Habitus, Class, Gender, and Major Choice Among First-Generation College Students

What’s in a Major?

Habitus, class, gender, and major choice among first-generation college students

Master’s Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By Ashley Leann Wright, BA Graduate Program in Sociology

The Ohio State University 2019

Thesis Committee: Vincent J. Roscigno, Advisor Natasha Quadlin, Advisor Claudia Buchmann

Abstract Drawing on literature on habitus and class-based dispositions (Bordieu 1990); social class, occupation, and values (Kohn 1969); and parental work and home environment (Parcel and

Meneghan 1994), this paper examines the relationship between parental occupation, class background, and college major choice of first-generation college students. Using ELS: 2012 data, I focus on how the intersection of class background and gender influence college major choice. Regression analyses investigate whether the effects of parental occupation on student major selection vary by gender, social class, and first-generation status. Findings reveal that first- generation college students’ major varies by gender. Further, first-generation college students more often choose majors with clear occupational trajectories and are less likely to choose male- dominated majors. This research can inform policy around gaps in field of study and patterns of attrition by gender and among first-generation college students, while also speaking to broader sociological questions and issues of inequality, mobility, and status attainment trajectories.

Vita

2010…………………………………………………………Glendora High School

2014………………………………………………………….B.A. University of California, Irvine

2015-2017………..………………………………………….Research Assistant, University of

California, Irvine, School of

Education

2017 to Present……………………………………………...Graduate Student Researcher,

Department of Sociology, The Ohio

State University

Fields of Study: Sociology

iii

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..…………ii

Vita……………………………………………………………………………….………..…iii

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..…..iv

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..…..v

What’s in a Major?...... 1

References……………………………………………………………………………………37

List of Tables

Table 1. College Major…………………………………………………………………………..11

Table 2. The Percentage Distributions of Applied and Academic Major Choice by Gender, First- generation Status, and Parental Occupation……………………………………………………...18

Table 3. Logistic Regression Predicting the Choice of an Academic Major…………………….20

Table 4. The Percentage Distributions of Students in Female-dominated, Male-dominated, and

Gender-Neutral Major by Gender, First-generation Status, and Parental Occupation…………..22

Table 5. Multinomial Regression Predicting the Choice of a Female-dominated, Gender-neutral or Male-dominated College Major…………………………..…………………………………...25

List of Figures

Figure 1. Predicted Probability of Selecting a Female-dominated, Gender-neutral or Male- dominated major by First-Generation Status……………………………………………………30

Figure 2. Odds of Choosing a Male-dominated Major - Female-dominated Reference

Category…………………………………………………………………………………………31

Figure 3. Odds of Choosing a Male-dominated Major – Gender-neutral Reference

Category…………………………………………………………………………………………32

What’s in a Major?

Poor, minority and children of immigrant families with no college experience will make-up a large proportion of traditional college-age students in the coming years

(Grawe 2018; Johnson Jr. 2016). Institutions of higher education must prepare to meet the needs of the future student population. This paper explores how the occupational and educational values within households and gender influence first-generation college students' decision-making processes during college. First-generation students struggle to both integrate into and eventually graduate from college (Hurst 2010; Thayer 2000).

They also struggle to adapt to the academic rigor of college and are at high risk for dropping out, particularly after their first year (Hurst 2010; Lee 2016; Wilbur and

Roscigno 2016). Although they have similar labor market returns to continuing- generation students – students whose parents attained a bachelor’s degree or higher – first-generation college students are underrepresented in fields that lead to high career earnings and job security (Cataldi, Bennett, and Chen 2018; Van Noy and Ruder 2017).

The relationship between class background and first-generation college students’ choice in college major remains unclear. My research examines how class background and gender are associated with patterns of major choice by first-generation college students.

Parents’ work values are transmitted to children and influence their children’s valuations of work and education. Drawing on literature on habitus and class-based dispositions (Bordieu 1990); social class, occupation, and values (Kohn 1969); and parental work and home environment (Parcel and Menaghan 1994b), I specifically examine relationships between first-generation college students' values of education and work, gender, and college major choice. I unpack the relationship between parental

- 1 -

occupation and students' chosen educational and occupational pathway (Bourdieu 1990;

Kohn 1969; Lehmann 2009; Parcel and Menaghan 1994a). Parental occupation influences the home environment; many working-class students maintain a "utilitarian view" of education, focusing on acquiring job-specific skills and credentials to secure employment (Kohn 1969; Lehmann 2009; Parcel and Menaghan 1994a, 1994b; Weis

1990; Wilkins 2014) Occupations vary by social class, but questions remain regarding the influence of parental occupation and class background on post-secondary trajectories

(Tomaskovic-Devey 2014; Wright 1980). As first-generation college students will make up a large proportion of future college-age students, it is important to examine patterns of their decisions and to identify potential mechanisms related to their choice in major

(Grawe 2018). I examine whether a first-generation college student’s choice in major varies by parental work.

Educational values vary by social class, but they likely manifest differently by gender. This is due to the difference in ambitions and life pathways that men and women perceive to be available to them (Mickelson 2003). A sizable portion of in the gender- income gap is attributed to field of study (Bobbitt-Zeher 2007; Kim, Tamborini, and

Sakamoto 2015). Because first-generation college students have fewer safety nets, their decisions during college have higher stakes (Wilbur and Roscigno 2016). Therefore, it is important to understand the reasoning behind first-generation college students’ choice in major, how these decisions vary across first-generation students, and why the post- secondary experiences of first-generation college students differ from their non-first- generation counterparts.

- 2 -

This paper examines the extent to which class socialization shapes children’s choice of major within higher education. And, to the extent that class socialization occurs, I examine whether is it gendered and has implications for college major choice.

Specifically, I analyze whether first-generation college students are more likely than their non first-generation counterparts to choose applied majors – majors with occupationally specific training and less likely to choose academic majors that have unclear links to the labor market. Additionally, I examine the first-generation college students’ choice between male-dominated, female-dominated and gender-neutral majors. Each major type has implications for students’ labor market returns and their mobility.

Using the 2012 Educational Longitudinal Study (ELS: 2012) dataset, I explore the relationship between parental occupation, first-generation status, gender, and students’ major choice. I find that first-generation college students are more likely than non-first- generation students to choose applied majors. First-generation women are less likely than non-first-generation women to choose a male-dominated major. Further, there is a significant relationship between blue-collar parental occupations and first-generation students’ college major choice. First-generation college students with a mother or father in a manual occupation are more likely to choose an applied major than an academic college major. Manual occupations were significant for choosing a male-dominated major over female-dominated or gender-neutral majors. In the next section, I review relevant literature on first-generation status, class background and higher education, and classed and gendered college major trajectories.

First-generation Students, Parental Occupation and Cultural Reproduction

- 3 -

First-generation college students enter college without the same resources, skills, and knowledge as their non-first-generation counterparts (Wilbur and Roscigno 2016).

Cultural capital is essentially the degree of ease and familiarity that one has with the

‘dominant’ culture of a society. Social capital, conversely, is a form of capital that resides in relationships among individuals that facilitate the transaction and the transmission of different resources (Bills 2003; Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1988; Pascarella et al. 2004).

First-generation college students are unable to benefit from one important form of cultural capital – college knowledge – as their parents typically have lower income and less education than other parents, and feel unqualified to support their children during their post-secondary career (Cataldi et al. 2018; Lareau 2011; Wilbur and Roscigno

2016). Despite their disadvantaged origins, first-generation college students experience pressures to conform to middle-class norms and behaviors (Hurst 2010; Lee 2016). First- generation students report experiencing confusion, conflict, and feelings of isolation due to their struggle to balance home roles and demands of family with educational mobility

(London 1989; Terenzini et al. 1996).

Class and background also impact students’ educational and occupational aspirations. According to Bourdieu, habitus, an individual’s understanding of their place in the social structure, develops during childhood (Bourdieu 1973, 1990). By internalizing one's place in the social structure, working-class persons come to appreciate which adult statuses and ambitions are possible to reach, and which paths are more improbable (Mickelson 2003). Quadlin (2017) finds that low- to middle- income students are more likely to choose an applied major, non-STEM or an undeclared major based on whether college funding was obtained through loans or family funds. As

- 4 -

socioeconomically disadvantaged students have less cultural capital and receive lower educational returns than their more privileged counterparts, it is crucial to investigate the mechanisms that impact college aspirations (Roscigno and Ainsworth-Darnell 1999). In this regard, one relevant stream of work – work centering on the relationship between parental occupation, value systems, and cultural reproduction by social class – is particularly informative.

Classes are viewed as largely determined by occupations, despite class not being solely defined by occupational typologies (Wright 1980). In his seminal work, “Class and

Conformity,” Kohn (1969) illustrates how one’s occupation promotes values of either self-direction (e.g. freedom from supervision, job complexity, and “non-routinization” of work tasks) or conformity. Similarly, Lamont (2000), explores how working-class values of hard work, responsibility, and integrity, function as an alternative to economic definitions of success. Class morality also serves as boundary work, separating blue- collar workers from other social classes. The extent to which parents’ values on the job is thought to determine their children’s valuation of self-direction, thus distinguishing children raised in different classes. Parental occupation also affects the resources available in the home and children’s cognitive and social outcomes (Parcel and

Meneghan 1994a). Parcel and Meneghan contend that the parents’ working conditions at their jobs influence their child-rearing values (1994b). Further, they “provide a model of the kinds of behaviors they encourage in their children,” such as their educational attainment (Parcel and Meneghan 1994b p.110).

Class Background, Values, and College Attainment

- 5 -

Theories on the transmission of class values have been extended to examine the relationship between working-class status and parental occupation to explain class differences in college enrollment and the valuation of education. Students who feel academically marginalized by class develop contextually protective identity strategies that allow them to retain dignity but also contribute to social reproduction (Bettie 2003).

Studies on the educational and occupational aspirations of working-class students reveal that many maintain a "utilitarian view" of education with a focus on acquiring job- specific skills and credentials to secure employment, rather than on personal development

(Weis 1990; Wilkins 2004). Other researchers hold that working-class status can serve as a motivating factor for staying in school – a way out of poverty – and as a cultural dynamic that leads to the overrepresentation of working-class students in college attrition rates (Quinn 2004).

In summary, research recognizes the struggles linked to balancing both working- class and middle-class cultures. Additionally, working-class habitus and parental modeling systems serve as explanations for the tensions between home and school faced by working-class first-generation college students. However, the role that class background and experiences have on college major choice is understudied. Over the course of demographic changes and shifts in the cost and utility of a college degree, it is more important than ever to examine how class background influences choice in field of study (Abel and Deitz 2014). Understanding the impact of class and class background on the college experience, moreover, speaks to more general sociological concerns regarding higher education's role as a stratifying institution, and the extent to which these processes are gendered in both process and outcome.

- 6 -

The Potential of Class and Gender Variations and Implications for Higher

Education Trajectories

In addition to examinations of vertical stratification in higher education across class background, is the persistent horizontal stratification through gendered gaps in college fields of study (Alon and Gelbgiser 2011; Mann and DiPrete 2013). Recent and influential analyses have interrogated gaps in college major as they relate to the female college advantage, lower male degree attainment, and differential returns to education by gender (Bobbitt-Zeher 2007; Mann and DiPrete 2013; McFarland 2017). Much of the literature on gendered gaps in college major focuses on the lack of female integration into science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors and lack of male integration into female-dominated fields (DiPrete and Buchmann 2013; England and Li

2006; Mann and DiPrete 2013). Underlying gender segregation in college majors are cultural beliefs rooted in gender essentialism (i.e., beliefs that men and women are suitable for different kinds of work), differential family-work conflicts, and differences in job preferences (DiPrete and Buchmann 2013; Duxbury and Higgins 1991; Eccles 2007;

England and Li 2006; Konrad et al. 2000).

Currently, men are over-represented in fields such as engineering, computer science, and physical sciences; women are over-represented in fields such as nursing, elementary education, social sciences, biological sciences, veterinary medicine and the arts and humanities (England and Li 2006; Quadlin 2018). Much of the progress toward desegregation in college majors since 1971 can be attributed to women’s integration in male-dominated fields (England and Li 2006). Despite their increased integration over time, women with male-dominated STEM degrees do not reap the same returns as men in

- 7 -

the labor market (Quadlin 2018). Further, men have not moved into numerically female- dominated fields of study in large numbers, as female-dominated fields are devalued socially and within the labor market (England and Li 2006). Despite knowledge of trends in major gaps by gender, there is less a clear understanding of the relationship between gender, class, and first-generation status.

Beyond gendered segregation of major choices are potential variations in major types by social class. Research on students’ chosen field of study reveals that some college majors are more tightly linked to careers that require specific vocational training, such as education, engineering, and other highly-skilled occupations. Other majors have less clear pathways to the labor market, with a variety of occupational outcomes available from the same major and/or careers which can be achieved through a wide variety of fields of study (Quadlin 2018). Further, many students in academic fields attend graduate school and few of them end up working in fields that are explicitly related to their major

(Mullen, Goyette, and Soares 2003; Quadlin 2017; Roska and Levey 2010). Thus, first- generation-college students may be more inclined toward applied fields that facilitate entry in the labor market as they have more financial constraints than their non-first- generation counterparts.

There is evidence that students from lower socioeconomic status (hereafter, SES) families tend to choose fields that have higher pay upon graduation and clear career trajectories, such as technical, life/health science, and business majors (Kim et al. 2015;

Ma 2009). In her study of the effects of parental involvement, gender, and nativity on college major choice, Ma (2009) finds that lower-SES children - women more so than men - are found to favor college majors with high economic returns (2009). In contrast,

- 8 -

higher-SES women tend to choose social science and humanities majors and men are inclined toward business and life/health majors (2009). In contrast to the trends in major choice across SES stands gaps STEM major enrollment and completion for first- generation college students (Chen and Soldner 2013; Dika and D’Amico 2016).

Despite the few existing studies that explore the role of SES on subsequent college major knowledge, none to my knowledge examine the relationship between parental occupation, working-class status, first-generation student status and chosen field of study. This paper extends previous research by emphasizing the role of cultural transmission via social class and parental occupation in children’s occupational aspirations. Indeed, the relationships examined in this study hold important implications for addressing challenges for first-generation college students and their subsequent labor market outcomes.

Data and Measures

Data come from the public use Education Longitudinal Study of 2002

(ELS:2002), collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The ELS study focuses on student trajectories in high school and patterns of college access and persistence beyond high school (U.S. Department of Education 2015). Therefore, it has rich information on students’ class backgrounds, including information on parents’ educational attainment, income, and occupation, as well as precollege information such as academic preparation during the secondary school years. Additionally, the ELS provides post-secondary data including students’ chosen field of study.

This study utilizes student and parent data from the first and second waves of the

ELS. The 2002 tenth grade cohort was followed at two-year intervals as the students

- 9 -

completed high school and entered postsecondary education. I focus on students that chose a major at their post-secondary institution in 2006. There are 16,197 students in the second follow-up survey. I restrict the sample to the respondents who identify with one of five racial/ethnic categories: non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, Latino, Asian, and

“Other Race.”1 Thus, my sample is reduced to 15,244 students, among whom 4,732 declared a major at their post-secondary institution.2

Dependent Variable: Major Type

The present study employs two different classifications for college majors. Table

1 lists descriptive statistics for respondents who reported a college major in 2006. The classifications of major in ELS are based on the respondents’ self-reported field-of-study and were collapsed into a general category based on the Classification of Instructional

Programs (CIP) developed by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). A caveat of this classification is that ELS only recorded a major choice in 2006. As a result,

I cannot account for changes in college major. However, this study examines the initial major choice for two reasons. First, technical fields such as engineering and natural sciences require the sequential acquisition of knowledge and skills. As such, it is almost necessary that students enter a technical field early in their post-secondary career to successfully complete their degree (Ma 2009; Xie and Shauman 2003). Further, first- generation college students are at high-risk for dropping out of technical majors because they struggle to integrate socially into college (Pascarella et al. 2004; Terenzini et al.

1 Students identified as American Indian/Alaska Native or “more than one race specified” are collapsed into the “Other Race” category due to small sample sizes. 2 Respondent totals do not reflect missing data, non-respondents and legitimate item skips, which are all coded as missing.

- 10 -

Table 1. College Major (n = 4,732) Major % Architecture and related services 1.44 Arts - visual and performing 6.19 Biological and biomedical sciences 6.99 Business/management/marketing/related 18.39 Communication/journalism/comm tech 4.97 Computer/informatic sciences/support tech 2.66 Education 9.23 Engineering technologies/technicians 6.61 English language and literature/letters 1.94 Family/consumer sciences, human science 1.14 Foreign languages/literature/linguistic 1.10 Health professions/clinical sciences 16.02 Legal professions and studies 0.70 Mathematics and statistics 0.99 Philosophy, religion and theology 0.89 Physical sciences 1.67 Psychology 4.84 Public administration/social services 1.04 Security and protective services 3.21 Social sciences (except psychology) 7.69 Liberal arts/sci, general studies/humanities 2.28 Total 100.00

- 11 -

1996). Importantly, they also often lack the high school preparation necessary to complete introductory college courses required for their major (Toven-Lindsey et al.

2015). Therefore, examining the initial major choices of first-generation college students may hold implications for their academic integration into college during their first-year and their college experience more broadly (Pascarella and Terenzini 2004).

College Major Types

The present study employs two classifications for college majors. The first classification includes the categories of an Applied Major and Academic Major. When examining the occupational specificity of college majors, applied majors are fields with specific occupational training and clear trajectories in the labor market. Conversely, academic majors have no obvious matches in the labor market and less occupationally specific training (Quadlin 2017; Roska and Levey 2010). This categorization is based on the NCES categorization of occupational and academic postsecondary majors (2012).

Applied fields in postsecondary education include architecture; business management; business support; communications; computer and information sciences; construction; consumer services; design; education; engineering, architecture, science, and communications technologies; health sciences; manufacturing; marketing; protective services; public, legal, and social services; repair; and transportation. Academic fields of study include agriculture; biological and physical sciences, English/letters, family/consumer sciences/health science; fine and performing arts, foreign languages, history, law; liberal/general studies, mathematics, philosophy and religion, social and

- 12 -

behavioral sciences, and interdisciplinary studies. Fields that did not fall into the applied or academic categorizations were not included in final analyses.3

The second classification of college major include the categories of Female- dominated college majors, Male-dominated college majors, and Gender-Neutral college majors. National data on choice of major and awarded bachelor’s degree show persistent horizontal gender segregation in fields of study over the past 20 years (Alon and

Gelbgiser 2011; Buchmann and DiPrete 2006; Eccles 2007; Mann and DiPrete 2013). As the ELS:2002 contains data on college major in 2006, I utilized 2007-08 NCES data on awarded bachelor’s degree type by sex (NCES 2009). To categorize a major as female- or male-dominated, I used a 58% cutoff for degree conferred by gender.4 All other college majors were categorized as gender-neutral majors. Female-dominated majors include education; family and consumer sciences, health professions and related clinical sciences; psychology; and public administration and social service professions. Male-dominated majors include computer and informatic sciences; engineering; philosophy, religion and theology, and physical sciences.

Independent Variables

The independent variables include first-generation status, gender, family income, and mother’s and father’s occupation. I obtain basic demographic information including gender and race/ethnicity from the student survey, and I define first-generation status

3 Area/ethnic/cultural/gender studies; mechanical/repair technologies/techs; multi/interdisciplinary studies; precision production; science technologies/technicians; transportation & materials moving; parks/recreation/fitness/leisure studies; and personal and culinary services were coded as missing due to small sample sizes. 4 Majors are coded as gender-dominated if they were awarded to 58% or more male or female graduates.

- 13 -

from parent’s educational attainment in student surveys. The most agreed upon definition of a first-generation college student is a person whose parents have not attained a bachelor’s degree (McConnell 2000; Petty 2014; Próspero and Vohra-Gupta 2007). Non- first-generation college students include those with at least one parent who attained a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Parental occupation was ascertained through reported information on mother’s and father’s occupation. Each response was coded into the categories of No job for pay,

Clerical, Craftsperson, Farm/farm manager, Homemaker, Laborer,

Manager/administrator, Operative, Professional A (doctor, lawyer, dentist, etc.),

Professional B (actor, writer, etc.), Proprietor /owner, Protective service, Sales, School teacher, Service, and Technical5. Both mother’s and father’s occupations were recoded into categories that represent occupations by social class. My classification of parental occupation is informed by Goldthorpe’s occupation-based social classification whereby individuals in similar occupations share similar economic conditions, work conditions, lifestyle, and life chances (Connelly, Gayle, and Lambert 2016; Evans 1992).

Parents’ occupational categories include low-wage service, manual, skilled or semi-skilled, high wage, and outside of the labor market. Low-wage occupations are comprised of clerical, service, and sales jobs; they require no specialized skills or training and are associated with low pay. Manual occupations or, blue-collar jobs, include manual laborers: craftspersons, farmers/farm managers, laborers, and operatives. Skilled/semi- skilled occupations – are comprised of those in protective services, proprietors/owners, and technical jobs – associated with higher education, expertise levels attained through

5 Parents in the Military were not included in final analyses due to small sample sizes.

- 14 -

training and experience, and higher wages. High-wage occupations consist of careers that require job-specific training or credentialing: all types of professionals and teachers.

Finally, those with no job for pay include homemakers and unemployed parents. Family income is recoded as a continuous variable by taking the midpoint of each interval in the original income values which range from 0 to 150,000 dollars and are measured in thousands of dollars. In this study, income is transformed by multiplying the variable by log base 10 to handle skewness toward large values.

Control Variables

In addition to the main indicators discussed above, the regression models include controls for students’ demographic characteristics, high school grades, college entrance exam scores whether students attended a public or private post-secondary institution.

High school GPA is measured on a continuous 0.0 - 4.0 scale. SAT/ACT scores are measured on an ordinal scale of students’ score quartile compared to the average college entrance exam score at their post-secondary institution. Categories for SAT/ACT scores include: not required for admission, lowest quartile, middle two quartiles and highest quartiles. Additionally, this study includes a control for the type of post-secondary institution students attended – whether they attended a public or private school.

Demographic characteristics include family composition, age and race. The ELS:

2012 includes a multi-categorical variable to represent students’ family composition at the first survey wave. This study utilizes a binary variable for family composition to control for whether students live with both parents or not. Race is measured with a five- category nominal variable and includes white, Black/African-American, Asian-American,

Hispanic/Latinx and all other races.

- 15 -

Analytic Strategy

I use logistic and multinomial logistic regressions to examine first-generation college students’ major choices. The first model is a logistic regression to determine which students choose an applied versus an academic college major. Mother’s and father’s occupation, first-generation college student status, and gender are the main predictors in this model. Control variables include family composition, quintile of college entrance exam scores compared to their institution’s average scores, attendance at a public or private post-secondary institution, and high school grade point average. The second model is a multinomial logistic regression testing whether first-generation college students more often choose a female-dominated or male-dominated college major.

Mother’s and father’s occupation, gender, and first-generation college student status are included as main predictors. Control variables include of college entrance exam scores, income, family composition, attendance at a public or private post-secondary institution, and high school grade point average. I use multiple imputation with chained equations

(MICE) to perform multiple imputations and the subsequent analysis.6

Results

Descriptive Results – Model 1

Table 2 examines the distribution for the choice of an applied or academic college major by gender, first-generation status, and mother’s and father’s occupation.

Both males and females are twice as concentrated in applied fields compared to academic fields. However, Pearson chi-square analyses show significant differences between men

6 There are no substantive differences between unimputed and imputed datasets; regression models are multiply imputed as it is parsimonious.

- 16 -

and women’s choice in academic versus applied fields (p<0.05). Like the gender patterns, there are more students in applied majors than academic majors overall. In terms of their concentration in applied majors, there is a higher concentration of first- generation college students. Pearson chi-square tests reveal significant differences between first-generation college students and their continuing-generation peers, alluding to bifurcation among the choices made between these student groups in college

(p<0.001).

Pearson chi-square analyses reveal a strong, significant difference (p<0.01) in the choice of an applied or academic major across parental occupation. What is striking in this table is that more students with mothers and fathers in manual occupations choose applied majors. Interestingly, post-hoc tests show that compared to parents in manual occupations, those in low-wage, manual, skilled/semi-skilled, high-wage and employed parents have higher odds of their child choosing an academic major. When examining mothers in with no job for pay, post-hoc tests show that they have higher odds than mothers in manual occupations of having a child that chooses an academic college major

(p<0.01).

Multivariate Results

The dependent variable is binomial; therefore, I use logistic regression to conduct the first multivariate analysis. I chose academic majors as the reference category. Model

- 17 -

Table 2. The Percentage Distributions of Applied and Academic Major Choice by Gender, First-generation Status, and Parental Occupation (n=4,732) Applied Major Academic Major Gender* Female 64.96 35.04 Male 68.06 31.94 First-generation Status*** Continuing-generation 61.83 38.17 First-generation 72.02 27.98 Father’s Occupation*** Low-wage service 65.91 34.09 Manual 72.92 27.08 Skilled/semi-skilled 65.35 34.65 High-wage 62.25 37.75 No job for pay 71.91 28.09 Mother’s Occupation** Low-wage service 68.77 31.23 Manual 74.70 25.30 Skilled/semi-skilled 65.17 34.83 High-wage 63.62 36.38 No job for pay 63.04 36.96 * p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

- 18 -

1 in Table 3 presents the first set of analyses that examine the impact of students’ demographic characteristics, high school grades and tests scores and whether students attended a public or private post-secondary institution. First-generation college students are significantly less likely to choose an academic college major, compared to other students. Like existing results on working-class college students, first-generation college students are inclined to choose majors with clear occupational trajectories and occupational-specific training. Conversely, their continuing-generation counterparts have higher odds of choosing an academic major and more general occupational training.

Compared to males, female students are more likely to choose an academic major

(p<0.01); this aligns with females’ greater enrollment in humanities and social sciences majors, both of which are academic (Ma 2009). This finding can reflect the larger proportion of females in academic majors overall and the number of academic majors that are also dominated by women. Attending a private post-secondary institution has a strong positive effect on the choice of an academic major (p<0.001). This finding is related to prior research on first-generation students’ lower likelihood to attend private post-secondary institutions compared to their non-first-generation counterparts (Cataldi et al. 2018). Asian and Hispanic/Latinx students, and other race students are slightly more likely to choose an academic major (p<0.01), but African American students are more likely to choose academic majors (p<0.001). High school GPA has a strong positive effect on the choice of an academic college major (p<0.01).

- 19 -

Table 3. The Percentage Distributions of Students in Female-dominated, Male- dominated, and Gender-Neutral Major by Gender, First-generation Status, and Parental Occupation (n=4,732) Female-dominated Neutral Male-dominated Gender*** Female 69.87 25.57 4.56 Male 37.19 40.53 22.27 First-generation Status** Continuing-generation 54.84 31.88 13.28 First-generation 58.56 31.51 9.93 Father’s Occupation** Low-wage Service 59.62 30.77 9.62 Manual 60.36 28.89 10.75 Skilled/semi-skilled 52.45 35.46 12.09 High-wage 54.15 32.70 13.15 No job for pay 66.29 24.72 8.99 Mother’s Occupation Low-wage Service 56.03 32.11 11.86 Manual 58.04 27.68 14.29 Skilled/semi-skilled 56.22 32.84 10.95 High-wage 56.31 31.97 11.72 No job for pay 58.53 30.80 10.87 * p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

- 20 -

students’ lower persistence in STEM majors (Dika and D’Amico 2016). Additionally, compared to post-secondary institutions that did not require a SAT/ACT exam score, moving into a higher entrance exam score is associated with greater odds of choosing an academic college major (p-values <0.05). Lastly, income is also associated with higher odds of choosing an academic major over an applied major (p<0.05) There is evidence that higher SES students are attracted to academic majors, such as the social sciences and humanities, where they are expected to value learning for its own sake rather than extrinsic rewards (Kohn and Schooler 1983; Ma 2009).

Model 2 includes parental occupation variables. The effects of gender remain strong and significant, with a slight increase in magnitude: females are more likely than males to choose academic college majors (p<0.01). First-generation status is also significant; first-generation college students are more likely to choose applied college majors over academic majors (p<0.01). This implies that first-generation college students are more likely to choose college majors where they are receiving job-specific skills and credentials to secure stable employment (Weis 1990; Wilkins 2014). For first-generation college students, a college degree may serve as a means to an end rather than an opportunity to explore one’s interests.

Compared to those with high-wage occupations, parents in manual occupations impact student’s major choice (p-values <0.05). This suggests the possibility that students with blue-collar parents consider higher education as a pathway upward social mobility and economic security (Davies and Guppy 1997). This also reflects findings by

Kohn (1969) and Parcel and Meneghan (1994a; 1994b) on parental occupations’ influence on their children’s valuation of higher education and major choice.

- 21 -

Table 4. Logistic Regression Predicting the Choice of an Academic Major over an Applied Major (n=4,830) Model 1 Model 2 Coeff.(SE) 푒 Coeff.(SE) 푒 Gender (Female) 0.19**(0.07) 1.21 0.20**(0.07) 1.22 First-gen. College Student (Yes) -0.36***(0.07) 0.70 -0.26**(0.07) 0.77 Father’s Occupation (High-wage) Low-wage Service -0.09(0.10) 0.92 Manual -0.25**(0.09) 0.78 Skilled/semi-skilled -0.07(0.09) 0.93 No Job for Pay 0.33(0.25) 0.72 Mother’s Occupation (High-wage) Low-wage Service -0.09(0.08) 0.91 Manual -0.25(0.14) 0.78 Skilled/semi-skilled 0.02(0.12) 1.02 No Job for Pay 0.07(0.14) 1.07 Income 0.03*(0.04) 1.03 0.003(0.04) 1.00 High School GPA 0.17**(0.06) 1.19 0.17**(0.06) 1.19 Entrance Exam (Not Required) Lowest Quartile 0.30*(0.12) 1.35 0.28*(0.12) 1.33 Middle Two Quartiles 0.32***(0.09) 1.38 0.30(0.09) 1.36

Highest Quartile 0.46***(0.10) 1.58 0.43(0.10) 1.54 College Selectivity (Private) 0.26***(0.07) 1.28 0.24**(0.07) 1.27 Race (White) Black -0.15(0.12) 0.86 -0.12(0.12) 0.88 Latino 0.43***(0.11) 1.54 0.46***(0.11) 1.58 Asian 0.36***(0.10) 1.47 0.39***(0.10) 1.48 Other 0.41**(0.15) 1.51 0.43**(0.15) 1.54 Family Composition

Table 4. Continued

- 22 -

Table 4. Continued

Doesn’t live with both parents -0.11(0.07) 0.90 -0.11(0.07) 0.95

Age 0.10(0.06) 1.11 0.10(0.06) 1.02 Constant -201.32(122.07) -196.08(122.59) F(푋) 12.14*** 8.28*** * p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

- 23 -

Further, lower income parents are less likely to be involved in their children’s education

(Lareau 2011). Working-class parents feel underqualified to assist their children as they progress through education because they often have low levels of education themselves

(Lareau 2011; Wilbur and Roscigno 2016). Thus, students from parents with manual occupations may opt for the surest path toward securing employment. Because students from blue-collar backgrounds often have fewer social supports, the occupational training offered through applied majors is highly revered.

Descriptive Results

Table 4 shows the distribution of male-dominated, female-dominated, and gender-neutral majors by gender, first-generation status, and parental occupation.

Females’ concentration in female-dominated majors is over two times that of males.

Males’ concentration in male-dominated majors is over three times that of females. Also, there are more males than females in gender-neutral occupations. Of note is first- generation college students’ higher concentration in female-dominated majors compared to gender-neutral and male-dominated majors. Further, both non-first-generation and first-generation students have a lower concentration in male-dominated majors. However, non-first-generation college students have a greater concentration in male-dominated majors than do first-generation college students. This reflects the gaps in STEM major enrollment and completion between first-generation college students and non-first- generation college students (Chen and Soldner 2013; Dika and D’Amico 2016)

Table 5. Multinomial Regression Predicting the Choice of a Female-dominated, Gender-neutral or Male- dominated College Major (n=4,830) Male-dominated Majors Female-dominated Majors Male-dominated Majors (Female-dominated ref.) (Gender-neutral ref.) (Gender-neutral ref.) Coeff.(SE) OR Coeff.(SE) OR Coeff.(SE) OR First-generation student -0.52*(0.22) 0.60 -0.03(0.14) 0.97 -0.55*(0.24) 0.36 (Yes) X Gender (Female) Gender (Female) -2.15***(0.13) 0.33 1.10***(0.09) 1.22 -1.02**(0.15) 0.58 First-gen. College Student -0.005(0.14) 1.11 -0.09(0.11) 0.90 -0.08(0.14) 0.92 (Yes) Father’s Occupation (High-wage) Low-wage Service -0.23(0.17) 0.89 0.12(0.11) 1.13 -0.14(0.18) 0.87 Manual -0.03(0.14) 0.84 0.17(0.09) 1.19 0.14(0.15) 1.15 Skilled/semi-skilled 0.03(0.15) 1.12 -0.11(0.10) 0.90 -0.08(0.15) 0.92 No Job for Pay -0.53(0.42) 0.59 0.57*(0.27) 1.70 -0.0004(0.44) 1.00 Mother’s Occupation (High-wage) Low-wage Service 0.16(0.12) 1.07 -0.07(0.08) 0.93 0.12(0.12) 1.13 Manual 0.58*(0.21) 1.01 -0.01(0.15) 0.99 0.56**(0.22) 1.76 Skilled/semi-skilled 0.05(0.19) 1.06 -0.06(0.13) 0.94 -0.01(0.20) 0.99 No Job for Pay 0.15(0.23) 1.03 -0.03(0.15) 0.97 0.12(0.24) 1.13 Income 0.01(0.07) 1.06 -0.06(0.04) 0.94 -0.05(0.07) 0.95 High School GPA 0.55***(0.11) 1.03 -0.03(0.07) 0.97 0.52***(0.11) 1.68 Entrance Exam (Not Required) Lowest Quartile -0.28(0.22) 1.21 -0.19(0.12) 0.83 -0.47*(0.22) 0.63 Middle Two Quartiles -0.04 (0.15) 1.13 -0.13(0.09) 0.88 -0.17(0.15) 0.85 Highest Quartile 0.49**(0.15) 1.22 -0.20*(0.10) 0.82 0.28*(0.15) 1.33 Table 5. Continued

Table 5. Continued College-Selectivity 0.13(0.11) 1.01 -0.01*(0.09) 0.99 0.12(0.12) 1.13 (Private) Race (White) Black 0.81***(0.17) 0.98 0.02(0.12) 1.03 0.83***(0.18) 2.30 Latino 0.16(0.20) 1.25 -0.23(0.12) 0.80 -0.07(0.20) 0.93 Asian 0.37*(0.16) 1.08 -0.08(0.12) 0.92 0.29(0.16) 1.33 Other 0.03(0.25) 0.80 0.22(0.18) 1.24 0.25(0.26) 1.28 Family Composition Doesn’t live with both 0.18(0.12) 0.84 0.17(0.08) 1.19 0.36***(0.13) 1.43 parents Age 0.13(0.10) 0.96 0.04(0.06) 1.04 0.17(0.10) 1.18 Constant --259.96(194.34) -74.73(128.87) - 334.70(197.51) F(푋) = 14.29*** * p<.05, ** p<.01, ***p<.001

There are interesting contrasts between the choice of gendered college majors and mothers’ and fathers’ occupational categories. As father’s occupation increases in class- standing (i.e. no job for pay to high-wage), the percentage of students in male-dominated majors increases. Mothers in manual occupations have the highest percentage of students in male-dominated occupations. But, the distribution of students in female-dominated and gender-neutral majors is even across mothers’ occupational categories. Compared to all occupations except for “no job for pay,” students whose fathers are in a manual occupation are more concentrated in female-dominated majors. Overall, the distributions of blue-collar fathers with students in female-dominated majors and gender-neutral are more varied.

These breakdowns across gender-dominated majors and parental occupation are in line with inconsistencies in the literature on class and major choice. There are more males and students with high-wage parents in male-dominated majors – those that lead to higher paying jobs – compared to females and parents in lower-wage occupations (Kim,

Tamborini, and Sakamoto 2015; Ma 2009). Additional Pearson chi-square tests on parental occupation show significant variation among the type of father’s occupation and the type of college major chosen (p<0.01), but not for mother’s occupation.

Multivariate Results – Model 2

Because the dependent variable is categorical, I use multinomial logit models to examine students’ choice between a female-dominated major, gender-neutral-major and male-dominated major and present the results in Table 5. The analyses examine student demographic characteristics, controls for the type of secondary and post-secondary institutions attended, students’ academic characteristics in high school and parental

occupation. In model 1 of table 5, I include students’ college entrance exam scores to control for high school preparation as well as to capture the influence college entrance exam scores have on college major choice. Using 2001 Baccalaureate and Beyond Data,

Davison, Jew, and Davenport Jr. (2014) find that higher SAT quantitative scores and lower verbal scores are associated with the choice of a STEM Major. Further, women are less likely to have the verbal/quantitative score pattern associated with the choice of a

STEM major (2014).

Model 2 of table 5 presents the second set of analyses that examine the impact of additional controls for students’ demographics, high school grades and tests scores and whether students attended a public or private post-secondary institution. Attending a private post-secondary institution has a strong positive effect on the choice of an academic major. Higher high school GPA is associated with higher odds of choosing a male-dominated college major or a female-dominated college major (p<0.001). African

American and Asian students are more likely than white students to choose a male- dominated major (p<0.05) and African American students are more likely than white students to choose a male-dominated major over a gender-neutral major (p<0.001).

Gender is significant in all models (p-values <0.01). Females are over four times more likely to choose a female-dominated major over a gender-neutral major (p<0.01) and two and a half times more likely to choose a female-dominated major over a male- dominated major (p<0.001). Further, women are less likely to choose a male-dominated major over a gender-neutral major (p<0.01). Conversely, males are more likely to choose male-dominated college majors over both female-dominated and gender-neutral college majors (p<0.001).

The first-generation status variable yields less straightforward results. Alone, first-generation status does not have a significant effect on students’ choice of a female- or male-dominated major over a gender-neutral college major. The predictive probability of choosing a female-dominated major, gender-neutral major or male-dominated major yields more intuitive results. Figure 1 reveals distinct differences between the probability first-generation college and continuing-generation college students select a female- dominated, gender-neutral or male-dominated major (p-values<0.001). Compared to continuing-generation college students, first-generation college students are less likely to choose male-dominated majors. Also, first-generation college students are more likely than continuing-generation college students to choose a gender-neutral major. Lastly, first-generation college students are slightly less likely than continuing-generation college students to choose a female-dominated major.

The findings discussed above provide evidence that first-generation college students are less likely to choose a female-dominated major, compared to a gender- neutral major (p<0.05). Figure 1 also highlights the gap in first-generation college students’ enrollment in male-dominated college majors. First-generation college students are less likely than their continuing-generation counterparts to major in lucrative technical fields including, engineering, physical sciences and computer/informatic sciences, as well as religious studies. Lower predicted odds of choosing male-dominated majors follow patterns of low STEM major enrollment for first-generation college students (Chen and Soldner 2013; Dika and D’Amico 2016; Quadlin 2017).

Table 5 also includes an interaction between first-generation status and gender. A

Wald test shows that the interaction between first-generation status and gender is

significant overall (p<.001). Continuing-generation females are less likely than male students to choose male-dominated college majors over female-dominated or gender- neutral majors (p<0.001). Figure 2 shows the odds of choosing a male-dominated major over a female-dominated majors across gender and first-generation status. As portrayed in figure 1, first-generation males and females have lower odds of choosing a male- dominated major, compared to continuing-generation students (p<0.001). However, first- generation female college students have much lower odds of choosing a male-dominated college major, compared to first-generation male college students (p<0.001) and continuing-generation females (p<0.05). First-generation females are more likely than first-generation males to choose a female-dominated major (p<0.001). Interestingly, first- generation males are more likely to than continuing-generation males to choose male- dominated majors over female-dominated or gender-neutral majors (p<0.05).

Lastly, Table 5 includes parental occupation variables. Mothers in manual occupations have significant effects on major choice for both males and females (p- values <0.05). Females whose mothers are in manual occupations are more likely to choose male-dominated majors, compared to female-dominated and gender-neutral majors (p<0.01). Males students with mothers in manual occupations have higher odds of choosing a male-dominated major over a female-dominated or gender-neutral major

(p<0.05). These results underline the significance of parental occupation in the major choice of first-generation college students. Additionally, it presents an interesting pattern between major choice, parental occupation, and parent’s gender.

Figure 1. Predicted Probability of Selecting a Female- dominated, Gender-neutral or Male-dominated major by 1.00 First-Generation Status*** (N=4,732) 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.65 0.64 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.24 0.21 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.00 Continuing-generation First-generation

Female-domiated Major Gender-neutral Major Male-dominated Major

Figure 2. Odds of Chooosing a Male-dominated Major - Female- dominated Reference Category (n = 4,380) 5.00

4.00 3.97 3.01 3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 -0.12 -1.00 -0.72

-2.00 Male* Female* First-generation First-generation Male*** Female*** Continuing-generation Continuing-generation

Figure 3. Odds of Chosing a Male-Dominated Major - Gender-neutral Major Reference Category

12.00 10.06 10.00 8.40 8.00

6.00

4.00 2.00

0.00 -0.33 -2.00 -0.93

-4.00

Male* Female*

Male*** First-generation First-generation Female***

Continuing-generation Continuing-generation

Discussion

This article examines the extent to which class background and gender impact the college major choice of first-generation college students. Previous studies on college major choice have focused primarily on gender, race, and parental involvement or focused on income rather than first-generation status (Ma 2009; Quadlin 2017) This paper represents a comprehensive examination of college major patterns by first- generation status, gender, and class background using a nationally representative data set.

The results of this study show significant effects of first-generation status, gender, and parental occupation on the choice of an applied versus academic major. Additionally, there is evidence that first-generation status and class background vary by gender when choosing a gender-dominated or neutral major. Considering that more minority children, immigrant children, and first-generation children make up a large proportion of future college-aged persons, the inclusion of these groups is imperative.

Theoretical Implications

First-generation college students typically do not receive the same support or possess the same level social and cultural capital as middle-class students whose parents have a college degree (Hurst 2010; Lee 2016; Pascarella et al. 2004; Roscigno and

Ainsworth-Darnell 1999). Continuing-generation college students can rely on their parents’ college background to inform them about college major decisions. First- generation college students may rely more on their class background and the educational values their parents transmit to them. As such, they make practical decisions that lead to a job rather than risk choosing a major with unclear ties to the labor market. However, first-generation college students’ parents are unable to familiarize their children with the

dominant class values that pervade institutions of higher education (Lehmann 2013;

Quinn 2004). If students attend college to obtain skills and credentials through a bachelor’s degree, they will have different needs than those attending college to explore their interests or those that intend to go to graduate school. First-generation college students’ decisions can prove to be strategic and beneficial to a population with limited resources and substantial challenges or reflect what they perceive to be limited options in their choice of study. Altogether, the findings are informative for the examination of first- generation college students’ differing pathways and trajectories.

In addition to examining the occupational specificity of their majors, this study examined first-generation college students’ choice between female-dominated, male- dominated and gender-neutral majors. First-generation college students were less likely to choose male-dominated majors than continuing-generation students. Further, first- generation females were substantially less likely to choose male-dominated major compared to first-generation males. As gendered differences in field of study disadvantage women in the labor market, attending to first-generation females’ lower odds of choosing male-dominated majors is crucial. Class background and gender may impact the career trajectories first-generation males and females see as available to them and as a result, impact their choice in college major (Diprete and Buchmann 2006;

Duxbury and Higgins 1991; Eccles 2007; England and Li 2006)

A focus on the relationship between parental occupation and class reveals an additional mediator for children’s’ educational attainment and eventual social mobility.

Fathers in manual occupations are significant on the choice of applied college majors over academic majors. Mothers in manual occupations are significant for the choice of

male-dominated college majors for both males and females. An individual’s class origins shape their expectations and educational aspirations. The relationships between manual parental occupations major choice imply that class background not only impacts first- generation college students’ integration into college but also the type of major they choose.

Policy Implications

Findings from this project can be used to inform multiple stakeholders. As institutions of higher education are becoming more aware of the distinctive needs of students, it is important to inform them of the challenges first-generation college students face and the choices they make. Because this study addresses the needs of a future majority of the college population, my research will prepare colleges to respond to their needs. Findings on patterns of first-generation college students’ college decisions should be used to create resources and applied workshops for parents of first-generation students, university administrators, faculty, and university student life departments to improve the experiences of this student population. Ultimately, this research holds implications for higher education research by informing scholars on how future first- generation college students navigate the college environment. Knowing the patterns of their decision making will inform institutions of higher education so that first-generation college students may transition smoothly into higher education and become the next generation of leaders in society.

This research can inform policy around enrollment gaps and patterns of attrition by gender and among low-income first-generation college students, while also speaking to broader sociological questions and issues of inequality, mobility, and status attainment

trajectories The application of my findings will not only affect first-generation college students as a group but also holds implications for the creation of student support systems for first-generation college students as well as other at-risk student populations. Future research should further investigate processes, such as parental modeling and occupation, that impact educational attainment. Doing so can untangle the role of social class and gender in social mobility.

References

Abel, Jaison R. and Richard Deitz. 2014. “Do the Benefits of College Still Outweigh the

Costs?” Current Issues in Economics and Finance 20(3):1–12.

Alon, Sigal and Dafna Gelbgiser. 2011. “The Female Advantage in College Academic

Achievements and Horizontal Sex Segregation.” Social Science Research 40:107–

19.

Bettie, Julie. 2003. Women without Class: Girls, Race, and Identity, With a New

Introduction. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Bills, David B. 2003. “Credentials, Signals, and Screens: Explaining the Relationship

between Schooling and Job Assignment.” Review of Educational Research

73(4):441–49.

Bobbitt-Zeher, Donna. 2007. “The Gender Income Gap and the Role of Education.”

Sociology of Education 80(1):1–22.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1973. Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction in Knowledge,

Education and Cultural Change. London: Travistock.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” in Handbook of theory and research for

the sociology of educati, edited by J. Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Buchmann, Claudia and Thomas A. DiPrete. 2006. “The Growing Female Advantage in

College Completion: The Role of Family Background and Academic

Achievement.” American Sociological Review 71:515–541.

Cataldi, Emily Forrest, Christopher T. Bennett, and Xianglei Chen. 2018. First-

Generation Students College Access, Persistence, and Postbachelor’s Outcomes.

2018–421. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Chen, Xianglei and Matthew Soldner. 2013. STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths

Into and Out of STEM Fields. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2014-001.

Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American

Journal of Sociology 94:95–120.

Connelly, Roxanne, Vernon Gayle, and Paul S. Lambert. 2016. “A Review of

Occupation-Based Social Classifications for Social Survey Research.”

Methodological Innovations (9):1–14.

Davies, Scott and Neil Guppy. 1997. “Fields of Study, College Selectivity, and Student

Inequalities in Higher Education.” Social Forces 75(4):1417–38.

Davison, Mark L., Gilbert B. Jew, and Ernest C. Davenport Jr. 2014. “Patterns of SAT

Scores, Choice of STEM Major, and Gender.” Measurement and Evaluation in

Counseling and Development 47(2):118–26.

Dika, Sandra L. and Mark M. D’Amico. 2016. “Early Experiences and Integration in the

Persistence of First‐generation College Students in STEM and Non‐STEM

Majors.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 53(3):368–83.

Diprete, Thomas A. and Claudia Buchmann. 2006. “Gender-Specific Trends in the Value

of Education and the Emerging Gender Gap in College Completion.”

Demography 43(1):1–24.

DiPrete, Thomas A. and Claudia Buchmann. 2013. The Rise of Women: The Growing

Gender Gap in Education and What It Means for American Schools. New York,

NY: Russel Sage Foundation.

Duxbury, Linda Elizabeth and Christopher Alan Higgins. 1991. “Gender Differences in

Work-Family Conflict.” Journal of Applied Psychology 76(1):60–74.

Eccles, Jacquelynne S. 2007. “Where Are All the Women? Gender Differences in

Participation in Physical Science and Engineering.” Pp. 199–210 in Why Aren’t

More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence, edited by S. J.

Ceci and W. M. Williams. Washington D.C.: American Psychological

Association.

England, Paula and Su Li. 2006. “Desegregation Stalled: The Changing Gender

Composition of College Majors, 1971-2002.” Gender and Society 20(5):657–77.

Evans, Geoffrey. 1992. “Testing the Validity of the Goldthorpe Class Schema.”

European Sociological Review 8(3):211–32.

Hurst, Alison L. 2010. The Burden of Academic Success: Loyalists, Renegades, and

Double Agents. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Johnson Jr., James A. 2016. North Carolina’s Higher Education Demographic

Challenges. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill: The University of North

Carolina Tomorrow Commission.

Kim, ChangHwan, Christopher R. Tamborini, and Arthur Sakamoto. 2015. “Field of

Study in College and Lifetime Earnings in the United States.” Sociology of

Education 88(4):320–339.

Kohn, Melvin L. 1969. Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. Homewood, IL: Dorsey

Press.

Kohn, Melvin L. and Karmi Schooler. 1983. Work and Personality: An Inquiry into the

Impact of Social Stratification. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Konrad, Alison M., J. E. Jr Ritchie, Lieb Pamela, and Corrigall Elizabeth. 2000. “Sex

Differences and Similarities in Job Attribute Preferences: A Meta-Analysis.”

Psychological Bulletin 126(4):593–641.

Lamont, Michèle. 2000. The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of

Race, Class, and Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

Lareau, Annette. 2011. Lareau, Annette. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family

Life. . University of California Press.

Lee, Elizabeth. 2016. Class and Campus Life: Managing and Experiencing Inequality at

an Elite College. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lehmann, Wolfgang. 2009. “University as Vocational Education: Working-Class

Students’ Expectations for University.” British Journal of Sociology of Education

30(2).

Lehmann, Wolfgang. 2013. “Habitus Transformation and Hidden Injuries: Successful

Working-Class University Students.” Sociology of Education 87(1):1–15.

London, Howard B. 1989. “Breaking Away: A Study of First-Generation College

Students and Their Families.” American Journal of Education 97(2).

Ma, Yingyi. 2009. “Family Socioeconomic Status, Parental Involvement, and College

Major Choices—Gender, Race/Ethnic, and Nativity Patterns.” Sociological

Perspectives 52(2):211–34.

Mann, Allison and Thomas A. DiPrete. 2013. “Trends in Gender Segregation in the

Choice of Science and Engineering Majors.” Soc Sci Res. 42(6):1519–1541.

McConnell, Penny J. 2000. “ERIC Review: What Community Colleges Should Do to

Assist First-Generation Students.” Community College Review 28(3):75–87.

McFarland, Joel. 2017. Undergraduate Retention and Graduation Rates. Washington

D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Mullen, Ann L., Kimberly A. Goyette, and Joseph A. Soares. n.d. “Who Goes to

Graduate School?: Social and Academic Correlates of Educational Continuation

after College.” Sociology of Education 76:143–69.

NCES. 2009. “Degrees Conferred by Degree-Granting Institutions in Selected

Professional Fields, by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, and Field of Study: 2007-08.” Digest

of Education Statistics. Retrieved

(https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_311.asp).

NCES. 2012. Occupational and Academic Majors in Postsecondary Education: 6-Year

Education and Employment Outcomes, 2001 and 2009. NCES 2012-256.

Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Parcel, Toby L. and Elizabeth G. Menaghan. 1994a. “Early Parental Work, Family Social

Capital, and Early Childhood Outcomes.” American Journal of Sociology

99(4):972–1009.

Parcel, Toby L. and Elizabeth G. Menaghan. 1994b. Parents’ Jobs and Children’s Lives.

Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Parcel, Toby L. and Elizabeth G. Menaghan. 1997. “Effects of Low-Wage Employment

on Family Well-Being.” Welfare to Work 7(1):116–21.

Pascarella, Ernest T., Christopher T. Pierson, Gregory C. Wolniak, and Patrick T.

Terenzini. 2004. “First Generation College Students: Additional Evidence on

College Experiences and Outcomes.” Journal of Higher Education 75:249–284.

Petty, Tanjula. 2014. “Moticating First-Generation Students to Academic Success and

College Completion.” College Student Journal 48(1):133–40.

Próspero, Moisés and Shetal Vohra-Gupta. 2007. “First-Generation College Students:

Motivation, Integration, and Academic Achievement.” Community College

Journal of Research and Practice 31(12):963–75.

Quadlin, Natasha. 2017. “Funding Sources, Family Income, and Fields of Study in

College.” Social Forces 96(1):91–120.

Quadlin, Natasha. 2018. “The Mark of a Woman’s Record: Gender and Academic

Performance in Hiring.” American Sociological Review 83(2):331–60.

Quinn, Jocey. 2004. “Understanding Working-Class ‘drop-out’ from Higher Education

through a Sociocultural Lens: Cultural Narratives and Local Contexts.”

International Studies in Sociology of Education 14(1):57–74.

Roscigno, Vincent and James W. Ainsworth-Darnell. 1999. “Race, Cultural Capital, and

Educational Resources: Persistent Inequalities and Achievement Returns.”

Sociology of Education 72(3):158–78.

Roska, Josipa and Tania Levey. 2010. “What Can You Do with That Degree? College

Major and Occupational Status of College Graduates over Time.” Oxford

University Press 89(2):389–415.

Terenzini, Patrick T., Leonard Springer, Patricia M. Yaeger, Ernest T. Pascarella, and

Nora Amaury. 1996. “First-Generation College Students: Characteristics,

Experiences, and Cognitive Development.” Research in Higher Education

37(1):1–22.

Thayer, Paul B. 2000. Retention of Students from First Generation and Low Income

Backgrounds. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education; National TRIO

Clearinghouse,.

Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald. 2014. “The Relational Generation of Workplace

Inequalities.” Social Currents 1(1):51–73.

Toven-Lindsey, Brit, Marc Levis-Fitzgerald, Paul H. Barber, and Tama Hasson. 2015.

“Ncreasing Persistence in Undergraduate Science Majors: A Model for

Institutional Support of Underrepresented Students.” CBE Life Sci Educ

14(2):ar12.

U.S. Department of Education. 2015. “Education Longitudinal Study of 2002

(ELS:2002).” IES National Center for Education Statistic. Retrieved

(https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/els2002/).

Van Noy, Michelle J. and Alex Ruder. 2017. “The Influence of Labor Market Outcomes

Data on Major Choice: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” Economics of

Education Review 57:80–90.

Weis, Lois. 1990. Working Class Without Work: High School Students in A De-

Industrializing Economy. New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc.

Wilbur, Tabitha G. and Vincent Roscigno. 2016. “First-Generation Disadvantage and

College Enrollment/Completion.” Socius (2):1–11.

Wilkins, Amy C. 2014. “Race, Age, and Identity Transformations in the Transition from

High School to College for Black and First-Generation White Men.” Sociology of

Education 87(3):171–87.

Wright, Erik Olin. 1980. “Class and Occupation.” Theory and Society 9(1):177–214.

Xie, Yu and Kimberlee A. Shauman. 2003. Women in Science: Career Processes and

Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.