Who you gonna call? Advise networks among urban college students

Who you gonna call? Academic advice networks of urban minority students 1

Currently, urban commuter colleges attract the most challenged segments of our undergraduate

population. Compared to other four year colleges, urban commuter and career colleges have a

significantly larger percentage of students below the poverty line and a larger percentage of single

parents and first generation college students (Deming, Goldin & Katz, 2010; Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, &

Person, 2006). These challenged students attend college with dreams of upward mobility yet enter a

system that increasingly appears to reinforce current structures of inequality and segregation.

Since 1995, 82 percent of new White enrollments have gone to the most selective colleges

(Carnevale & Strohl, 2013). In contrast, minorities make up 72% of enrollments at two year public

colleges and approximately 80% at for-profit, career colleges (Baum, Little, & Payea, 2011; NCES,

2012). This lower income, urban sector is also the fastest growing, but is not often the focus of

mainstream academic research. The current study seeks to address this gap in our literature by

examining the nature and relative value of social capital marshalled by urban, minority students in their

quest for academic success.

A growing consensus in research on higher education points to the pivotal influence of students’

social resources. Socializing with others on campus in academically relevant activities has been found to

outweigh even the disadvantages of low pre-college variables, making it of particular relevance to the

performance of many minority and academically underprepared students (Cruce, Wolniak, Seifert, &

Pascarella, 2006; Kuh, Kinzie, Cruce, Shoup & Gonyea, 2007).

Conversely, factors that pull students away from campus, such as employment or household

responsibilities, result in lower academic outcomes (Crisp & Nora, 2010; Nora, Cabrera, Hagedorn, &

Pascarella, 1996; Tseng, 2004). Students at urban, commuter institutions, therefore, have often been


framed by a deficit model that highlights their relative lack of opportunity to integrate into campus life

and for the paucity of social capital at home (Iverson, Pascarella & Terenzini, 1984; Pascarella and

Terenzini, 2005). In contrast, a more sociological approach recognizes that not all students are equally

adept or comfortable with the dominant culture of formal institutions and that home cultures may have a

significant role to play, especially for non-traditional students who don’t reside on campus (Maldonado,

Rhoads, & Buenavista, 2005; Tierney, 1999).

To what extent does familial and ethic capital versus formal campus ties relate to minority

student academic performance? This research will address this question by measuring the social

network that students rely on for academic advice and comparing the influence of both homophilous and

professional ties on performance.

Performance is an important indicator of students’ adaptation to college and the likelihood of

their persistence (Allen & Robbins, 2008). While home and ethnic support may relieve college stress

and other discomforts, these benefits are fairly moot if students do not perform or persist. Given the low

graduation rates at urban, commuter institutions, an understanding of how different social actors impact

on academic performance could help bridge the gap in minority student college persistence and success.

Formal vs. Familiar Social Capital & Minority Academic Performance

The large social integration literature documents how campus interactions with both faculty and

new campus peers are central to college satisfaction and persistence, especially at traditional, residential

institutions (for an extensive overview see Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). The frequency of formal

interaction with faculty has been linked to better academic performance (Fischer, 2007; Martin, 2009)

and to numerous skills such as improved problem-solving and abstract reasoning (Endo & Harpel,


1982). However, a persistent conundrum in these models is that minority students tend to report high

levels of interaction with faculty, but generally do not receive the same return on their investment (Cole,

2010; Kim 2010; Kuh, 2003; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie & Gonyea, 2008). Fischer (2007), for instance,

found that formal ties to faculty relate positively to cumulative GPA for all students except Black

students and that informal interaction with faculty improved mainly White student performance. 1

Sociological research may explain this discrepancy by suggesting that perceived bias, stress, or

social distance can constrain the use of institutional resources, especially by those who might need them

most (Neville, Heppner, Ji, & Thye, 2004) and can depress academic performance (Nora & Cabrera,

1996; Walton & Cohen, 2011). If students feel marginalized, increased contact with campus

professionals alone will not facilitate their success. The actual process of learning may hinge on the

ability to feel safe and to trust the source of the new information received (Carolan & Natriello, 2009;

Guiffrida, 2005). Thus, Cheng, Ickes, & Verhofstadt (2012) found that perceived family social support

was a main predictor of the level and stability of GPA, even stronger in influence than family financial

support.

In particular, studies on immigrant families suggest that ethnic pride and affiliation with their

parents’ culture of origin often accounts for the better academic performance of second generation

minorities (Kasinitz, Waters, Mollenkopf & Holdaway, 2008; Owens & Lynch, 2012; Teranishi, Suárez-

Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2011). Similarly, relying on one’s ethnic group becomes less an issue of

segregation for people of color than one of survival when the dominant and persistent role of

institutionalized racism is acknowledged (Nora & Cabrera, 1996; Villalpando, 2003).

Institutions with a critical mass of minority students and faculty have experienced improved

minority academic performance (Hagedorn, Chi, Cepeda & McLainf, 2007; Weiher, 2000). Ties to a


community of homophilous scholars or peers can provide academically relevant benefits, such as

improved adjustment, motivation, or sense of “fit” with their program of study (Ovink & Veazey, 2011;

Rios-Ellis, Rascón, Galvez, Inzunza-Franco, Bellamy & Torres, 2012; Tuitt, 2012). However, little

research explores the relationship of homophily in individuals’ own social capital to their academic

performance.

Framework & Hypotheses: Network Structure Mediates Social Capital

This study measures the network of people students rely on for academic advice. The entire

network as a mezzo structure and as such is an optimal vehicle for understanding the role of social

capital at urban institutions. First, the prominence of part-time instructors suggests that a more accurate

measure of reliance on urban campus resources would include ties to other campus professionals who

are employed full-time, such as advisors and counselors, as well as faculty (Bahr, 2008). Secondly,

college advisers, administrators, and counseling service providers have been found crucial for

addressing key student issues, such as clarifying confusion over scheduling and graduation requirements

as well as for addressing the stress of poverty and countervailing obligations that students at non-

selective institutions are more likely to experience (Charles, Dinwiddie, & Massey, 2004; Edwards,

2011).

A network construct also helps avoid two key methodological issues. Integration models

traditionally measure student campus resources by measuring student interaction with faculty in

isolation from their relationships with other adults. Without considering the entirety of a student’s

academically relevant social network, however, high levels of interaction with any one type of actor

could simply be a proxy measure of students’ personality traits, such as extroversion, rather than a

measure of the value of the actual relationship (Chapmen & Pascarella, 1983). Finally, network theory


illustrates how social resources are mediated by the composition of the networks in which they are

situated. Looking at only dyadic ties, the dynamic of the group is missed. For example, the dynamic in

networks with predominately ethnic ties engenders a set of advantages and constraints in counter-

distinction with those of predominately more formal ties.

Granovetter (1973) famously provided a framework for understanding the dynamic of network

linkages with his distinction between weak and strong ties. Relations to family, clan, and other

intimates are generally considered strong ties as tie strength is a measure “of the amount of time, the

emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterize the

tie" (Granovetter, 1973, p. 1361). Ties to college professors, advisors, and new campus peers stand in

stark contrast. They are important to students precisely because on-campus actors act as a bridge to

different social worlds and “all bridges are weak ties” (Granovetter, 1973, p. 1364). Actors in

predominately weak tie networks come from different social worlds and don’t share overlapping

friendship circles. As such, a network of predominately weak-ties exposes one to a great diversity of

new people, ideas and resources (Burt, 2004; Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1993).

A predominately weak-tie network also provides the flexibility and freedom to more easily

utilize the diversity of resources it offers. With little shared trust or group loyalty to a common past,

networks of predominately weak, formal ties lack the built-in traditions, expectations, or clan obligations

that can often constrain individual change and mobility (Lin, 1999). Instead, it encourages openness to

new vistas of experience that is ostensibly at the heart of a successful college learning experience.

Accordingly, advice networks dominated by ties to non-kin campus actors should promote positive

learning outcomes, even as the perception of bias faced by ethnic minorities can mediate this effect. In

cases of perceived high risk or stress, the lack of intimacy can mitigate the salutary influence of non-kin


ties on learning (Carolan & Natriello, 2009). The diversity and open dynamic of weak-tie professional

networks suggests the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The proportion of ties to campus professionals in a student’s academic advice network will be positively related to academic performance.

Hypothesis 2: Campus based friendships will be positively related to better academic performance.

Hypothesis 3: Students’ ethnicity will interact with the dynamic of campus based networks.

In contrast to weak-ties, the strength of strong ties lies in the regular and intimate contact which

reinforces familiarity and similarity (Coleman, 1988; Granovetter, 1973). However, the cyclical and

close-knit dynamic of family ties can exert a homogenizing “downward pressure” which maintains

commitment to the group’s status quo and limits the influx of new ideas (Desmond & Lopez Turley,

2009; Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1993).

Strong ties to family or community nurture and support but can also more easily transmit

countervailing pressures that pull students away from school and into drama and demands at home

(Chuong, 1999; Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Tseng, 2004). For example, Charles et al. (2004) found that

grade point averages of Black students suffered with increased family interaction, as it was often fraught

with stress and trauma.

Similarly, close or homophilous relationships are supportive “ties that bind,” and promote trust

and self-confidence but risk becoming “ties that blind” students to new experiences or concepts. Price,

Hyle, and Jordan (2009) found that Black students with more homophilous peer groups tended to lack

bridging ties to White students and felt more, rather than less, racial discomfort on campus as a result.

Accordingly, predominately kin or homophilous advice networks may not be conducive to assimilation

of new ideas or academic growth.


Hypothesis 4: The proportion of ethnically homologous ties in student’s academic advice network will be negatively related to academic performance.

Hypothesis 5: Off-campus ties to neighborhood peers will be negatively related to academic performance.

Data & Methods

Sample

Virtually no large, institutional database on higher education includes network matrix data. The

current cross-sectional sample was drawn from a four-year, non-selective, urban, commuter college of

about 4500 full-time students. The majority of the students enrolled seek to attain a Bachelor’s Degree

focused on some aspect of accounting, business, health management, or criminal justice. The college fits

the profile of the so-called “non-traditional” college as a non-selective, urban commuter institution with

an older student body and represents the fastest growing sector in higher education currently

(Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, & Person, 2006). The average age of a full-time student is 24 years old; the

student body is over-represented by females (65%) and minority students (79%). The largest ethnic

group on campus is composed of Hispanic students, followed by Black students. About 12% of the

students are visiting, international students.

Student respondents were recruited from the five social science elective 100-300 level courses,

including Introduction to Sociology, to Psychology, Social Psychology, the Family, and Social

Inequality courses. They were asked to complete the Social Resource Survey over the course of the

academic year during the unit on Research Methods and the response rate was relatively high. Based on

course attendance lists, about 76% of the potential respondent pool completed the survey for a total of


697. After eliminating duplicate cases and listwise deletion of key missing data, the sample was reduced

to 651 remaining cases.

The sample reflected the population demographic of the college: with a majority of female

students (60.4%) and minority students (75.9%). Similarly, the largest ethnic groups are students who

self-identified as Hispanic (32.7%), followed by Black (28.5%) and Southeast Asian (14.7%) students.

In addition, the parents of about half the sample (54%) were native born, 15% were first generation

immigrants, 14% were second generation, and 16% were visiting, international students.

Measures

Control variables include traditional demographic and SES measures as well as a measure of

internal motivation/aspiration. (Appendix A provides details of all variable measurements). Motivation

is a key endogenous variable in studies on student performance and often more reliable and significant

than self-reported pre-college performance (see Robbins, Lauver, Le, Davis, Langley, & Carlstrom,

2004, for extensive overview). Students who were motivated to get better grades will self-select to

integrate with faculty and other students. In this current study, motivation was measured specifically as

academic aspiration, which is found highly correlated both to performance (Brookover, Erickson &

Joiner, 1967) and to forms of engagement with campus professionals (Martin, 2009). Length of

enrollment is another important endogenous variable, as studies confirm that more familiarity with the

campus and its professionals facilitates outreach to the staff (Martin, 2009; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Stanton-

Salazar & Dornbusch, 1990).

The key independent variables are three measures of social resources: academic network

composition, the homophily of the academic network and locus of peer friendship. Following Stanton-

Salazar & Dornbusch (1995), the advice network measure was calculated on the basis of the response to


the following question: “Over the last 3-4 months, who did you go to for advice or help on academic

issues?” A list of possible actors in students’ academic network was generated using a position-

generator, similar to those used in studies of social capital to produce extensity scores (Lin, Fu, &

Hsung, 2001). The positions included Professor, Academic Advisor, Other College Administrators (ex:

Deans, Activities Coordinator, Club Sponsor, etc.), Employer, Parent, Relative, Peer, and others. The

proportion of formal campus ties was computed as the percentage of the total number of college

professionals in the network. Parents, siblings and other relatives are considered kin, as are peers. When

a network component has characteristics of both weak and strong ties, such as clergy, peers or

counselors, they are considered strong (Marsden, 1987).

Ethnic homophily was computed as the percentage of the total number of ties in the advice

network constituted by ties to actors who respondents perceived shared the same self-reported ethnicity.

This is a baseline homophily measure resulting from the demography of the potential tie pool of student

social and academic experiences (McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook, 2001). The locus of friendship ties

were measured using a name generator that solicited names of good friends outside the advice network

and distinguishing those made on-campus from those based off-campus.

Finally, the dependent variable was drawn from official transcripts using the cumulative GPA as

of the current semester. A bivariate correlation of all the survey measures revealed that the strongest

correlation among all the test variables was between the relationship of English language skill to nativity

status (-.39), indicating that students most recently arrived in the US tended to be least confident of their

English language skills (Appendix B provides correlation matrix for the aggregate sample). No other

pair of variables in the analysis had a correlation higher than .25.


Table 1 describes the means of all the variables and compares them across four ethnic groups in

this study. Significant differences appear in three noteworthy background measures. The majority of

students of both European and Asian descent were more likely to be foreign born whereas the majority

of Black and Hispanic students were native born. The parents of Asian and White students were also

better educated and more likely to provide students with more financial support, whereas the majority of

Black and Hispanic students were the first generation in their families to attend college and received less

family financial support. Asian and White students had also significantly higher cumulative grade

averages, whereas Black students self-reported English language fluency at a significantly higher level

than the sample norm.

<Insert Table 1 here>

While clear SES differences between the ethnic groups emerged, there is remarkably little

significant difference in their academically oriented social capital. Their networks were similar in size as

well as in the proportion of formal professionals and degree of homophily. However, both Black and

Hispanic students’ drew advice at a significantly higher rate from counseling services and clergy,

professionals with whom contact involves the intimacy and intensity of strong-tie relationships. This

difference is also consistent with research that suggests poverty and racism are key stressors for many

minority students that may also drive them to seek counseling at a rate above the campus norm (Charles,

et al, 2004; Nora & Cabrera, 1996).

As expected, the number of off-campus friendships was similarly high across the aggregate

sample and much higher for all students than the number of on-campus friendships. Consistent with

other research on commuter populations, students in this sample reported having much fewer friends

from college than off-campus (Chapman and Pascarella, 1983; Iverson, Pascarella & Terenzini, 1984).


However, the average amount of on- campus ties was significantly higher for Asian students and lowest

for Black students.

Analysis

To control for ethnicity, the dummy variable “White” is left out of the equation and functions as

the baseline reference category. The test for ethnic difference in the influence of campus ties on GPA

(Hypothesis 3), required consideration of interaction between race and campus ties and three cross

product terms were created by multiplying each dummy minority variable with the proportion of weak-

ties. When there exists no near-collinearity between explanatory variables, introducing interaction terms

does not affect the uniqueness of model parameters nor their p values; if anything, they may inflate their

own p values and risk an type II error of not recognizing significance when it may exist (Azubuike &

Kosemoni, 2014). Bivariate correlations confirmed that the highest correlation of the cross product

variables was .099 between the “Black” dummy variable and the proportion of campus ties (data not

shown) so a correlation between the main effect and the interaction variable is not a concern.

A three-step moderated multiple regression (MMR) was run in which the control variables were

entered first, then the key independent social capital variables and finally the interaction terms. Tests

were also conducted to examine the heteroscedasticity of variance and normal distribution in the

aggregate sample.

Findings

Unstandardized betas are reported for all three steps in the MMR. Regressions with interval or

dummy variables in the interaction rely on only unstandardized betas since interval variables change the

zero point for all the other variables in the equation. As shown in Table 2, the most powerful


endogenous variable in the first model was the measure of student’s internal motivation, followed by

their nativity status. In their meta-analysis of 109 studies, Robbins et al (2004) found that the overall

most powerful individual level predicator of academic performance was the pre-college academic

expectations students had for themselves, which is echoed in the findings here.

Also as expected, the academic performance of non-native and 2nd generation students was

superior to that of their native-born counterparts. This first model was also run without cases of visiting

international students but the results were not significantly different for any variables in the model or in

terms of model fit. Therefore, the results from the full sample are presented here. The finding that non-

native students perform better is also consistent with a substantial stream of research that points to the

generally better performance of immigrant or 2nd generation students relative to native counterparts

(Kasinitz, Waters, Mollenkopf & Holdaway, 2008; Teranishi, Suárez-Orozco & Suárez-Orozco, 2011).

Finally, parent educational level were also a significant influence on academic performance. The finding

here suggests that a parents’ education is important even when controlling for student motivation, in line

with a plethora of research on the relative disadvantages for students whose parents are less familiar

with the college experience (Fischer, 2007; Martinez, Sher, Krull, & Wood, 2009).

<Insert Table 2 here>

The four key independent social resource measures were added in the second model and the

results support most of this study’s hypotheses. The coefficient of the homophily measure became the

largest in the model even when controlling for pre-college values such as motivation and related to

performance in the predicted, negative direction. Similarly, the number of off-campus friendships also

showed a significantly negative association with performance. Campus ties, however, were irrelevant to

performance and consistent with past research suggest that on-campus peer relationships at commuter


schools are negligible (Chang, 2005; Chapman and Pascarella, 1983; Iverson, Pascarella & Terenzini,

1984). The proportion of weak ties to campus professionals was not significant at this stage.

To consider the influence of ethnicity on how students benefit from formal campus capital,

cross-product variables were entered in the last stage of the analysis. Tolerance levels for multi-

collinearity in the final model ranged within acceptable values of .990 to .326. As expected, the results

suggest that ethnicity mediates the influence of formal capital. Hispanic and especially Asian students’

reliance on campus professionals is positive and significant to their grade point average. Turning to an

advisor or professor outside the classroom was associated with having a whole letter grade higher

among Asian students and .7 of a grade higher for Hispanic students. Compared to baseline White

student interaction however, reliance on professionals by Black students shifted to a negative, although

not statistically significant direction.

This finding replicates the conundrum of return on social capital discussed earlier. Studies

consistently find ethnic difference in the efficacy of using on-campus social resources. Fischer (2007)

shows that contact with faculty was of benefit to Hispanic student performance but not to Black

students, even as Black students had more faculty interaction.

Discussion & Implications

This study explored the composition and dynamic of urban commuter students’ academic social

capital. These findings need to be interpreted cautiously as they do not indicate causal interpretation or

temporal ordering. However, I find several patterns that may merit discussion and pose implications for

institutional practice.

Students at this urban, commuter college were much more likely to rely on generally

homophilous networks of family and friends for academic advice than on campus professionals. This


study supports others that also suggest home and community remain the locus of social interaction for

most commuting students (Chang, 2005). At the same time, this study also suggests that these close and

homophilous ties are least likely to align with academic success. The importance of social diversity to

performance may rest in part on how weak tie relationships can hone students’ cognitive and

communication skills.

Actors embedded in homophilous worlds may have little incentive to develop sharper cognitive

or communication skills as they rely on shared, implicit meanings that require little explication (Rose,

1975). Conversely, communication among those who do not share a similar background necessarily

requires more thought and articulation in order to span any gaps in assumptions or meaning. These

findings suggest that encouraging inter-ethnic dialog might be as relevant and beneficial to institutions

of majority minority populations as they are at predominately White institutions. The reductionist label

“minority” can belie the abundance of cultural and individual differences among minority students that

urban colleges could help bridge by targeted programming or diversity awareness curriculum.

Commuter institutions could also improve weak-tie formation by providing in-house some of the needs

that traditionally pull urban students off campus, such as childcare and employment. Students who work

on campus have more opportunity to come into contact with campus professionals, which tends to

promote more faculty-student interaction (Nora & Cabrera, 1996).

Finally, this research also found that ethnicity mediates the effectiveness of social capital (Cole,

2010; Kim 2010; Kuh, et al, 2008). Weak-tie capital was positively related to performance mainly for

Hispanic and Asian students but not for Black students. The differing needs motivating students to seek

help may account for the discrepancy. In this sample, students with the weakest language skills-- Asian

and Hispanic students—are those who reaped performance benefits from interacting with campus


professionals. Clarifying students’ understanding can provide concrete performance impact that falls

easily within the purview of professional mentoring.

In contrast, Black students were the most likely to turn to counseling staff or clergy for academic

advice. For Black students in particular, low income levels have been linked to greater use of

counseling on campus (Duncan & Johnson, 2007). In addition, Cole (2007) suggests that Black students

may experience feedback by professors in a more damaging or negative way than others. If stress or

survival issues threaten the academic progress of our most vulnerable students, a more nurturing, strong-

tie attitude may be warranted than typical for faculty contact to be impactful. At the same time,

intermittent contact with even caring and open professionals cannot easily redress the legacies of

structural disadvantages that constrain the academic growth of many urban commuter students.


Table 1: Descriptive statistics: Mean, SD & analysis of variance for aggregate sample and four key ethnic sub-samples.*

Black(186)

Hispanic(213)

Asian(96)

White(156)

F Score

Gender 1.58(.495)

1.67(.473)

1.57(.498)

1.57(.497)

1.460

Grade 2.43(1.19)

2.27(1.21)

2.54(1.20)

2.65(1.17)

3.256*

Parent aid 1.01(1.46)

1.15(1.54)

2.57(1.69)

1.90(1.77)

22.67***

Parent education 3.45(1.40)

3.10(1.45)

3.68(1.49)

4.17(1.65)

13.50***

Aspirations 3.32(.681)

3.21(.709)

3.25(.734)

3.39(.695)

1.851

Non-native (1-4) scale 1.55(.681)

1.43(.754)

2.62(1.12)

2.67(1.34)

58.12***

English 4.68(.589)

4.44(.834)

3.91(1.07)

4.45(.765)

16.55***

Network size 7.41(6.26)

7.16(5.76)

7.15(6.42)

7.28(6.94)

.068

Professors .92(1.14)

.87(1.36)

1.00(1.24)

.99(1.52)

.399

Advisors/Administrators 1.36(1.61)

1.29(2.17)

1.14(1.71)

1.16(1.61)

.556

% Weak campus ties .30(.155)

.28(.161)

.27(.184)

.29(.148)

1.370

Family/ Relatives 2.04(1.86)

2.12(1.89)

1.93(1.75)

2.46(2.12)

1.727+

Peers 1.62(1.38)

1.55(1.33)

1.88(1.44)

1.84(1.49)

1.814+

Counseling services .50(.798)

.40(.630)

.38(.837)

.22(.557)

4.029**

Clergy .46(.821)

.38 (.685)

.29(.565)

.23(.625)

3.039*

% Network homophily .46(.620)

.47(.550)

.44(.372)

.52(.332)

1.094

Off-campus friends 10.79(8.06)

10.54 (7.35)

10.56(7.35)

11.35(7.28)

.342

On-campus friends 2.09(1.98)

2.13(1.91)

2.91(2.02)

2.21(1.98)

3.663*

GPA 3.25(.611)

3.17(.644)

3.48(.621)

3.58(.460)

15.43***


Table 2: MMR Regression of Grade Point Average on Background and Social Resources*

* Standardized coefficients are displayed. + < .1, *< .05; **< .01; ***< .001.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Gender -.013 -.026 -.026 (.051) (.051) (.050)

Black -.283** -.284** -.279+ (.072) (.071) (.131)

Hispanic -.271** -.268** -.474*** (.072) (.072) (.119)

Asian .023 .027 -.303 (.096) (.095) (.157)

Grade .012 .019 .022 (.021) (.021) (.021)

Aspiration .146*** .162*** .168*** (.036) (.036) (.036)

Family backgroundParent aid -.020 -.013 -.012

(.016) (.016) (.016)English .099* .106* .06 .100*

(.034) (.034) (.034)Non Native .119** .117** .115**

(.027) (.027) (.026)Parent education .050* .062** .064**

(.017) (.017) (.017) Constant 1.93***

(.319) R2 .133Social resourcesAdvice network .087 -.004

(.120) (.127)Homophily -.238* -.208*

(.096) (.102)Off-campus friends -.012* -.014**

(.004) (.004)On-campus friends -.005 -.006

(.014) (.014) Constant 2.070***

(.325) R2 .162 ∆R2 .03**

Black * Advice network - .191 (.370)

Hispanic* Advice network .709* (.299)

Asian * Advice network 1.150* (.493)

Constant 2.072*** (.324)

R2 .181 ∆R2 .02*


Appendix A

Background variablesRange, mean, SD, n.

Measure

Gender 0-1; 3.29; .49; 649

1= female, 0=male

Grade1-4; 2.45; 1.20; 651

Asked how long the student had been at this particular institution. 1=completed <36 credits total, 2=completed <72 credits total, 3= completed <108 credits total, 4= completed over 108 credits total.

Parent aid1-4; 1.50; 1.69; 651

A 5 point scale measuring self-reported percentage of financial support students received from parents for college tuition and expenses that ranged from 0% of expenses, < 25%, 25- 50%, 50-75%, 75- 100%.

Parent education1-7; 3.55; 1.54; 651

1=started but not complete primary grades, 2=started but did not complete high school, 3=received high school or equivalent, 4= started but did not complete college, 5=received a 4year college degree, 6=started a post-graduate degree (MA, JD, MBA, PhD), 7=received post-graduate degree.

Motivation1-4; 3.29; .70; 647

A 7 point Likert scale in response to question: “How far do you expect to do in school?” ranging from dropping out of college to graduate to completing a doctoral degree.

Non-native scale 1-4; 1.94; 1.16; 651

A four point scale (1= parents’ native born, 2= 2nd generation, 3= 1st generation, 4= visiting, international student). Turned into a dummy variable for the regression: 0=native 1= not native.

English 1-5; 4.40; .83; 648

A five point Likert scale (1= poor command, 5=fluent).

Academic network1-36; 13.27; 7.32; 651

Respondents identified the social/institutional position of each person they listed as advice resources by drawing from a list of eleven categories which included: College Advisor, College Professor, Counselors, Other College Administrators (ex: Deans, Activities Coordinator, Club Sponsor, etc.), Employer, Religious Advisor, Other professional (medical doctor, psychologist, lawyer, etc.) Parent, Relative, Peer/Partner, and Other.

Homophily of network.00 – 1.0; .65; .28; 651

Respondents were asked to indicate whether each of the actors listed in their advice perceived as sharing their same ethnicity or not. Measure is the proportion of whole of the network constituted by those indicated as ethnically similar.

Friendships0-40; 13.08;8.57; 651On-campus0-5; 2.26; 1.98; 651Off-campus0—35; 10.82, 7.53; 651

Name generator in response to the following questions: “Outside of the friends you rely on for academic advise, who else to you spend social time with?” and request to pick origin of friendship from one of 7 options: including relatives, current school, work, neighborhood, community, religious, or cultural organization or other.

Grade point average (GPA): Official cumulative average measured on a seven point scale of A- or above (90% - 100%)= 4 through ” F (less than 60%) = 1.


Appendix B

Correlation Matrix for Variables Used in Analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

GPA 1 1

Gender 2 .003 1

Year 3 .058 .032 1

Parent education 4 .173 .049 .000 1

Aspirations 5 .191 .018 -.007 .062 1

Parent aid 6 .040 -.051 .006 .217 -.075 1

English 7 .016 .041 .071 -.009 -.007 -.052 1

Nativity 8 .249 .018 .096 .179 .135 .172 -.386 1

Campus % 9 .078 .041 -.090 -.134 .019 -.139 -.121 -.073 1

Homophily 10 -.143 -.045 -.026 -.012 .110 .066 -.077 .001 -.139 1

Off-campus ties 11 -.161 -.050 .033 -.002 .066 -.008 .069 -.092 -.187 -.012 1

On-campus ties 12 .004 .006 -.012 .050 .109 .140 -.061 .110 -.077 -.117 .381 1


References

Aguinis, H. & Gottfredson, R. K. (2011). Best-practice recommendations for estimating interaction

effects using moderated multiple regression, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 776–786.

Allen, J. & Robbins, S. B. (2008). Prediction of college major persistence based on vocational

interests, academic preparation, and first-year academic performance. Research in Higher

Education, 49(1), 62-79.

Allison, P. D. (1977). Testing for interaction in multiple regression, American Journal of Sociology,

83(1), 144-153.

Aspelmeier J, Love, M., McGill L., Elliott A. & Pierce, T. (2012). Self-esteem, locus of control, college

adjustment, and GPA among first- and continuing-generation students: a moderator model of

generational status. Research in Higher Education, 53(7). 755-781.

Azubuike, I., M. & Kosemoni, O., A. (2014). Singular value decomposition compared to cross product

matrix in an ill conditioned regression model, International Journal of Statistics and

Applications, 4(2): 124-133.

Bahr, P.R. (2008). Cooling out in the community college: What is the effect of academic advising on

students’ chances of success? Research in Higher Education, Education, 49, 704–732.

Baum, S., Little, K., & Payea, K. (2011) Trends in community college education: Enrollment, prices,

student aid, and debt levels. Trends in Higher Education Series. The College Board.

Brookover, W. B., Erickson, E. L. & Joiner, L. M. (1967). Educational Aspirations and Educational

Plans in Relation to Academic Achievement and Socioeconomic Status, The School Review,

75(4), 392-400.

Burt, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. The American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399.


Carnevale, A. P. & Strohl, J. (2013). Separate and unequal: How higher education reinforces the

intergenerational reproduction of White racial privilege. Georgetown University: Georgetown

Center on Education and the Workforce.

Carolan, B. & Natriello, G. (2005). Strong ties, weak ties: Relational dimensions of learning settings.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

Montreal, ON.

Chang, J. (2005). Faculty student interaction at the community college: A focus on students of color.

Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 769-802.

Chapman, D. W., & Pascarella, E. T. (1983). Predictors of academic and social integration of college

students. Research in Higher Education, 19(3), 295 -322.

Charles, C. Z., Dinwiddie, G., & Massey, D. S. (2004). The continuing consequences of segregation:

Family stress and college academic performance. Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-

Blackwell), 85(5), 1353-1373.

Cheng, W., Ickes, W. & Verhofstadt, L. (2012). How is family support related to students’ GPA scores?

A longitudinal study, Higher Education, 64, 399–420.

Chuong, C. H. (1999). Vietnamese-American students: Between the pressure to succeed and the

pressure to change. In C. C. Park & M. M-Y. Chi (Eds.), Asian- American education: Prospects

and challenges (pp. 183-200). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Cole, D. (2007). “Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact and

intellectual self-concept.” The Journal of Higher Education, 78 (3), 249-281.

Cole, D. (2010). The effects of student-faculty interactions on minority students’ college grades:

Differences between aggregated and disaggregated data. The Journal of the Professoriate, 3 (2),

137-160.


Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,

95-120.

Coser, R. (1975).The complexity of roles as a seedbed of individual autonomy. In L. A. Coser (Ed.),

The idea of social structure: Papers in honor of Robert K. Merton (pp. 85–102). New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Crisp, G., & Nora, A. (2010). Hispanic student success: Factors influencing the persistence and transfer

decisions of Latino community college students enrolled in developmental education, Research

in Higher Education, 51, 175 – 194.

Cruce, T. M., Wolniak, G. C, Seifert, T A., & Pascarella, E. T. (2006). Impacts of good practices on

cognitive development, learning orientations, and graduate degree plans during the first year of

college. Journal of College Student Development, 47, 365-382.

Deming, D. J., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2012). The for-profit postsecondary school sector: nimble

critters or agile predators?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 139-164.

Desmond, M., & Lopez Turly, R.N. (2009). The role of familism in explaining the Hispanic-White

college application gap. Social Problems, 56(2), 311- 334.

Duncan, L., E. & Johnson, D. (2007). Black undergraduate students’ attitude toward counseling and

counselor preference, College Student Journal, 41(3), 696-719.

Edwards, J. (2011). Survey of Community/2 Year College Counseling Services. American College

Counseling Association: Community College Task Force.

Endo, J., & Harpel, R. (1982). The effect of student-faculty interaction on students’ educational

outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 16(2), 115-138.

Fischer, M. (2007). Settling into campus life: Differences by race/ethnicity in college involvement and


outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 125-156.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-

1380.

Guiffrida, D. A. (2005). To break away or strengthen ties to home: A complex questions for African

American students’ attending a predominantly White institution. Equity and Excellence in

Education, 38, 49-60.

Hagedorn, L. S., Yanfang C., Cepeda, R. M., & McLainf, M. (2007). “An investigation of critical mass:

The role of Latino representation in the success of urban community college students.” Research

in Higher Education, 48(1), 73-91.

Iverson, B. K., Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1984) Informal faculty-student contact and

commuter college freshmen, Research in Higher Education, 21(2), 123-136.

Kasinitz, P., Waters, M. C., Mollenkopf, J. H., & Holdaway, J. (2008). Inheriting the City: The

Children of Immigrants Come of Age, New York: Russell Sage Foundation; Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Kim, Y. K. (2012). Racially different patterns of student-faculty interaction in college: A focus on

levels, effects, and causal direction. Journal of the Professoriate 3(2), 161- 189.

Kuh, G. D. (2003). What were student benchmarks for effective educational practices? Change, 35(2),

pp. 24-32.

Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R, Kinzie, J & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of

student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence, The Journal of Higher

Education, 79(5), 540-563.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R. & Gonyea, R. M. (2007). Connecting the dots: Multi-


faceted analyses of the relationships between student engagement results from NSSE, and the

institutional practices and conditions that foster student success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Center for Postsecondary Research.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28 -51.

Lin, N., Yang-Chi, F., & Ray-Man, H. (2001). The position generator: Measurement techniques for

investigations of social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. Burt (Eds.), Social Capital: Theory &

Research (pp. 57-81). New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

Maldonado, D. E., Rhoads, R., & Buenavista,T. L. (2005). The student-initiated retention project:

Theoretical contributions and the role of self-empowerment. American Education Research

Journal, 42(4), 605 – 638.

Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans, American Sociological Review, 52(1),

122-131.

Martin, N. (2009). Social capital, academic achievement, and post-graduation plans at an elite, private

university. Sociological Perspectives, 52 (2), 185-210.

Martinez, J. A., Sher, K. J., Krull, J. L., & Wood, P. K. (2009). Blue-collar scholars?: Mediators and

moderators of university attrition in first-generation college students. Journal of College

Student Development, 50, 87–103.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social

networks, Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–44

National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Trends among young adults over three decades, 1974–

2006 (NCES 2012-345). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Neville, H. A., Heppner, P.P., Ji, P., & Thye, R. (2004). The relations among general and race-related

stressors and psycho-educational adjustment in Black students attending predominantly White


institution. Journal of Black Studies, 34(4), 599-618.

Nora, A. & Cabrera, A. F., (1996). “The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the

adjustment of minority students to college.” The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 119-148.

Nora, A. Cabrera, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Pascarella, E. (1996). Differential impacts of academic and

social experiences on college-related behavioral outcomes across different ethnic and gender

groups at four-year institutions, Research in Higher Education, 37(4), 427-451.

Ovink, S. M. & Veazey, B. V. (2011). More than ‘‘getting us through:’’ A case study in cultural capital

enrichment of underrepresented minority undergraduates, Research in Higher Education, 52,

370–394.

Owens, J., & Lynch, S. M. (2012). Black and Hispanic immigrants' resilience against negative-ability

racial stereotypes at selective colleges and universities in the United States. Sociology of

Education, 85(4), 303-325.

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J., (1993). Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social

determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology, 98 (1), 320-50.

Price, D. B., Hyle, A. E., & Jordan, K. V. (2009). Perpetuation of racial comfort and discomfort at a

community college. Community College Review, 37(1), 3-33.

Rios - Aguilar, C. , & Deil - Amen, R. (2012). Beyond getting in and fitting in: an examination of social

networks and professionally relevant social capital among Latina/o university students, Journal

of Hispanic Higher Education, 11(2), 179-196.


Rios-Ellis, B., Rascón, M., Galvez, G., Inzunza-Franco, G., Bellamy,L., & Torres, A. (2015). Creating a

model of Latino peer education: weaving cultural capital into the fabric of academic services in

an urban university setting, Education and Urban Society, 47, 33-55.

Robbins, S., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and

study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261-

288.

Rosenbaum, J. E., Deil-Amen, R., & Person, A. E. (2006). After admission: From college access to

college success. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Stanton-Salazar, R.D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of inequality:

Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology of Education, 68,

116-135.

Teranishi, R. T., Suárez-Orozco, C. & Suárez-Orozco, M. (2011). Immigrants in community colleges,

The Future of Children, 21(1), 153-169.

Tierney, W. G. (1999). Building the responsive campus: Creating high performance colleges and

universities. London: Sage.

Tseng, V. (2004). Family interdependence and academic adjustment in college: Youth from immigrant

and U.S.-born families. Child Development, 75(3), 966-983.

Tuitt, F. (2012). Black like me: graduate students' perceptions of their pedagogical experiences in

classes taught by black faculty in a predominantly White institution, Journal of Black Studies,

43(2), 186-206.

Villalpando, O. (2003). Self‐segregation or self‐preservation? A critical race theory and Latina/o critical

theory analysis of a study of Chicana/o college students, International Journal of Qualitative

Studies in Education, 16(5), 619-646.


Weiher, G. R. (2000). Minority student achievement: Passive representation and social context in

schools, The Journal of Politics, 62(3), 886-895.


Footnotes

1 The terms “White” and “Black” will be capitalized throughout this study to denote race

labels as socially constructed names of imagined racial categories.

Who you gonna call? Advise networks among urban college students

Documents

Transcript of Who you gonna call? Advise networks among urban college students