Economically and Educationally Challenged Students in Higher Education: Access to Outcomes (review)

Walpole situates her review in the current context of unequal educational opportunity in higher education. She points to varying participation for different groups, with persistent gaps between low-SES and high-SES students, a major problem since higher education is considered to be a key component for social mobility However, social class is difficult to define, and Walpole notes that researchers tend to use definitions that fit their specific studies and samples.

This observation smoothly transitions into a chapter that focuses on the development of the concept of social class, beginning with Marx’s structural approach and Weber’s notion of individual agency. Walpole observes that researchers use different components, including parental income, parental education, parental occupational status, or a composite of all three, resulting in research that becomes “de facto silos” (p. 14) as researchers use the definition that best fits their specific study. Because these approaches mesh well conceptually, if not operationally, she has developed her umbrella term of “economically and educationally challenged” students (EECs).

Going back to Marx and Weber and their notions of structure and agency, Walpole then dissects the predominant conceptual frames used to analyze the experiences of EECs, including status attainment models, human capital theory, the financial nexus model, Bourdieu’s frameworks of cultural capital, social capital, and habitus, and critical race theory. Her conclusion is that no single frame captures the “totality of students’ experiences, decisions, and outcomes” (p. 26); thus, researchers must consider how these frames overlap.

The next three sections go through the main streams of literature on EECs: college access and admission, college experiences, and college outcomes. The overarching conclusion is that EECs are disadvantaged in every way.

Recognizing that life does not exist in a vacuum, Walpole acknowledges that multiple identities—such as race and gender—intersect with class, and she methodically analyzes much of the literature that studies these intersections. Because her focus is on the dual roles of agency and structure, Walpole then studies the structural effects of higher education on different types of students, noting the strong benefits of attending highly selective institutions compared to the less positive impacts of attending less selective and two-year colleges.

Walpole makes several suggestions for how these institutions can develop programs that may instill some of the advantageous characteristics of their more selective peers. Unfortunately, many of these suggestions do not appear to be supported by empirically tested evaluations.

The most concrete component of her conclusion is her suggestions to researchers. Here she advises clarity of definitions and how they are operationalized in studies, use of different methodologies including qualitative approaches and/or hierarchical linear modeling, and consideration of how frameworks overlap in order to garner a deeper, more holistic understanding. Her advice to policymakers and practitioners falls short, however, in that for these groups she tends to be more sweeping in her suggestions, without offering more concrete ways to deal with practical issues such as financing or program design.

The major strength of the monograph is its use of theory to conceptualize the problem. Marybeth Walpole leads her readers to new conceptualizations of lower socioeconomic students. She highlights a key gap in the literature, observing that when researchers talk about low-income, first-generation, working-class, or low-SES students, they tend to isolate the particular group under study. Her analysis and synthesis of the research revealed to her that many of the issues and concerns these different groups face in college access, college experiences, and college outcomes are remarkably similar. Furthermore, the multiple frameworks used to analyze these students overlap, and researchers may develop deeper understandings of these students if they consider multiple frames. Walpole’s stated purpose for doing this work is that, by viewing the overlapping natures of these students and the frames used to understand their experiences, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners may be able to conceive of better programs and opportunities...