Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Post-secondary Educational Attainment of Immigrant andNative Youth
Ursula Keller, Florida State UniversityKathryn Harker Tillman, Florida State University
We examine immigrant generation differences in collegeattendance and college type among youth ages 18 through 26 whohave graduated from a US. high school. Results indicate thatfirst-and second-generation immigrants are significantly more likelyto attend college than their third-plus generation counterpartsof similar race/ethnicity, socioeconomic and family backgroundcharacteristics. While parental behaviors and expectations forcollege attendance do not significantly mediate these generationaldifferences, these factors appear to indirectly affect college-goingbehavior through their impact on students' verbal ability andacademic achievement during high school. Interaction modelsincluding race/ethnicity and generation status reveal that thesecond-generation effects on college attendance are largely drivenby Chinese youth, whereas the first-generation effects on collegeattendance are largely driven by black immigrant students.
Introduction
The United States' population is beconning increasingly diverse. Today,imnnigration accounts for more than one-third of the nation's total observedannual demographic increase. The foreign-born population is currentlyhovering at 34 million, which corresponds to about 12 percent of the totalU.S. population, the highest percentage observed in more than 80 years(Camarota 2004). Unlike the early 1900s, when the majority of immigrantscame from Europe, the majority of immigrants to the United States in2000 were born in Latin America or in Asia. It is estimated that at least 40percent of Latinos and 60 percent of Asians in the United States today areforeign-born (Schmidley 2000).
First- and second-generation immigrants also make up a considerableproportion of students in the United States. Approximately one-fifth ofall school-aged children are immigrants or the children of immigrants(Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco 2001). School-aged immigrants arethe fastest growing and the most ethnically diverse segment of America's
Special thanks are due to John R. Reynolds, Isaac W. Eberstein and Rebecca Clark for theirhelpful comments and suggestions. This research utilizes data from Add Health. Directcorrespondence to Ursula Keller, Department of Sociology, 526 Bellamy Building, FloridaState University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2270, USA. E-mail: [email protected].'
© The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces 87(1 )
122 • Socia/Forces 87(1) . September 2008
child population (Schmid 2001). In 1997, the United States had 3 millionforeign-born children under 18 years of age, and almost 11 million U.S.-born children under 18 were living with at least one foreign-born parent(Alba, Massey and Rumbaut 1999). As the large influx of immigrants to theUnited States persists at a level approaching 1 million per year, the numberof immigrant children is likely to increase as well. Therefore, the future ofAmerican society is ultimately related to the adaptation of immigrants andtheir children, eyen with possible efforts to reduce immigration.
The majority of immigrants come to the United States in search ofthe "American Dream" and/or to provide their children with an enhancedopportunity for security and financial advancement. Educational aspirationsare universally high among all adolescents, as most young people anticipateattending college (Kao and Thompson 2003) and ending up in a professionaljob (Reynolds, Stewart, MacDonald et al. 2006). Research on educationalachievement in primary and secondary schools, however, suggests thatimmigrant children experience an advantage when compared their native-born peers of similar race/ethnicity and socioeconomic characteristics(e.g., Kao 1999; Kao and Tienda 1995; Portes and Rumbaut 1996, 2001;Rumbaut 1997; Tillman, Guo and Harris 2006). Furthermore, immigrantparents' behaviors and expectations tend to raise their children'sexpectations of future college attendance above those of other children(Goyette and Xie 1999). Only recently has research begun to examinewhether and how immigrant youth who have been schooled in the UnitedStates are able to translate their childhood achievement and expectationsinto adult socioeconomic outcomes (Feliciano and Rumbaut 2005; Glickand White 2004).
This article examines generational differences in post-secondaryeducational outcomes among young adults who have been raised inthe United States. We specifically seek to better understand immigranteducational arrangements in the years immediately following highschool graduation. Learning more about generational differences inpost-secondary education is important because the success with whichindividuals navigate the educational system during this time period iscrucial to their long-term employment, occupational and economic well-being (e.g., Haveman et al. 1994). A more complete understanding ofthe association between immigrant generation and college enrollment,therefore, could aid in the development of useful programs to target youngpeople at risk for lowered socioeconomic attainment.
We use data from the National Longitudinal Study of AdolescentHealth to explore immigrant generation and race/ethnic differences inpredicting college attendance among young adults ages 18 through 26who attended secondary school in the United States and who have a highschool diploma or GED. In particular, we address four research questions:
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth »123
(1. Net of basic socio-demographic characteristics, is innmigrant generationassociated with college attendance during early adulthood? (2. Can theassociation between immigrant generation and college attendance beexplained by generational differences in parental behaviors, academicexpectations and/or academic ability and achievement while in high school?(3. Does type of college attendance (two-year vs. four-year institution)vary significantly by immigrant generation? (4. Is the association betweenimmigrant generation and college attendance similar across differentracial/ethnic groups, or are the outcomes of youth from some racial/ethnicgroups more affected by immigrant generation status?
Immigrant Educational Outcomes
Although the general public perception, particularly in areas with largeforeign-born populations, is that immigrant children undermine the quality ofthe educational system, research shows that immigrant children generallyperform quite well in school, often out-performing native-born peers ofsimilar socio-demographic characteristics (Kao 1999; Kao and Tienda1995; Portes and Rumbaut 1996, 2001 ; Rumbaut 1997; Tillman, Guo andHarris 2006). Yet, educational and economic progress among immigrantgroups is extremely uneven. In 1990, for instance, only 74 percent ofMexican immigrants ages 15 through 17 attended school compared with95 percent of native and other immigrant youth (Hao and Bonstead-Bruns1998). Furthermore, Hispanic immigrants are still among the least likelyof all youth to graduate from either high school or college (Arbona andNora 2007). Asian immigrants, conversely, tend to out-perform most otherchildren in the United States (Vernez and Abrahamse 1996; Zhou andBankston 1994) and are frequently referred to as the "model minority."(Kao1995) Thus, while immigrant children are successfully navigating the U.S.education system in general, children from all racial/ethnic groups maynot follow the same trajectories of adaptation and scholastic success (Kaoand Tienda 1995; Portes and Rumbaut 2001). In fact, some research hassuggested that the effects of generational status on children's academicoutcomes are conditioned by racial/ethnic group, such that Asians aremost likely and Hispanics are least likely to benefit from having foreign-born parents. Black immigrants, meanwhile, may benefit most from theirown foreign birth (Kao and Tienda 1995).
Although much research has been dedicated to the examination ofeducational achievement and attainment during childhood and adolescence,only recently have researchers begun to examine the educational attainmentof immigrant youth after high school or explore differences in post-secondan/schooling among the various immigrant groups in the United States. Thisresearch on immigrant status and college attendance has, however, shown
124 • Social Forces 87(1) . September 2008
some significant generational effects. For example, several studies havefound that young adults of first-generation (Song and Glick 2004; Vemez andAbrahamse 1996) and second-generation status (Glick and White 2004) aremore likely than their native-born, third-plus generation peers to completehigh school and enroll in post-secondary education.
There may also be generational differences in the type of post-secondary education that young people obtain. Whether a studentattends a two-year or a four-year institution is associated with his orher future socioeconomic well-being, as two-year community collegesand associate's degree programs tend to be more affordable, but areless prestigious and less financially rewarding than are four-year degreeprograms (Jaeger and Page 1996; Kane and Rouse 1995). Young peopleof lower socioeconomic backgrounds, racial/ethnic minorities, thosewith language barriers, and other "non-traditional" students are morelikely to enroll in two-year colleges, as opposed to four-year public orprivate institutions (Dougherty 1994; Santibanez et al. 2007). The socio-demographic characteristics of many immigrant groups, therefore,increase the likelihood that immigrant youth, particularly those of the first-generation, will obtain their education in a two-year college environment(Bryant 2001). Indeed, evidence suggests that the foreign-born aremore likely than the native-born to either begin their post-secondaryeducation at a two-year institution and go no further or to begin theirpost-secondary education at a two-year institution and then transfer to afour-year institution (Vemez and Abrahamse 1996). These broad nativitydifferences, however, may obscure important distinctions between first-generation youth who have spent a substantial portion of their lives in theUnited States and those who immigrated as young adults. Furthermore,the findings may be largely driven by the fact that Hispanic youth areamong the most likely to attend two-year colleges (Nora, RendónCuadraz 1999; Vernez and Abrahamse 1996). In fact, race/ethnicity mayhave a stronger direct effect on post-secondary experience than doesnativity status (Vernez and Abrahamse 1996), and prior research stronglysuggests the need to investigate the interaction between immigrantgeneration (clearly differentiating between the second- and third-plusgeneration) and race/ethnicity when examining both college attendanceand choices regarding college type (Glick and White 2004; Hagy andStaniec 2002; Kao and Tienda 1995).
To date, most studies that have focused on the post-secondaryeducational outcomes of immigrants have been limited in scope bytheir data. For example, some of these analyses have lumped togetherfirst-generation immigrants who came to the United States as youngadults with first-generation youth who were raised and educated in theAmerican school system. In addition, previous studies have not examined
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth • 125
whether there are significant interactions between immigrant generationand Xhe specific racial/ethnic groups to which individuals belong. At best,earlier research was only able to examine the conditioning influence ofmembership within broad pan-ethnic groups (e.g., "Hispanic" and "Asian"),which may obscure significant subgroup differences in the associationbetween generation status and college attendance outcomes (Bailey andWeininger 2002; Glick and White 2004).̂
Furthermore, only one nationally-representative study that we knowof (Glick and White 2004) has explicitly examined mechanisms otherthan basic socio-demographic characteristics that may help to explaingeneration differences in post-secondary education. While Glick andWhite (2004) provide evidence for the importance of parental behaviorsand expectations in mediating generation status differences, controllingfor these factors does not completely "explain away" the greater likelihoodof immigrant youth to attend college. Their research is also not able toexamine the relative importance of parental behaviors/expectations andpast academic performance. Over the course of late adolescence andearly adulthood, the effects of parental and familial influences on youngpeople's behavior begin to wane. However, the family environmentsthat encourage academic success during the childhood years may havecontinuing indirect effects upon college enrollment via the influence ofacademic achievement, ability and participation in college-preparatorycoursework during high school (Charles, Roscigno and Torres 2007; Vernezand Abrahamse 1996). Using the Add Health data, the present study isable to directly examine these issues.
Assimilation Theory and Immigrant Education
Assimilation theories have long been used to explain the associationbetween immigrant generation and educational outcomes. According totraditional assimilation theory, immigrants, particularly the first-generation,are frequently held back by their newcomer status and are rarely expectedto achieve socioeconomic equivalence with the native population. Instead,the social and economic outcomes of immigrants are expected to belower than those of their native-born peers because of the trauma andstress, as well as the social, economic, and linguistic disadvantages,associated with the immigration process. However, as the foreign-bornacculturate across length of residence and increasing generation, thesedifferentials with the native-born population will gradually narrow (Warnerand Srole 1945). While this traditional assimilation theory seemed to bewell-suited for explaining the trajectories of socioeconomic achievementamong immigrants at the turn of the 20"" century, it has been less usefulin explaining trends among contemporary immigrants.
126 • Social Forces S7{1) . September 2008
Segmented assimilation theory, on the other hand, suggests thattoday's immigrants experience divergent pathways of assimilation thatmay result in either upward or downward mobility for various immigrantgroups. Recent research has found that first-generation immigrants arenot always at a disadvantage socially and economically. Assimilation mayactually lead to a deterioration of outcomes over time and generationspent in the United States (Crosnoe and Lopez-Gonzalez 2005; Harker2001; Harris 1999; Hirschman 2001; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Portesand Zhou 1993; Rumbaut 1997; Tillman, Guo and Harris 2006; Whiteand Glick 2000). Hence, one can conclude that immigrant status mayoccasionally be protective against social and economic hardship. Thistheory may explain why many immigrant school children, despite beingfaced with serious disadvantages, have very strong academic outcomesas compared to those of their same-race native-born counterparts.
The ways in which assimilation affects the outcomes of immigrantsmay be conditioned by the human and cultural capital those immigrantsbring with them, in addition to the social contexts into which they settle.In terms of human and cultural capital, we investigate socio-demographicand family context measures, including socioeconomic status, familycomposition, parental behaviors and expectations for academic attainment.Studies indicate that these factors exercise a strong influence on children'seducational achievement and plans for the future (Glick and White 2004;Kao and Tienda 1995; Portes and Rumbaut 2001 ).
While immigrant families may experience greater risks associated withlow socioeconomic status, research finds that immigrant parents generallyhold higher expectations for their children and maintain greater parentalcontrol than native-born parents and, consequently, place greater demandson their children in terms of school engagement and success (Glick andWhite 2004; Hao and Bonstead-Bruns 1998). This may lead to higherachievement during childhood and to higher motivation to attend collegeas a young adult. Higher levels of achievement during childhood, in turn,may place immigrant youth in a position where they are more qualifiedthan their non-immigrant peers to actually pursue a college education and/or to attend a four-year institution (Vernez and Abrahamse 1996). Yet, thesocio-demographic and family context characteristics associated withacademic outcomes vary significantly by specific race/ethnic background(Bohon, Johnson and Gorman 2006; Charles, Roscigno and Torres 2007).
For example, great diversity exists in socioeconomic status, culturalnorms and behaviors, and other resources that set specific immigrantgroups apart from one another, as well as from the native-born population.Even within large pan-ethnic immigrant groups such as Hispanics andAsians, some ethnic subgroups may be more likely than others to havethe social and financial resources to assist their children's academic
Coilege Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth «127
performance and finance their post-secondary education, to hold highexpectations for academic performance and college attendance, andto maintain control over their children's activities and decisions (Bohon,Johnson, and Gorman 2006; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Rumbaut 1997;Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco 2001). It is, therefore, essential toexplore the interactions between immigrant generation and race/ethnicgroup, as well as the direct effects of immigrant generation, on the college-going behavior of American youth.
Based on findings of previous studies and these theoretical perspectives,we have developed five main predictions regarding immigrant status andeducational outcomes. First, we predict a generational disparity in collegeattendance for young adults, where first- and second-generation individualsare more likely to attend college than their third-generation counterparts ofsimilar socio-demographic backgrounds. Second, we predict that parentalbehaviors (e.g., parental involvement in school and parental control) andacademic expectations, as reported during adolescence, will play animportant role in explaining the higher likelihood of college attendanceamong immigrants. Third, we predict that higher academic achievementand greater college preparation in high school will also play a significantrole in the immigrant educational advantage, and may at least partiallymediate the effects of parental behaviors during adolescence. In otherwords, beneficial parenting behaviors during the teen years may continueto affect college enrollment indirectly via the influence of earlier highschool outcomes. Fourth, we predict generational differences in the typeof college attended, such that first- and second-generation immigrantswill be more likely than their third-generation peers to attend a two-yearinstitution, and that these generational differences will be largely mediatedby socio-demographic variables. Lastly, we expect that the association ofimmigrant generation with college attendance and college type will varysignificantly by race/ethnicity.
Methods
Data
We use Add Health, a nationally representative study of adolescents ingrades 7 through 12 in the United States in 1995. Based on a multistage,stratified, school-based, cluster sampling design, this study was designedto explain the causes of adolescent health and health behavior, primarilyfocusing on the multiple contexts in which adolescents live. Included in thesample were students from 80 high schools (both public and private) and acorresponding feeder junior high/middle school. Most minority ethnic groupswere sampled in proportion to their size within the United States population,however smaller ethnic groups were oversampled (Harris et al. 2003).
128 • Social Forces S7(l) . September 2008
Data for this study were collected in three waves from 1994 through2002. In Wave I all students were between the ages of 12 and 21 yearsand by Wave III the students were between the ages of 18 and 26 years.Wave III data contains follow-up interviews with 14,979 original WaveI respondents and pre-test data contain an additional 218 respondents,for a total of 15,197 respondents. We use data from Wave I and WaveIII, drawing from the extensive in-home interviews conducted at bothtimes. In addition, we use the parental questionnaire from Wave I andthe high school Education Data released with Wave III (Harris et al. 2003).Our sample includes all respondents who have fully completed in-homeinterviews for both Wave I and Wave III and have graduated from highschool or received a GED in the United States.^ Due to these criterion,all respondents in the sample had been living in the United States for aminimum of seven years and had not likely come to this country for thesole purpose of obtaining a higher education. For consistency purposes,the central predictor and most control variables are taken from Wave I. Theoutcome variables, college attendance and type of college attended, andthe linked high school Education Data are taken from Wave III. Our finalanalytic sample includes 10,163 young adults.
Measures
The dependent measures in this study are any college attendance andtype of college currently attended. We first examine college attendancewith a dichotomous variable measuring whether the respondent is:currently attending college or has any college education (1), or notcurrently attending college and has no college education (0). We thenexplore current college attendance by type: not currently attendingcollege (0), currently attending two-year college ( 1 ), or currently attendingfour-year college (2).
Immigrant generation is determined by both the youth's and theparents' country of origin as specified in Wave I. We classify respondentsas first-, second- or third-plus generation. First-generation immigrants arerespondents who were born abroad (and not as a U.S. citizen). Second-generation individuals are those who have at least one parent of foreignbirth, but who themselves were either born in the United States or in aforeign country as a U.S. citizen. Finally, all respondents who were born inthe United States to parents who were also born in the United States areclassified as the third-plus generation.
The demographic variables of sex, age and race/ethnicity are takenfrom the Wave I in-home interview. Race/ethnicity is self-identified andis measured with a series of eight dummy variables, including Mexican,Cuban, Central/South American, Chinese, Filipino, Other Asian/Pacific
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth »129
Islander, Black and White." Region of country, location of residenceand middle/high school type are obtained through the Wave I schooladministrator questionnaire. Region of country is broken down into fourdummy variables indicating West, Midwest, South and Northeast, andlocation of residence is measured with three dummy variables indicatingurban, suburban and rural. We also incorporate school type into ouranalyses; this variable is dichotomized into public and private schools.
In addition, we examine several variables that represent the structural andcultural features of the family environment at Wave I. Five dummy variablesare created to measure annual family income (measured in thousands):$15,000 or less, $16-34,000, $35-59,000, $60,000 or more, and missingincome data. Highest educational attainment achieved by either motheror father (henceforth referred to as "family education") is measured withfour dummy variables: less than high school, high school graduate or GED,more than high school, and missing education data. Family structure is alsomeasured with four dummy variables: two-biological parents, stepparents,single-parent, and other family forms (e.g. grandparents, other relatives,group homes). Mother's work status is measured as a dichotomous variablespecifying whether a mother had worked for pay outside of the homefor more than 35 hours per week in the past 12 months. Finally, primarylanguage spoken in the home is measured with three dummy variables:English, Spanish and an "other" language.
Parental control, parental involvement and expectation measures arealso incorporated in this analysis. Parental control is an index representingthe mean item score of six questions (original responses ranging from1 to 5) and assesses how much control youth feel they have over theirown lives (Cronbach's alpha = .60). Examples of the items include: "Doyour parents control how much television you watch on a daily basis?,""Do your parents control the type of clothing you wear?," and "Do yourparents control how much time you spend out on a weeknight?" Parentalinvolvement is measured with four dummy variables that indicate whetherthe respondents had engaged in specific activities with their parents overthe past month (spoken with parents regarding schoolwork and grades,spoken with parents about other school related issues, worked on schoolprojects with parents, and had an argument about behavior). Parentalexpectations are taken from the parental questionnaire, which asked
"How disappointed would you be if [name of child] did not graduate fromcollege?" The response categories are in Likert-type scale ranging frombeing "very disappointed" to "not disappointed." We also assess youth'sown expectations for attending college with the question: "How likely doyou think you will attend college?" Due to the overwhelming proportionof respondents who answered "very likely," we dichotomize this variableinto (1 ) "very likely" and (0) all other responses.
130 . Socio/Forces 87(1) . September 2008
Finally, we use the Add Health's Wave III Picture Vocabulary Testscores and the Wave III High School Education Data to evaluate individuallevel academic ability and achievement during high school.^ The AHPVTmeasures knowledge of vocabulary, both quantity and quality. Raw testscores, which ranged from 1 to 87, were standardized by age, with eachage group having a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. Cumulativegrade point average and highest math and science course taken for creditin high school are acquired through the Education Data, which includetranscripts provided directly by each high school. Respondents arecoded as having taken above-level courses, average-level courses, below-average level courses, or no math and/or science courses. The fact thatthis information is provided by the schools rather than from self-reportsincreases our confidence that these measures of high school achievementare accurate.
Analysis and Results
We use binary logistic regression to estimate the effects of socio-demographic characteristics, parental behaviors (i.e., parental control,parental involvement) and expectations, and high school ability/achievementon the likelihood of college attendance, and multinomial logistic regressionto estimate the effects of these factors on type of college attended. Theregression analyses account for the multistage, stratified, school-based,cluster sampling design of Add Health by using the robust estimator ofvariance procedure in STATA (also known as the Huber or White estimatorof variance). In addition, we control for differential sampling probabilitiesamong individuals by utilizing the Add Health grand sample weights in allestimation procedures (Chántala and Tabor 1999).
For the analysis of both outcome variables, the first model examinesgenerational differences in attendance, controlling for socio-demographicvariables. In the second model, we incorporate measures of parentalcontrol, parental involvement and college expectations. Lastly, individual-level student achievement variables are included in the full model. Afterthe first and third of the three main models in the binary logistic regressionanalysis we examine an additional model with interactions between race/ethnicity and generation status.
Descriptive Analysis
Table 1 presents weighted means for any college attendance and type ofcollege currently attended by immigrant generation. The sample meanfor any college attendance is .638. Broken down by type of collegeattendance, the sample means for current attendance at two-year andfour-year institutions are .163 and .354, respectively. Hence, about 64
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth »131
percent of all young adults who have connpleted high school in the UnitedStates are likely to experience some college education or more, and about52 percent are likely to be currently enrolled in a two-year or four-yearcollege. Consistent with current research (Glick and White 2004; Songand Glick 2004; Vernez and Abrahamse 1996), when college attendance
is examined by immigrant status, first-and second-generation immigrantshave relatively higher levels of collegeattendance than their third-plus generationcounterparts. This finding holds true ofcollege attendance in general, as well ascollege attendance at both two-year andfour-year institutions. Moreover, even beforeadjusting for important compositionaldifferences between generations, a one-way ANOVA test confirms that second-generation youth are significantly (p < .01 )more likely than third-plus generation youthto have some college or more. Althoughthe U.S. immigrant population is growingin number, they still suffer from socialand economic inequalities that are highlyassociated with an increased risk of pooreducational outcomes, which makes thisfinding particularly interesting.
Table 2 displays the weighted meansand standard deviations for collegeattendance by immigrant status and race/ethnicity. There are some interestingdifferences in the effects of generationstatus upon college attendance amongthe different racial/ethnic groups. Forsome groups the generational decline incollege attendance appears evident, forothers there is an increase in the second-generation and a decline thereafter, andfor others there is not a very clear pattern.For instance. Whites, Blacks, Chinese and
"other" Asians clearly show a decline incollege attendance across generations,whereas Cubans show an increase acrossgenerations. Amongst the other Hispanicethnic groups there is an increase in college
'sT )
WJ
o
itat
.MC
igra
s
anee
b)
endi
Cn i
lieg
oU
3
13O
^ rCa>k .
3O
a>
o(Uoi
lol
lege
orea>
Ou.
a>O ]
"oO
re
i
<uur̂e
•oc
ë
CO
1dC/5
ro
dai
CO
.481
.364
euCD
CX3CJ>
CM
• ^
l OCD
cq
g
1
Gen
o
c:CT"9>
m
CO
.492
.413
œco
coCX3
CO
^—t-...-
csTf ~
o"ro
nei
eu^ -
1 Pa
rent
si-b
orr
CT
O
ithF
EE
,cb
tiv
CDco"
.476
.346
CD
CO
enin
coco
enCNcp
cö~
ätio
n
cu<D
Par
ents
born
CD
tiv
CD
ithN
sEo
J3
tiv
cocoCD
.478
.354
CJ2COCO
coCD
ra
cocoCD
"n
I—(
O
II
ted.
(N
=ei
ghi
«
ans
Ë
..O CD CD
132 . Social Forces 87(1) . September 2008
Table 2: Any College Attendance by Immigrant Generation and EthnicBackground
MexicanCubanC./S. AmericanChineseFilipinoOther AsianBlackWhite
Generation 1Mean.430.618.512.989.792.843.990.823
S.D..497.488.503.104.407.366.102.387
Generation 2Mean.551.772.695.997.676.774.788.763
S.D..498.421.462.054.469.420.411.426
Generation 2+Mean.518.987.590.716.768.616.543.649
S.D..501.116.495.458.429.489.498.477
N79425229589
374306
1,9735,980
Note: All means are weighted. (N = 10,163)
attendance only within the second-generation. Finally, there is no cleargenerational pattern of college attendance for Filipinos. These findingssuggest that analyses need to explicitly examine interactions betweenrace/ethnicity and generation status.
Table 3 presents the weighted means of the central predictor andcontrol variables. Compared to third-plus generation youth, first- andsecond-generation youth are more likely to be of Hispanic or Asian origin,reside in urban settings, live in either the western or northeastern parts ofthe United States, attend public schools, have considerably lower annualfamily household income, have lower parental educational attainment,and are less likely to use English as their primary language at home. Allof these characteristics have been found to make young people morevulnerable to adverse educational outcomes.
Nonetheless, we also find that first- and second-generation immigrantshad a greater likelihood of living in a two biological-parent family andexperienced more parental control/involvement and higher parentalexpectations during their adolescence, which have been found to beprotective for academic well-being (Astone and McLanahan 1991;McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Glick and White 2004). In regardsto measures of past academic ability and achievement, we find thatimmigrants generally have lower AHPVT scores, which is likely due tolower English usage in the home, yet they possess higher GPAs and areless likely to have been in below-average level science and math coursesin high school. Therefore, while immigrant youth may appear vulnerablein terms of some socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, morepositive family environments and parental behaviors may help to alleviatethis disadvantage and foster post-secondary academic attainment.
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth «133
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics by Immigrant Generation, Adjusted bySample Weights
AgeGender (male = 1 )Race/Ethnicity
MexicanCubanCentral/South AmericanChineseFilipinoOther Asian/Pacific IslanderBlackWhite
Location of ResidenceUrbanSuburbanRural
Region of CountryWestMidwestSouthNortheast
Schooi TypePublicPrivate
Family IncomeLess than $15,000$16-34,000$35-59,000$60,000 or MoreMissing
Family EducationLess than High SchoolHigh School/GEDMore than High SchoolMissing
Mother's Work StatusFamily Structure
Biological ParentsStepparentsSingle ParentsOther
Number of Siblings at HomeLanguage Spoken at Home
EnglishSpanish
Generation 116.498
.547
.266
.051
.175
.043
.149
.195
.028
.092
.582
.405
.013
.396
.077
.356
.172
.946
.054
.172
.232
.112
.072
.412
.377
.153
.133
.337
.524
.650
.143
.159
.0481.983
.297
.424
Generation 215.895
.502
.229
.043
.100
.028
.070
.095
.062
.373
.419
.498
.083
.336
.216
.297
.151
.916
.084
.087
.215
.272
.175
.250
.204
.248
.183
.365
.529
.676
.126
.173
.0261.693
.735
.182
Generation 3+15.892
.498
.028
.001
.011
.001
.002
.006
.155
.796
.219
.603
.179
.136
.372
.367
.125
.931
.069
.110
.188
.272
.242
.188
.076
.323
.225
.375
.561
.592
.168
.212
.0271.334
.997
.002
Total15.922
.501
.059
.007
.027
.006
.015
.023
.140111
.255
.583
.161
.168
.343
.360
.129
.930
.070
.111
.193
.264111.205
.103
.308
.216
.373
.556
.603
.163
.206
.0281.400
.938
.040
Continued on the following page.
134 • Soc/«/Forces 87(1) . September 2008
Table 3 continued(
otherParental ControlParental Involvement
generation 1.279.317
Talked about School Work/ Grades .719Worked on School ProjectTalked about Things in SchoolHad Argument about Behavior
AHPVT Scores (7-122)Highest Math for HS Credit
No Math Credit ReceivedBelow AverageAverageAdvanced
Highest Science for HS CreditNo Science Credit ReceivedBelow AverageAverageAdvanced
Cumulative Overall GPA in HSParental College Expectations
Very DisappointedSomewhat DisappointedNot DisappointedMissing
Students' College ExpectationsVery Likely to Attend CollegeNot Likely to Attend College
Total N
.142
.624
.370
92.953
.027
.085
.471
.417
.035
.050
.446
.4692.647
.508
.196
.028
.267
.497
.503
736
Generation 2
.084
.278
.688
.158
.619
.380
100.980
.023
.069
.435
.472
.032
.064
.419
.4852.629
.482
.308
.074
.136
.582
.418
1,356
Generation 3+
.001
.269
.669
.173
.575
.385
101.826
.026
.097
.488
.389
.035
.068
.436
.4612.600
.360
.408
.144
.088
.589
.410
8,071
Total
.023
.272
.673
.170
.581
.384
101.313
.026
.093
.482
.398
.035
.067
.435
.4632.605
.379
.388
.131
.102
.584
.415
10,163
Note: All means are weighted.
Multivariate Analysis
Binary Logistic Regression
Table 4 shows the results of binary logistic regression models predictingany college attendance among youth with a high school diploma or GED.The first model controls for socio-demographic factors and shows thatboth first- and second-generation immigrants are significantly more likelyto attend college than their third-generation U.S.-born peers of similarbackground characteristics. While family education, family income, familycomposition, middle/high school type and language spoken in the homeare all highly associated with college attendance, we find that almost none
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth »
Table 4: Logistic Regression Analysis Predicting Any College Attendance
Generation 1
Generation 2
Age
Gender (Maie = 1)
Race/Ethnicity (ref. White)Mexican
Cuban
Central/ South American
Chinese
Filipino
Other Asian/PacificIslander
Black
iVIodei 12.145"(2.87)1.902"
(4.36)
1.014(.58)
.634"(-7.30)
1.023(.14)1.891*
(2.16).896
(-.48)3.727
(1.65).619
(-1.82).890
(-.40)1.088(.74)
Famiiy Education (ref. > HS)Less than high school
High school/ GED
Missing
.344"(-9.42)
.496"(-9.58)
1.956"(6.89)
Famiiy income (ref. > $60K)Less than $15,000
$16-34,000
$35,000-59,000
Missing
.360"(-7.53)
.423"(-8.73)
.695"(-3.99)
.525"(-6.04)
iViodei 1b2.089(1.06)1.595*
(2.42)
1.014(.55)
.634**(-7.34)
.993(-.03)
17.768"(3.64)
.775(-.87)1.381(.39)1.433
(1.64).740
(-.66)1.053(.44)
.341"(-9.34)
.495"(-9.55)
1.951"(6.88)
.360**(-7.56)
.422"(-8.75)
.693**(-4.06)
.523"(-6.11)
iViodei 22.116"(2.71)1.802"
(3.81)
1.004(.14)
.708"(-5.02)
1.0Í8(.10)1.555
(1.61).859
(-.68)2.863
(1.33).553
(-1.93).798
(-.80)1.014(.12)
.384**(-8.34)
.543"(-7.87)
1.624"(5.03)
.416"(-6.49)
.481"(-7.18)
.718"(-3.80)
.585"(-4.39)
iVIodei 31.635
(1.82)1.533"
(2.63)
1.048(1.81)
.955(-.59)
1.433(1.87)2.854**
(3.72)1.622
(1.77)2.573
(1.73).715
(-1.17)1.001(.00)1.991"
(5.49)
.584**(-4.09)
.668**(-4.53)
1.449"(3.62)
.530"(4.36)
.559"(-5.25)
.750"(-3.10)
.674**(-3.20)
iViodei 3b1.568(.59)1.381
(1.46)
1.047(1.79)
.955(-.58)
1.454(1.33)7.587*
(2.57)1.299(.70)0.897(-.20)3.521"
(6.44).993
(-.01)1.927"
(5.13)
.582"(-4.04)
.667"(-4.52)
1.449"(3.61)
.531"(-4.35)
.558**(-5.28)
.746**(-3.15)
.670"(-3.22)
Continued on the following page.
136 • Social Forces 87(1) • September 2008
Table 4 continued
Mother's Work Status(Working = 1)
Region of Country (ref.West
South
Northeast
Location of ResidenceUrban
Suburban
iVIiddie/High SchooiType (Pubiic = 1)
Model 1
1.112(1.69)
Midwest).985
(-.08)1.035(.23)1.274
(1.35)
(ref. Rural).881
(-.83)1.127
(1.02)
.414"(-4.05)
Model 1b
1.11(1.63)
.993(-.04)1.041(.27)1.270
(1.33)
.878(-.85)1.129
(1.02)
.415"(-4.04)
Family Structure (ref. Bioiogicai parents)Stepparents
Single parent
Other
# of Sibiings at Home
.556"(-6.74)
.925(-.92)
.400**(-4.39)
.936*(-2.26)
.553**(-6.77)
.932(-.83)
.400"(-4.38)
.937*(-2.22)
Language Spoken at Home (ref. English)Spanish
Other
Parental Control
Parental Involvement
.783(-.96)2.492**
-2.78
Talked about school work/ grades
Worked on school project
.803(-.84)2.118
-1.95
Model 2
1.068(.97)
1.086(.49).980
(-.14)1.302
(1.59)
.888(-.80)1.094(.71)
.444**(-4.29)
.575"(-6.02)
.929(-.87)
.426**(-3.93)
.941(-1.93)
.816(-.80)2.701"
-2.88
.628"(-3.19)
.944(-.81)
.986(-.13)
Model 3
1.056(.69)
1.038(.22).907
(-.68)1.396*
(1.99)
1.018(.12)1.166
(1.18)
.584**(-3.27)
.692"(-3.54)
1.138(1.31)
.519**(-3.14)
.941(-1.70)
.766(-1.15)
1.968-1.82
1.084(.52)
.953(-.58)1.000(-.00)
Model 3b
1.056(.69)
1.043(.24).909
(-.67)1.385
(1.95)
1.017(.12)1.164
(1.16)
.587**(-3.26)
.690**(-3.55)
1.141(1.34)
.519"(-3.13)
.946(-1.63)
.743(-1.46)
1.893-1.55
1.077(.47)
.952(-.60)1.002(.01)
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth «137
Table 4 continuedModel 1 Model 1b 1
Talked about things in school
Had an argument about behavior
Model 2
1.158(1.89)
.893*(-1.96)
Parental College Expectations (ref. Very Disappointed)Somewhat disappointed
Not disappointed
Missing
Students College Expectations (ref. Not Very Likely]Very likely
AHPVT Scores (range 7-122)
Highest Math for HS Credit (ref. Advanced)No math credit received
Below average
Average
Highest Science for HS Credit (ref. Advanced)No science credit received
Below average
Average
Cumulative Overall GPA in HS
Interactions:Mexican - Generation 1 .935
(-.08)Mexican - Generation 2 1.311
(.70)Cuban - Generation 1 .075*
(-2.38)
.817**(-2.63)
.488**(-2.28)
.727*(-2.28)
12.840**
(15.12)
Model 3
1.040(.45)1.052(.76)
.918(-1.03)
.689**(-2.97)
.928(-.51)
1.867**(8.35)
1.019**(6.36)
.206**(-3.81)
.294**(-6.91)
.550**(-5.59)
.565(-1.64)
.439**(-5.54)
.752**(-3.93)
2.693**(15.89)
Model 3b
1.041(.47)1.049(.72)
.913(-1.10)
.686**(-3.01)
.934(-.46)
1.860**(8.24)
1.018**(6.30)
.207**(-3.79)
.294**(-6.90)
.550**(-5.63)
.560(-1.66)
.438**(-5.56)
.757**(-3.83)
2.699**(16.00)
.979(-.02)1.118(.26).276
(-1.18)
Continued on the following page.
138 • Soc/fl/Forces 87(1) . September 2008
Table 4 continuedModel 1
Cuban - Generation 2
Central/South American - Generation 1
Central/South American - Generation 2
Chinese - Generation 1
Chinese - Generation 2
Filipino - Generation 1
Fiiipino - Generation 2
Other Asian - Generation 1
Other Asian - Generation 2
Black - Generation 1
Biack - Generation 2
Pseudo R-squared 14.81-2 Pseudo Log
Likelihood 11330.38(N = 10,163)
Model 1b Model 2
.146*
(-¿.14)1.088(.12)1.688
(1.10)13.781(1.66)49.475**(4.03)
.450(-1.08)
.435*(-2.21)
1.825(.63)1.283(.40)
27.767*(2.48)1.825
(1.40)
14.97 19.97
11310.01 10644.66
Model 3
33.86
8797.52
Model 3b
.551
(-.71)1.525(.53)1.493(.90)7.323
(1.44)32.080**(4.12)
.180*(-2.21)
.195**(-2.79)
1.142(.41)1.045(.06)
19.655*(2.09)1.924
(1.22)
33.97
8782.85
Note: Odds Ratios and Z-Scores*p < .05 **p < .01
of the race/ethnic categories are significant predictors of this outcome.This unexpected finding may result from the fact that the sample isselective of those who have graduated from a high school in the UnitedStates, disproportionately excluding youth from race/ethnic groups withlower high school graduation rates and youth who immigrated to theUnited States for the purpose of a post-secondary education. Overall,however, compared to their third-plus generation peers of similar socio-demographic characteristics, first- and second-generation youth who wereraised and educated in the United States are more likely to engage inadvanced education. In fact, first-generation youth have 114.5 percenthigher odds and second-generation youth have 90.2 percent higher oddsthan their peers of obtaining at least some college education.
College Attendance oflmmigrant and Native Youth . 139
In Model 1 b, we add interactions between race/ethnicity and generationstatus. The most striking findings appear for Chinese and black youth.Second-generation Chinese and first-generation black students have,respectively, 49,5 and 27,8 higher odds (4,847,5 and 2,676,7 percent)of attending college than U,S,-born white students, after adjusting forsocioeconomic status and background characteristics. First- and second-generation Cubans, on the other hand, have significantly lower oddsof attending college than their white third-generation peers. Overall,we conclude from these interaction models that the positive second-generation effects on college attendance shown in Model 1 are largelydriven by Chinese youth, whereas black immigrants drive the positiveeffects of first-generation status. The lack of significance for the majorityof the interactions indicates that for most other racial/ethnic groups,generational differences in college attendance are not as important.
The next model (Model 2) incorporates parental control, parentalinvolvement, and both parental and self-reported expectations forcollege attendance (all measured while in high school). Both parentaland self-reported expectations have significant direct effects on collegeattendance, confirming previous research findings on the importance offamily beliefs about education for long-term academic outcomes. Level ofparental control and having argued with parents about behavioral issuesduring adolescence are both negatively related to the likelihood of collegeattendance during early adulthood. None of the other parental involvementmeasures, however, are significant predictors of college attendance. Thus,many of the parental behaviors that are experienced during adolescencedo not appear to exert a continuing influence upon academic attainmentduring early adulthood. Moreover, contrary to expectations, the additionof these variables does not significantly mediate the association betweenfirst- and second-generation status and college attendance. Immigrantsremain significantly more likely to attend college than their third-generationpeers. When we add interactions between immigrant generation and race/ethnicity, we observe roughly the same findings as in Model 1b (resultsavailable upon request).
With the inclusion of individual-level high school achievement and verbalability measures in Model 3, however, the association between generationstatus and college attendance, particularly the benefit of being first-generation, is partially explained. As expected, AHPVT scores, measuresof highest mathematic and science credits received, and cumulative gradepoint average during high school are all significantly associated with collegeattendance. For example, students who took no math, below average-levelmath courses or average-level math courses in high school have 79.5,70,6,and 45 percent lower odds, respectively, of attending college than thosestudents who took above average-level math classes. Moreover, a one-unit
140 . Social Forces 87(1) • September 2008
increase in cumulative GPA is associated with a 169.3 percent increasein the odds of attending college. The fact that the inclusion of thesevariables explains a significant portion of the generational effects (77.3percentforfirst-generation status and 85.1 percent for second-generationstatus) suggests that, above and beyond family/parental environment andexpectations, the objectively high academic achievement of immigrantyouth during high school is an important part of the reason for their higherthan average rates of college attendance.
The findings also suggest that the long-term effects of parental controland parental involvement during adolescence are indirect. Given that thesefactors are reduced to non-significance after the high school achievementvariables are added to the model, they appear to influence college-goingbehavior only through their earlier effects on youths' college preparedness.While still significant, the magnitude of the association between parentalexpectations during adolescence and college attendance is also reducedwith the addition of high school achievement variables.
Finally, when the race/ethnicity and generation status interactions areincluded in Model 3b the lower likelihood of college attendance amongCuban immigrants is reduced to non-significance, indicating that Cuban first-and second-generation youth may be achieving at a lower than average levelduring their high school years. Although the magnitude of the advantagesassociated with both first-generation black status and second-generationChinese status are reduced by controlling for high school achievement,the coefficients for these interactions continue to remain significant. Thus,while these youth may be benefiting from higher than average high schoolachievement, they remain advantaged over their white native-born peers byadditional factors that we have not yet been able to examine.
Multinomial Logistic Regression
We also use multinomial logistic regression to predict the type of post-secondary educational experience reported by young adults who arecurrently attending college. We examine whether the respondent currentlyis not enrolled in college, is attending a two-year college or is attendinga four-year college. Those who are not in college serve as the referencecategory. Table 5 presents the multinomial logistic results in relativerisk ratios. Overall the results are very similar to those found in Table 4,suggesting that the processes influencing students' decisions to pursuepost-secondary education generally apply to both two-year and four-yeardegree programs. Both first- and second-generation immigrants havesignificantly higher odds of attending two-year and four-year colleges(versus having no college attendance) than third-generation native-bornyouth (see Model 1).
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth «141
Table 5: Multinomial Logistic Regression (Relative Risk Ratios & Z-Scores)Predicting College Type
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3Two-year Four-year
(vs. No College)Generation 1 2.387" 2.197"
(2.92) (2.77)Generation 2 1.580" 1.941"
(2.69) (4.58)
Parental Control
Parental InvolvementTalked about School Work/Grades
Worked on School Project
Talked about Things in School
Had an Argument about Behavior
Parental College Expectations(ref. Very Disappointed)
Somewhat Disappointed
Not Disappointed
Missing
Students' College Expectations(ref. Not Very Likely)
Very Likely
AHPVT Scores (range 7-122)
Highest Math for Credit (HS)(ref. Advanced)
No Math Credit
Below Average
Average Math
Two-year(vs. No2.380"
(2.92)1.540*
(2.43)
1.077(.38)
.919(-.80)
.973(-.25)1.017(.21).937
(-.96)
.983(-.20)
.871(-1.18)
.854(-.85)
1.763*'(6.53)
Four-yearCollège]
2.070*(2.44)1.800"
(3.91)
.666*(-2.37)
1.017(.21)1.097(.87)1.204*
(2.30).830**
(-2.66)
.742"(-4.08)
.451"(-6.19)
.787(-1.60)
3.430**(15.54)
Two-year Four-year(vs. No College)2.047*
(2.50)1.428*
(2.03)
1.403(1.65)
.932(-.63)
.982(-.16)
.958(-.50)1.000(.01)
1.022(.25)1.039(.31).948
(-.28)
1.452"(4.11)1.005
(1.33)
.511(-1.55)
.477"(-3.54)
1.049(.41)
1.607(1.62)1.696"
(3.18)
1.243(-1.07)
1.039(.36)1.163
(1.34)1.040(.38)1.054(.64)
.921(-1.04)
.750(-1.93)
1.159(.85)
1.926"(7.15)1.018"
(3.96)
.226(-1.88)
.340**(4.06)
.466**(-7.73)
Continued on the following page.
142 . Socía/Forces 87(1) • September 2008
Table 5 continuedModel 1 Model 2 Model 3
Two-year Four-year Two-year Four-year Two-year Four-year(vs. No College) (vs. No College) (vs. No College)
Highest Science for Credit (HS)(ref. Advanced)
No Science
Below Average
Average Science
Cumulative Overall GPA in HS
Pseudo R-square 12.36-2PseudoLog 18076.37Likelihood
(N = 10,163)
15.9817329.35
.622(-1.22)
.467**(-3.65)
.870(-1.44)1.617**(5.99)
.461(-1.76)
.417*(-3.17)
.717*(-4.17)4.814*
(18.39)28.01
14847.83
Note: All models control for: age, gender, race/ethnicity, family education, familyincome mothers work status, region of country, urbanicity, school type, familystructure, number of co-resident siblings, and language spoken in the home.*p < .05 **p < .01
Parental behaviors and college expectations during adolescence aresignificantly associated with later college attendance, particularly at afour-year college, but do little to mediate generational differences intype of college attended (see Model 2). The individual-level high schoolachievement variables, however, reduce to non-significance the greaterlikelihood of first-generation youth to attend a four-year college (seeModel 3). As in the previous analysis, the addition of these high schoolachievement measures also reduces to non-significance the effects ofparental control, parental involvement and parental expectations on thelikelihood of attendance at a four-year college. Even after controlling forthese factors, however, first-generation immigrants remain more likelythan their third-plus peers to attend a two-year college. In addition, the fullmodel does not fully explain the second-generation immigrant advantagein college attendance for either a two-year or four-year institution.
It is also interesting to note that when we change the referencecategory from "no college" to "two-year college" attendance, neither first-nor second-generation immigrants have significantly lower odds than theirthird-plus counterparts of attending a four-year institution as opposed toa two-year institution. Surprisingly, this finding holds even in the absence
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth • 143
of controls for socio-dennographic characteristics (results available uponrequest). Thus, while first- and second-generation youth are more likelythan native youth to attend either a two-year or a four-year institution thanto not attend college, there are no significant generational differences inthe type of institution attended annong those who do go to college.
As with the logistic analyses, we explored interactions between race/ethnicity and generation status. In contrast to the findings of thoseanalyses, we find no conclusive pattern of significant interactions whenpredicting the type of college attended by youth. We speculate that smallcell sizes in this analysis may lead to a lack of power necessary to findsignificance. Consequently, these results have not been included in Table5 (results available upon request).
Conclusion
Using data from the Add Health survey, we sought to determine if immigrantyouth who have been raised and educated in the United States experiencenet advantages or disadvantages in seeking post-secondary education afterobtaining a high school diploma or GED. We specifically wished to betterunderstand the extent to which post-secondary educational differences bygeneration status can be explained by socio-demographic characteristics,parental behaviors and college expectations during adolescence, andindividual ability and achievement while in high school.
This study is unique in that the large, nationally representative datasetemployed permits the examination of smaller immigrant groups, allowingspecific race/ethnic differences to be explored in detail. The Add Healthalso includes detailed information on the family environments of youth, aswell as links to externally validated sources of information on academicachievement during high school (i.e., transcripts released from eachindividual high school). As a result, we are able to examine the relativeimportance of both parental behaviors/expectations and past academicperformance in explaining generation differences in post-secondaryoutcomes. The school-based design of the study also ensures that allrespondents in the sample had been enrolled in and graduated from aU.S. high school (or obtained a GED after having been enrolled in a U.S.high school). As such, all youth in the sample had been living in the UnitedStates for a minimum of seven years, were technically "qualified" to applyto and enter an institution of higher education, and had not likely come tothe United States for the sole purpose of obtaining a higher education.
The findings show that there are several important ways in whichfirst-generation and second-generation youth vary from their third-plusgeneration counterparts. Confirming our first prediction, we find that eventhough immigrants disproportionately experience social, economic and
144 . Sod«/forces 87(1) . September 2008
political inequities in the United States, these youth are no less likely toattend college than their native-born peers. In fact, they are significantlymore likely to do so than their native-born counterparts of similar socio-demographic characteristics. Furthermore, contrary to our expectations,we find no significant generation differences in the type of institutionthat college-bound youth attend (two-year vs, four-year). Thus, amongyouth who have successfully completed their high school educationin the United States, first- and second-generation immigrants exhibit aclear post-secondary educational advantage that is not obtained throughdisproportionate enrollment in more affordable, but less prestigious andless financially rewarding two-year community colleges and associate'sdegree programs.
Although parental behaviors and academic expectations have significantdirect effects on the likelihood of college attendance among young adults,controlling for these factors does little to explain the immigrant advantage.Generational differences in parental behaviors and expectations have beenshown to provide immigrant children with an advantage over native-bornyouth in terms of academic achievement during primary and secondaryschool (Glick and White 2004; Hao and Bonstead-Bruns 1998), Yet,immigrants' greater likelihood of making the transition into college appearsto be more directly affected by that previous academic achievement thanby the continuing influence of parental behaviors and expectations.
Overall, immigrant youth are academically outperforming their third-generation peers in high school, and controlling for this achievement fully
"explains away" the first-generation, and partially explains the second-generation, advantage in college attendance. High school achievementmeasures also mediate the direct effects of parental behaviors duringthe teen years, indicating that parental behaviors largely affect post-secondary educational outcomes indirectly, via their influence on children'spreparedness for college. Thus, as past research shows, immigrantparents' behaviors toward and expectations for their children may pushimmigrant youth to succeed throughout their secondary schooling, oftenat levels higher than their native-born peers of similar socio-demographicbackgrounds (e,g. Portes and Zhou 1993; Kao 1999; Kao and Tienda 1995;Portes and Rumbaut 1996, 2001 ; Rumbaut 1997; Tiilman, Guo and Harris2006), Upon high school graduation, immigrants who have been raisedand educated in the United States are simply better prepared to takeadvantage of post-secondary educational opportunities than are their third-generation peers. As a result, immigrant youth are entering college at levelshigher than would be expected given their background characteristics.The fact that their higher than average levels of preparation make themmore competitive college applicants may be particularly important forenrollment of first-generation youth because foreign-born non-citizens
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth «145
may face greater limitations and more barriers to acquiring scholarships,federal grants, and other financial assistance for college expenses thando citizens. Further research into how immigrants navigate the hurdlesassociated with financing a college education is clearly warranted.
Although generation status is significantly associated with the likelihoodof college attendance, the multivariate results confirm our prediction that thisassociation is conditioned by race/ethnicity. In fact, the interaction modelsprovide evidence that immigrant generation is not a significant predictorof college attendance among youth of most racial/ethnic backgrounds.The beneficial effects of immigrant status are most pronounced amongsecond-generation Chinese and first-generation black youth. This findingis not entirely surprising given that past research on immigrant school-children has shown Asians to benefit more than other children from havingforeign-born parents and blacks to benefit more from their own foreignbirth (Kao and Tienda 1995). On the whole, while youth in some racial/ethnic groups may benefit more than others from their immigrant status,it is important to note that first- and second-generation immigrant statusare generally not negatively related to college attendance for any youth.
These findings offer some general support for the theory of segmentedassimilation and suggest that, despite having been raised and educatedalongside U.S.-born peers, immigrant youth from various racial/ethnicbackgrounds may experience divergent pathways of assimilation that resultin different levels of educational attainment. While our ability to account forgroup differences in the social and community contexts of immigrant youthwas limited by our data, our analyses did examine some important aspectsof human and cultural capital that vary across specific immigrant groups,including family socioeconomic status, family composition, parentingbehaviors and expectations for academic attainment. Yet, even aftercontrolling for these measures of human and cultural capital, as well as therespondents' verbal ability and high school achievement, second-generationChinese and first-generation black immigrants remain significantly morelikely to attend college than their third-generation White peers. What otherfactors may be driving this heightened college enrollment? We believe thatfuture analyses (and future data collection efforts) should more closelyexamine the social and community networks of these youth.
Some research suggests that Asian immigrants are more likely thanothers to be enmeshed in ethnically homogenous communities andorganizations, such as religious groups and after-school language/heritage schools (Garcia Coll and Magnuson 1997; Portes and Zhou 1993).Participation in and access to these kinds of organizations may reinforceethnic identities and cultural norms that place high value on educationalattainment (above and beyond the messages received from parents alone),increase access to adults who can serve in a mentoring capacity, and
146 . Soda/Forces 87(1) . September 2008
increase access to informal social connections that may help youth toobtain information about higher education and to procure employment orotherforms of financial assistance. The Chinese, with higher than averagesocioeconomic status (Portes and Rumbaut 2001), may be among themost likely of Asian groups to have access to these kinds of useful socialconnections. Moreover, compared to their first-generation counterparts,the second-generation may be more able to translate social capital intoincreased access to college education because they do not face barriersassociated with non-citizen status or language difficulties.
Likewise, the college-going behavior of black immigrants may beaffected by their location in ethnically homogenous social and communitycontexts. Many immigrants from the Caribbean, the location of origin forthe majority of first- and second-generation blacks, feel a strong desire tomaintain their unique ethnic heritage and to distance themselves culturallyand socially from native-born blacks (Waters 1996). As with the Chinese,black immigrants as a group also tend to be selective of professionals andthose with above average levels of education (Portes and Rumbaut 2001 ).For black immigrants, however the advantages conferred by engagement inethnically homogenous communities that reinforce educational aspirationsand access to social resources may erode quickly over generation. UnlikeAsian and Hispanic immigrants, black immigrants are often assumed to bea part of the native-born population, particularly if they do not speak with aforeign accent or dress in a distinctively ethnic manner. As a result, second-generation blacks may face more pressure than other immigrant youth totake on the racial/ethnic identity of their U.S.-born counterparts (Portesand Rumbaut 2001; Waters 1996). In doing so, they may also more quicklydistance themselves from the kinds of social and community networksthat have the potential to enhance post-secondary educational outcomes.In order to test these suppositions, future data collection efforts need togather more detailed information regarding the ethnic identification andsocial/community contexts of young immigrants.
While the results of this study are compelling, it is important to note itslimitations. First, we are only able to focus on youth who have graduatedfrom a U.S. high school or who have obtained a GED in the United States.There are several important implications of this; our study omits individualswho have dropped out of school (without obtaining a GED) as well asimmigrant youth who never enrolled. As a result this sample is a selectgroup of youth who attended high school in the United States and whoare "eligible" to attend college. Unfortunately, the Add Health data set alsodoes not permit us to separate out those respondents who have an actualhigh school diploma from those who have a GED. We recognize that thesetwo forms of high school education are different and consequently may beassociated with different post-secondary educational outcomes. We are
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth »147
also unable to explore the respondents' legal status. Non-citizen immigrantsand children of illegal immigrants may experience more roadblocks in theirquest for higher education, and so may be less likely to attend college thantheir naturalized and/or legal counterparts. Future research should betterexamine these various groups to see if they differ substantially.
Overall, this research adds to the growing literature on immigranteducational outcomes. Past research has found that immigrant school-children generally perform quite well when compared to their native-born counterparts. The findings presented here provide evidence thatthe immigrant advantage extends to the likelihood of attending college.However, this advantage may only apply to immigrants of specific racial/ethnic groups, particularly Chinese and black immigrants. Immigrants ofother racial/ethnic backgrounds appear to be less able to translate theirchildhood achievements into better than average educational outcomesduring their early adult years. A better understanding of why some particularimmigrant groups are disproportionately likely to enter the American post-secondary educational system will allow us to help all children in Americanschools achieve to their academic potential.
Notes
1. Add Health is a project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearmanand Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a Grant P01 HD31921 from theNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperativefunding from 17 other agencies. Acknowledgement is due to Ronald R.Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. TheEducation Data component of the Add Health was also supported by agrant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Developmentunder grant ROÍ HD40428-02 to the Population Research Center, Universityof Texas at Austin; Chandra Müller (PI) and the National Science Foundationgrant number REC-0126167, Chandra Müller (PI). Persons interested inobtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, CarolinaPopulation Center, 123 Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524, USA(www.cpc.unc.edu/addhealth/contract.html).
2. Although Goyette and Xie (1999) suggest that the college expectations ofAsian immigrant youth are similar across ethnic subgroups, past research onthe actual achievement of immigrant adolescents suggests that significantdifferences by racial/ethnic subgroup exist among both Asians and Hispanics(Feliciano and Rumbaut 2005; Portes and Rumbaut 2001). We expectthat racial/ethnic subgroup might also condition the association betweenimmigrant generation and the likelihood of attending college.
3. The data do not allow us to separate out respondents who have a GED fromthose who have an actual high school diploma.
148 • Social Forces 87(1) • September 2008
4. Puerto Ricans are excluded from this study because individuals born in PuertoRico hold U.S. citizenship, making their migration experience quite differentfrom that of other immigrants. Removal of Puerto Ricans from the analyticsample does not significantly alter the main findings. Given the small numberof immigrants from European nations and Canada, all immigrant youthfrom these national backgrounds who indicated that they were "White" or
"Caucasian" are combined together under the racial/ethnic category of "White."Likewise, all immigrant youth from African and Caribbean backgrounds whoindicated "Black" or "African American" as their race are combined togetherunder the racial/ethnic category of "Black." The vast majority of blackimmigrants in the Add Health report a Caribbean background. While not ideal,this strategy of combining together respondents from a variety of nationalbackgrounds has been commonly employed in the study of immigrant youth(e.g. Bailey and Weininger 2002; Glick and White 2003; Kao and Tienda 1995),and is only done here for the smallest of groups. Furthermore, all analysesthat examine the interaction between generation status and race/ethnicityuse the "third-generation, white" group as the reference category Doingso minimizes the potential for comparisons that confound nativity and race/ethnicity (e.g. comparisons between first-generation black immigrants, whoare largely from the Caribbean, and third-generation blacks, whose ancestorslikely hailed fronn countries within Africa).
5. We also examined measures of school-related behavior problems duringmiddle school and high school, including whether or not the respondenthad ever faced suspension or expulsion from school. While immigrant youthreport lower levels of suspension and expulsion than native youth, thesebehavioral factors are never significant in the muitivariate analyses. As such,they are not shown here.
References
Alba, Richard D., Douglas Massey and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 1999. The ImmigrationExperience for Famines and Children .\Nash'\r\gtor\, D.C: American SociologicalAssociation.
Arbona, Consuelo, and Amaury Nora. 2007. "The Influence of Academic andEnvironmental Factors on Hispanic College Degree Attainment." Review ofHigher Education 30(3): 247-69.
Astone, Nan Marie, and Sara S. McLanahan. 1991. "Family-Structure, ParentalPractices and High-School Completion." American Socioiogicai Review56(3):309-20.
Bailey, Thomas R., and Elliot B. Weininger 2002. "Performance, Graduation, andTransfer of Immigrants and Natives in City University of New York CommunityColleges." Educationai Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(4):359-77.
Bohon, Stephanie A., Monica K. Johnson and Bridget K. Gorman. 2006. "CollegeAspirations and Expectations Among Latino Adolescents in the United States."Social Problems 53(2):207-25.
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth «149
Bryant, Alyssa N. 2001. "Community College Students: Recent Findings andTrends." Community College Review 29(3):77-93,
Camarota, Steven A, 2004. Economy Siowed, But Immigration Didn't - TheForeign-Born Popuiation, 2000-2004. Found at: www.cis,org/articles/2004/back1204,html, Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies.
Chántala, Kim, and Joyce W. Tabor. 1999. Strategies to Perform a Design-BasedAnalysis Using the Add Health Data, Found at: www.cpc.une,edu/projects/addhealth/news.html.
Charles, Camille Z,, Vincent J. Roscigno and Kimberly C. Torres. 2007. "RacialInequality and College Attendance: The Mediating Role of ParentalInvestments." Social Science Research 36(1 ): 329-52.
Crosnoe, Robert, and Lorena Lopez-Gonzalez. 2005. "Immigration from Mexico,School Composition, and Adolescent Fur\ci\or\'mg." Socioiogicai Perspectives48(1): 1-24.
Dougherty, Kevin J. 1994, The Contradictory Coiiege: The Contacting Origins,impacts, and Futures of the Community College. State University of NewYork Press.
Feliciano, Cynthia, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2005. "Gendered Paths: Educationaland Occupational Expectations and Outcomes among Adult Children ofImmigrants." Ethnic and Raciai Studies 28(6): 1087-1118.
Garcia Coll, Cynthia, and Katherine Magnuson, 1997. "The PsychologicalExperience of Immigration: A Developmental Perspective." Pp. 91-131,immigration and the Famiiy: Research and Poiicy on US immigrants A. Booth,A.C. Crouterand N. Landale, editors. Lawrence Eribaum.
Glick, Jennifer E., and Michael J. White, 2003, "The Academic Trajectoriesof Immigrant Youths: Analysis Within and Across Cohorts." Demography40(4):759-83.
. 2004. "Post-secondary School Participation of Immigrant and NativeYouth: The Role of Familial Resources and Educational Expectations." SociaiScience Research 33(2):272-99.
Goyette, Kimberly, and Yu Xie. 1999, "Educational Expectations of AsianAmerican Youths: Determinants and Ethnic Differences." Socioiogy ofEducation 72[]}:22-36.
Hagy, Alison P, and J. Farley Ordovensky Staniec. 2002. "Immigrant Status, Race,and Institutional Choice in Higher Education." Economics of Education Review '21(4):381-92,
150 • Social Forces 87{l) • September 2008
Hao, Lingxin, and Melissa Bonstead-Bruns. 1998. "Parent-Child Differences inEducational Expectations and the Academic Achievement of Immigrant andNative Students." Socioiogy of Education 71(3):175-98.
Harker, Kathryn 2001. "Immigrant Generation, Assimilation, and AdolescentPsychological Well-being." Sociai Forces 79(3):969-1004.
Harris, Kathleen M. 1999. "The Health Status and Risk Behavior of Adolescentsin Immigrant Families." Pp. 286-347. Chiidren of immigrants: Heaith,Adjustment and Pubiic Assistance. D.J. Hernandez, editor. National Academyof Sciences Press.
Harris, Kathleen M., Francesca Florey, Joyce W. Tabor et al. 2003. The NationalLongitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research Design. Found at: www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design.html.
Haveman, Robert, Barbara Wolfe, Brent Kreideret al. 1994. "Market Work, Wages,and Men's Health." Journai of Heaith Economics 13(2): 163-82.
Hirschman, Charles. 2001. "The Educational Enrollment of Immigrant Youth: ATest of the Segmented-Assimilation Hypothesis." Demography 38(3):317-36.
Jaeger, David A., and Marianne E. Page. 1996. "Degrees Matter: New Evidenceon Sheepskin Effects in the Returns to Education." Review of Economics andStatistics 78(4):733-40.
Kane, Thomas J., and Cecilia E. Rouse. 1995. "Labor-Market Returns to 2-Year and4-Year College."/4mer/'ca/7 Economic Review 85(3):600-14.
Kao, Grace 1995. "Asian-Americans as Model Minorities - a Look at Their Academic-Performance." American Journai of Education 103(2): 121 -59.
. 1999. "Psychological Well-being and Educational Achievement amongImmigrant Youth." Pp. 410-77. Chiidren of immigrants: Heaith, Adjustment,and Puhiic Assistance. D.J. Hernandez, editor National Academy Press.
Kao, Grace, and Jennifer S. Thompson. 2003. "Racial and Ethnic Stratificationin Educational Achievement and Attainment." Annuai Review of Socioiogy29:417-42.
Kao, Grace, and Marta Tienda .1995. "Optimism and Achievement-the EducationalPerformance of Immigrant Youth." Soc/a/Sc/ence üíya/íeA/)/76(1):1-19.
McLanahan, Sara S., and Gary Sandefur. 1994. Growing Up with a Singie Parent:What Hurts, WhatHeips. Harvard University Press.
Nora, Amaury, Laura I. Rendón and G. Cuadraz. 1999. "Access, Choice, andOutcomes: A Profile of Hispanic Students in Higher Education." Education ofHispanics in the United States: Poiitics, Poiicies, and Outcomes. A. Tashakkoriand S.H. Ochoa, editors. AMS Press.
College Attendance of Immigrant and Native Youth »151
Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 1996. immigrant America: A Portrait.University of California Press.
, 2001. Legacies: Tiie Story oftiie immigrant Second Generation. Universityof California Press.
Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second-Generation: SegmentedAssimilation and Its Variants." Annais oftiie American Academy of Poiiticaiand Sociai Science 530(November):74-96.
Reynolds, John, Michael Stewart, Ryan MacDonald et al. 2006. "Have AdolescentsBecome Too Ambitious? High School Seniors' Educational and OccupationalPlans, 1976 to 2000." Sociai Probiems 53(2): 186-206.
Rumbaut, Rubén G. 1997. "Assimilation and Its Discontents: Between Rhetoricand Reality." internationai Migration Review 31(4):923-60.
Santibanez, Lucrecia, Gabriella Gonzalez, Peter A. Morrison et al. 2007. "Methodsfor Gauging the Target Populations that Community Colleges Serve."Popuiation Researcii and Poiicy Review 26(1 ):51-67.
Schmid, Carol L. 2001. "Educational Achievement, Language-Minority Students, andthe New Second Génération." Socioiogy of Education 74(Extra lssue):71-87.
Schmidley, Dianne A. 2000. "Profile of the Foreign-born Population in the UnitedStates: 2000, Series P23-206." Current Popuiation Reports, 2000. Washington,DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Song, Chunyan Y, and Jennifer E. Glick. 2004. "College Attendance and Choiceof College Majors among Asian-American Students." Sociai Science Quarteriy85(5):1401-21.
Suarez-Orozco, Carola, and Marcelo M. Suarez-Orozco. 2001. Ctiiidren ofimmigrants. Harvard University Press.
Tillman, Kathryn H., Guang Guo and Kathleen M. Harris. 2006. "Grade Retentionamong Immigrant Children." Sociai Science Researcii 35(1 ): 129-56.
Vernez, Georges, and Allan Abrahamse. 1996. i-iow immigrants Fare in U.S.Education. RAND Corporation.
Warner, W. Lloyd, and Leo Srole. 1945. Tiie Sociai Systems of American EtiinicGroups. Yale University Press.
Waters, Mary C. 1996. "Ethnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation BlackImmigrants in New York City." Pp. 171-96. Tiie New Second Generation. A.Portes, editor. Russell Sage.
White, Michael J., and Jennifer E. Glick. 2000. "Generation Status, Social Capital,and the Routes Out of High School." Socioiogicai Forum 15(4):671-91.
152 . Social Forces 87(1) • September 2008
Zhou, Min, and Carl L. Bankston .1994. "Social Capital and the Adaptation of the2nd Generation - the Case of Vietnamese Youth in New-Orleans." InternationalMigration Review 28(4):821-45.
