sampling errors used by the DAS involves

approximating the estimator by the linear terms of a Taylor series expansion. The procedure is typically referred to as the Taylor series method.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

82

Table B1—Standard errors for table 2: Percentage distribution (by columns) of 1989–90 beginning 

Table B1—postsecondary students according to demographics, by first-generation status

 Not a first-generation student

First- Bachelor’s 

generation Some or advanced

Total student Total college degree

Gender

 Male 1.0 1.7 1.2 1.9 1.5 

 Female 1.0 1.7 1.2 1.9 1.5 

Age in 1989–90

 18 years or younger 1.3 1.8 1.4 2.2 1.6 

 19–24 years 1.0 1.5 1.3 2.1 1.6 

 25–29 years 0.5 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.4 

 30 years or older 0.8 1.2 0.5 1.0 0.4 

Race–ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.4 

 Black, non-Hispanic 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.4 0.9 

 Hispanic 0.7 1.3 0.6 1.1 0.7 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 

Marital status in 1989–90

 Not married18.9 1.5 0.7 1.4 0.7 

 Married 8.7 1.5 0.7 1.3 0.7 

 Separated 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.1 

Dependency status in 1989–90

 Dependent 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.8 1.0 

 Independent, no dependents 0.7 1.2 0.7 1.3 0.7 

 Independent with dependents 0.9 1.6 0.7 1.3 0.8 

Socioeconomic status

 Lowest quartile 0.8 1.4 0.6 1.2 0.5 

 Middle quartiles 1.0 1.6 1.3 2.0 1.5 

 Highest quartile 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.9 1.5 

Educational aspirations

 Trade school 0.6 1.2 0.5 1.1 0.4 

 2-year degree 0.8 1.5 0.8 1.4 1.0 

 Bachelor’s degree 1.1 1.6 1.4 2.1 1.6 

 Advanced degree 1.0 1.5 1.4 2.1 1.6 

SAT total score

 Less than 600 0.9 1.7 0.9 1.3 1.2 

 600–799 1.6 3.3 1.7 2.6 1.8 

 800–999 1.9 3.0 2.1 2.9 2.5 

 1000–1199 1.5 2.5 1.7 2.7 2.1 

 1200–1399 1.4 0.9 1.8 1.3 2.2 

 1400 or more 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 

1The category “not married” includes the following categories: single, never married; living as married, never married; 

divorced; widowed; and living as married, previously divorced.

NOTE: Unlike the other tables in this report, the distributions are by columns instead of rows.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1989–90 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students Longitudinal Study, Second Follow-up (BPS:90/94), Data Analysis System.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

83

Aurora D’Amico

NCES Postsecondary and Educational Outcomes Longitudinal Studies

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5652

(202) 219-1365

Internet address: Adamico@inet.ed.gov

Statistical Procedures

Two types of statistical procedures were employed in this report: testing differences between means, and adjustment of means after controlling for covariation among a group of variables. Each procedure is described below.

Differences Between Means

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error, or significance level.

The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values for the differences

between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing.

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the following formula:

t =

E - E

se +se

1 2

1

2

2

2

(1)

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not independent a covariance term must be added to the formula. If the comparison is between the mean

of a subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used:

Esub − Etot

sesub

2 + setot2 − 2p sesub2

(2)

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup.29

 

29U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, No. 2, 1993.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

84

When comparing two percentages from a distribution that adds to 100 percent, the following formula is used:

E - E

se + se - 2(r)se se

1 2

1

2

2

2

1 2

 (3)

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.30 The estimates, standard errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS.

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons based

on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading, since the magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages but

also to the number of students in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a small difference compared across a large number of students would produce a large t statistic.

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests for each comparison occurs when making multiple comparisons among categories of an independent variable. For example, when making paired

comparisons among different levels of income, the probability of a Type I error for these comparisons taken as a group is larger than the probability for a single comparison. When more than one

difference between groups of related characteristics or “families” are tested for statistical significance, one must apply a standard that assures a level of significance for all of those comparisons

taken together.

Comparisons were made in this report only when p< .05/k for a particular pairwise comparison, where that comparison was one of k tests within a family. This guarantees both that the individual comparison would have p< .05 and that for k comparisons within a family of possible

comparisons, the significance level for all the comparisons will sum to p< .05.31

For example, in a comparison of the percentages of males and females who enrolled in postsecondary education only one comparison is possible (males versus females). In this family, k=1,

and the comparison can be evaluated without adjusting the significance level. When students are

divided into five racial–ethnic groups and all possible comparisons are made, then k=10 and the

 

30Ibid.

31The standard that p<.05/k for each comparison is more stringent than the criterion that the significance level of the comparisons should sum to p<.05. For tables showing the t statistic required to ensure that p<.05/k for a particular family size and degrees of freedom, see Olive Jean Dunn, “Multiple Comparisons Among Means,” Journal of the American Statistical

Association 56 (1961): 52–64.
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

85

significance level of each test must be p< .05/10, or p< .005. The formula for calculating family

size (k) is as follows:

k =

j(j -1)

2

(4)

where j is the number of categories for the variable being tested. In the case of race–ethnicity,

there are five racial–ethnic groups (American Indian, Asian/Pacific Islander, black non-Hispanic,

Hispanic, and white non-Hispanic), so substituting 5 for j in equation 2,

k =

5(5 -1)

2

=10

Adjustment of Means to Control for Background Variation

Tabular results are limited by sample size when attempting to control for additional factors

that may account for the variation observed between two variables. For example, when examining

the percentages of those who completed a degree or were still enrolled in postsecondary education five years after their initial enrollment, it is impossible to know to what extent the observed

variation is due to socioeconomic status (SES) differences and to what extent it is due to differences in other factors related to SES, such as type of institution attended, intensity of enrollment,

and so on. However, if a nested table were produced showing SES within type of institution attended, within enrollment intensity, the cell sizes would be too small to identify the patterns.

When the sample size becomes too small to support controls for another level of variation, one

must use other methods to take such variation into account.

To overcome this difficulty, multiple linear regression was used to obtain means that were

adjusted for covariation among a list of control variables. Adjusted means for subgroups were

obtained by regressing the dependent variable on a set of descriptive variables such as gender,

race–ethnicity, SES, etc. Substituting ones or zeros for the subgroup characteristic(s) of interest

and the mean proportions for the other variables results in an estimate of the adjusted proportion

for the specified subgroup, holding all other variables constant. For example, consider a hypothetical case in which two variables, age and gender, are used to describe an outcome, Y (such as

attaining a degree). The variables age and gender are recoded into a dummy variable representing

age, A, and a dummy variable representing gender, G:
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

86

Age A

24 years or older 1

Under 24 years old 0

and

Gender G

Female 1

Male 0

The following regression equation is then estimated from the correlation matrix output from the

DAS:

ˆ Y = a + b1A+ b2G

To estimate the adjusted mean for any subgroup evaluated at the mean of all other variables,

one substitutes the appropriate values for that subgroup’s dummy variables (1 or 0) and the mean

for the dummy variable(s) representing all other subgroups. For example, suppose Y represents

attainment, and is being described by age (A) and gender (G), coded as shown above, with means

as follows:

Variable Mean

A 0.355

G 0.521

Next, suppose the regression equation results in:

ˆ Y = 0.15 + 0.17A + 0.01G

To estimate the adjusted value for older students, one substitutes the appropriate parameter

estimates and variable values into equation 3.

Variable Parameter Value

a 0.15 —

A 0.17 1.000

G 0.01 0.521

This results in:

ˆ Y = 0.15 +(0.17)(1) + (0.01)(0.521) = 0.325

In this case the adjusted mean for older students is 0.325 and represents the expected outcome for older students who look like the average student across the other variables (in this example, gender). In other words, the adjusted percentage who attained after controlling for age and

gender is 32.5 percent (0.325 x 100 for conversion to a percentage).
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology

87

It is relatively straightforward to produce a multivariate model using the DAS, since one of

the DAS output options is a correlation matrix, computed using pair-wise missing values.32 This

matrix can be used by most statistical software packages as the input data for least-squares regression. That is the approach used for this report, with an additional adjustment to incorporate

the complex sample design into the statistical significance tests of the parameter estimates (described below). For tabular presentation, parameter estimates and standard errors were multiplied

by 100 to match the scale used for reporting unadjusted and adjusted percentages.

Most statistical software packages assume simple random sampling when computing standard errors of parameter estimates. Because of the complex sampling design used for the BPS and

B&B surveys, this assumption is incorrect. A better approximation of their standard errors is to

multiply each standard error by the design effect associated with the independent variable

(DEFT),33 where the DEFT is the ratio of the true standard error to the standard error computed

under the assumption of simple random sampling. It is calculated by the DAS and produced with

the correlation matrix.

 

32Although the DAS simplifies the process of making regression models, it also limits the range of models. Analysts who wish

to use other than pairwise treatment of missing values or to estimate probit/logit models (which are the most appropriate for

models with categorical dependent variables) can apply for a restricted data license from NCES. See John H. Aldrich and

Forrest D. Nelson, 1984, Linear Probability, Logit and Probit Models (Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences, Vol. 45)

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

33The adjustment procedure and its limitations are described in C.J. Skinner, D. Holt, and T.M.F. Smith, eds., Analysis of

Complex Surveys (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989).